Actor contracts (was Hagrid's Mortality on HPfGU)

[Kriselda Jarnsaxa]

>  Becky Walkden <runningbecky2002 at y...> wrote:
> >
> >  Me:  Of COURSE (the movies are indicators)!  The simple fact is,
>the studios would NOT waste money on hiring an actor to play in a
>movie when his character is no longer going to be there!  And
>conversely, since they wanted the same actors for all seven movies,
>there is no other concieivable explanation for only giving him a 5
>year contract when there are 7 movies to be made!

Well, in my opinion, there are, starting with the possibility that they 
haven't done contracts for all of the movies yet with any of the 
actors.  Now, I don't know for sure what anyone else's contract status is, 
but I know there had been talk at one point about whether or not Daniel 
Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint would be asked to do all 7 films, 
or if they might be replaced in some of the later films.  On his IMDb page, 
Daniel Radcliffe is quoted as saying "But I don't think it's going to 
happen. I don't think I'll do all of them - I'll probably get too spotty or 
too tall or I'll shrink or something."  Obviously, Harry Potter is going to 
be in all 7 films, but even the actor playing him has not apparently been 
signed to do all 7 films.

Other reasons are that some actors would be reluctant to commit themselves 
to 7 movies over an unknown period of time (since the movies can't be done 
until after the books are published), and the studios may have been 
reluctant to commit to a single actor for more than 5 years at a time, 
since a lot can change over the years. Other possibilities could include 
such things as even though the studio has the rights to make all 7 films, 
they may not be doing contracts for some of the later ones until they see 
if the popularity of the movies holds out.

It's also possible that Ms. Rowling didn't want to give out too much 
information about the later books so that there would still be some 
suspense.  I know it's very common for information about TV series 
contracts to be withheld so as to help protect the value of a season-ending 
cliffhanger. (For example, many series will end the season with one or more 
people being in an accident or shot or something of that nature with it 
being unclear as to who lives and who dies.  If the contract status of 
actors involved in those scenes becomes known before the next seasons 
begins, it quickly becomes obvious as to which characters survive and which 
don't - those with new contracts will obviously survive and those without 
won't.)

indyattic replies to Becky:

>Perhaps the studios begged for a 7 year contract, but Robbie Coltrane
>held out. He is a much bigger screen presence in the UK than the US,
>so it is quite possible that he is betting that he'll be able to
>command a larger salary for subsequent re-signings if his face
>becomes more recognizable to US audiences.

That's also a viable explanation - plus Robbie Coltrane may want to keep 
his options open for doing other projects as well.  There are times when 
being under contract to one film can keep an actor from taking jobs in 
other projects - even if the contracted project is delayed and the actor 
would easily have time to do both.  I remember several years back, the 
James Bond filmmakers wanted to hire Pierce Brosnan to play Bond, but 
because of the way his contract with NBC for "Remmington Steele" was 
structured, even though the shows future was in question (I think it had 
been cancelled, but with the speculation surrounding Brosnan becoming Bond 
making Brosnan a "hot property", NBC thought they might be able to revive 
it), Brosnan was not allowed to take the Bond role at that time, and that 
was when Timothy Dalton took over for a bit. Things like that can make a 
performer fairly gun-shy about long-term contracts.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]