bigger names + bigger pay = smaller budget?

[huntergreen_3]

Sassy wrote:
>>Does anybody else think the movies are becoming more of a bigger-
acting-names-must-be-seen-to-be-cool sort of thing.

I loved that Quirrel and Tom Riddle were not played by big names
(sorry, taking this from a North American perspective)and some of the
other characters were peppered with some interesting character
actors. I know they had some other big names for the unknown youths
to play off of, but now the kids are names, so do we really need a
big name to add to the production?<<

Rebecca: (welcome to the list!)
I think the 'big names' for the adult actors might just be for the 
adults dragged to the movie by their kids (as opposed the adults here 
who went to the movies quite willingly on our own). Animated movies 
do it all the time, they get big names to do voices in the movies 
when it doesn't matter either way for the kids (who are the target 
audience, except when it comes to wide appeal movies like Shrek). 
Although the British actors in the Harry Potter movies aren't quite 
Hugh Grant in recognition, people like Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith 
aren't *tiny* names. Adults can often convince their children to see 
a different movie if they really want to (I work in retail, and I've 
seen it), so if the Harry Potter films only have the books / fantasy 
film appeal, it could make less money. In any case, its just being 
nicer to the parents. And if a big(er) name is willing to be in the 
movie, why say no? Its amazing to see such a group of distinguished 
British actors in the same movie together.

>>Now with bigger names for key characters (Gary Oldman, Ralph Finnes,
Julie Christie, Dawn French, Miranda Richardson) comes bigger
paycheques and less of the budget for the actual film. And these
actors may be in the position to ask for more money for future films.
(Madam Hooch thought she should get more and she wasn't exactly huge
in NA or had a big part)<<

And look what happened to her. I wouldn't worry about the budget. I 
think the budget for GoF was one of the highest *ever* approved for a 
movie. If you are worried about the special effects (which would be 
the concern with a smaller budget), I think the amount of time they 
spend on the movie is the bigger factor here. The first two had 
decent budgets, but they were done in such a short amount of time 
that there was no time for fine-tuning and getting scenes perfect 
(spending six months designing the dementers, for example). Since 
Warner Brothers is now doing 18 months between movies as opposed to 
12 months, hopefully the rest of the films will have plenty of time 
for effects (although I can't think of any major work they'd have to 
do for OotP except for the DoM scene, and the one dementor 
scene...that's certainly a piece of cake compared to GoF, which I 
imagine will be exhausting). 

Sassy:
>>Let's just hope Prince Charles doesn't want to do a walk-on at one
point...a little too trendy. Also, I am not saying these actors
aren't good actors, just that it could pull the focus from the 
films.<<

Deborah replied:
>>Yes, I agree that big names sometimes pull focus. That is one reason
so many people were against Haley Joel Osment for Harry. ("Hey,
look! It's the kid from Sixth Sense on a broom!") I understand the
reasoning for wanting big names in a movie. But, in this case, I
think it's unnecessary. They don't need to sell this movie with
anything other than the quality.<<

Rebecca:
But the actors they have gotten *have* been quality. Although I agree 
about how a really recognizable actor might get distracting (I know 
that its going to completely pull me out of the ending of GoF when 
Ralph Fiennes appears as Voldemort, all I can think about when I look 
at him is The Red Dragon, I hope he has a lot of makeup on). Amen to 
Haley Joel Osment not playing Harry, that would have been awful (I'm 
American and even I'm very much against 'Americanizing' the story in 
ANY way). 

Deborah:
>> If they want someone because they're the best actor for the role, 
that's one thing. And, all the actors are fine in their roles. I, 
personally have big Dumbledore issues, and - *not* to get into that 
discussion again, merely using it as an example - I feel they could 
have found someone better than Harris for the role by holding open 
calls. There are theatre actors, even ones unknown to us, that could 
act rings around a majority of movie stars. <<

Rebecca:
Which might be true, but remember this is a HUGE production, big-
budget and all. There is a big difference between film and stage 
acting. Someone going straight from the stage to a movie with 
children and animals and special effects may not do very well. The 
directer already has to deal with all those other factors, the adult 
actors in the film need to be experienced MOVIE actors, so they don't 
get in the way of things. If it were a low-budged, simple movie I 
could see where an inexperienced actor (inexperienced in films, that 
is) would be a better choice, but here they need someone they can 
trust.