Casting big names in musical films

[Dave19]

We all know this happens. Because producers and directors don't have the balls to go for true quality.

Also, they forget that it is easy to create stars.

For example, Russel Crowe in Les Miserables. It might be nice for a small group of people in their 40's to see a face they have seen before, but the whole new generation (under 25) is like, what the hell is that guy doing in this film?

Because no matter how you put it, there are many people (almost all of the people in the audience, according to the reviews), that were NOT pulled into the story by this actor, because of his inability to sing and act through song.

My point is, that I TRULY believe that if they had taken a better singer/actor for this role, the film would be more successful, because only then the audience comes along in the journey. It will get more people emotionally involved with the film and the rest comes naturally. This is what makes or breaks a musical film.

Of course there will be many more musicalfilms made in the future and I hope they have the guts to cast the most suitable people for a role, and then realize the film will be even more epic.

For example, Miss Saigon. Of course Cameron is enthusiastically, with his arms wide open, running to Hugh Jackman again because they know eachother and he is a name, but really, there are better people for the role of the Engineer. People that can make this the best film in history. Someone like BD Wong.

The story is the star, and I think this is the secret.

[dramamama611]

While agreee that Crowe was the weak link, he SHOULD have been really great in the part -- but he wasn't.

However, it comes to this: if they can't get people IN the seats, it doesn't matter how good it is. And if they spend the money to MAKE it good, there won't keep throwing the $$ into musicals when too many are box office failures. Those of us that will see it JUST because its a musical, are too few.

It's a business, pure and simple.

[Dave19]

I believe true quality eventually means better business.

Think about the thousands and thousands of people who have seen the film and tell all their family and friends, Russel Crowe couldn't sing, it was actually kind of embarrassing.

Now, imagine if they would tell their family and friends, WOW, the guy playing Javert was so amazing, you really should go see it!

Word of mouth is very important. "Names" are very time and area-limited. Times have changed. People really don't care what someone has done before, they want quality.

This is what could keep the film successful for years, maybe even stand the test of time, instead of ending up like the Phantom of the Opera film.

The handful of people who go "Let's see the gladiator in a musical" is NOT the audience you want to do this for. Javerts performance should be epic, unforgettable and extremely well sung. Even that handful of Gladiator fans would enjoy that more.

[dramamama611]

And most people are loving the film. Yes, most say he is weak, but I have yet to hear one person say: well I was GOING to go, but since Javert isn't up to par, I'm seeing Road Trip instead.

HERE we are critcizing him and lots of the movie, but the underlying feeling here is still: its a very good film, and we're glad they made it and that its worth seeing.

Out of all the posts my FB friends have made: I've seen ONE that was disappointed in the film. ONE.


And people are NOT as likely to see a film when they haven't heard of the actors. Names DO sell movies and many b'way tickets. Likewise: just because they are names, doesn't mean they lack talent, or integrity.

[jasonf]

That's not how the movie industry generally works, though. There are plenty of movies with no-name casts that are excellent, but they're little seen. However, far worse movies with big names will frequently make a lot of money at the box office BECAUSE of those names. The studio that made Les Mis did it to make money. If they can get a star into a role, it's going to get more people into the theater.

An argument may be made they had a lot of stars already, why did they need another, but that's a minor point relatively speaking.

[SporkGoddess]

On the other hand, it can have negative effects if you have too many big names (films like New Year's Eve, for instance). I think that it's probably a bell curve.

[Dave19]

"And most people are loving the film. Yes, most say he is weak, but I have yet to hear one person say: well I was GOING to go, but since Javert isn't up to par, I'm seeing Road Trip instead.
"

Yes, luckily most people are loving the film, even though the Javert is not very good. Imagine how much the world would have loved the film if he was very good too.

The amount of negativity about his performance really hurts the film in my opinion, and that cannot be what the producers want.

[Kad]

You're dealing in hypotheticals. You have no idea what business the film would be doing if it had a cast of unknowns.

Generally, films with unknown actors do not do well. This is just the way it is. People don't want to shell out money for something that they don't trust.

[dramamama611]

I think the producers care about the box office. And there is NO way that they thought his performance was wonderful before it hit the screen. They saw the potential as did many of us.

Unless you can prove that his performance is hurting the box office, than your point is moot.

Sure creating art is important -- but not for the studios. Success comes from $.

[Dave19]

Then there is also the point of "how big" is a name?

BD Wong (A perfect Engineer in my opinion) performed on Broadway too, and in several bigger films than Hugh Jackman.

Seven years in Tibet, Jurassic Park, tv series Law&Order, The x-files etc.

He is probably more well known around the world than Hugh Jackman.

But I still say it shouldn't even matter when someone fits the part THAT well as Mr Wong does.

[Kad]

...if you think BD Wong is better known around the world than Sexiest Man Alive Wolverine, you are not living on the same world as the rest of us.

[Johnnycantdecide]

First off, it's you're opinion that Crowe was not good in the film. You do not get to have the definitive word on it. I loved Crowe and so did a great number of my friends,

Second, I stopped taking you seriously and began to think you are 100% delusional when you said that BD Wong is a bigger name than Hugh Jackman.

Third, this whole quality will win in the end is unfortunately just not true. Not even for Broadway. Wicked is still running and Grey Gardens/ Caroline or Change have both closed.

This thread is just someone's bitter musings.

[ucjrdude902]

I'm a fan of L&O: SVU and didn't know who BD Wong was till I Googled him. He is no where near the star power of Hugh.

[darquegk]

Any half-Asian who can sing a bit and play sleazy, sexually ambiguous and tragicomic can play the role exactly as well as BD Wong, because the role of The Engineer is not Javert. Even on Broadway, the Engineer barely "sings." He speak-sings, crows, roars, snarls and sneers more than he ever out-and-out sings.

BD Wong is good, I'll never deny that. But to classify The Engineer as a role that needs a brilliant actor-singer the way Valjean or Javert do is to mistake the way that role is written and played. It's much more in line with the Thenardier track.

[Kad]

For the record, according to Box Office Mojo, Hugh Jackman's films have grossed almost 4 billion dollars worldwide. And that's including Les Mis' current worldwide gross.


Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Box Office Mojo does not have a page for B.D. Wong.

[SporkGoddess]

The very fact that the Engineer doesn't have to be a good singer is what makes me want a comedian in the role. And, no, I don't mean Sacha Baron Cohen.

But I've already discussed this in the Miss Saigon movie cast thread, haha.

[Dave19]

Well Kad and Johnny, I have news for you.

I am from Europe and the whole "Wolverine thing" doesn't quite work over here. The tv series "Law & Order" are very popular over here, so yes, BD Wong is more well known over here.

My whole family knows who he is and they did not know who Hugh Jackman was.

Don't you think more people have seen "Seven years in Tibet" and "Jurassic Park" and "Law & Order" and "The x-files" than "Wolverine" in the USA too?

Please stop the tunnel vision. Most people do not even know what Wolverine is, though it may be hard to understand for you as I suppose you are a big fan.

But anyway, it seems like all of us live in their own world and a big name for one does not mean a big name for another.

Was Amanda Seyfried a big name because of Mamma Mia? Good. Then Aaron Tveit is a big name now too, because of Les Miserables. Let's cast him as Chris.

[jasonf]

"Don't you think more people have seen "Seven years in Tibet" and "Jurassic Park" and "Law & Order" and "The x-files" than "Wolverine" in the USA too?

Please stop the tunnel vision. Most people do not even know what Wolverine is, though it may be hard to understand for you as I suppose you are a big fan."


Here are the worldwide box office numbers for the X-Men movies - http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/X-Men

I think people know who Wolverine is.

[Dave19]

Let me ask you guys a personal question.

Really, what would you prefer?

A well know actor in the role which would never have gotten the role if he wasn't known? (Russel Crowe for example)

Or a lesser known actor that is perfect for the role and can sweep you off your feet with his acting through song?

Because I think it is easy to create stars.

[Kad]

If there's anyone here with tunnel vision, it's you.

It's NOT about what we prefer. It's about what makes MONEY.

Russell Crowe is an Academy Award winning actor. His films have grossed over 2 billion worldwide.

Anne Hathaway is an Academy Award nominated actress. His films have grossed over 4 billion worldwide.

Sacha Baron Cohen. Over 3 billion. Bonham Carter- almost 7 billion, though aided substantially by Burton and Harry Potter.




And I don't even really care about X-Men and saw none of the films in theaters.

[Dave19]

So we should be glad that Anne did some other films, because otherwise the producers and director would have completely ignored her talent on the audition.

[jasonf]

Exactly. I don't think anyone here disagrees that an "unknown" would have made a better Javert (or at least most of us). But you're arguing more money could be made by an unknown who was good than a known actor who was decent. That simply isn't true.

If it was, don't you think theater would be more mainstream huge than it is in general? We love theater, we talk to people about it, but that doesn't mean people are busting down doors to get in to see Norbert Leo Butz in Dead Accounts (as an example)

[Kad]

If she had no substantial credits to her name? Yes.

[Dave19]

What a waste of talent! Who knows how many perfect performances were flushed down the toilet because of this......

And I think the reason musicals are not mainstream is because the audiences don't get introduced to real quality through film. Until now, because there are some good performances in Les Mis. But also some bad ones. And the aim should be to go for the best. Creating stars is the best thing to do.

[Kad]

You are so incredibly naive of how Hollywood works.

You now what is Anne Hathaway's second top grossing film is? The horrible Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland. It made over a billion dollars worldwide. It is a film with no redeemable qualities. It made a billion dollars.

[Dave19]

I know how it works.

Money over quality.

But I do not intend to give in. As long as I live I will fight for quality.

I also think they hurt themselves more than they realize. All of the bad word of mouth about Russel can't be good for the ticket sales. Although I realize too that most people don't care, because as this (casting names that can't sing) is the case with all the musical films, the audiences don't know any better and swallow everything, no matter how bad it is, and therefore the ticket sales will stagnate, as they don't draw in bigger audiences with quality.