Més que -- un blog 
Jumpergate, Part Deux: Now comes word that yet another of the stars of this film is getting the axe. According to the Melbourne Herald Sun (by way of IMDB), Teresa Palmer, who was to play the love interest in the movie, has also been canned, in favor of a "star" to be determined later (probably Hillary Duff or Mischa Barton). Unlike Tom Sturridge, who was ousted weeks ago, Palmer has hired legal guns, and is apparently not going to go without a fight. Of course, as an ingenue, the clock is already working against her.
It would be one thing if these changes were being made because the director, Doug Liman, decided that he had made a mistake in casting, and that the talent he picked originally wasn't good enough, or that the stars were such prima donnas or party hounds that they were impossible to work with, or even that the actors he really wanted to work with all along had just become available. These firings would have still been arbitrary and cruel, but at least they would have been consistent with whatever artistic vision of creating a good movie the director might have.
But that is apparently not the case here. These people are being ditched because they are relative nobodies who need to be replaced by "names" (preferably, North American names) to cover the asses of the producers. And again, this is after filming had already started on the project, and the actors involved had already made a commitment of time and emotion to the endeavor.
But in the end, as far as the bottom line is concerned, it will make no difference. As I noted yesterday, Hayden Christensen's only non-Star Wars film made less than $3 million, and that was a good film. Mischa Barton's only significant movie to date as an adult, The OH in Ohio, has grossed less than $260,000 in limited release. The Lord of the Rings trilogy had no major names or stars in the lead roles at the time it came out (unless you consider Sir Ian to have been a star at that time), and it became one of the biggest hits of all time. Same with the first Star Wars movie. To paraphrase Chris Rock from the Oscars a few years back, there are just a few stars, like Tom Cruise (boy, is that dated) or Sean Connery, whom people will actually pay to see, and then there's everyone else, from Jude Law and Heath Ledger to Dustin Diamond and Pauly Short, who moviegoers don't give a rat's ass about; all they want from that fungible class of "everyone else" is a good performance.
Canning someone you cast in a movie because they're not famous enough is not only a shitty thing to do, it makes no sense from a box office standpoint. It will probably make the movie less enjoyable for movie fans. It's bad business. No wonder the movies suck.
UPDATE: Well, perhaps Jumper will suck less. Teresa Palmer remains in the cast.
UPDATE [10/16]: And now she's gone....
6 comments:
I don't think it sounds like a question of major star versus minor star (though, in the case of LOTR and Star Wars, I offer you Christopher Lee and Alec Guinness, respectively). There is, I think, a demonstrable value in having familiar faces in the movie versus complete unknowns. A solidly made romantic drama came out this week called "The Trouble With Men and Women" -- totally unknown cast, almost no press, and nowhere to be seen on the weekend box office. I'll wager The OH in Ohio did better -- had it not had Mischa Barton, it likely would have done even worse; though the thought of Danny DeVito/Parker Posey sex scenes might have actually put some audiences off.
LOTR had a pre-sold concept. A better analogy with it would be if it were based on an unknown book, would it have done as well?
And if Shattered Glass had not had Christensen, Hank Azaria, or any name actors, and not been based on a true story, do you think it would have even grossed one million, let alone three?
Name actors don't guarantee huge grosses, it's true. But movies with completely unknown casts almost never do.
That's a non-starter, Luke. This isn't a question of having familiar actors, such as Guinness or Lee, in minor roles. Cate Blanchett and Liv Tyler served that purpose in LOTR, and Jumper already has Samuel Jackson in a prominent role in this film, as well as Jamie Bell. Unlike The Trouble with Men and Women, this film isn't being directed by a first-timer, and its being produced by a major studio, not "IFC Pictures". It didn't need "names" in every role to carry it.
Concerning Christensen and Barton, it's hard to see how a film that made less than $300k could have done any worse than it actually did. And if Shattered Glass wasn't based on a true story, it wouldn't have been made in the first place. I doubt that the producers of Jumper are hoping that Hayden Christensen will be the key ingredient in ensuring that their film makes back half its costs at the box office.
I doubt that the producers of Jumper are hoping that Hayden Christensen will be the key ingredient in ensuring that their film makes back half its costs at the box office.
I doubt it as well, but the issue isn't "will it help," it's "will it not hurt." Having a guy named Tom Sturridge that no-one has ever heard of in the lead role is a debit. Think WB is happy about Brandon Routh right about now? (I liked him as Superman, but a more popular star might have made them more money - I bet they think so, anyway)
I know speaking for myself, if I go see a movie I know very little about, I feel slightly reassured if, reading the opening credits, I see at least one familiar name. Sam Jackson may be all that's needed here in that respect, though he's made nothing but crap in the past couple of years.
P.S. Surely you're not equating Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett to Alec Guinness and Christopher Lee?
Having a guy named Tom Sturridge that no-one has ever heard of in the lead role is a debit. Think WB is happy about Brandon Routh right about now?
It's not a debit, it's a risk, which I assumed the director and producers knew they were taking when they cast Mr. Sturridge (or Teresa Palmer, for that matter) in the first place. The principal risk is that he won't be any good; you're dealing with an unknown quantity, and although Sturridge has been impressive to date (certainly more impressive than Mr. Routh), he hasn't had to carry a film. On the other hand, we know it is highly unlikely that Hayden C. can do so.
The big advantage in using Sturridge and/or Palmer is that they don't carry in excess baggage with the potential audience, the way H.C. or Hillary Duff do, baggage that will scare away a significant number of fans. I think that was part of the reason LOTR did so well with a relatively unknown cast of lead actors: casting Tom Cruise, Sean Penn and Nicholas Cage as the Hobbits may have been less risky, but they would have scared away people who had preconceived notions about what Cruise, Penn and Cage can do.
I haven't seen Superman, so I don't know how good it was, but I don't seem to recall Christopher Reeve being well known back when he started the franchise. The new film will probably go over $200 million domestic by Labor Day, which isn't exactly chump change.
In any event, there is a risk involved when you cast anyone, which is why it disturbs me that this is a move being done by the suits rather than the director. And if he thought Sturridge and Palmer were good picks, then that's who you should go with.
P.S. Surely you're not equating Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett to Alec Guinness and Christopher Lee?
Liv and Cate have won exactly as many Oscars as Sir Alec and Scaramanga. And don't call me surely.
Teresa Palmer HAS been fired after all, and has been replaced by Rachel Bilson: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Rachel-Bilson-Is-A-Jumper-3635.html
Post a Comment