Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud
As I mentioned earlier, the concept of the new LR is that it will be told through Tonto's perspective, meaning the weight of the film will of course be on Johnny Depp's shoulders. In that case, Olyphant is a great choice.
Don't get me wrong: I like Olyphant and always have. It's just that studios need a bankable star for a big budget film and if Depp were a secondary or tertiary character, they'd need a bigger name to top line the film.
|
Their problem with bankable stars is identical to their problem with new franchises versus existing IPs. They inhibit the potential growth of their own properties by always going with known quantities.
Take Avatar and the risk inherent there. James Cameron is obviously the biggest name involved, but Sigourney Weaver is basically the only major name star in the film. Sam Worthington was somewhat known but untested. Zoe Saldana had done a lot, but wasn't a big name. There were a ton of bit players, albeit really good ones, like Lang and Ribisi and CCH Pounder. But no bankable star. Huge risk. And still they made hundreds of millions. But the lesson hollywood seems to take from that film isn't about creating stars or unique property or storytelling (I say storytelling because to me that's the key of the film - it's not a good story, or an original one, but the way that lackluster, unoriginal story is told is what makes it), all the focus seems to be on 3D and CGI character- and world-building.
Of course it could have flopped, and flopped biblically...
And now we're right back where we started, rehashing old property, repackaging the same handful of stars over and over. Because there's less risk.
Not a complaint so much as a commentary...
It is what it is. It's sort of like going for free agents over rookies in the NFL, because it's safer to go with what you know.