Member
How Do You Identify?: see Scota_Parisi
Preferred Pronoun?: see Scota_Parisi
Relationship Status: see Scota_Parisi
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: see Scota_Parisi
Posts: 264
Thanks: 384
Thanked 290 Times in 140 Posts
Rep Power: 56
|
Cool thread. [insert IMHO here]
Tom Hanks was amazing in Philadelphia. I haven't seen Milk, so no rating Sean Penn's performance. What they both have in common though for studio producers is bankable star quality. Studios want to put names that can sell a movie, into their productions. They like to break even and make a few bucks (bucks - translated to mean millions and millions).
An actor's "bankable" name depends on you and I, as consumers. But we are a small drop in the bucket when it comes down to getting people to shell out money at the box office. Demographics come into play. Studios also often screen a movie with several test audiences to see if it has that right combination of actors/storyline. If it doesn't they take it back to the drawing board and tweak it.
All of those creative juices are also watched by groups like GLAAD and other groups. Lots of tweaking goes on, more than likely.
That reminds me, there were a number of various groups that came out against Avatar. It was an equal opportunity offending film, apparently. But in spite of that, it had bankable people involved with the production.
There is more to it than blatantly discriminating. Studios will continue to make movies, that make them money. [/imho]
__________________
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." - Albert Einstein
|