I would say that the “romantic lead” is not necessarily the lead in a romance. The romantic lead is the person or persons who provide(s) the sexual tension in the plot. It is not necessary for the romance to be actualized.
This communicates clearly that though some types of roles (brainless blockbuster stuff) are going to younger women, older women are coming into their own. I think that since they have the power to choose what they do (that is, they’ve paid their dues), they tend to pick meatier roles. For myself–and I’m a 32-year-old woman–I love to see older women (and men) in movies. In fact, there are a few actors of both genders who can entice me into seeing movies just because they are in them, and none of those actors are under 40. (Kathy Bates, anyone?)
That being said, men do get to be the romantic half of an equation a lot longer than women do in the movies, generally. Just look at the fuss being made about that new movie with Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton, Something’s Gotta Give, precisely because she’s not 30 years younger than he is.
My case, as you call it, was outlined in black and white -
All manner of people in films produced all over the world have actors playing parts for which they are patently either too old or too young. Now, actors have to work, I know that, but if the book on which the film is based tells us that the character is 35, why not cast an actor who is within an ass’s roar of 35? For the film business to make money, it needs to put bums on seats and obviously big names draw the paying audience. I know that.
And do you not see that your opinion that Judi Dench being the best M ever is as valid as my opinion that Peirce Brosnan is too old to play James Bond? I know such an argument is specious, but does anyone really think that top flight spies are running around playing baccarat, disarming bombs, bonking their brains out and roundly ridding the world of all the baddies at the age of 52, with the same vim and vigour they had when they were 32? Surely any spy as successful as the eponymous hero of the James Bond series would have been promoted? He has been Commander Bond since the series started. When Sean Connery did the first one, his M, Bernard Lee, was about the same age as Peirce Brosnan is now, why has this wee Jimmy not been promoted?
Poor show indeed.
I think an enquiry is called for; Questions should be asked in The House.
At least in casting Dench as M, they had a real life precedent, Stella Rimmington was the first female head of MI5.
I am not bashing Peirce Brosnan at all, I wouldn’t mind being a fiver behind him and as long as they want to pay him barrels of money to play the ultimate macho man who gets to jump into bed with the most beautiful young women on the planet and drive invisible Aston Martins, while simultaneously saving the planet, then he’d be a nitwit not to.
I’d do it, and I’m not even the right gender.
Or persuasion.
But I suppose I’m the wrong age.
God - never mind Brosnan - bring back Roger Moore, he is still sexy and virile enough to be both a believable and compelling secret agent, IMO 
Pardon the sidetrack, but what the heck does this mean?
Sorry - it means I would quite like to have the kind of money he’s got.
A fiver started off (in Ireland) being an informal term for a five pound note, but now as we are a euro nation, a fiver means a five euro note.
So, literally - it means I would quite like to have five euro less than him, because he has pots of money and having five euro less than him would still be pots of money and that would be most pleasant.
Sorry about that, NoCoolUserName.
I disagree. ANY lead Harrison Ford plays is a romantic lead.
SpazCat, non sequitur delivery service and luster after Harrison Ford
This is a fallacy. Adults have overwhelmingly more disposable income than teens. The reason that marketers choose to target teens is because adults tend to buy mostly the same stuff they did when they first got hold of a disposable income, namely, in their teens. It’s far harder to change the mind of an adult than a teen.
Also, adults have these annoying things called “bills” that they have to pay before they can go out and buy the latest CD or watch the latest Hollywood offering. Sometimes those “bills” eat up a lot of the “disposable income” so they can’t spend as much as teens on entertainment.
(Since we’re in CS) I’m reminded of last Sunday’s “King of the Hill” episode where Bobby swiped Hank’s credit card and Hank showed him the family budget.
BOBBY: That’s the entertainment budget? I spend that much on cds each month!
HANK: nods
BOBBY: light of understanding shines upon him I’ve been spending the entire entertainment budget!
I remember in the 1980s, it was a running joke among most of the Generation X crowd that in movies depicting high school life, the actors playing the roles of students looked much older than the chronological age of their characters. Seeing a high school full of 25 and 30 year old students, as in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, was the norm.
At least today, the actors may still be older, but they appear to be much closer to the chronological age of their characters.