These are my current questions regarding the Wonderful World of Movies. I want to read your answers, or rather opinions. If you have questions that have been bugging you also, post em here; get em off your chest. Here goes:
How bad does a movie have to be before it gets no sequels? Since there was a second “Gigolo” movie, does that mean the Eragon sequel will also be made? What decides if it goes straight to video?
Why does Daniel Craig, who did such a swell job as James Bond, get ignored come awards time? Yeah, it’s not a Serious role, and Forest Whittaker probably deserves to win, but why is Craig completely overlooked?
Why does a wonderful actor like Sean Bean wind up doing crap like “The Hitcher”? Is he really that hard up for money?
Does being a voice actor in a successful animated film do much for an actor’s career? (Other than bring in the bucks, I mean) Does doing voice work in an animated bomb hurt anyone’s career?
I don’t think it matters how bad the movie is. What matters is money. Many, many terrible movies get sequels because they can still turn a profit. A lot of people watch bad movies. Dungeons & Dragons, and *House of the Dead * were two of the worst movies I’ve ever seen, and they both got sequels.
I agree with you that it would be nice to see more variety in the types of roles that win awards (including ‘action’ roles), but I still wouldn’t call Daniel Craig’s performance worthy of any significant award. (and I did enjoy him as Bond)
Sean Bean has made a career of being in crap movies–or, more fairly–being in B-movies. I don’t know why he hasn’t taken on a larger number of serious roles, but I wouldn’t say he’s doing badly. (And the original *The Hitcher * is a classic terror flick!)
I don’t think animated voice work does much one way or the other for someone’s career. But it is generally a easy way to make some money and a lot of actors like to do it because they want to be in a movie their kids can see.
#2. Traditionally, action roles don’t ever get any kind of awards-attention. Most of the time, that’s because they don’t deserve them. Sometimes, it’s because action parts largely depend on charisma more than acting chops: Errol Flynn did not have much range as an actor, but he was peerless in his swashbucklers. Other times, the role’s demands are often more physical rigorousness than complex characterization: Harrison Ford has appeared in 8 Best Picture nominees but has only received one nod himself. It is easy to underestimate good acting in an action part, since action movies themselves are rarely seen as “art”. In this sense, action stars have much in common with musical stars, many of whom also have marketable skills more important than “acting” to do their jobs successfully. However, singers can still convey emotion and characterization through songs in a way action stars can’t through stunts.
Sean Bean’s good but I don’t know if he’s that good. I like him, but as actors get older (he’s over 45), the number of roles out there diminish, so it gets more competitive and sometimes, to continue practicing your craft, keeping your name visible, and paying the rent, you have to do movies you might not be proud of. Bean also does a lot of TV work in the UK, so scheduling might be an issue, too.
It can help and largely can’t hurt. A memorable characterization will give your career some mileage, but if the film flops, it very rarely is blamed on the cast.
It might be because many Irish or British actors prefer to stay on their side of the Atlantic and be a big fish in a small pond. No matter how good they are, the types of roles available for British actors and actresses in Hollywood movies are quite limited (e.g., if you see a British actor in a mainstream Hollywood film, nine out of ten times he’ll be the villain). Also, actors from the UK/Ireland are perceived as having a different attitude toward their craft than Americans.