sexyred1
Posts: 8998
Joined: 8/9/2007 Status: offline
|
This thread has made me laugh. Not because of the casting choices for 50 Shades of Grey (in which I believe the studios wimped out on their choice in Hunnam due to worry about what "fans" would think). It is ludicrous to base your choices in casting on some people whining about their fantasy choice not being realized. I mean, it could not possibly occur to the complainers that the guy could be a good actor and that good acting and being cast in a movie is not always dependent on looks alone. Interestingly, I don't think Matt Bomer would be a bad choice, but find Michael Fassbender to be a far more superior actor, one of the best of his generation. He could play anything and improves any film he is in. As for the discussions on why actors choose their roles, that cannot be simplified. There are many reasons. Money, a need to work, love of a particular piece of work, a book, a writer, a director, other actors in the movie, a need to stretch themselves, a need to just do something fun after particularly grueling parts, a need to prove themselves, and they love to work. They need to, at least good actors do. Spend any time with a movie buff, and on IMdb and read all about the bios of actors and actresses. You may be surprised at the caliber and breadth of roles all actors, A, B, C or D have accomplished.
|