- cross-posted to:
- marvelstudios@lemmy.world
- movies@lemm.ee
- cross-posted to:
- marvelstudios@lemmy.world
- movies@lemm.ee
Amanda Seyfried got offered Gamora but was certain “Guardians of the Galaxy” would be Marvel’s first box office flop.
You must log in or register to comment.
Good. Now we need Zoe to play a red skinned Sith lord to complete the RGB set.
As an actor, why do you care if the film flops? You have a job to do, you do it, and you get paid. If you do it well, it rarely hurts your career if the movie flops.
Now if she was being paid by getting a percentage of the film’s box office, that would be a different story.
That is a VERY naive take. A movie can make or break an actor/actress’s career.
Exactly. What has Hayden Christensen done since the prequels? Mike Meyers pretty much ended with The Love Guru. Megan Fox did Transformers and was on the rise, then did some flops like Jennifer’s body.
It doesn’t matter if the actor is good or not. You’re associated with a failure now, so Hollywood is going to consider that when hiring you to do something else
Megan Fox isn’t the best example. She stopped getting work because she would publicly talk shit on the directors of projects she worked with.
Not saying she was wrong or anything… Just saying that people stopped wanting to work with someone who would complain about them behind their back
Ah thanks for calling that out. Zero surprised with her.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that flops don’t affect actors careers. In fact I think they affect them a lot. Momentum has a lot to do with the type of roles you get and how many offers you get. It’s also self perpetuating a little bit. The more popular you are the more hot you are so to speak influences how much money your movies make. That’s why Will Smith was a money printing machine in the early 2000s.
I can see success being an influence in marketability. But most actors move from flop to flop without hurting their career. (As long as they aren’t the reason that the film flopped because they gave a lousy performance.)
It takes time. You generally can’t work on multiple major projects at once so when you have to schedule your time to advance in your career, you don’t go for any offer just the one that offers the best benefit. Marvel didn’t seem like a good enough benefit at the time.
Because Marvel is a franchise machine. You don’t want to be cast as an Eternal if the movie sucks and the Eternals are never heard from again. Who knew who the Guardians of the Galaxy were? It makes sense if you’re holding out for a bigger role
There are plenty of actors who have played multiple franchise roles. If one role flops, you just move into the next.
Honestly it’s one of my pet peeves. Sure, Pedro Pascal is a fun actor, but does he have to show up in every franchise? Same with Benedict Cumberbatch. When the same actor plays multiple “super heroes” it can take you out of the story.
I heard Robert Downey Jr is going to show up in more marvel movies
but does he have to show up in every franchise?
Wasn’t that your point? They’re offered a job, they do it, they get paid.
Not blaming the actor for taking the role. I’m blaming the marketing department for relying on the same “bankable” faces over and over.
My point was that even if Seyfried’s marvel movie had flopped:
- There are plenty of other franchises to try for.
- It wouldn’t have injured her career.
I’m sure the actors in “The Eternals” will find other roles. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of them show up in another franchise like Star Wars, Star Trek, DC, or another Marvel movie. Remember when Ryan Reynolds was Green Lantern? Now he’s Deadpool.
That would have been an interesting take on the character to see.
