Then you have someone like Patrick Stewart who has had TWO iconic roles. Same with Harrison Ford.
Then there’s pretty much every single other Star Trek actor who never got another big show after their Trek stint.
There’s a ton of journeymen actors who can go from comedy to comedy or movie scene to movie scene and make a viable career for themselves. In part because they never have a very memorable role or get cast in something that’s as character PR intensive as sci-fi tends to be. Get cast in a nice CIA drama as a bit role and you’ll be able to leap to something else without being recognized, whereas the sci-fi fan base is so intense that you’ll always be referred to that one role you took for a few months.
Happens in comic too where you get guys like Moore and Miller who 30 years later are still asked about stuff they wrote in their 20’s. Or in music with acts that have a huge single and then can’t escape playing the same damn tune for the next 20 years.
Most of them did keep working, they just didn’t achieve the same kind of exposition again. And the same goes for for most actors who played minor roles on most shows.
The thing is, the SF fans aren’t the same people as the casting agents. The guys who cast Jeffrey Combs in a minor role on Criminal Minds didn’t care that he used to be in a dozen episodes of Star Wars as a Dominion negotiator. On the other hand, Combs probably got that role and many other roles in B-movies because he did Re-Animator back in the eighties.
Being recognised is mostly a good thing for an actor.
Boris Karloff used to say that being typecast was wonderful, it kept him in work right up until the end of his life.
Vincent Price made a lot of his money doing advertising, he was a famous face and voice.
But many actors hate it. They got into acting to play a range of roles, Alan Rickman turned down many villainous characters after ‘Die Hard’, and even when he took the role of Snape he was very clear that he did it because Rowling let him in on Snape’s secret history.
But he was offered a lot and could afford to be picky.
Plus he gave us one of the best performances of a typecast actor ever;
He really should have turned down this one, but then there would be no reason at all to watch the movie.
Mary Poppins Returns will also probably have a long career like the original for rewatching at home.
By the way, in the original’s “Spoonful of Sugar” scene, what medicine did Mary Poppins give the children? I always thought it was cough syrup, but did they even have a cough? I remember an older English friend of mine used to say that he would be given a morphine tonic as a child to keep him quiet.
I always thought it was Cod Liver Oil.
That ol’ cure-all.
Plus, it would need sugar.
Oh, yeah, that stuff is freaking awful.
That also would explain why the children would see her dancing with cartoon penguins.
Seriously, either Poppins is a magician or those children are fully “medicated”.
Well, yeah, the whole point is that she’s magic.
There’s no such thing as magic. When you rule out the impossible, what remains - no matter how improbable - is the truth.
Poppins is a pusher.
Prove there’s no magic.
Poppins is giving everyone pickled pickles:
If someone came up to you and said they just rode a carousel horse down the street to dance with some penguins in the park before floating home under the power of their umbrella, what would think? That they are magical or high as that kite at the end of the movie?
I thought this might end up at Lego Batman Movie levels of box office, but by the looks of it, it might struggle to reach that milestone (Lego Batman did just over US$300mn in the end).
Who knows, maybe positive word of mouth will help it get there. I hope so as it’s a film that deserves to be seen.
It does suggest there’s a certain ceiling to these kinds of movies though. I wonder if it will affect their plans for a big multi-sequel franchise.
It’s interesting though because the box office actually went up in week 3 over week 2. Looking at it last week I didn’t think it would break even (which by my estimate would be around $250m) but that looks pretty secure now after that and good response in China. They have Japan and Brazil yet to open too and I think Japan may be very receptive.
I was wondering if there were places it hadn’t opened yet. Hopefully Japan can add a bit more.
Presumably there are a few factors at play there - it opened amid a lot of competition in mid-December, and it’s a good all-ages film for family viewing over Christmas.
Either way, I think it’s healthy enough in terms of making its money back, but given how the general received wisdom on Lego Batman was that it under-performed, I wonder if the same will be true here, and whether it will affect the franchising plans.
(In the end though I liked both of them, which matters more to me than how much money they make.)
Some films under-perform in the short term but have a long afterlife on home-media, whatever that is at the time.
‘Spider-verse’ has excellent word of mouth, Sony will do fine out of it in the long run. Whether they make a theatrical sequel or look to streaming for a follow-up, remains to be seen.
I think “Into the Multivese”'s biggest problem is that when it comes to animated DC or Marvel superhero movies, audiences are used to TV animation. When I saw that this was coming to the theatres, my first feeling was along the lines of “ah, okay, so this is like Batman: Mask of the Phantasm or something”.
It shouldn’t make a difference compated to something like Incredibles or Big Hero Six, but it does as far as awareness of something goes. I think this movie’s problem is mainly breaking past that barrier.
We will see whether it has enough legs to carry a sequel, or more movies in this style. I hope so; I’ll definitely go and see it this week with the kid.