What makes a 'big' guest

[dragonmate1]

Well theres only one definition of a big guest....

 

The man that would fit this bill is without doubt - Richard Kiel

 

or maybe Tom Hanks could be classified as a Big guest!!!!!!!

 

[chris_mk]

Well theres only one definition of a big guest....

 

The man that would fit this bill is without doubt - Richard Kiel

 

or maybe Tom Hanks could be classified as a Big guest!!!!!!!

 

 

arf arf arf

[nicky]

Another criteria for big guest is who commands more money per movie, who's most bankable and who's had the most consistent string of success.

 

Slightly OT but IMO (and Jonathan Ross's) Will Smith is the biggest movie star right now.

[MikeDonovan]

Star Trek is STILL shown on TV and has been shown across the globe... The Shatner can still get decent advertising deals on the back of it (not to mention Boston Legal which is/was a very succesful TV show recently). Carrie Fisher (aside from being a highly acclaimed author) has starred in three of the biggest grossing films of all time. I can't see how you could say they haven't had long careers (Star Wars is STILL shown every Christmas!) John Hurt has had a longer career, for sure... but has never had that MEGA hit or been quite as iconic. As for who the casting director would hire... well I guess it would depend on teh role... if it was the mother/grandmother of some starlet, I'd probably choose Fisher over Hurt!

 

I can quite eaily say they haven't had long careers. They may have LIVED for a while, and their show / film that made them famous may still be popular even after all these years, but that doesn't mean they've had "a long career".

 

What exactly has Carrie Fisher done outside of Star Wars? Well, she's had supporting roles in a few quite good films. The Blues Brothers. The Burbs. When Harry Met Sally. The Man With One Red Shoe (that was a lovely leopard skin outfit). She's written a semi-autobiographical book ("Postcards from the Edge"). And she's done a few episodes of Smallville. Return of the Jedi was 25 YEARS AGO. Think of that. You are confusing "long career" with "One acting job was quite successful and we still watch the film avidly today". The reality is that she didn't often get work exactly because she was so iconic in that role, and unlike some (i.e. Harrison Ford) she didn't have any other major work to somewhat seperate her from it. She's constantly struggled to do anything that isn't somehow related to her "iconic role". And this is pretty much the same situation with Shatner. Just have a look at IMDB. He's still riding off the coat-tails of Star Trek today for pity's sake.

 

And would you really hire Carrie Fisher in that sort of role? I wouldn't. I'd ring Meryl Streep. Or Helen Mirren. In fact there are a million and one "older" women I'd ring before Carrie Fisher. I haven't seen her act to any level through her entire career, and certainly not in the last 15 years.

 

Seriously, if you were going to compare John Hurt to Patrick Stewart, I'd be more receptive to it (although Hurt would still win). But Shatner or Fisher? No chance. Hurt is 100 x the star either of them are. Believe me, I have a lot of affection for the two of them, but no. There's a huge gulf between the sort of "niche science fiction TV actor that everyone knows" and a genuine hollywood star.

 

We don't get many of the latter in LFCC. Not even Patrick Stewart is really in the 2nd group. It's like comparing Sarah Michelle Gellar with Angelina Jolie. Or Tom Welling with Brad Pitt. Or Jensen Ackles with Matt Damon. Or even Richard Dean Anderson with Kurt Russell (and that's coming from someone who loves SG-1).

 

In many ways John Hurt is the most credible guest showmasters have ever sourced, and Jason, you've done a fantastic job.

Edited April 28, 2008 by MikeDonovan

[nicky]

like comparing Richard Dean Anderson with Kurt Russell (and that's coming from someone who loves SG-1).

I didn't even know who RDA was until I started reading these boards and the requests to have him as a guest.

[MikeDonovan]

like comparing Richard Dean Anderson with Kurt Russell (and that's coming from someone who loves SG-1).

I didn't even know who RDA was until I started reading these boards and the requests to have him as a guest.

 

Aye - he's a good lad RDA, and the show's great (well, it was until it jumped the shark at the end of Season 8 when he left). But he's no Kurt Russell. There's only one Kurt Russell :)

[chris_mk]

Another criteria for big guest is who commands more money per movie, who's most bankable and who's had the most consistent string of success.

 

Slightly OT but IMO (and Jonathan Ross's) Will Smith is the biggest movie star right now.

 

Is that not the same as the box office criteria, mixed with the relevance/recent one?

 

Star Trek is STILL shown on TV and has been shown across the globe... The Shatner can still get decent advertising deals on the back of it (not to mention Boston Legal which is/was a very succesful TV show recently). Carrie Fisher (aside from being a highly acclaimed author) has starred in three of the biggest grossing films of all time. I can't see how you could say they haven't had long careers (Star Wars is STILL shown every Christmas!) John Hurt has had a longer career, for sure... but has never had that MEGA hit or been quite as iconic. As for who the casting director would hire... well I guess it would depend on teh role... if it was the mother/grandmother of some starlet, I'd probably choose Fisher over Hurt!

 

I can quite eaily say they haven't had long careers. They may have LIVED for a while, and their show / film that made them famous may still be popular even after all these years, but that doesn't mean they've had "a long career".

 

What exactly has Carrie Fisher done outside of Star Wars? Well, she's had supporting roles in a few quite good films. The Blues Brothers. The Burbs. When Harry Met Sally. The Man With One Red Shoe (that was a lovely leopard skin outfit). She's written a semi-autobiographical book ("Postcards from the Edge"). And she's done a few episodes of Smallville. Return of the Jedi was 25 YEARS AGO. Think of that. You are confusing "long career" with "One acting job was quite successful and we still watch the film avidly today". The reality is that she didn't often get work exactly because she was so iconic in that role, and unlike some (i.e. Harrison Ford) she didn't have any other major work to somewhat seperate her from it. She's constantly struggled to do anything that isn't somehow related to her "iconic role".

 

That's because she has chosen a different career path. She's a very sucessful screen writer these days and I suspect has CHOSEN not to act so much.

 

 

And this is pretty much the same situation with Shatner. Just have a look at IMDB. He's still riding off the coat-tails of Star Trek today for pity's sake.

 

Boston legal?

 

And would you really hire Carrie Fisher in that sort of role? I wouldn't. I'd ring Meryl Streep. Or Helen Mirren. In fact there are a million and one "older" women I'd ring before Carrie Fisher. I haven't seen her act to any level through her entire career, and certainly not in the last 15 years.

 

Streep would be too expensive (and is less likely to agree to a supporting role as such) and Mirren is English! My point was, that it would depend on the role.

 

Seriously, if you were going to compare John Hurt to Patrick Stewart, I'd be more receptive to it (although Hurt would still win). But Shatner or Fisher? No chance. Hurt is 100 x the star either of them are. Believe me, I have a lot of affection for the two of them, but no. There's a huge gulf between the sort of "niche science fiction TV actor that everyone knows" and a genuine hollywood star.

 

Have I dismissed Hurt at any point?!? I still believe that Shatner will have signed more autos at Colectormania, than Hurt will at LFCC (Partly because of The Shatner's 'style' of signing....) I'm afraid that Stewart is more recognisable and has had more sucess than John Hurt and would probably be considered a 'bigger' guest by most peoples standards.

 

We don't get many of the latter in LFCC. Not even Patrick Stewart is really in the 2nd group. It's like comparing Sarah Michelle Gellar with Angelina Jolie. Or Tom Welling with Brad Pitt. Or Jensen Ackles with Matt Damon. Or even Richard Dean Anderson with Kurt Russell (and that's coming from someone who loves SG-1).

 

In many ways John Hurt is the most credible guest showmasters have ever sourced, and Jason, you've done a fantastic job.

 

Again, I test scored John Hurt earlier and he got a score of 8... that's a VERY difficult score to beat, so I don't know why you've got all defensive about Mr Hurt with me? I agree, he's certainly in the top 5 'big' guests that Showmasters have had and I'm looking forward to meeting him.

[nicky]

Another criteria for big guest is who commands more money per movie,

Is that not the same as the box office criteria, mixed with the relevance/recent one?

 

Streep would be too expensive (and is less likely to agree to a supporting role as such).

Just as I said then (re: Streep) if they are in the position to demand more money, then it's cos they can cos they are that big.

Edited April 29, 2008 by nicky

[MikeDonovan]

That's because she has chosen a different career path. She's a very sucessful screen writer these days and I suspect has CHOSEN not to act so much.

 

In what way is she a very successful screenwriter? If by that you mean 'she's written a book, that got made into a film where she wrote the screenplay', fair enough. She's even done a couple of bits of TV work. But I think the problem here is that you seem to have a very different definition of the word 'successful'. If I was an architect, and I had designed 3 houses in the last 25 years, would you consider me a successful architect?

 

To me, a successful screenwriter is Akiva Goldsman. David Koepp. Frank Darabont. David Goyer. I don't understand how writing the screenplay for 1 film in 25 years makes you a successful screenwriter. By this yardstick, George Lazenby is the most successful actor of his generation. It doesn't make sense.

 

Boston legal?

A supporting role, in a 3rd tier show. Yes, it's a good comeback for him, and I don't begrudge him it at all. But let's put it into context.

 

 

Streep would be too expensive (and is less likely to agree to a supporting role as such) and Mirren is English! My point was, that it would depend on the role.

 

Well I'll tell you know, without any doubt whatsoever, that were I a producer I would be a great deal happier with Meryl Streep in my film than with Carrie Fisher. Meryl Streep IS a successful actress, in every sense of the word, and takes supporting roles all the time. Lions For Lambs?

 

And as for Mirren being English, so what? As John Gielgud once said to Dustin Hoffman, "It's called acting, dear boy"!

Edited April 29, 2008 by MikeDonovan

[chris_mk]

Another criteria for big guest is who commands more money per movie,

Is that not the same as the box office criteria, mixed with the relevance/recent one?

 

Streep would be too expensive (and is less likely to agree to a supporting role as such).

Just as I said then (re: Streep) if they are in the position to demand more money, then it's cos they can cos they are that big.

 

...and have I suggested or implied anywhere that Streep is not a Huge actress is terms of box office?!?

 

That's because she has chosen a different career path. She's a very sucessful screen writer these days and I suspect has CHOSEN not to act so much.

 

In what way is she a very successful screenwriter? If by that you mean 'she's written a book, that got made into a film where she wrote the screenplay', fair enough. She's even done a couple of bits of TV work. But I think the problem here is that you seem to have a very different definition of the word 'successful'. If I was an architect, and I had designed 3 houses in the last 25 years, would you consider me a successful architect?

 

To me, a successful screenwriter is Akiva Goldsman. David Koepp. Frank Darabont. David Goyer. I don't understand how writing the screenplay for 1 film in 25 years makes you a successful screenwriter. By this yardstick, George Lazenby is the most successful actor of his generation. It doesn't make sense.

 

My understanding is that she does script polishing for studios. I'm guessing this is uncredited. I don't know what the official title for this role is. I don't understand your point about Lazenby.

 

Boston legal?

A supporting role, in a 3rd tier show. Yes, it's a good comeback for him, and I don't begrudge him it at all. But let's put it into context.

 

Yes, lets.... he's been in the MOST SUCCESFUL Tv Sci Fi show ever, his face is instantly recognisable to most people and is still seen on TV screens regularly, globally!

 

 

Streep would be too expensive (and is less likely to agree to a supporting role as such) and Mirren is English! My point was, that it would depend on the role.

 

Well I'll tell you know, without any doubt whatsoever, that were I a producer I would be a great deal happier with Meryl Streep in my film than with Carrie Fisher. Meryl Streep IS a successful actress, in every sense of the word, and takes supporting roles all the team. Lions For Lambs?

 

And as for Mirren being English, so what? As John Gielgud once said to Dustin Hoffman, "It's called acting, dear boy"!

 

I feel you're being quite obtuse now... My point was (and still is) that I would pick the most suitable actress for the role. There are roles that Carrie Fisher would be more suitable for that Meryl Streep (who I don;t recall dismissing at any point.)

[nicky]

To me, a successful screenwriter is Akiva Goldsman. David Koepp. Frank Darabont. David Goyer.

Add to that list, Shane Black - the highest paid (and youngest) screenwriter in the 90s.

My understanding is that she does script polishing for studios. I'm guessing this is uncredited. I don't know what the official title for this role is.

It's "script doctor", much like Jonathan Hensleigh did for Con Air (1997) or John Milius for Magnum Force (1973)

 

I've noticed (and pointed it out before) you always counter a post with a question like, "Did I say that...?" Just an obersvation.

have I suggested or implied anywhere that Streep is not a Huge actress is terms of box office?!?

Have I dismissed Hurt at any point?!?

Edited April 29, 2008 by nicky

[MikeDonovan]

My understanding is that she does script polishing for studios. I'm guessing this is uncredited. I don't know what the official title for this role is. I don't understand your point about Lazenby.

 

It's known as a script doctor - and while uncredited script doctoring does happen (for example, Quentin Tarantino's dialogue additions to the script for Crimson Tide), it's not the norm mainly because it makes it more difficult to register it with the WGA and get paid for it. What generally happens is that the studio will "come to an agreement" that might involve a guaranteed pay or play, etc. In Fisher's case this is probably her trying to forge relationships with the studios rather than any desire for anonymity.

 

Yes, lets.... he's been in the MOST SUCCESFUL Tv Sci Fi show ever, his face is instantly recognisable to most people and is still seen on TV screens regularly, globally!

 

Because he's been in a very successful TV show, doesn't make him personally highly successful in his career. In the scheme of things he's done OK out of the character, primarily because he's milked it mercilessly for the last 20 years. But he went through nearly a decade of unemployment, followed by making one film every 3 years up until Generations. I'm not saying he's unsuccessful. But outside of Star Trek he hasn't really distinguished himself. The character was successful - not necessarily the Shatner himself.

[chris_mk]

I've noticed (and pointed it out before) you always counter a post with a question like, "Did I say that...?" Just an obersvation.

have I suggested or implied anywhere that Streep is not a Huge actress is terms of box office?!?

Have I dismissed Hurt at any point?!?

 

'Always' is an overstatment and I asked those questions because both you and Mike seem to be defending two people that I've not actually said (or implied) anything negative about.

[MikeDonovan]

To me, a successful screenwriter is Akiva Goldsman. David Koepp. Frank Darabont. David Goyer.

Add to that list, Shane Black - the highest paid (and youngest) screenwriter in the 90s.

 

And he was even in Predator! :)

[chris_mk]

Yes, lets.... he's been in the MOST SUCCESFUL Tv Sci Fi show ever, his face is instantly recognisable to most people and is still seen on TV screens regularly, globally!

 

Because he's been in a very successful TV show, doesn't make him personally highly successful in his career. In the scheme of things he's done OK out of the character, primarily because he's milked it mercilessly for the last 20 years. But he went through nearly a decade of unemployment, followed by making one film every 3 years up until Generations. I'm not saying he's unsuccessful. But outside of Star Trek he hasn't really distinguished himself. The character was successful - not necessarily the Shatner himself.

 

I think that's harsh, we have no way of knowing how sucessful the show or character would have been if played by someone else.

 

I would say that someone was successful if they were lead on a show which has been shown for nearly 40 years!!! He must have been seen on screen by more people than John Hurt... he will probably have made more money from his career than John Hurt. John Hurt has the big advantage of consistancy through his career, but has never starred in a show or film which has done mega box office (Indian Jones does not count, as he's not the star.)

[snot182]

here is a question, (i apologise if this has been mentioned in a round about way already, i havent had a chance to read the whole thread),

 

who on here, when they see the words BIG GUEST TO BE ANNOUNCED LATER, are automatically dissapointed when it isnt Jonny Depp or Orlando Bloom or Angelina Jolie or Drew Barrymore etc...

 

That is what i think people, maybe the less experienced with this type of event, would think if they saw a BIG guest was to be announced just because that sort of person are genuinely big stars

 

Just a thought

 

 

on a side note, a big guest to someone isnt going to be to someone else, im impressed by John Hurt but im not desperate to meet him, im more excited by Charles "Roger Rabbit" Fleischer at the upcoming Collectormania.

[bobd_uk]

who on here, when they see the words BIG GUEST TO BE ANNOUNCED LATER, are automatically dissapointed when it isnt Jonny Depp or Orlando Bloom or Angelina Jolie or Drew Barrymore etc...

 

That is what i think people, maybe the less experienced with this type of event, would think if they saw a BIG guest was to be announced just because that sort of person are genuinely big stars

 

It wouldn't surprise me at all if you're correct. There are certain actors who are never going to attend this type of event (mostly very famous, very rich ones) and we have to realise that 95-99% of real A-list stars don't want to sit in a shopping centre and sign auto's for 4 days!

[nicky]

who on here, when they see the words BIG GUEST TO BE ANNOUNCED LATER, are automatically dissapointed when it isnt Jonny Depp or Orlando Bloom or Angelina Jolie or Drew Barrymore etc...

I don't expect them cos I don't see "A" listers as realistic. But anyway when I see a "big announcment" I expect it to be someone more known for film rather than TV.

 

There's a certian idea of glamour involved when talking about a "being like a rock star" or a "being like a film star"...but who talks about "being like TV star" in the same way?

Edited April 29, 2008 by nicky

[MikeDonovan]

I think that's harsh, we have no way of knowing how sucessful the show or character would have been if played by someone else.

 

I would say that someone was successful if they were lead on a show which has been shown for nearly 40 years!!! He must have been seen on screen by more people than John Hurt... he will probably have made more money from his career than John Hurt. John Hurt has the big advantage of consistancy through his career, but has never starred in a show or film which has done mega box office (Indian Jones does not count, as he's not the star.)

 

If we're looking at money, John Hurt has been in more, and bigger, movies than William Shatner has. The only movie that Shatner has been in that has taken the sort of money that qualifies it as a bona-fide "blockbuster" was Star Trek IV, and even that only took $133m. Star Trek movies have traditionally struggled to make it past the $100m mark. By contrast, even Contact took $170m. As for earning more money, you may be right - but only because Shatnoids has leveraged the character to the nTh degree, and made most of his money out of the convention circuit.

Edited April 29, 2008 by MikeDonovan

[bobd_uk]

But anyway when I see a "big announcment" I expect it to be someone more known for film rather than TV.

 

There's a certian idea of glamour involved when talking about a "being like a rock star" or a "being like a film star"...but who talks about "being like TV star" in the same way?

 

I think that this is an old fashioned view in a way. Many actors renowned for film are moving into TV over the last few years (ie. Kiefer Sutherland, Glenn Close).

 

I love a good film as much as anyone, but I think that TV provides the medium to tell a long, complex story over a number of years, which to me at least, is more fulfilling than a film. Admittedly, the majority of tv shows fail in their attempts. But one when gets it right (BSG, Heroes season 1, etc) it is a fantastic piece of work.

 

This is not taking anything away from films, as many of those are classics and top quality too, just balancing the argument.

[nicky]

I think that this is an old fashioned view in a way.

The cinema has always been called "the silver screen" and has names given to the different eras. TV has been known as "the box". IMO I don't think TV will ever surpass the glamour or bigness of film.

[bobd_uk]

I think that this is an old fashioned view in a way.

The cinema has always been called "the silver screen" and has names given to the different eras. TV has been known as "the box". IMO I don't think TV will ever surpass the glamour or bigness of film.

 

I agree re the glamour side of it, definitely. Not sure what "bigness" is though!

[nicky]

I agree re the glamour side of it, definitely. Not sure what "bigness" is though!

I was talking about the production process and budget that goes in.

[DavidB]

TV budgets over the past few years have skyrocketed I'd say. They must feel the medium is worthy of all that cash.

 

I definitely think it's seen more strongly now as an alternative to cinema.

[nicky]

I definitely think it's seen more strongly now as an alternative to cinema.

It's the only alternative to cinema isn't it? That is if you wanna see a pre-recorded show.