And now we have the first theatrical trailer for J.K. Rowling’s Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. In a manner not unlike the Star Trek films or the Saw franchise, it would appear that the first film is a glorified prequel to the main storyline which will kick in this time around, with the whole “Dumbledore versus Grindelwald” thing set to take center stage. Jude Law looks fine-and-dandy as Dumbledore, while Johnny Depp looks suitably evil as the heavy. But Depp is barely in the trailer, which is intriguing considering he’s the title character and he is (by default) the biggest star in the cast. Maybe, for now, the marketing thinks it wise to hide a media-unfriendly actor from the publicity even if they know that his appearance won’t necessarily affect the global box office.
There has been much talk of late about the appropriateness of Mr. Depp, having been accused of domestic violence toward his then-wife Amber Heard, taking part in what is essentially a kid-friendly fantasy franchise and one whose stories espouse a certain morality and whose source material means a great deal to a (younger) generation that grew up with the Harry Potter books and movies. Depp still has value as an overseas draw and the fact that it’s a kid-targeted flick means that it is less likely to be hurt by negative associations with its lead actor. Adults might stay away if they choose, but parents will still take their kids.
It will likely lead to endless press headaches but, as long as the films are decent, it shouldn’t affect the overall global take. Would adults avoid All the Money in the World because it starred Kevin Spacey? Maybe. But would they not let their kids see Coco because John Lasseter was accused of copious counts of workplace sexual harassment? Probably not. The notion of replacing Depp this late in the game (even many, many months ago) would be a logistical and costly hassle. Since Ridley Scott went and pulled off the impossible with All the Money in the World, everyone thinks that anyone can just magically replace a problematic actor in a movie that folks otherwise want to champion.
Yes, it’s neat that Ridley Scott reshot huge chunks of All the Money in the World at the very last minute and replaced the disgraced Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer. But he didn’t do that out of moral altruism or out of the kindness of his heart. Scott wanted Oscar attention, and he darn-well knew he wouldn’t get it if the film was entirely defined by its tarnished star. So he threw an extra $10 million at the $40m-budgeted kidnapping thriller and pulled off genuine movie magic. Unfortunately, the replacement didn’t do a darn bit of good. It didn’t help make the film into a hit or an awards darling, and it accidentally created new controversies.
The film received a single Oscar nomination for Christopher Plummer. Even with decent reviews and loads of free press, the Sony release got clobbered by kid-friendly biggies like The Last Jedi and Jumanji (also Sony) while adults flocked to the tentpoles, took their kids to The Greatest Showman and otherwise ignored the outright adult cinema in favor of the four-quadrant offerings. The film earned just $53 million worldwide on what would have been a $40m budget but, because of the reshoots, was a $50m budget. Oh, and revelations about Mark Wahlberg demanding $1.5 million in pay for reshoots while Michelle Williams worked for scale created a whole new controversy for the film.
Ridley Scott replaced Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer because he wanted to and had the influence and money to do so. It was not intended to set precedent for editing folks out of unreleased movies should those actors misbehave off-screen. But no matter Scott’s intentions, the film flopped anyway and received little-to-no awards attention. Why would you now expect all films stuck in a similar predicament to take similar action? Why are we now expecting filmmakers to spend time and money to replace Johnny Depp in Fantastic Beasts (at least for this next film, since his character can look like anyone) or (for example) T.J. Miller in Ready Player One or Deadpool 2?
It’s a nice idea, studios removing problematic performers from in-production (or already completed) features as a punishment for unearthed controversies. But what Ridley Scott pulled off for All the Money in the World was something of a Herculean feat, one done partially out of self-interest and one that frankly didn’t pay off in any tangible way. Jokes about replacing “actor X’ with Christopher Plummer aside, just because All the Money in the World replaced Kevin Spacey with Chris Plummer does not now magically mean that every studio should be expected to remove a major actor from an upcoming film should the politics of the moment dictate as such, no matter how just those politics might be.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, starring Jude Law, Eddie Redmayne, Johnny Depp, Katherine Watson, Zoe Kravitz, Dan Folger, Ezra Miller, Carmen Ejogo and Alison Sudol, opens courtesy of Warner Bros./Time Warner Inc. on Nov. 16, 2018.
“>
And now we have the first theatrical trailer for J.K. Rowling’s Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. In a manner not unlike the Star Trek films or the Saw franchise, it would appear that the first film is a glorified prequel to the main storyline which will kick in this time around, with the whole “Dumbledore versus Grindelwald” thing set to take center stage. Jude Law looks fine-and-dandy as Dumbledore, while Johnny Depp looks suitably evil as the heavy. But Depp is barely in the trailer, which is intriguing considering he’s the title character and he is (by default) the biggest star in the cast. Maybe, for now, the marketing thinks it wise to hide a media-unfriendly actor from the publicity even if they know that his appearance won’t necessarily affect the global box office.
There has been much talk of late about the appropriateness of Mr. Depp, having been accused of domestic violence toward his then-wife Amber Heard, taking part in what is essentially a kid-friendly fantasy franchise and one whose stories espouse a certain morality and whose source material means a great deal to a (younger) generation that grew up with the Harry Potter books and movies. Depp still has value as an overseas draw and the fact that it’s a kid-targeted flick means that it is less likely to be hurt by negative associations with its lead actor. Adults might stay away if they choose, but parents will still take their kids.
It will likely lead to endless press headaches but, as long as the films are decent, it shouldn’t affect the overall global take. Would adults avoid All the Money in the World because it starred Kevin Spacey? Maybe. But would they not let their kids see Coco because John Lasseter was accused of copious counts of workplace sexual harassment? Probably not. The notion of replacing Depp this late in the game (even many, many months ago) would be a logistical and costly hassle. Since Ridley Scott went and pulled off the impossible with All the Money in the World, everyone thinks that anyone can just magically replace a problematic actor in a movie that folks otherwise want to champion.
Yes, it’s neat that Ridley Scott reshot huge chunks of All the Money in the World at the very last minute and replaced the disgraced Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer. But he didn’t do that out of moral altruism or out of the kindness of his heart. Scott wanted Oscar attention, and he darn-well knew he wouldn’t get it if the film was entirely defined by its tarnished star. So he threw an extra $10 million at the $40m-budgeted kidnapping thriller and pulled off genuine movie magic. Unfortunately, the replacement didn’t do a darn bit of good. It didn’t help make the film into a hit or an awards darling, and it accidentally created new controversies.
The film received a single Oscar nomination for Christopher Plummer. Even with decent reviews and loads of free press, the Sony release got clobbered by kid-friendly biggies like The Last Jedi and Jumanji (also Sony) while adults flocked to the tentpoles, took their kids to The Greatest Showman and otherwise ignored the outright adult cinema in favor of the four-quadrant offerings. The film earned just $53 million worldwide on what would have been a $40m budget but, because of the reshoots, was a $50m budget. Oh, and revelations about Mark Wahlberg demanding $1.5 million in pay for reshoots while Michelle Williams worked for scale created a whole new controversy for the film.
Ridley Scott replaced Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer because he wanted to and had the influence and money to do so. It was not intended to set precedent for editing folks out of unreleased movies should those actors misbehave off-screen. But no matter Scott’s intentions, the film flopped anyway and received little-to-no awards attention. Why would you now expect all films stuck in a similar predicament to take similar action? Why are we now expecting filmmakers to spend time and money to replace Johnny Depp in Fantastic Beasts (at least for this next film, since his character can look like anyone) or (for example) T.J. Miller in Ready Player One or Deadpool 2?
It’s a nice idea, studios removing problematic performers from in-production (or already completed) features as a punishment for unearthed controversies. But what Ridley Scott pulled off for All the Money in the World was something of a Herculean feat, one done partially out of self-interest and one that frankly didn’t pay off in any tangible way. Jokes about replacing “actor X’ with Christopher Plummer aside, just because All the Money in the World replaced Kevin Spacey with Chris Plummer does not now magically mean that every studio should be expected to remove a major actor from an upcoming film should the politics of the moment dictate as such, no matter how just those politics might be.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, starring Jude Law, Eddie Redmayne, Johnny Depp, Katherine Watson, Zoe Kravitz, Dan Folger, Ezra Miller, Carmen Ejogo and Alison Sudol, opens courtesy of Warner Bros./Time Warner Inc. on Nov. 16, 2018.
Let’s block ads! (Why?)