The last few months I've heard so many people ask who he is. - Robbie Williams Discussion

[–] jekporkins (1978) 5 days ago

American here... he never had anything close to a hit here that I know of.

I only know him because when I was in Australia the biggest song playing in the clubs was Rock DJ and I thought it was a catchy enough tune to start listening to his stuff when I got home.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (57767) 5 days ago

At least you knew him though.

reply

[–] jekporkins (1978) 5 days ago

There are dozens of us!

reply

[–] VinceD (10174) 5 days ago

I've heard some people speculate that this is why they made him a CG monkey for his biopic; to make it more of a curiosity and thereby appeal to audiences in the US and other countries where his music didn't really cross over. If that's true (I don't think it is) I suppose you could call it an extreme form of stunt casting.

EDIT: I don't think it's true, regardless, that some people suggested it underscores how little we know who he is in the US. (I never heard of him, but I also don't know most modern US singers either.)

reply

[–] capuchin (3298) 5 days ago

I've heard some people speculate that this is why they made him a CG monkey for his biopic; to make it more of a curiosity and thereby appeal to audiences in the US

I read a quote from Robbie Williams himself saying that if they'd made a typical biopic in which he was played by a human being, it would likely only appeal to Robbie Williams fans. Which seems true enough. So the chimpanzee gimmick was intended to give the film a wider appeal... but whether that was specifically to appeal to the US market or not, I don't know.

I doubt it. Because I think it still only widens the appeal if you know who Robbie Williams is in the first place. 'Robbie Williams biopic.' 'Don't care.' 'He's being played by a chimpanzee.' 'Excuse me? That's... what?'

If you don't know who Robbie Williams is, it's just a movie about a chimpanzee that becomes a famous pop star. Which sounds like something that should be on Nickelodeon.

But it may have been an attempt to appeal to audiences in territories where people don't know who Robbie Williams is. After all, it cost a lot of money to make.

They've spent $110m on a film that probably could've cost them less than $30m if it didn't have a CG chimp in it. At $30m, and just appealing to Robbie Williams fans, they might've turned a profit. If you spend $110m, you probably have to appeal to as many markets as possible, including a big one like the USA and/or China (He wasn't famous there either.) So they may have just badly miscalculated.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (57767) 4 days ago

If they planned on releasing the film in the US, I'm sure the producers would have scrapped the film entirely. I think they made him a monkey to make something different because musical biopics are generally the same.

reply

[–] BlackMass (1095) 5 days ago

English wit rarely hits in burger land. Same reason the brilliant Blur only had one hit there.

reply

[–] ewd76 (1376) 5 days ago

I don't believe I've eaver heard of him.

reply

[–] SamNoyoun (5933) 5 days ago

I'm sure I wouldn't know who he was if I weren't a fan of the Graham Norton show(and British TV in general...)

reply

[–] BKB (10672) 4 days ago

Never heard of the man and for Paramount, they dumped something like $110 Million into this movie and it was the flop of the Century.. The movie looked like it could appeal to Gen Z because I've never heard of him

reply

[–] samoanjoes (57767) 4 days ago

That's way too much to spend to make a movie like this.

reply

[–] BKB (10672) 4 days ago

That's as much as some MARVEL movies cost to make

reply

[–] DirkOff (341) 3 days ago

Williams was already famous in Europe from Take That before his solo career. TT was not big in the US.
It’s the same story with Kylie Minogue. Famous in Europe from television before her solo career.
US only know that one song nah nah nah.

reply

[–] capuchin (3298) 3 days ago

You're obviously right about most of this. But I have to correct you on one very important point.

US only know that one song nah nah nah.

Pretty sure you mean 'la la la'.

reply

[–] DirkOff (341) 3 days ago

Oh…I have been singing it wrong
LOL

reply

[–] capuchin (3298) 3 days ago

Yeah. If you change it from 'la' to 'nah' you ruin the entire meaning of the song and miss all its philosophical nuances.

*whistles*

*walks away*

reply