MovieChat Forums > Appaloosa (2008) Discussion > Different Actors Would Have Made It A Bl...

Different Actors Would Have Made It A Blockbuster


Madeline Stowe for Annie
Sam Shepard for Ed Harris's part
Same Elliot for Everette
Daniel Day-Lewis or Christian Bale for Jeremy Irons' part



reply

Nope. Harris and (especially) VM were perfect. and the last i recall, this did very well in theaters. maybe not a blockbuster, but it was very successful. deservingly as it was a fantastic movie.

reply

According to Box Office Mojo it only made $27 million worldwide on a $20 million production budget. Once you factor in marketing and distribution that's not very good. I would hardly say it "did very well in theaters."

I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar.
Avatar: 10/10
Up in the Air: 10/10

reply

Other than replacing Irons, which is the smallest of the four roles, all of your suggestions involve bringing in actors less famous than the ones who got the parts. Thus, I don't know how that would make it more commercially successful.

reply

Apart from some perceived problems with the casting of Zellwegger (see other threads) the three principal men did very well and Irons and Mortensen just love that kind of role. The suggested replacements are just subjective preferences that wouldn't have saved this movie, which sadly failed due to the plodding screenplay. And without the name actors it would be a D-list potboiler attracting no comments. The movie's four main actors were all famous enough to carry it, all other things being equal, which they weren't. But you have to respect the project as such, being the low-budget exercise it was.

Bale is too young to play Bragg's part.

Off topic: Er, Day-Lewis is more famous than Irons? In some circles, maybe.

reply

Irons isn't more famous than Sam Elliot?

reply

Irons isn't more famous than Sam Elliot?


Well... Who exacly is Sam Elliot?

reply

Tell me you didn't just write that... ! Sam Elliott is a fabulous actor, and if you didn't know that already, then you need to look him up!






Love United. Hate Glazers.

reply

Harris sucked in this movie. Anyone with a good eye for performance can see that.

reply

EH was directing the film, so he wisely cast VM in the central role, the one you watch. As for EH's own acting, he did a superb job of representing his character as described in the original book by Robert B. Parker. As most people who watch good films know, EH is one of the most respected and skillful character actors in the business.

The film was made as a labor of love, with mostly EH's friends and family. He didn't expect it to make money, but as with his first directing venture, POLLOCK, he was portraying onscreen a story he wanted to tell.

The film appeared on a couple of major "10 Best" lists for the year, so somebody liked it.

reply

VM in the central role, the one you watch.


If Viggo Mortenson (I didn't know his official alleviation was VM???) was in the central role, why did Ed Harris (EH as we're calling him?) decide to cut to HIMSELF most of the time in the edit? Harris clearly takes up most of the screen time, whether his character was supposed to be the main character or not.

As most people who watch good films know, EH is one of the most respected and skillful character actors in the business


Compared to who? So because he played supporting roles in The Truman Show, A Beautiful Mind and A History of Violence (3 films where he is overshadowed by the lead) he is one of the best in the business?

He didn't expect it to make money


Oh, so that's why he got small time actors, a minimal budget and only released it in small cinemas? That was sarcastic, in case you're an idiot (which you are).

"So somebody liked it"? People liked The Happening too. And it made 3 TIMES as much money.

reply

I like that. I'm an idiot. Got it.

Thanks for your input. Not worth a reply point by point, of course, but then, trolls seem a constant infestation on the Internet.







reply

:p

So having a ligitimate opinion, supported by great points and that makes me a troll?

Haha, yeah sure.

reply

No, babycakes. Calling me an idiot and taking a "let's fight" tone makes you a troll.

reply

I think you suffer from a superiority complex, at least you do online anyway. Where did I take a "let's fight" tone? I enjoy a good discussion, if you don't then you shouldn't come on these boards.

reply

I enjoy a good discussion, too, but I don't care for your style, so we each ought to talk to someone else. Nothing inferior or superior about that; just a matter of taste.

Nobody says you have to talk to everybody else on the boards, you know, or talk at a certain level or with a certain style. No matter what you say about whether or not I "ought" to be here, here I am. You might as well get used to it.

Bye.

reply

Sam Elliott can't carry Jeremy Irons' shoes!

reply

Who were the big actors in the first Star Wars? Twilight? Hurt Locker? Band of Brothers? Star Trek (2009)? Slumdog Millionaire? Actors that better fit the roles, not bigger. You put the right actors in the right roles and it will take off. Or get a cult following later. Plus, you shave money off salaries right off the bat.
You don't think so? Google the SNL parodies of famous actors for Star Wars. It was hilarious because fame doesn't mean you are right for a part.


My Blu-ray Collection http://tinyurl.com/yat3zka

reply

Different actors?
Maybe the kids from the Twilight movies?
And add in some 'wagon chase' scenes using CGI.
And lots more gunfights with lots bigger guns. (Maybe Hitch could have carried a huge Gatling gun with one hand and spun the crank with the other while shooting up Bragg's ranch?)

Yeah, the probably would have been a blockbuster.......and a horrible movie.
I'll stick with what we got.

reply

I rented this film but didn't finish it. I was really disappointed as I looked forward to it since reading how Ed Harris cast VM. He thought through which actor he would trust with his life in the Old West and came up with Viggo Mortensen!

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

reply

This movie was awesome the way it is. I hate these posts where people put the "flavor of the year" actors such as Christian Bale and Daniel Day Lewis. Harris and Mortensen were awesome in this role. When I read the books I picture them.

reply

Me too now.
I just finished 'Resolution' and it was like watching a sequel in my head.

reply


i'm sorry, but i have to disagree with your categorizing of daniel day lewis as a 'flavor of the year' actor. he's had a fairly long and distinguished career, and is known for taking his roles (perhaps a little too) seriously...
------------
"is this dangerous?"
"not clinically."

reply

oh look people famous from the 90's...

disagree..

reply

Ed Harris is famous from the 80s. His big break came in 83 when cast as John Glenn in The Right Stuff. Along with 89's The Abyss. Jeremy Irons first big splash was 81's The French Lieutenant's Woman. Of the main characters only Rene started getting good roles in the 2000s, Viggo was in Crimson Tide and supporting actor in G.I. Jane both from the 90s. So, I really don't know what your line about people famous from the 90's relates? Are they too old or too young? BTW, Clint Eastwood is famous from the 60s and was excellent in Gran Torino. And don't forget Betty White. lol, she ROCKS.

My Blu-ray Collection http://tinyurl.com/yat3zka

reply

edit: oh look people famous ONLY in the 90's....and frankly, i was only referring to Stowe and Day Lewis. the other two i was like, wtf?

Day Lewis has done excellent projects in the past decade but he can hardly be more recognizable than Viggo Mortensen (from LORD OF THE RINGS) nor Ed Harris (NATIONAL TREASURE, A BEAUTIFUL MIND). And lastly, Jeremy Irons is just a classic star, so, OP, your original comment was weird to say the least.

reply

Day Lewis won the Academy Award in 2008 for Best Actor in There Will Be Blood (and beating Viggo out for Eastern Promises). You don't get more recognizable then by winning TWO Oscars for best actor. Really, what planet are you from? Viggo was a supporting actor in Lord of The Rings (Elijah Wood was the star). Ed Harris was a supporting actor in National Treasure (Nicholas Cage was the star) and Russell Crowe starred in A Beautiful Mind. You are mentioning movies these two were in as supporting actors and others had the main roles and carried the movie. Google Gangs of New York. Day Lewis made that movie worth watching. He was also nominated for another Academy Award in that role.


http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/oscarlegacy/2000-present/2008/winners.html


And Jeremy Irons is not that big a star. Name a "classic" he was in? Lolita? Dead Ringers? He seems to like to be in movies that shock audiences.

How's this as a star that would have been better then Ed in the lead role. Mel Gibson. Is he big enough for you?


My Blu-ray Collection http://tinyurl.com/yat3zka

reply

no no no no no winning an Oscar has nothing to do with box office appeal.

how many people went to see There will be blood? come on... I love Day Lewis as much as any film geek but uh... How many people went to see Nine? Gangs of New York? vs how many people went to see Lord of the Rings? and National Treasure/Beautiful Mind?

If you want movie made with enough recognizable AND great actors, who want to flex their acting chops in this particular Western and has never really done one before, I think the cast of this movie is pretty dead on.

Jeremy Irons is someone you, your mother, and your grandmother all know...Don't even try to argue his fame here... just do your research.

perhaps the reason this wasn't a blockbuster is because it was never intended to be. just as a story it was nothing new nor different...but it certainly gave the actors a chance to play some interesting characters.

reply

Gangs of New York made just under $200 million worldwide so someone wanted to see it. But anyway, you thought the casting was dead on? Many talk of the weird accent Jeremy Irons has in the movie and how miscast Rene is. I would say the majority of viewers point those two out a miscast. And no producer or financial backer goes into a film project not hoping their film isn't a blockbuster (or Academy Award winner either). Unless you are talking a documentary made for the public interest. Anyway, even with Russell Crowe and Christian Bale, 3:10 To Yuma made only just over $52 million. Not a blockbuster. The last successful western made according to Box Office Mojo was Tombstone, which made $53 million in 93, equivalent to double that in today's dollars. There is another big western being done by the Coen brothers, a remake of True Grit with Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn. Matt Damon and Josh Brolin are also in it. Two of that cast have been huge box office draws. Matt Damon's movies have grossed over $2 billion and Jeff Bridges over $1 billion. I am betting it does better then 3:10, especially with the Coen brothers on board.

My Blu-ray Collection http://tinyurl.com/yat3zka

reply

Westerns, especially a small traditional one like Appaloosa, are just not interesting to the modern audience. This genre really needs a serious revamping...perhaps a Coen brothers script/production might make a difference to the re-make you're talking about. I don't think bigger stars - like Mel Gibson as you suggested, would have made any difference to the box office of Appaloosa.
That being said, i think the cast did a great job, acting-wise. It is a great cast. I think the studio probably realized how dull/old the story was and decided not to do any marketing for it.. I didn't remember seeing any advertising at all for this movie.

reply

I'd rather have the film we got, thanks; regardless of how well or badly it might've done at the box-office...






Love United. Hate Glazers.

reply

I agree completely, I wouldn't change a thing, and I'm not sure what this controversy surrounding the casting of zellwigger is, but I thought she brought great substance to her "character".

Each actor in this film faces his or her own daunting moral choices, choices that they will be judged upon, by their fellow charcters, aby their fellow actors, and by the audience, no less. Set in that pre-government phase of American history (the "free" part), the 1880s, a time in America that included, for many, the friction between having internal security (well being) and one's sense of living on the razor's edge, and the choices that people make within that difficult human condition.

In Zellwigger's case, as a woman in the wide-open west, the audience as asked to judge her, and in that process we learn more about our own prejudices than perhaps we might like, but that is just one of many great examples of how this film stretches the viewer.

I thought VM stole the movie with an assist to his "girlfriend" who, despite her profession or position in society, is shown to be the one charcter with the innate ability to see through the masks and tell it like it really is.

This was a film of excellent depth. In many ways, this is an 'art film" trying to breakthrough the mainstream barrier. The 6.8 rating is too low, imo, which is probably another story altogether (having to do with people's expectations of the film). It probably didn't get the kind of audience it deserved, maybe it was poorly "branded" (ahem).

Ed Harris can be very proud, indeed, in any case. 8/10 easy.

reply

Wow, you guys who like this movie are BORING. You must not have seen many good movies if you're entertained by THIS. Geez...

reply

Nice leap, Warm, but terribly young and ignorant of you to suppose that because we like it, WE are boring.

Maybe you should consider that you just haven't lived long enough and richly enough to appreciate films like this one.

Just another view.


The boring old Samantha3

reply

great reply, I hope "warm" will grow into this deeply textured film.

reply

So how many films have you guys seen? Just because someone is OLD doesn't mean their opinions are better developed. Look at the career of TIM ALLEN

reply

No, Warm, age doesn't mean wisdom. It doesn't always mean thoughtful experience. But what I said holds. Think about it a bit.

reply

to answer the question, and speaking purely for myself, probably more than most people. /maybe/ not more than you, but i suspect so, and looking at your post history, certainly more films of higher quality...

------------
"is this dangerous?"
"not clinically."

reply

Disagree, although your list is full of good actors.

It would have made a different movie but, with Harris directing the same script, I don't see how it could have been turned into a greater monetary success simply by exchanging one very good actor for another.

reply

I enjoyed it. 7/10.

I thought Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen were good (as they always are).

I really didn't buy Jeremy Irons as Bragg. His accent was lame and his performance was indifferent.

But in fairness he wasn't given much scope to develop the character. As the main villain, I felt his role should have been explored in more depth.

Zellweger was simply a poor choice.

reply

Renee is just terrible, she brought the movie down a point imo.

reply

[deleted]