Why do the Best Movies/Shows have the Least Known Casts?

[Boba Debt]

I have noticed that the less you know about the cast the better the show seems to be.

I just watched The Abyss and relized that I only knew 2 of the actors in the entire cast.

Then you have shows like the original Star Gate Series, Firefly, the new BSG, etc.

I don’t quite get the correlation.

 

[micdavis]

You have no expectations from the actor as you have not seen them a dozen times.

Rarely does Harrison Ford stray from his comfort zone.

 

[TheDoctor]

No expectations and no baggage. Can you really watch a movie with Harrison Ford and not see him as Indiana Jones or Han Solo? Could you watch Star Trek: The Next Generation and NOT think of Reading Rainbow (assuming you grew up with RR before TNG)?

Also, lesser known casts tend to need to "earn" their place and "prove" themselves.
Also still, usually they get a more strict character idea instead of letting the actor "go with it."

 

[Vaderman]

Agreed. You don't have any preconceptions abou t them and you can believe they are the characters. Recognizing the actors cn really take you out of the context of the story (as with the Harrison Ford example above.)
Another point is the new actors don't cost as much so more of the budget goes to writing, sets, locations, props or effects (hopefully these things help make it overall better.)

 

[0neiros]

... Could you watch Star Trek: The Next Generation and NOT think of Reading Rainbow (assuming you grew up with RR before TNG)?

And I guess people who watched Reading Rainbow only saw Kunta Kinte/Toby. Don't limit an actor who actually has Range and Talent like Levar.

 

[Wes R]

I also think the unknown actors are willing to put more work into their parts, some of these well known actors come in and do their jobs but don't seem to put 100% into it anymore. I think more than a few have gotten to the point where they realize they're getting paid no matter how bad their part so they don't bother even pretending to be into it if the part isn't as good as they'd expected.

 

[Westies14]

It's really not all about the actors' ability or your preconceptions of them. Recognizable directors, actors, writers, they cost money. Lots of it. The studios' investments in their projects are much bigger, and so the projects tend to be safer or more studio-controlled. A lower budget can mean more creative freedom or less "safe" storytelling.

 

[Gigatron]

Probably the same reason minor league sports players are usually better than their professional league counterparts.

The minor league guy has to prove himself. Has to put 110% into everything they do, if they ever want to make it to the big league. The pro, is already there and protected by an iron-clad contract. Whether he performs or not, he's guaranteed his millions, for X number of years.

Same thing with the no-names. If they don't do well, they end up in Sharktopuss Vs. Mansquito 2. Whereas Tom Cruise can pump out garbage like Eyes Wide Shut and still take home 20 million.

-Fred

 

[Minder Thr33]

I have noticed that the less you know about the cast the better the show seems to be.

I just watched The Abyss and relized that I only knew 2 of the actors in the entire cast.

Then you have shows like the original Star Gate Series, Firefly, the new BSG, etc.

I don’t quite get the correlation.

I think you picked bad examples. Most movies have a top star (either A-list or B-list if they can't afford) and then build a cast around that. TV shows (at least before Kiefer Sutherland) tried to go for unknowns b/c it's cheaper.

But I do kinda see what you are trying to say and I don't think it's that true. Might be luck of the script or a rookie director/writer getting lucky with a great idea, but no money to fund it.

Just from memory, my top films have known actors in them.

 

[cboath]

I think it varies from case to case, but a lot of it is mentioned above. But, in general:

-Relatively unknown cast usually means, budget issues or unknown director, production house etc. More often than not it's people wanting to prove themselves and giving their all to do a good job. If you don't know the people, it's easier to get into the story because you're not pre-occuppied with comparing them to what you know of them, etc.

Also, to get something on the air with a bunch of unknowns, it's gotta have a good story or the backing of someone huge. Usually, it's not backed by someone huge.

The flip side:
When you've got well known people all over a project, you're comparing them to what you know of them, or they don't go all out and rest on their laurels and figure people will be happy simply because 'they're fans of theirs'. Also, you get studios or production houses who stick big names on projects for the sake of the name and their either miscast or trying to make up for a terrible story.

 

[AT-AT Luvah]

Look at United 93, great acting in a riveting story. Absolutely no 'name' actors.

All the reasons mentioned above are valid.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Lesser known actors and actresses has more to prove.

Must admit though, that whenever I see Gary Oldman perform I'm always surprised at how different he's able to create the character to what he's done before. He's very skilled at transforming into different characters, imo, which makes you forget he's Gary Oldman and what he's done before. Definitely a worthy actor.

Same with Alan Rickman.

 

[thegreatgalling]

Sometimes, its kind of nice to get lost in a story. Not knowing the actors helps sustain the fourth wall and makes it easier to suspend disbelief.

On the other hand, in a slightly unrelated issue, I am CONVINCED there is some strange reason some actors are more impervious to being identified for any one role to the detriment to others. I think that there is some magic combination of traits that make an A lister stand apart from the typcasted.

For example, when I see a Tom Hanks movie, its almost like I see him as a new actor each time. When you saw him in Cast Away, did you really think "Hey, it's Forrest Gump!"? When you see Harrison Ford in Clear and Present Danger, did you mentally yell, "Hey Han, where's Chewie?" Or "throw me the idol and I will throw you the whip?" Heck, the fact that I can watch the Indy films without once thinking about Star Wars is crazy! And I am an equal nut for both.

Sure there are constants, Tom Hanks is generally likeable, and he brings that to every role from square one, but there is just that something extra. I can't put my finger on it.

 

[Darius Alucard]

The "no-names" have to work harder to prove themselves. That much is definitely true I think... but they get the advantage of not having as much to lose. They can take risks that more established people might not. No matter how big your nameis, it won't matter at the end of the day if you're not bringing in the dough with your work.

There's plenty of different factors that go into making a movie or TV show good.

For me it always boils down to these...

- the premise (is what the story supposed to be about intriguing?)
- the writing (is the story written well and does it convey what it needs to while doing it at a pace that keeps me interested?)
- the acting (are the actors convincing in their roles? are they charismatic?)
- chemistry (do the actors work well as an ensemble and really convey that they are friends/family/co-workers/etc.)

It always amazes me just how these factors have to work together to make the movie/show work well.

There are plenty of top notch talented people that don't get the credit they deserve, and there's plenty of hot shots that get too much.

Maybe just something seemingly simple, like ego, gets things screwed up with even the best work. People thinking they're "better" than the rest of the cast/crew, or they deserve more money, or better treatment, etc.
..."creative differences".:confused

Many actors seem the same in whatever role they play, but if the above factors are working together, they can pull off much more memorable performances IMO. Regardless of what they do, some guys are just awesome that way and are entertaining no matter what...

- Gary Oldman
- Tim Roth
- Tom Hanks
- Kevin Spacey
- Al Pacino
- Daniel Day Lewis
- Robert Deniro
- Russel Crow
- Denzel Washington

...are some off the top of my head that seem to do well in almost any situtation.

 

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

I think when it works it's like a clean slate. My mom has always hated certain actors, like John Wayne because she says in every movie he is just John Wayne, not the character.

 

[thegreatgalling]

I have really enjoyed reading this thread, everybody's posts have been really thought provoking. I think you two guys above are right on.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

- Kevin Spacey
- Russel Crow
- Denzel Washington

Must confess that whenever I see these three, all I see is the actor doing the same thing as they always do, especially Russel Crowe. They are always the same annoying character, no real variance. Or maybe it just comes down to me not liking them, I don't know. I just don't see their attraction.

 

[Tan Djarka]

I think it also has something to do with the concessions made to "name" actors. When the actor dictates the story or character instead of serving the writer's intent, sometimes the resulting product suffers.

Didn't Harrison Ford have script approval for "...Crystal Skull"? Yeah, like that.

 

[Bear]

I've found that stars like Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman, and Johnny Depp become the characters they portray. If you've ever seen interviews with them, they almost seem uncomfortable being themselves, especially Depp, yet give them a role, and they become the character completely. They seem more comfortable being someone else.

Gary Oldman: Zorg, Sirius Black
Alan Rickman: The Sheriff of Nottingham, Severus Snape
Johnny Depp: Capt Jack Sparrow

When I watch these performances, I see the character, not the actor. When you watch a performance and don't think about the actor portraying it, that is the sign of a great actor.