There's no such thing as too big a star — Eccleston had two BAFTA best actor nominations and a string of Hollywood films to his name before Who.
However there is such a thing as too busy a star, and Damian Lewis is probably that.
Extremely minor roles in 28 Days Later, eXistenZ and Gone in Sixty Seconds is hardly "a string". Its a tiny trickle.
And I know this is hard to believe, but BAFTA nominations have very little impact on employment prospects outside of the UK.
Lewis is definitely a tougher get I'm sure. Aside from Homeland, he also seems to be getting a few movies a year, and it looks like this year also a miniseries (about the US Civil War). So yeah, busy.
And I know this is hard to believe, but BAFTA nominations have very little impact on employment prospects outside of the UK.
I may have misspoken re: Hollywood (Shallow Grave, Jude, etc, caused my mental fog) but you heard it here first, folks: if it doesn't happen in America, it isn't real. You can be the biggest star in the UK but that has no bearing on your willingness to commit to a long-term role on UK television.
I may have misspoken re: Hollywood (Shallow Grave, Jude, etc, caused my mental fog) but you heard it here first, folks: if it doesn't happen in America, it isn't real. You can be the biggest star in the UK but that has no bearing on your willingness to commit to a long-term role on UK television.
You mock, but the point was being asked if someone was "too big a star" for the role. The fact that Eccleston had some very minor roles in International movies and BAFTAs was supposed to be the evidence that he was comparable to Damien Lewis.
Which just isn't true. This is not a debate over who's a bigger presence in UK television, Eccleston circa 2005 or Lewis circa 2013. This is about who's less likely to accept the job. Even putting aside his current schedule, Lewis would know he has a lot more options, because he's an established star in both markets. Eccleston, BAFTAs or not, in 2005 was hardly in a comparable position (and maybe only barely would be now).
To be clear, Doctor Who does not have to be cast with the US market in mind. Because it MAKES the person cast a star in the US automatically. A star already established in the US however, British or not, isn't really going to be an option, because they'll be holding out for too much money.
You mock, but the point was being asked if someone was "too big a star" for the role. The fact that Eccleston had some very minor roles in International movies and BAFTAs was supposed to be the evidence that he was comparable to Damien Lewis.
Which just isn't true.
As I said, I was wrong to say 'Hollywood'. Shallow Grave was a significant movie. Jude was a noteable movie. Our Friends in the North and Cracker were both major television programmes.
His role in 28 Days Later, the most significant film of his that's close to but precedes the Who casting, was also enough to get him third billing. Based on my mistake earlier I daren't comment on where the funding came from.
Yeah I can't see anyone of Lewis stature taking it. If you accept Who you have to be someone who doesn't see themselves becoming a big Hollywood or British Film star within the next few years. Just look at Smith in the 3 and a bit years it has been since filming the role he has only actually fully completed 1 feature film (presuming that "Clone" was filmed prior to Who) and 1 TV movie and filming a feature film now. That isn't a lot. Doesn't Smith regularly say that Who takes out 8 months a year? That is a lot of work and commitment. What about other projects, holidays, spending time with loved ones.
Also the beeb will probably be looking for someone who they can invest in for the next few years. It's great having having a show built around change but when your main star begins to change every year I imagine that will turn people off.
I think someone like Ben Whishaw is a great name to throw around. Well known and liked actor now thanks to some minor roles in big films with a hit show that has just finished. I would like it to be him.
People throwing around names like Damien Lewis and heck I even saw Tom Hardy's name on here just seems silly to me. They likely wont have the commitment to sign on to a show for two years that takes 8 months out of there lives.
Comments
However there is such a thing as too busy a star, and Damian Lewis is probably that.
And I know this is hard to believe, but BAFTA nominations have very little impact on employment prospects outside of the UK.
Lewis is definitely a tougher get I'm sure. Aside from Homeland, he also seems to be getting a few movies a year, and it looks like this year also a miniseries (about the US Civil War). So yeah, busy.
I may have misspoken re: Hollywood (Shallow Grave, Jude, etc, caused my mental fog) but you heard it here first, folks: if it doesn't happen in America, it isn't real. You can be the biggest star in the UK but that has no bearing on your willingness to commit to a long-term role on UK television.
You mock, but the point was being asked if someone was "too big a star" for the role. The fact that Eccleston had some very minor roles in International movies and BAFTAs was supposed to be the evidence that he was comparable to Damien Lewis.
Which just isn't true. This is not a debate over who's a bigger presence in UK television, Eccleston circa 2005 or Lewis circa 2013. This is about who's less likely to accept the job. Even putting aside his current schedule, Lewis would know he has a lot more options, because he's an established star in both markets. Eccleston, BAFTAs or not, in 2005 was hardly in a comparable position (and maybe only barely would be now).
To be clear, Doctor Who does not have to be cast with the US market in mind. Because it MAKES the person cast a star in the US automatically. A star already established in the US however, British or not, isn't really going to be an option, because they'll be holding out for too much money.
As I said, I was wrong to say 'Hollywood'. Shallow Grave was a significant movie. Jude was a noteable movie. Our Friends in the North and Cracker were both major television programmes.
His role in 28 Days Later, the most significant film of his that's close to but precedes the Who casting, was also enough to get him third billing. Based on my mistake earlier I daren't comment on where the funding came from.
Also the beeb will probably be looking for someone who they can invest in for the next few years. It's great having having a show built around change but when your main star begins to change every year I imagine that will turn people off.
I think someone like Ben Whishaw is a great name to throw around. Well known and liked actor now thanks to some minor roles in big films with a hit show that has just finished. I would like it to be him.
People throwing around names like Damien Lewis and heck I even saw Tom Hardy's name on here just seems silly to me. They likely wont have the commitment to sign on to a show for two years that takes 8 months out of there lives.
And there is also such a thing as too expensive a star.