log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D Movie/TV Hugh Grant To Play Villain in the D&D Movie

Hugh Grant will be playing the villain in the Chris Pine D&D movie, which also stars Fast & Furious' Michelle Rodriguez, Jurassic World's Justice Smith and Bridgerton star Regé-Jean Page, according to Deadline.

According to ComicBookMovie, his character name is Forge Fletcher, and the cast will be joined by I Am Not OK With This actor Sophia Lillis playing a character called Doric.

In recent years, Hugh Grant has played villains in Paddington 2, and The Undoing.

Hugh_Grant_in_2014.jpg





 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad


Zardnaar

Legend
Oh ok. So because he got old his acting suffered somehow? Way to be ageist. Have you seen the list of awards he has to his name (including the LotR films)? Christopher Lee - IMDb

Age had nothing to do with it. In 1999 he hasn't had a hit in years and he wasn't an A lister.
Not claiming he's a bad actor. Generally you get maybe 10 years in the spotlight Leonardo D'Caprio, Tom Cruise and a few others are exceptions to that.

Lee's profile is also higher now because if the LotR movies. In the 90s he was that old B grade horror movie actor and the guy from Man With Golden Gun movie and N64 game.
 



doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
It's not really twisted to point out that hundreds of millions of not-Americans watched Lee's performances and made lots of not-Dollars for him and the movies he was in. He was an A-lister in the English speaking world, just not in North America.
Maybe actually read what I replied to? They twisted another poster's words into a statement of ageism, which it very clearly wasn't.
 



Zardnaar

Legend
Most Americans, sure.

But why continue to insist that only Americans matter for a global film?

Lord of the Rings made twice the money internationally as it did domestically.

So? It was a hit movie with ensemble cast.

I don't think it's success had a lot to do with Lee in particular.
 

So? It was a hit movie with ensemble cast.

I don't think it's success had a lot to do with Lee in particular.
I don't think it had to with any cast members, even Elijah Wood, Liv Tyler, or any of those well known. It was made in NZ with a few Americans, some established British talent and a host of cheaper Australian and New Zealand locals filling out the cast.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I don't think it had to with any cast members, even Elijah Wood, Liv Tyler, or any of those well known. It was made in NZ with a few Americans, some established British talent and a host of cheaper Australian and New Zealand locals filling out the cast.

Similar opinion right place, time, script, director etc and cast (overall).
And yeah at the time it was cheaper to film here.
 

Similar opinion right place, time, script, director etc and cast (overall).
And yeah at the time it was cheaper to film here.
More than any of that, it was a legitimate Lord of the f-ing Rings movie, planned as a big budget trilogy, not some low-budget made for TV dreck that fantasy fans had been getting forever.

It was a license to print money and I thank my lucky stars that it was good, because it 100% did not have to be good to be successful.
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
It was a license to print money and I thank my lucky stars that it was good, because it 100% did not have to be good to be successful.

Sadly true,

As demonstrated by the fact that the following Hobbit trilogy was nowhere near the same quality (any of the the films) but still made just about the same amount of money.
 

Most Americans, sure.

But why continue to insist that only Americans matter for a global film?

Lord of the Rings made twice the money internationally as it did domestically.

Fellowship of the Ring was around the time that Hollywood was starting to see that global box office was as important as the US box office. Since then, quite a few movies have gotten sequels based on global receipts that would have never been green lit based only on US ticket sales. Not much before the beginning of this century, you could have films that were major hits in the US that were barely even released in other countries.
 

The globalization shift is also what changed the content Hollywood produces. The harder something is to translate, either literally or culturally, the less likely it is to get money now.

Action movies built around established brands everyone knows, especially if it's a sequel to a worldwide hit = easy
Almost everything else = dramatically harder, especially if it can't be filmed on an indie budget
 

Sadly true,

As demonstrated by the fact that the following Hobbit trilogy was nowhere near the same quality (any of the the films) but still made just about the same amount of money.
The first film in a sequence (Fellowship of the Ring, Iron Man, Star Wars ANH) has to be good. After that it's possible to coast on past success.
 

hopeless

Adventurer
I think its safe to say what some of us call A Lister's isn't what that person considers A Listers.
Don't waste your time arguing Christopher Lee will always be a a big deal to those of us that remember him so move on.
 


Zardnaar

Legend
I think its safe to say what some of us call A Lister's isn't what that person considers A Listers.
Don't waste your time arguing Christopher Lee will always be a a big deal to those of us that remember him so move on.
I don't think it would have been as good, and therefore as successful, without Vigo. Recasting Aragorn was 100% correct decision.

None of the cast really went on to be megastars.

Thought Vigo might have. They all got roles but yeah.

Had a thought. To be successful at fantasy last 30 odd years you need.

1. Sex and violence. Nudity.

2. Filmed in NZ;).
 


Visit Our Sponsor

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top