The Northman (2022)

[beanheadmcginty]

Eggers  can't be choosers

[Mister Six]

Haha, that's perfect.

But yeah, casting Kidman probably brought in some investor cash, so...

[dead-ced-dead]

Eggers  can't be choosers

[Minami Minegishi]

Eggers  can't be choosers

That's quite brilliant. Both an excellent pun and a solid explanation for why he cast her. Bravo.

[13 schoolyards]

But yeah, casting Kidman probably brought in some investor cash, so...

It's not so much investor cash - well, it is, but in a roundabout way. Basically, every actor you've ever heard of has a dollar value attached to their name, as in "if we cast this person for this role, based on their past performances we can expect to make this much money in box office and sales overseas and to streaming services".

Actors have a base value based on their popularity that goes up or down depending on the size of the role and what kind of film it is, and most actors are worth more playing some roles over others - Leonardo DiCaprio is a pretty big name in anything, but Vin Diesel is worth more in big action movies than he is in a romantic comedy. After a string of flops Tom Cruise is worth less in romantic dramas than big action movies, which is why he stopped making them.

So if you can cast a big name in the kind of role that people will come see them in, you can usually secure more funding than if you cast a no-name actor who will be brilliant in the role. Which is why you sometimes hear mid-list actors talking about how they know every role they get was offered to better known actors first - usually in a distinct order as well, as the casting agents go from the biggest possible box office draw first and then work their way down until someone says yes.

And on the flip side, actors who want to try something different will often accept a smaller pay cheque, because they're not as valuable outside of what they're best known for.

No doubt there are also times where a director will fight to have a specific actor for a specific role (or say "out of these four actors who will bring in roughly the same amount of funding, I think this one is the one we want"), and there's also plenty of roles that are too small to have much of an impact on funding. But casting Kidman in this was almost certainly influenced by financial decisions, in that having her appear in this kind of film brought in more money (or made it more likely that the film would make more money) than another, possibly better suited, actress would have.

[dead-ced-dead]

It's not so much investor cash - well, it is, but in a roundabout way. Basically, every actor you've ever heard of has a dollar value attached to their name, as in "if we cast this person for this role, based on their past performances we can expect to make this much money in box office and sales overseas and to streaming services".

Actors have a base value based on their popularity that goes up or down depending on the size of the role and what kind of film it is, and most actors are worth more playing some roles over others - Leonardo DiCaprio is a pretty big name in anything, but Vin Diesel is worth more in big action movies than he is in a romantic comedy. After a string of flops Tom Cruise is worth less in romantic dramas than big action movies, which is why he stopped making them.

So if you can cast a big name in the kind of role that people will come see them in, you can usually secure more funding than if you cast a no-name actor who will be brilliant in the role. Which is why you sometimes hear mid-list actors talking about how they know every role they get was offered to better known actors first - usually in a distinct order as well, as the casting agents go from the biggest possible box office draw first and then work their way down until someone says yes.

And on the flip side, actors who want to try something different will often accept a smaller pay cheque, because they're not as valuable outside of what they're best known for.

No doubt there are also times where a director will fight to have a specific actor for a specific role (or say "out of these four actors who will bring in roughly the same amount of funding, I think this one is the one we want"), and there's also plenty of roles that are too small to have much of an impact on funding. But casting Kidman in this was almost certainly influenced by financial decisions, in that having her appear in this kind of film brought in more money (or made it more likely that the film would make more money) than another, possibly better suited, actress would have.

Bob Hoskins spoke about this publicly. After his Oscar nom, Hollywood's doors opened to things like Roger Rabbit, but he was only ever a mid-tier (not in talent, just in worth) Danny DeVito/Robert De Niro.

Same stature and popularity in a kids role as DeVito, same meanness/danger as DeNiro.

He was only cast as Mario after Danny said no, and he was paid $1 mil to be Al Capone in The Untouchables to scare DeNiro into lowering his price, "Well, Bob's gonna do it for a cheap $1mil, Rob! Shaaaaame you're so expensive."

It must have been written into Bob's contract that he had a pay-or-play deal and that if Robert said no they'd go with him, because he later joked to De Palma, "Got any other roles you don't want me to play?"