Quote:

Animalman said:
Please elaborate. I only established that qualification as I thought it was the best to cover the majority of well-known directors out there(so that you wouldn't cite some obscure director I've never heard of, or someone who didn't make enough movies to have the chance to reuse cast members).



When you said "critically acclaimed," I actually assumed that you meant directors that I personally like. I s'pose I was confused because you're not the type to like something just cuz' the Academy said so.

Quote:

So...you're predicting the future? This is Nolan's only example of reusing actors so far. Hardly what I'd call "whoring".



Actually, with the third Batman movie on the way, it'll be the third movie in a row he'll do with Bale.

Seriously though, while I can understand he'd need Bale for a second Bat-movie, hand-picking him for two movies in a row really seems like leeching off of the actor's fame to me. He didn't actually discover Bale for Batman Begins; the fans were actually shouting for Bale before he was made the director. Even if he didn't want him, he'd still have to cast him. I honestly do not believe that he would have casted Bale for Prestige if BB did poorly. So, in any case, the "future" is now.

Quote:

Wes Anderson and Kevin Smith certainly don't use the same actors just to "milk their star power". They make movies with their friends(and clearly, they benefit from having friends that are popular). Affleck, Damon and the Wilson Brothers were doing movies with Smith and Anderson long before they were stars, and they'd still be doing movies with them today even if they hadn't ever ascended to that level.



I'll conceed that Anderson and Smith probably aren't whoring in this case, although I still have my doubts. When I think of actors being reused for Anderson, I'm thinking more of Bill Murray than the Wilson Brothers (but I did include them). Him, along with just about all of Smith's regular casting, are notorious cult labels. For example: Everyone knows Affleck can't act, but it's because his personality was so merged with Smith's primary fanbase that the audience could enjoy his inclusion in both J&SBSB and Dogma (not me of course). It's because he carried the esoteric Smithian charm that the movies he and Smith do together don't end up in smoke like Gili.

Murray is in the same vein as Affleck in that rite (except he can actually act), especially taking into mind that he has his own trademark deadpan personality that helps make Anderson's movies the most recognizable in terms of atmosphere (but only cuz' he's been in them multiple times).

Anyway, my point is that when I was taking those particular directors into mind, I was thinking more of their actors' prominance as cult actors than as people who could actually act. They were just the more convenient examples.

In any event, I still find the inclusion of the same actor(s) in two or more consecutive movies to be unoriginal. You're probably right that they're all friends and may not be fame-grabbing, but I don't feel that makes the construction of the movie's cast any better.

Quote:

I think Nolan and Fincher have a lot in common incidentally. They're selective about the projects they undertake, stylistically they use a lot of the same camera shots, and...well, they both make good flicks.



Fincher I will readily agree with you on, but I don't think Nolan has earned 'good director' status yet personally. Insomnia was not as good as Memento. And even so, Memento had problems as well; I liked the movie and its premise a great deal but the character didn't make sense--I mean, how the hell could he remember that he couldn't remember if he no long term memory!?

Quote:

I also think Brad Pitt and Christian Bale are both extraordinary actors, with the range necessary to play a variety of roles(and I thought, based on past comments you've made regarding Bale, that you felt similarly),



I agree, but at the same time I don't think they should belong to any one director if you get my drift. Fincher has proven himself an individual that doesn't need a consistent A list actor like Pitt to sell or make good movies. Nolan's history is....Well I think one of the problems is that he doesn't have much history. He's given us one epic movie, one good movie (I refuse to see BB, but for the sake of argument, I'll run along with the status quo here and title it as "good"), and crap. My opinion of him based on his past career would be much less tainted if it weren't for the fact that he was directing his 4th and 5th movie with the same actor from the third. The icing to all of this is that Batman is one of the most famous characters out there (well, Nolan and Goyer's Batman anyway).

Quote:

so one can hardly fault a director that would choose to cast them regularly



Eh....I admit that Pitt and Bale are both exceptionally versatile actors, but at the same time, neither of them could play a character like say the Narrator without looking silly (although, Pitt would probably refuse to starve himself for the part like Bale would). In that rite, I don't think it was imperative that Bale get the part in Prestige.