Stop Blaming the Actors for Poor Box Office

When PRINCE OF PERSIA underperformed, a few articles and blogs popped up asserting that Jake Gyllenhal was the weakest link. Last week THE A-TEAM got stomped by THE KARATE KID, trailing it's fellow remake/re-imagining by $30 million. Already one piece has materialized laying partial blame on Bradley Cooper. It's true that the current crop of Hollywood's stars have no where near the pulling power of their predecessors. Even powerhouses like Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington have seen their prowess wane over the last decade plus.

So when a movie fails to break wide, would different casting choices have made the difference?

That's a question that only has merit when you're talking about a film where a majority of the other factors are clicking. On point direction, a tight script and a premise or story that the public gravitates to.

By no stretch of the imagination would PRINCE OF PERSIA have been a better movie with Vin Diesel as the lead. The A-TEAM could have been made 30 years ago with Harrison Ford and the script would still be problematic.

In a front loaded, opening weekend matters most world, maybe the films would have had larger grosses with a different faces. Eventually though, an audience still has to decide if a movie is worth recommending or not when they walk out into the light.

Unless you're filming a one man show, no actor by their lonesome has the power to mystify audiences into ignoring plot-holes, poor scripting, confused direction and an underwhelming premise. If that was so, then there's a host of actors whose records should be damn near spotless. However, in the history of film, no actor has escaped having a few duds on their resumes. No one.