In Hollywood you don’t always hire people for talent but branding and audience awareness.

If you have a brand like the Hobbit you don’t need brand name actors or directors to attract an audience.

You're missing the point: We (GP and I) don't think you need known actors. There are great series with (then) unknown actors. It's just strange to have such a massive budget (which usually would go, in part, to known actors and directors) and then forgo them.

Also, for directors, there's definitely a case to be made that you need someone who can handle such a large budget. That's why I made the example with the junior engineer.

Yes, some of the best titles have none or just 1 top tier actor at the time: Star Wars (Alec Guinness), West World (Anthony Hopkins), Game of Thrones (Sean Bean), Breaking Bad, The Wire. I'm sure there's other's I can't remember.

Some directors prefer fresh actors for some movies. It s not necessarily a red flag, but it could be. Time will tell.

Not a great list for that premise. The Amazon Lord series not only lacks stars, it lacks famous mid-tiers as well.

West World had Ed Harris, Evan Rachel Wood, James Marsden, Thandie Newton, among others. These are mid tier actors that are quite well known (even though they're not superstars).

Breaking Bad had as its lead a very prominent television actor in Cranston. Malcolm in the Middle was a hit tv show that had a long run as far as TV shows go. He was already very TV-famous prior to Breaking Bad. Getting Cranston to carry Breaking Bad was them going with a TV heavy-weight with tons of experience and a deep familiarity for TV audiences.

I forgot about Ed Harris, I think he's way higher than mid-tier; he's very good and has been around forever. West World was probably a bad example thinking about it.

>a very prominent television actor in Cranston

He wasn't very prominent (he certainly is now). The show was for a particular demographic (later GenX) but that's about it. I'd say it was on par with That 70's Show. He was in a few Seinfeld episodes too. Compare that with the cast of LoTR and it's a stark difference.

Point being, some directors prefer fresh faced actors for certain projects and it's worked out well. I'm sure with the supply and demand, there are a lot of good actors that haven't gotten much screen time.

But Malcom in the Middle was in syndication (151 episodes), so plenty of people knew his face if not his name, because reruns were airing 2x a day in virtually every US television market, and this was back before streaming so syndication was a huge way to get audience awareness. . The That 70s Show comparison is apt, and while he wasn’t Ashton level of famous from the show, he and the actress that played his wife (Jane Kaczmarek) were both better known than the actors who played the parents on That 70s Show.

Cranston was also the perfect person to cast for Breaking Bad because his character was so different from who audiences expected him to be. It worked brilliantly, the juxtaposition between the kind of zany (if put-upon and long suffering) dad then playing a dramatic role of a high school teacher turned drug-lord.

Having a cast of mostly lesser-knowns and unknowns is one thing. Having zero even recognizable names for a production that costs half a billion dollars is something else.

And Bryan Cranston was a recognizable, if not super famous, name. That’s part of why Breaking Bad worked, it subverted expectations and brought in some character actors that were at least visually familiar to audiences.

Same with the LOTR films. Liv Tyler was actually really huge at the time, having been in a series of high-profile blockbusters and also famous as a pop-culture figure thanks to her dad her music video appearances. Cate Blanchett was already famous, having been nominated for Oscars and BAFTAs. Sir Ian McKellan had been knighted for 20 years and also had nominations and awards out the ass. Sean Astin and Elijah Wood were successful child actors trying to bridge to adult roles. No one was too big of a name to cost too much or detract too much from the story, but you had enough recognizable names to get people excited about the trailer.

The Marvel films followed a similar thing. RDJ, obviously extremely famous already but Iron Man was his ultimate comeback role. ScarJo was also already a huge name (which Marvel used to their advantage for the next decade plus, b/c she was A-list and at the top of her career), and they balanced that with lesser-known names that became big stars.

I don’t think anyone is saying you need a star-studded cast. If anything, that works against you for properties like this, because people have already seen the characters in their mind or in other adaptations. But you usually need one or two recognizable faces, at least with a budget of this size. A smaller-budget show can have a cast of unknowns that hopefully then blow up into superstars, but we’re talking about a budget that eclipses even the largest film properties, where you’re not paying a lot of it towards the above the line expenses.

I think Amazon execs think the power of the LOTR brand can overcome anything else, and maybe they are right. But I don’t know if I would risk $500m of a production with zero recognizable names in front of or behind the camera. Even Stranger Things had Winona Ryder, after all.

Breaking Bad didn't work because the character was different. There was significant push back from AMC about casting Cranston.

Vince Gilligan went to bat for him because he was certain Cranston could carry the dramatic load after working with him on an episode of the X-Files.

And in Star Trek and B5!

But none of those had a budget this out of wack, that is the point being made here.

In Star Wars, Peter Cushing was also a top tier actor, but his character (Grand Moff Tarkin) was admittedly a rather small role. And James Earl Jones was also rather well known, but maybe doesn't count because he was just voice acting for Vader (who was physically played by the body builder David Prowse).

Why strange? Others have pointed out plenty of benefits that going with good but lesser known actors brings, so why take on more risk with more famous actors? They don't need them for their brand value in this case.

Amazon would probably like to have the next Orlando Bloom, but doesn't need or want the current Orlando Bloom (or any other famous actor).

Let me formulate it like this: The most expensive series so far was The Pacific, with a budget of $22 million per episode [0]. You'd expect a high budget series to spend a lot on actors and directors - let's just go with 50%. This would put this series on a budget equivalent of $800 million to $1 billion with a "normal" cast (depending on how much you calculate as budget for lesser known actors). Given 20 episodes [1], this comes down to an equivalent of $40-50 million per episode. Even extremely high production value series like GoT were well below this number. Just going with the actual number of $23.25 million per episode already makes this one of the most expensive series of all time.

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be bad, but having a lesser experienced cast burn through that much money smells like bad management and could therefore be an indicator that the series is highly over-produced with not much content to go with it. Of course, time will tell, but the lack of known-good talent in the management and the insane amount of money spent don't make me overly optimistic.

[0] https://stacker.com/stories/3159/25-most-expensive-tv-series...

[1] https://www.slashfilm.com/568297/lord-of-the-rings-season-1-...

The Pacific was definitely not expensive because of its cast (none of the leads, Sledge, Leckie, or Basilone, were well-known). You can just watch the show and see where the money went.

Oh sorry. CGI is why, it isn’t strange if you watch the credits and see armies of animators at multiple studios.

In terms of established brands, I worry about the Dune Mini Series repeat. It was... fine. Felt scene by scene from the book, faithful, and unimaginative. I can't even remember if I watched it to end or not, let alone any additional detail.

The Hobbit movies were some of the worst films ever made, which doesn't help your point.

theres a difference between hriing talent and hiring a name.

many big actors are fabulous but theres a vast pool of actors to draw from who are equally fabulous but dont cost an obscene amount because their name isnt known.

As a person who watches a lot of content it is nice to see some fresh faces and voices. that year where Benedict Cumberbatch played everything from a dragon in The Hobbit to Sherlock Holmes and even Khan in Star Trek sucked.

From an IT perspective, we know that the money is going to management and marketing department. And maybe a new pool for HHRR.