A lot of interviews with US TV show creators asking why they chose this Brit or that Australian for a role and the answer is they cost less!How much of a discount is it?
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 21:59 (fifteen years ago)
Will work for food.
― Chewshabadoo, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 22:10 (fifteen years ago)
Or tea/vegimite.
― BTW, I'm frightfully middle-class (chap), Wednesday, 13 January 2010 23:08 (fifteen years ago)
This doesn't make too much logical sense to me - maybe it was true ten or so years ago, but surely US actors wanting to make it big would have started undercutting their transatlantic rivals. Unless it's a union thing, maybe?
― BTW, I'm frightfully middle-class (chap), Wednesday, 13 January 2010 23:10 (fifteen years ago)
This doesn't make too much logical sense to me - maybe it was true ten or so years ago, but surely US actors wanting to make it big would have started undercutting their transatlantic rivals.
Yeah but the advantage that established UK/Australian actors have over untested American actors is that they're, well, established - they have a backcatalogue of performances that the filmmakers can look at when deciding whether they're right for the role.
― Tim F, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 23:23 (fifteen years ago)
I'm hoping in a cost-cutting measure, the U.S. version of Peep Show will star Mitchell and Webb with spray-on tans doing their best Angeleno accents.
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 14 January 2010 00:46 (fifteen years ago)