I didn't say that. name actors CAN help...but they already had Ryan Reynolds. Why did they need to cast Tim Robbins? Who did he bring into this movie?
BB already had Bale and Caine...why did they need Oldman, Freeman, Hauer, and Neeson?
That's what they bring to the movie...it's up to the writers/filmmakers to provide them with material that makes it worthwhile. And BB still cost less than $150M.
I said hire good properly cast and utilized actors before you hire names. Green Lantern did hire two name actors and neither one really did much to attract anyone. If they do a sequel (which I doubt) the film will already have more brand recognition than the first did and some peoples familiarity with Reynolds in the role. There will be less of a need to SELL the movie on big names. But like I said I have my doubts about this movie getting a sequel.
And I say don't worry about saving on name actors (since it won't really add up to much savings in the grand scheme of things), and instead make better use of actors that will attract audiences by being cast.
Any GOOD actor could have filled Tim Robbins role and cost less...a role he wasn't what I would call "exceptional" in nor was he used to his maximum potential in.
Well...let's say they cast Mitch Pileggi or the like...how much less would he have cost than Tim Robbins? Now do that for, say, four other roles.
Seriously...if WB is looking to cut costs by, say, $40-50M. What difference is that going to make? That's not just cutting corners...it's nickel-and-diming. You'd probably save just as much by feeding the crew bagels instead of full catering spreads, using rickshaws for transportation instead of crew vans, and only printing one call sheet for every five crew members per day. Why not do that as well, while we're at it?
With Reynolds they went with the bigger draw but it didn't mean nearly as much as it could have because some people feel he was miscast and that the movie surrounding him wasn't the best showcase for this character.
Big names don't matter if audiences don't get interested in the concept or if the film is trash. Batman & Robin had some big names in it and its domestic box office didn't even surpass its budget.
Which is why I said keep the names....improve the writing/filmmaking, and the supervision. Then you have a win-win.
I didn't say make the entire movie cheaper...I mean spent that money WISELY in the areas where it can do the most good.
That's a nice sentiment, but your game-plan is flawed.
Its going to mean more to spend more money to hammer out a good script, hire the proper director, spend more to improve the special effects or get a quality fx house, and build a GOOD marketing campaign. Id rather have all that PLUS a fantastic actor in the lead rather than a miscast actor who costs more starring in an expensive (but terrible movie). Christian Bale didn't cost 20 million dollars as Batman but he's a fine actor who starred in a quality crafted film. Thats a film with a big name character to draw but an even better example is Iron Man
Campbell wasn't hired because he was cheap, y'know. And again, you're looking at the results and assuming it was a recognizable little variable before the film was made that would have made a world of difference. That's the kind of backwards thinking that you want to avoid.
Iron Man wasn't jammed full of A list stars. There were a few but RDJ was no HUGE box office draw before Iron Man. But Iron Mans budget was spent far more wisely in crafting a quality film than Green Lanterns.
So RDJ, Gweneth Paltrow, and Jeff Bridges weren't nearly as much a draw as Tim Robbins? See...whatever is or isn't spent on casting doesn't automatically deduct from/add to how a film is written or produced. If a $150M-200M film casts Tommy Lee Jones instead of a lesser-named star, it's not like they automatically have to settle for a lesser writer.
When I said cut corners with the actors I don't mean with TALENT I just mean if your goign to HIRE a big name actor to draw in audiences make sure they are cast and used appropriately and their name value is used to their maximum potential.
And once more, you're approaching it wrong. You don't lower your sights in the talent/name department to save money on a 9-figure production. You look at larger workflows and time. You look at the cost of extra workdays and overages for huge production crews, post facilities, and locations. You look at the places where the largest bulk sections of your budget goes into, because that's where the biggest differences will come. And the answer almost always lies in management. Otherwise, it's like buying cheaper ingredients that taste almost the same for a gourmet restaurant...when it's the service and vibe of the establishment that's loosing you money. It's usually the overall business model and workflow that makes the biggest differences. This isn't some $3M indie....so don't nickel-and-dime it like one.
'Savings' in casting is not an answer.
This could have been an epic scene ..... showing how Sinestro escapes from parallex after putting on an admirable fight...thus establishing his character with the general audience. But the makers of this film took the lazy way out. 
