New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Scene: Brad Pitt is eating a taco while sitting at his news desk. Ed Norton walks in, gesticulating wildly...

Kim Hollis: Do you think State of Play would have done better at the box office if Ed Norton and Brad Pitt had remained the leads? Do you think it would have been as well-received (State of Play currently has a RottenTomatoes score of 80%)?

Josh Spiegel: I doubt having Norton and Pitt would have helped much. Neither of them equals immediate success or death, so a result like the one we have would have probably occurred. Also, I'm not sure the film itself would have been as well-received, as I'm not sure either actor could have played the Russell Crowe character as effectively as Crowe did, mostly because the part requires the actor to at least feel like a middle-aged man. I know Pitt's 45 years old but...come on, does he look a day over 35? He's aging very well, and Norton's also a boyish-looking actor. That alone would have made the movie come off a bit worse in the critics' eyes.

Brandon Scott: This question is way too hypothetical from a critics score standpoint. I mean, Pitt and Norton are probably combined more respected actors than Affleck/Crowe, though its not a big, big difference. It might have made a difference at the box office, but with the same story, probably not tons. I think if they changed the title to Fight Club 2, and had Pitt and Norton really be the same person, but this time, their roles were reversed, it is a $100 million hit. I'm good at hypothetical analysis like that.





Reagen Sulewski: Maybe it opens better but I think it makes the film worse. I don't buy Norton as a Congressman, nor Pitt as a hard-bitten cynical reporter. If the Affleck/Crowe version has legs, ultimately I think it's a wash.

David Mumpower: Reagen has broken it down the same way I do. I think that Brad Pitt sells more tickets than anyone else mentioned here (right now, today). So, it probably opens better, but I'm certain he would not have been as good in the movie as Russell Crowe was, and I am *not* a fan of Crowe as a rule. Meanwhile, going from Norton to Affleck fundamentally alters the perception of the character. Norton as a congressman would be instantly assumed to be villainous while Affleck is the All-American boy. The switch may not have been good for the box office, at least not at first, but it's better for the movie as a whole. It's funny how that worked out.

Sean Collier: I'm going to disagree, but only because I think the film would've been marketed much more heavily with Pitt and Norton. The marketing was heavy for State of Play, but had a sort of "let it sell itself" thing going on, what with a number of big stars and a tough-to-pitch plot. I feel like if it had stayed with Pitt and Norton, it would've been marketed as a heavyweight acting clash, the Fight Club connection might've been played up, and a lot more effort would've gone into familiarizing potential audiences with the plot. So I say a bit better off - probably winning the weekend - but still not a knockout.

Continued:       1       2       3