tonnaree wrote:

Marva wrote:

Read this but be prepared - I just stopped breathing!

http://khanyoujohnlockndropit.tumblr.com/post/69055661927/john-you-were-dead-sherlock-sherlock-your

 
I just almost choked on my coffee.

Oh god!  Hahaha, I lost it when I read that!!! 
 

Personally I do not really mind seeing him not as a romantic lead. The variety of roles he has played is so great that I do not miss this. And for me it is a phenomenon how he manages to be so attractive to women although he never plays the classic romantic lead. Maybe it has something to do with other qualities like intelligence, empathy and an enormous presence even in supporting roles. 


 

That's exactly my point, though.  Production honchos only know what they see.  Pattinson did a good job romancing the girl and making the female audience swoon 5 times.  Now those are the roles they offer him first, whether or not he's the best actor for the part.  Hence the awkward "Water for Elephants" (though to give him credit, there was no chemistry between him and Reese Witherspoon.  She was miscast, also looking to play something different from the sweetheart type.  It was originally to be Scarlett Johanssen.  Might've been more fire there).  He took the odd and little-seen "Cosmopolis" to break that mold--as does his up-coming "The Rovers", I believe.  David Cronenberg wants him back for something else.  But until he makes a movie that's widely seen, well-regarded and that breaks the romantic mold, he's in danger of being typecast.  He's 10 years younger than BC, so he has room to grow.  Right now, he's about half the actor that BC is in terms of his ability to make most of the ticket-paying audience forget it's Pattinson and imagine him fully in the role.
     Meanwhile, BC gets the oddball roles--I suspect "The Imitation Game" may be a serious Oscar contender if it comes out as well as everyone says the script is.  But it will move BC several more squares away from being thought of as a potential romantic lead, no matter how much talent he might manifest in such a role.  I was hoping--continue to hope--that what I think is a phenomenal response to the R Kelly read might make the production honchos see him very soon in a different light: the guy who gets (turns on) the girl.
    And the reason that 'romantic lead' is an important addition to your CV if you're an actor is that many of the 'big pictures' that we remember are, to some extent, romantic.  Take "Gone With the Wind" or the recent live telecast "The Sound of Music".  If you don't, as a male actor, get the romantic lead roles--if you're always quirky--you'll become a character actor.  Nothing wrong with that--look at BC's hero, Gary Oldman.  From what BC says himself, he wants to be bigger than that. 
     Before "ER", George Clooney was just a handsome but goofy TV second-banana.  Look how important he is now.  In "ER", at about BC's current age, Clooney became the 'romantic lead'.  He left that show to parley his new-found 'it-boy' status into movie star, producer, director.  He's huge--and it all came from being perceived as someone who could get women into the seats at a movie.  Thus, romantic lead.  And I'll bet he'd be the first to tell you he's not a substantially better actor than he was when he was a goofy second-banana.
    Tom Hanks has a similar story but earlier in his career.  He was a sweet TV goofball in a slapstick cross-dressing comedy until Penny Marshall cast him in "Big".  Not truly a romantic lead because he was only supposed to be 10 or 11, he did nonetheless save the company, get the girl and charm the hearts out of women in the audience.  He followed that with "Splash" which really was a romcom.  I think he might be bigger than even Clooney because of his two back-to-back Oscars for--absolutely--'quirky' characters: Forrest Gump and a gay lawyer dying of AIDS in "Philadelphia".  (And that's probably the best order to do it in--romantic lead then quirky--to establish yourself as more than a character actor, so BC has more of an uphill fight.) That, and Hanks' close friendship with Stephen Spielberg, and he can call all his own shots.
    So the very talented BC needs a romantic lead and the (let's give him) growing Rob Pattinson needs quirky.  And they meet at "The Lost City of Z".

I agree that it is no bad thing not being cast in the romantic lead. The danger of type-casting (plenty of examples around) is that you never get scripts for other types of roles. Then you end up being Hugh Grant. It is far better to be able to have the choice of a wide range of roles and to be honest the damaged characters are often the most interesting. A trip back onto the boards might well be in order some time soon.