The Greatest Showman #696 – Hard to See

Sci-fi films have always been a special genre in Hollywood, maintaining a solid fan base and an important place in the industry—even as late as 2017. However, they also attract a critical audience, particularly when it comes to world-building, plot details, and core ideas. Sci-fi enthusiasts, often referred to as "techies" or "otaku," are known for their sharp eyes and tendency to nitpick.

Filming a sci-fi movie is challenging, but it's also an important test of an actor's marketability. A sci-fi movie can succeed through a strong script, a talented director, or well-known actors. Among these, the script holds the most importance, but the director's influence is key. Films like Source Code, The Night of the Comet, and Moon have been praised for their excellent scripts, but the lack of a renowned director or lead actor has often meant that market reception didn't live up to expectations.

For example, Source Code has never been regarded as one of Jake Gyllenhaal's iconic roles.

Now, what about Killing Reincarnation? Despite a blacklisted script and an unknown original novel, with questionable involvement from the director and cast, and an uncertain budget, the project seems like a hard sell. Warner Bros.' previous actions raise questions about the feasibility of the film.

It's unclear why Renly chose Killing Reincarnation, and equally unclear why he passed on Fast and Furious. Media outlets like US Weekly offer vague reassurances, but others suggest that only a magical, fairy-tale story could fulfill Gavin's vision. Yet, Hollywood is a place where even the most fantastical tales are grounded in harsh reality.

So why did Renly make the decision to star in Killing Reincarnation and pass on Fast and Furious? If we assume a simple conflict in schedules, Renly could have chosen both projects, as these conflicts could easily be adjusted. Furthermore, Renly isn't Tom Cruise—he's not yet in a position where he alone can carry the weight of a sci-fi film.

So, what's the reason behind it all?

"Pay."

This is Cornell's hypothesis. He doesn't use harsh words to criticize Renly, as remuneration is an important factor in any actor's decision-making process. It's also a direct measure of their status in Hollywood.

But the real question is: Should an actor at a pivotal point in their career prioritize salary over artistic integrity? Is this a quick path to success driven by desire and greed? Or is it, perhaps, just a case of shallow ambition?

This situation mirrors the career of Jim Carrey in 1996.

In 1994, Carrey became one of the most influential comedians in Hollywood, thanks to hits like Freak in Disguise, Dumb and Dumber, and Ace Ventura: Detective. By 1995, films like Batman Forever and Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls cemented his position as the highest-grossing comedian of all time.

Against this backdrop, Columbia Pictures invited Carrey to star in Cable Guy for $20 million, at the time an exclusive club reserved for top stars like Mel Gibson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Tom Cruise. No comedian had ever earned such a salary, not even the legendary Charlie Chaplin or Robin Williams.

The problem? Cable Guy was a risk. With a rookie screenwriter, a novice director (Ben Stiller), and a relatively inexperienced producer, the film seemed to lack the necessary ingredients for success. Columbia placed all its faith in Carrey, betting the film's entire budget on his star power. In the end, Cable Guy was a disappointment, grossing only $60 million in North America and barely scraping past $100 million worldwide. Columbia lost nearly $30 million, and Carrey faced severe backlash for his choice, with critics accusing him of being greedy.

In the years that followed, Carrey's career would take unexpected turns. Though he eventually starred in The Truman Show, a film that earned him critical acclaim and a Golden Globe, he was passed over for an Oscar nomination. Still, Carrey's willingness to step out of his comfort zone proved vital in his career.

Now, Killing Reincarnation seems to mirror Cable Guy's fate. With a lackluster script and little buzz, Renly's decision to join the film for a $10 million paycheck is raising eyebrows. Is it shortsighted? Greedy? Or just a poor choice?

"Entertainment Weekly" seems to agree with this assessment. Cornell's critique has struck a chord, gaining traction in the industry. Many have labeled Renly's decision as his dumbest, most financially driven one yet.

As a result, the media has turned against Renly. On TV shows like The Today Show, discussions are filled with ridicule about his choice. Even online, the backlash is harsh. Internet users are criticizing Renly for being ungrateful and driven solely by money. A few radical netizens have even pledged to boycott Killing Reincarnation, choosing instead to support Fast and Furious 6.

At the same time, Killing Reincarnation has lost momentum. After Renly's announcement, there has been no further news about the film's production or updates on the director or producers. Meanwhile, the Fast and Furious franchise continues to gain steam, with growing anticipation for its next installment.

Renly's decision has undeniably stirred up public discourse. Some see it as a risky move, others as a huge misstep. Only time will reveal if Killing Reincarnation proves to be his worst career choice—or if, somehow, it will defy the odds and turn into a surprise success.