Mary Poppins can also be included since Warner Bros. rejected Julie Andrews for My Fair Lady on the grounds that Jack Warner didn’t think the American movie audience would pay to see an “unknown English actress.” Warner had to eat his words when Walt Disney cast her as Mary Poppins that same year, the film was a smash, and Julie won the Oscar for Best Actress.

There are so many instances of big stars turning out big flops that you would think the studios had learned a lesson by now. But no, they still are fixated on the “star” thing. What they often fail to understand is that the main component of a successful movie is a good story. Both the original Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark had casts made of up of mostly little known actors, but they had such rousing good stories that no one cared. A solidly entertaining story will get great word of mouth and keep drawing in customers. Often a star actually is “born” out of such a movie. However, all the big stars in the world can’t save a weak story or a crummy script. Just ask anyone connected with Heaven’s Gate. That was the all-time classic star-packed flop. It laid a chicken coop full of eggs!

First, a well written script. No amount of special effects, visual ambience, the musical score, costuming or star names can overcome a poorly written script. 'Gone with the Wind' wasn't successful because of the burning warehouse scene effects, the beauty of Tara and Seven Oaks, musical score, authentic costuming or Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh (an unknown in the US at the time). It was successful due to the exquisite conversion of a beautifully written novel to a beautifully written screenplay. How many times have we heard in school – Content is more important than the nifty folder that holds it. Seems some studio executives spent too much time on the wrong side of the classroom door. No matter what Webber believes, POTO cannot be built on the back of his musical score alone. Music compliments the storyline not the other way around.

How much of it truly rests on the draw of a Hollywood name?

I don't believe that the 'draw of a Hollywood name' even exists in this era of film. No so called 'name star' today can pack a theater on name alone. Well known stars whose PR staff are working overtime promoting every detail of a celebrities life are actually lessening their clients ability to acquire roles. They become so intimately known to the audience that they lose their credibility and ability to become some one else - the character they are to portray. As Jane pointed out they become a distraction rather than an asset.

Movies that no one knows what they are about may benefit from having a star or a name that gives the audience a clue what to expect. Movies that have name recognition and a ready made fan base such as Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and POTO not only don't need "big names"; casting "big names" is more likely to turn that fan base off than do anything else. The minute the studios start talking about how they need some "Name" they are sending the fans the message that they don't have enough faith in their product and that their main interest is NOT in making the best movie possible. Studios underestimate their audiences. A great movie makes the stars the stars don't make the movie. Titanic made Leo and Kate big not vice versa. Leo's next movie went right down the tubes. It's not the star that makes the hit; it's the coming together of the right actor in the right role. It's often a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Casablanca with Ronald Reagan would have been a different movie than Casablanca with Humphrey Bogart. The remake of Psycho didn't hold a candle to the original. Lucy instead of Angela in Mame was a disaster.

1. Because the actors that were picked were extremely well-chosen and were perfect for their roles. The filmmakers put their qualifications above their popularity and won big time.

2. The stories of these movies each already had very heavily established and large fan bases. Therefore, the films already had a market and all they had to do was please the fans to instantly guarantee millions of dollars in ticket receipts. Pleasing the fan bases of such extraordinarily popular creations such as Harry Potter, Marvel Comics, Tolkien's novels, and, indeed, The Phantom of the Opera, will instantly guarantee an enormous critical and financial success.

3. These were each very close to the original works upon which they were based. Each was already successful in its own original form. If each of their original books were successful, then there must be a winning formula there. So, to make a film, why not just lightly adapt the already hugely successful formula which has been time-tested and proven to the big screen, where, along with the most competent cast and team, you can please the enormous fan base and proceed to have a successful film beyond your wildest dreams? It seems like a winning ticket to me.

A prime example? Star Wars: A New Hope!

Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, and Mark Hamill were practically unknowns back then. And look now...Star Wars has become a cultural ICON, much less a successful film. And Harrison Ford was launched to stardom and continues to be a Hollywood A-list actor to this day.

So, it stands to reason that since Michael Crawford already has all that recognition from the stage version of the show, then he should be phenomenal in the movie version!

Need I really say more?