'The Inbetweeners' would have been a success with a totally different cast because the scripts are good - so while we were fortunate enough to be cast in it, we feel we still have a lot to prove.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I only really cast people who are desperate to be in it - who were dying to be in it, whose talent I believed in and were dead ready to do the work that was necessary.
It would have been an interesting run if we hadn't gotten along! It was good casting, I suppose.
I would be terribly disappointed if anything would get in the way of my being cast in something, or if performances were canceled. It was a fix that I obviously needed.
Certain scripts require an ensemble cast. I'm absolutely fine with that. I will not deprive myself of the chance to be part of a good film because of insecurities or fear of losing my market. But my role must be well-defined.
I remember calling directors numerous times and saying, 'Oh, you should cast so-and-so instead of me. They're much better for the role.'
The fact that someone came forward and offered $1.25 million to make a movie was astonishing. We were also allowed to keep many of the original stage cast.
In actuality, there was casting for the show and it was pretty difficult.
If the script is good, the cast and director good, I'll go anywhere.
I can remember getting rejected systematically by casting directors as a young kid. I felt like the biggest outsider there ever was; that I'd never belong in that club.
To see talented people in roles that others might not see them in, to see how they might fit in the puzzle of the cast, has always been something that I've been good at. I think that if you look at the successes of my films and start to peel them back, there's usually a really smart casting decision that has gone into that success.
No opposing quotes found.