Yes, Pat, there were a lot of rumors. If the studio had put its foot
down that there would be a "young hunk" there probably would've been a young
hunk. We wanted the best actor we could find, best suited to that role.
Not to get personal, Pat, but have you ever considered maybe seeing how
he performs in this role before judging his performance? I'm just a little
tired of people pre-judging others. And especially of the term "wooden,"
which people seem to use whenever somebody doesn't act in full blown
hysterics. (I can mention that Michael was hurt by many of the comments here
and elsewhere by people saying his performance was "wooden," and later, many
of those people turned around when they saw what he was trying to connote in
his performance...but that made the emotional hurt no less real.)
That said...I have found Bruce's performance in the first three episodes
to be lively, interesting, fun, dynamic and intense.
Actors also do better in some roles than in others. There were some
movies where Alec Guinesss was awful. Some where he blew the doors off the
theater. I don't know what you've seen him in before; you may well be making
the mistake of confusing the role with the person. All I can tell you is that
on this show, he's doing nothing less than spectacular work.
Why don't you maybe see a frame or two of film before deciding on the
merits of someone's performance, Pat? It's not a matter of rose colored
glasses...it's giving someone a fair shot and the benefit of an open mind.