It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
When will Hollywood realize that Kate Hudson and Brittany Murphy aren’t stars?! They’ve been foisted upon the public as these pre-packaged “next big female star,” and yet with only one exception (“How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days”), neither has toplined a successful film. Fact is, nobody outside of the Los Angeles area is interested in them in the least. And hell, I can make that same argument for Drew Barrymore – did “Charlie’s Angels” really make that money because of her involvement?
I could quite legitimately throw Eugene Levy onto one of these lists, but who would take that seriously? These types of lame-o rankings are mostly about who is most favored by publicists, not the public. As far as actors go, what audiences care about most is chemistry, i.e., how a performer meshes with the genre, the actual material, and the other people with whom he/she is collaborating. For example, if Sarah Michelle Gellar had been cast as one of the daughters in “The Upside of Anger,” it would not have improved that movie’s gross. But put her in “The Grudge” and all of a sudden everyone is debating whether or not she is the next queen of the box office.
The truth is, no one knows what audiences really want. If it were as easy as asking you… or me, for that matter, it would be just as confusing.
This list is not much affected by supporting roles by major stars. And it is not inappropriate for people to wonder why The Grudge did more business than some of the other genre films, same as they ask about Naomi Watts in The Ring.
The whole point of these lists is not to guess at the future, but to look somewhat objectively at what has actually happened. Sarah Michelle Gellar is not on this list. Maybe she should be… some would argue so.
As for Britney Murphy, she was opening movies. She seems to be done now. But you can’t write off the fact that for a moment, she had an audience. Same with Kate Hudson. Not only did she have How To Lose A Guy, but Raising Helen did open… not great… but open.
The reason Orlando Bloom is not on this list is that he hasn’t even done that. And I think Fox is probably making a mistake by relying so much on his drawing power to open Kingdom of Heaven. But hey, that’s tomorrow’s column.
Do you think there’s a difference between a list of stars who can open movies, and a list of stars who can keep a movie in theatrical circulation longest? I’m not trying to split hairs, but think about it: If it’s true that older-skewing audiences don’t rush out to movies on opening weekend, but will eventually buy tickets to something they want to see (like “The Notebook”), are we talking different types of stars? And what about overseas? Who are the US stars who have the biggest overseas appeal? And, for that matter, who are the stars who generate the biggest home video sales/rentals?
I think the interesting thing that’s happening with this is how the hype machine is burning these people out too fast. They are not grooming audiences for these would be stars so they will be around for 20 years.
I am working with some high profile rappers right now that have done some movies and are thinking of quitting music altogether and doing movies only because it’s a better payout for them. The reason I mention this, is that according to them, their representation (they’re all with one of the big three) is telling them that everyone is panicing because there’s no talent under thirty around or coming up the pike that has real star wattage. They want to bring in these rappers because they have a built in audience with their music. At least that’s how they’re selling it to the talent I’m working with. I think it’s an interesting idea.
what on earth is up with the last list? just random people off the top of Dave’s head? Zellweger should certainly move up a list, and be joined by Catherine Zeta-Jones, Sean Penn, Naomi Watts, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jude Law, Michael Douglas, Robin Williams, and Mike Myers (who, as I said yesterday, should be top 10 or close to).
That said, Dave, your list is much better with Crowe added in, and the next twenty spelled out. I think, Steve Martin aside, you’re pretty solid through the rest of the list (though Duff above Lohan? fighting words). Clooney definitely belongs in the top 30 — Solaris should not be held against him any more than Punch Drunk Love is against Sandler.
And you’ll be adding Bloom to the list this time next week…
Speaking of Fox relying too heavily on Bloom to open there movie. You know what two names are no where in sight on this list:
Heath Ledger and Jude Law
“Hey, wha happen?”
Law headlined three movies in the last year and he’s not on here??!!?? Sure, Alfie flopped and Sky Captain never took off (god I love/hate puns in reviews), but Cold Mountain made some dough and got him an Oscar nod. On second thought, David’s right, Law shouldn’t be on there. He hasn’t opened anything. And neither had Ledger. Ledger had the potential to be huge after “The Patriot”, Tom Cruise huge, but it never happened. His choice in movies were, well, pretty #@@$!$%%@ awful and his acting chops aren’t nothing to brag about.
But the point is that studios marketed both of these guys as big draws before they proved they had drawing power.
David, just came from Hot Button, and was happy to see your amended top 10 included Russell Crowe at #5. As to your comment about his “power slowing, not growing” since Gladiator, perhaps a bit, but if so, I think it’s only due to a)his film choices and b)the sparsity of his filmmaking.
You mentioned Gladiator’s $457 million worldwide, but given the type of film A Beautiful Mind is, I think $314 million is pretty phenomenal B.O. Master and Commander is tough to pigeonhole, not your usual action film, not really even an action film, actually. I love one reviewer’s comment that “it’s not for the slow-brained”. I think it’ll stand the test of time as a most excellent film and certainly enhances both Weir’s and Crowe’s resumes. I also think Cinderella Man, opening next month, will add one more golden credit (I don’t mean Oscar) to Crowe’s filmography.
I do wish he would make more films, but he’s not one to do a crap script for the cash or just to keep his name out there, so I patiently wait. Interestingly enough, in a tribute to Daniel Day-Lewis that Stax posted today, he mentioned he “admired Day-Lewis not only for his brilliant performances but also for his choice of material.” He then mentioned that “you can see the model for Russell Crowe’s career if you look at Day-Lewis’ filmography’. Not a bad comparision, in my opinion.
Nic Cage isn’t in the top 30 yet Angelina Jolie, John Travolta and Halle Berry are?
…I’m not even that big of a fan of Nic but he got an Oscar nod for Adaptation, had a huge worldwide hit with National Treasure, is about to be Ghost Rider and had the well-received Matchstick Men.
Angelina (for instance) has had… Beyond Borders? Tomb Raider 2? At least Mr. & Mrs. Smith looks sort of fun.
Sorry, Dave, the list is just ridiculous. Bruce Willis at #13??? Not a single film he has starred in has broken $100 million – both domestically and overseas combined – since the year 2000. A lot of the performers listed beneath him have done MUCH better than that. How can you deny that you are just buying into the hype machine? If your answer is that Willis has entered the ranks of Hollywood royalty and that’s what keeps his star burning bright, then explain the lower rankings of Jack Nicholson, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, et al.
Just noticed I said Tom Hanks in my posting above when I meant Kevin Costner. (You have Hanks at #6, higher than Bruce Willis.) My sincere apologies.
First off, why is David buying the hype around the NYT story declaring Vince Vaughn “A-list” and super-bankable. I thought David was more cynical and had a bigger bullsh/t detector than that. No.17 for Vaughn is ridiculous. He seems to be getting severely undue credit for appearing in the same movies with more bankable members of the “comedy mafia”, as they’re being called these days. DODGEBALL had Ben Stiller as the primary attraction, even though Vaughn played the boring straight man. OLD SCHOOL had Will Ferrell and Owen Wilson. STARSKY AND HUTCH had Stiller and Wilson again (by the way, Wilson should probably be mentioned somewhere, and probably higher than Vaughn, even though Wilson gets “carried” by other stars as well).
Vaughn is Cameron Diaz, the male version, but worse and even less genuinely bankable. Getting credit for “carrying” movies which rest on the appeal of other stars. Do people really go to see “Vince Vaughn” movies? Vaughn has no international pull whatsoever as well. We should wait for him to open a movie based soley on his appeal, before we buy into the NYT hype. After all, we all know how well Diaz fared when she had to shoulder THE SWEETEST THING all by herself, with no one to help her out.
Ice Cube, in spite of the XXX flop, has proven for years to be a bigger, more genuine draw than Vaughn. Cube opens movies and carries them, by himself. He doesn’t piggyback on the success of Stiller, Ferrell and company. And Vince Vaughn is not a bigger draw than Johnny Depp, who has some international clout.
Agreed that Bruce Willis at 13 is ridiculous.
Reese Witherspoon is not the biggest female draw in the world. Kidman is. Witherspoon can only open a certain type of dumb, lowbrow comedy. It’s obvious that she’s badly typecast and won’t be accepted in other genres (look at how well THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST and VANITY FAIR turned out). Witherspoon also has limited international appeal. Kidman, away from her arthouse stuff, can open pretty much any genre (musical, comedy, serious drama, historical drama, thriller, musical ect). Kidman has no limitations to how an audience percieves her. And her international appeal gives her the edge on Witherspoon as well. Witherspoon has the June Carter movie and a thriller called WHITEOUT coming out within the year. Chances are they’ll stiff at the box office, because of the change in genre.
Also, what the hell is Angelina Jolie doing at no.26. She’s highly paid box-office poison.
I wish you put a little more thought into these lists.
David: I’ve just read your latest HOT BUTTON article, and you do give your rationale for a lot of your choices. I don’t agree with most of them (especially the Vaughn one), but I apologise for saying you didn’t put any thought into your choices, since it seems you did.
Before anyone tries to correct me, I realise that it was Luke Wilson, not Owen Wilson in OLD SCHOOL. I still don’t think Vaughn opened the movie though, not with Ferrell in the cast.
Speaking of Ferrell, I believe he’ll get his first international hit over 100 million, with BEWITCHED, thanks to Kidman. As long as the movie doesn’t get STEPFORD WIVES type terrible buzz.
how does ice cube make the list over nic cage? u want to go thru their resume? if xxx makes half of what national treasure made it would be a shock
i’m a vaughn fan but what has he carried? keannu reeves has actually carried a bunch of movies. so has wesley snipes. the one time vaughn tried we got “a cool dry place”. please tell us that list came from the top of ur head. to have hillary duff 22? i seem to recall shes been in 4 movies and not one has been over 100 mill. u want to list the reeves movies over 100?
actually, Julia Roberts should be further up the list and definitely ahead of Nicole. Nicole has not really had a decent film opening apart from The Interpreter EVER. I mean Birth made like 6M in the USA, Dogville made 2M and Stepford cost 80M and only made 50M back while it had quite a prestigious cast outside of Nicole. Julia had Ocean
Did Julia Roberts have anything at all to do with Ocean’s 12 box office?
I hope thats not a firm list and just something that was thrown off from the top of your head. Even David can’t defend Halle Berry being a bigger box office star than Kutcher, Reeves, Costner, etc.
Horrible buzz and all, The Stepford Wives still had a $21 million opening weekend. Kidman had nothing to do with that?
Where is Tobey Macguire? Jamie Foxx? I think these two are bigger than John Cusack or The Rock
What has Kidman ever opened? She has more bombs than anyone. Birth, Cold Mountain, Birthday Girl. What has she had thats considered a big opening hit?
A big opening hit, or a hit? Make up your mind. Did Cold Mountain really bomb? You’re not impressed that after months of horrible buzz, The Stepford Wives still managed to open with $21.4 million?
Mark, don’t be so clueless. Kidman is a moooovie starrrrr daaahlin’ and dont forget it. KONG should have had that Bondi banger in it and not the sloppy seconds of the Watts Monster.
What has Kidman ever opened? She has more bombs than anyone. Birth, Cold Mountain, Birthday Girl. What has she had thats considered a big opening hit?
1. Birth was never expected to be a hit. It was a small arty movie (when people think of “arty wankfest” I think Birth is the best example – despite the fact that it is quite brilliant
2. Cold Mountain made something like $97mil, made a whole swag more over seas and got a swag of Oscar nods. I love how CM is called a flop PURELY because it didn’t get a Best Picture nomination. That is the ONLY reason and people need to admit it.
3. Birthday Girl was a dumped project aimed to target Nicole’s newfound popularity with “The Others” and “Moulin Rouge!”. The Others made just over $100mil in the US alone (i believe) and a bunch more over seas and Moulin Rouge! was massive for an Australian hyper-kinetic musical starring (at the time) nobody considered bankable.
4. Whoever mentioned Dogville grossing $2mil, thanks for pointing that huge success out. I think $2mil for a 3 hour European arthouse movie with no sets that was apparently anti-american (don’t get me started on that ludicrous argument). And let’s not forget The Hours…
5. As much as I like Julia she had as much to do with the “success” of Oceans 12 about as much as Bernie Mac did.
6. Jamie Foxx deserves a spot on that list? Yeah… that’s like saying he was a “supporting” actor in Collateral.
7. It is strange to think of Nicole Kidman as the most bankable female star. Thing is she is one of the few who is “A MOVIE STAR” and a “GREAT ACTRESS” (to pull from Mulholland Drive) and who is regularly making movies.
However, can I go out on a limb and say that, actually, Meryl Streep deserves to be on there… and quite high. And Jack Nicholson should be the in top 30, non? I know Anger Managerment wasn’t a Jack picture solely but Somethings Gotta Give? About Schmidt? Just like Streep, he can continuously pull in crowds to movies that even aren’t of the most best variety.
if ur a star, even ur “art” movies are expected to open. look at cruise and magnolia. i can’t give kidman a pass on a few of those but she did open stepford. cold mountain wasn’t her fault since the movie was a boring 9 hour festival.
Here’s a name that I can’t believe nobody has mentioned yet – Samuel L Jackson! Even though he hasn’t really headlined all that much, he did star in Coach Carter which opened to nearly $25 million.
Other than Coach Carter, has Jackson ever opened anything? I guess Changing Lanes did OK, but he had some help. Carter might have opened just as well with another lead not as well-known as Jackson. I don’t know anyone who went and saw that because of him. Teens were going either way.
Whoah, Samuel L. Jackson is not a draw?!
The guy should easily be in the top 20. Think of the films has opened, in the past few years – Coach Carter, Changing Lanes (as much as Ben Affleck), Shaft, SWAT (yeah, he deserves as much credit as Colin Farrell), Rules of Engagement, Basic, and Unbreakable (as much as Willis). And then you think of the huge films that he did not necessarily open, but was used very heavily in the marketing campaigns, like XXX (the first one), Star Wars films (he was as prominent in those Episode II ads as any one), and even The Incredibles (distinctive voice, certainly got more people’s attention than Craig T. Nelson). Undoubtedly, the guy draws crowds.
Any guy who has been key to so many hits cannot be ignored in the least.
Basic had a weak opening, so scratch that. Rules of Engagement didn’t have that great of an opening either. Not much better than Basic if I’m not mistaken. Unbreakable opened because of Bruce Willis and M. Night Shyamalan, not Jackson. SWAT was a summer action movie and a team effort, not really Jackson. I don’t think he really has all that much drawing power. What has he opened solo? Formula 51? In My Country?
Jackson opened SHAFT and COACH CARTER all by himself. Both over 20 million. Which means he has to get SOME credit for films like SWAT, where he was the only star at the time who had opened a movie by himself (Farrell still hadn’t opened anything over 20 million by himself).
Jackson is a draw in the right kind of movie. He has a lot of flops, but so do most stars.
The studio is banking on Jackson to “open” SNAKES ON A PLANE (I think they changed the title to something like FLIGHT 129). Because he’s opened movies by himself before, WITH NO HELP (ie Vince Vaughn, Ashton Kutcher or whomever else is being pimped as “bankable” these days)
I suppose he deserves some credit for the openings of Shaft and Coach Carter, but I don’t think it should be much. The former benefits from a highly recognizable name/well-known original. The latter was an MTV movie. Teens, the predominant audience for the movie, would have eaten it up without Jackson. He had very little to do with getting them into the seats. Some teens I know aren’t even all that familiar with him.
Sam Jackson is in too many movies each year to be considered a top draw star. He is what he is. A solid #2. The Scottie Pippin of the movies.
Sam J missed his shot after Pulp Fiction.
HSX’s StarBonds, ignoring directors and those obviously inflated by franchises they did not play a key role in creating, has this descending order of prices:
1) Will Smith – $176
2) Mike Myers* – $155
3) Tom Cruise – $139
4) Jim Carrey – $125
5) Tom Hanks – $124
6) Keanu Reeves* – $114
7) Mel Gibson – $110
8) Ben Stiller* – $107
9) Robert De Niro* – $106
10) Johnny Depp – $100
11) Russell Crowe – $93
12) Eddie Murphy – $92
13) Vince Vaughn – $91
13) Adam Sandler – $91
13) Vin Diesel – $91
16) Renee Zellweger – $85
(*obviously benefited from franchises, but were the principal appeal of the franchise to begin with–as opposed to, say, Tobey Maguire or Hayden Christensen)
right, your mathematically valid list proves why all of this star-ranking analysis is meaningless BS. Under the system you’ve presented, if the next Fockers sequel does as well as the last one, Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand will then join the list of top box-office draws. After all, the Fockers franchise got De Niro into the top-10 despite his recent record of flop after flop after flop.
I just realized that Hoffman and Streisand did not play key roles in creating the Fockers franchise, which is required under your HSX rules. Still, my point remains the same: By virtue of the inclusion of performers like De Niro, these lists of top box office draws are utterly senseless.
I just think that not even having Samuel L Jackson on the PLUS… list is a gross oversight. I can understand him not being in the top 20 or whatever, but having him below Cuba Gooding Jr, Amanda Bynes, and Brittany Murphy? And Deep Blue Sea also opened fairly well, probably not because of Jackson, but he couldn’t have hurt. If anything, he is at least a very well-known celebrity.
Please check the sites in the field of blackjack blackjack http://www.casino-y.com/blackjack.html casino casino http://www.casino-y.com/casino.html free slots free slots http://www.casino-y.com/free-slots.html gambling gambling http://www.casino-y.com/gambling.html online gambling online gambling http://www.casino-y.com/online-gambling.html …
You can also check some information in the field of poker games poker games http://www.poker-4-u.com/poker-games.html – Tons of interesdting stuff!!!