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
I’ll take ‘U-571’ over ‘Sin City’ as far as quality goes…but this year ‘Hitch’ was much more enjoyable than ‘The Whole Nine Yards’ (and that had a naked Amanda Peet!). And I had seen ‘Snow Day’ on a lark, and I remember it to be much more fun than ‘Robots’ was…so five years ago kicked this year’s winter/spring…And ‘Gladiator’ is way better than ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ – although with both films I am looking forward to seeing their extended cuts on DVD…
Snow Day was pretty retched, even for a kids movie.
However, I always like to think to myself when reading these “end of the world” stories about a bad Summer about what it was like before there was a movie released every week that was supposed to gross $150mil-$300mil. Like, they certainly survived then (and that was only about 15 years ago – there were always a few huge movies but not as many as their are today, right?).
Oh, and just a thought – will the Fall schedule do better than 2004s? I remember there being a lot of talk about how last year’s (especially September) was awful and was like this year’s Spring.
…rebound?
It is a Liberal rag. And losing readers on a daily basis. Maybe theres a reason? Hmmmmm
Hey Joe, I notice that all of your posts are either personal attacks or political attacks, and half the time they’re misinformed, like an article I found from April saying the NYT’s circulation was up slightly. Why don’t you keep your postings to opinions or to facts?
Jeffmcm, how come you think you can tell people what they should post? At least in my arguments with Stella and Joe I laid out a series of points that I wanted them to address (which they never did). I didn’t go around telling them what they should and shouldn’t post. I asked them to answer my points, they didn’t, and we went back and forth.
This isn’t your fucking blog. Poland posts personal attacks against Bush and Joe Leydon all the time. That’s the way things are around here: it’s called free speech.
You only seem to be going after conservatives. If I want to respond to Leydon’s Republican bashing or if Joe wants to call the NYT a ‘liberal rag’ (which it is) it’s our damn prerogative.
Who the hell do you think you are?
I go to this blog to read and post about movies. It pisses me off when people go off-topic on their own rants. Dave Poland can run the blog any way he wants, but I’ve increasingly decided that it’s a big waste of my time.
And a couple of weeks back I went after Chester because he had some idiotic left-wing notion about art and conservatives and I called him out for it. I guess you missed it. But at least that was a DISCUSSION about MOVIES.
Hey, G-Man, fuck you too.
There’s some free speech for you.
Yeah, G-Man, where do you get off? All Jeff said was that Joe should get his facts straight. He’s not exactly promoting a civil discourse by hollering slurs every time he feels like it. If you want to have a civil argument with him, good luck.
Other than the possibility that he may have gotten some of the Spring box office number trends wrong, I happen to agree with every point in AO Scott’s article. He doesn’t seem to be gleeful or snobby about cheerleading on the demise of Hollywood. He’s just pointing out the cumulative negative box office effects of the mediocrity of films that come out in the beginning half of the year and the audience’s increasing awareness of what to expect in that time frame — in addition to DVD rentals as a viable alternative. He makes every argument that David Poland points out — don’t understand all the kerfuffle. He says that the quality of movies isn’t any better or worse than previous years, but that wasn’t his point. Frankly, as a lead movie writer for the NYT, can’t AO Scott write about whatever the hell he damn pleases? Movie City News doesn’t hold the patent on box office analysis.
As anyone at anytime, Tony Scott can do as he wishes… and I can comment on it, no?
There is no cumulative box office effect based on mediocrity. And the argument that the movie biz is in trouble occurs in every era of the history. It is, in my opinion, arrogant… a “told you so” to a business that is a business.
I would simply argue that one has to find real consitency to make these arguments fly… and what we get tends to be “if only they did what I would prefer…” when what most critics would prefer is simple, more art and less crap… which is not a paradigm that will ever work for the business of film.
I don’t like it that much either, but it’s the obvious truth.
(Edited with Sith-like power by DP… for unawareness of whose site this blog is on…)
According to Movie Ciy News, these are weekend numbers:
1. Madagascar – $28.9/$101.2
2. The Longest Yard – $26.2/$95.9
3. Revenge of the Sith – $25.9/$308.7
4. Cinderella Man $18.8/$18.8
5. Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants – $10.1/$13.9
6. Monster-in-Law – $5.7/$70.8
7. Lords of Dogtown – $5.6/$5.6
8. Crash – $3.4/$41.1
9. Kicking and Screaming – $2.2/$47.6
10. The Interpreter – $.86/$70.5
Under $20M for “Cinderalla Man” isn’t so geat, is it? “Dogtown” performed like skateboarding in the pre-Dogtown days: planted firmly to the ground. Looks like Lota got her wish.
“Mother-in-Law” and “Crash” chugging along nicely.
Anyone think “Yard’s” $100K edge over “Sith” will last, or has Paramount inflated the totals like last week?
When “Kingdom of Heaven” opened to $19.6 million it was considered a box office bomb. Shouldn’t a better-reviewed, possible Oscar contender such as “Cinderella Man” be held equally accountable? Face it, the marketing failed on this one — it was too dark (sepia-toned, actually), too depressing — for audiences it looked more like an Ed Burns historical PBS documentary educational lesson than a good weekend entertainment/distraction. As for Ron Howard’s credentials as an “Oscar winner,” don’t forget, he also directed “The Missing.” “A Beautiful Mind” performed much better because it also brought in the 12-24 males with its science/paranormal themes. “C.M.” offers nothing to that key demographic.
Er, Guru: ED Burns doesn’t make documentaries. Ken does.
Kingdom of Heaven cost about twice as much as Cinderella Man, and (with casting such as Bloom) was considered to have a broader, younger appeal than Cinderella Man. So no, they’re not comparable.
Who appointed Jeff our conscience and moderator? Thanks, buddy, but I and I really think mostly everyone here can think for themselves.
JL – Sorry. At least I didn’t say GEORGE Burns.
Martin – “…casting such as Bloom.” His was a fatal casting mistake…just like having Heath Ledger star in almost anything. The audience isn’t there yet…or may never be. They’re both completely lacking in magnetic, star charisma. I would contend that, by your estimation, having Russell Crowe and Renee Zellweger, should have made “CM” an even bigger opening than “Kingdom…” (the final tally will be).
Just because they were wrong in casting Bloom does not mean that they expected any less than good box office out of him. After LOTRs and that Depp pirate movie it was thought that Bloom had some pull at the box office with 18-25. He was expected to help open the film with that audience, and it simply didn’t happen.
First of all, Bloom doesn’t get as much as Crowe does. And young girls aren’t seeing a period epic about the Crusades no matter who’s in it.
Guru: You raise an interesting point about actors who have been branded “stars” by publicists and journalists (and very loud fans), but who might not actually be audience magnets. Just a few weeks ago, some folks on this very blog were bragging about how Orlando Bloom would draw masses into theaters. With all due respect to Mr. Bloom, he’s not exactly an A-lister. Indeed, I would argue that some of the people routinely attacked by some folks on this blog — like Hugh Grant and, yes, even Renee Z. — have more proven b.o. potential than Bloom, Heath Ledger and other supposedly hot properties. I’m not saying that b.o. allure necessarily equals talent. (France’s Daniel Auteuil is one of the world’s great actors, but I doubt that many people in this country even know who he is.) But I do wonder just how many people routinely refrered to as “stars” get that title only because of someone’s wishful thinking.
Joe — You’re right. Just because an actor graces the cover of seemingly every magazine, or is the subject of daily Defamer postings, does not mean people will pay to see them in a movie theater. Yes, they’re stars, celebrities, whatever, but that doesn’t always — hardly ever, actually — translate into box office dollars. It certainly helps keep the personal publicist employed, but studio executives that think that all that publicity means something to moviegoeers are just delusional. Many of the highest-grossing films of the last few years (“Passion of the Christ,” “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” – even “SW:ROTS”) didn’t have traditional stars, so why waste the money? Just make better films that people want to see regardless of who’s in it. Even animated films are wasting their money on A-list talent. Didn’t B-lister Albert Brooks do better in “Finding Nemo” than Brad Pitt in “Sinbad.” Didn’t Craig T. Nelson do better for “The Incredibles” than Ewan Macgregor in “Robots?” What percentage of parents have a clue who the voices are in “Madagascar?”
Guru: Another thing to consider — there are certain people who genuinely are b.o. magnets, but very briefly. And long after they flame out, it’s hard to get later generations to understand why these stars were so hot, hot, hot. You could go way back and say that about Troy Donhaue and Tab Hunter. But more recently, in the ’70s and ’80s, you also have people like Jan-Michael Vincent, Robby Benson and… well, insert the Brat Packer of your choice here.
So here’s something I’ll toss out to the blog as a whole: In 2030, what “stars” of today will be best remembered (if remembered at all) as merely transitory phenoms?
Forgot to include “Harry Potter” and the “Rings” trilogy to that list of no-star hits. And what’s with movie titles? Why would studios sink hundreds of millions into unfortunately-titled film productions like “Constantine,” “Van Helsing,” or “Cinderella Man” even, and not spend a cent in focus group testing on the damn title? Wouldn’t “Madagascar” be doing even better if it were something like “Zoo Story?” The audience is still teething, let alone trying to pronounce Madagascar. Good thing “The Da Vince Code” is based on a book or the Hollywood brain trust would probably title it “Mary Magdalene and the Knights Templar.” Hell, if I were a movie investor (perish the thought), I’d probably only fund movies with Tom Hanks and Will Smith — as close as you can get to a low risk investment.
Maybe they feared too many people would think “Zoo Story” was an adaptation of the Edward Albee play?
Kingdom of Heaven would be given the credit that some of us give Cinderella Man… if it held 80% of its gross on the second weekend.
Conversely, if Fistbiscuit drops 45% next weekend, it too will get written off. But Ron Howard, Russell Crowe and Universal all have a history with making kind of film being leggy. Perhaps they will fail this time.
Ridley Scott and Crowe obviously did well with a slow starting Gladiator… but that felt like a phenom of sorts and proved to be one.
How about “Zooropa?” Then they could have Irish giraffes going from the NY zoo to Africa to work on AIDS awareness. I digress…
From a purely titular perspective, the rest of the big films of summer are adequately named, save perhaps “Herbie: Fully Loaded,” “Rebound,” “Dark Water” and most regrettably, “Must Love Dogs.”
“…a couple of weeks back I went after Chester because he had some idiotic left-wing notion about art and conservatives and I called him out for it.” – Posted above by jeffmcm on June 5, 2005 02:17 AM, referring to the Hot Blog thread “A Reader E-Mail For You To Chew Upon,” begun on May 09, 2005.
“I read over this blog again to figure things out and the truth is that I really do agree with almost everything you say, Chester.” – Posted by jeffmcm on May 12, 2005 01:47 AM in his final statement on the Hot Blog thread “A Reader E-Mail For You To Chew Upon.”
Jeff, I hate to say it, but your many opponents over the past few days all over this site are right about one thing: You are a genuine prick.
These stories piss me off, too. I try to pay no attention to arbitrary numbers. But Scott has one valid point: this year’s movies are playing it safe.
They all look like movies we’ve seen before: rom-com, sword-swinging epic, cheap teen horror, CG animation, big action flick, etc. Very little stands out.
The only movie that’s had people talking is Star Wars. Whatever the opinion, I’ll bet most of us walked into work two weeks ago and heard someone ask, “Didja see it yet?” No one’s asking that about xXx: State of the Union.
Yes, Nostromo… but when did you last see a run of movies outside of the fall that didn’t “play it safe?”
And on what basis do we think that this accounts for box office issues?
Hitch outgrossed every pre-summer release from last year other than The Passion… almost double Sin City or Kill Bill V2 or Man on Fire.
If you can break the trend without much effort, it’s not much of a trend.
OK, David: If you’re right about the current theatrical audience drop being an aberration, not the continuation of an ongoing trend, then I can only assume that you assume an uptick is somewhere out on the horizon. So let me ask two questions: Just how big a drop will attendance have to take this year for you to reconsider your theory? And if indeed there is an upcoming uptick, when will it start? This year? Next year? 2007?
And while I’m at it, I’ll ask a third: Assuming the uptick does NOT come this year, just how big a decline from 2004 will be posted at the end of 2005? Five percent? Ten percent?
Joe, it’s called Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. It will easily make up the 270 million or so the box office is off write now. Why NO ONE seems to remember this simple fact. Absolutely amazes. Also, the argument about mediocrity and it’s effect on box office, totally negates that a couple of mediocore flicks are making big money the last few weeks. It also completely ruttin ignores the subjectiveness of that argument. Only a hack entertainment journalist could run with some bs like that, and think he or she could make it stick. Absolutely ridiculous. One last thing; being a star has become, much like this ruttin BOX OFFICE story, more perception than reality. It all started with Matthew McCaugnehey back in the 90s (at least this go round). Ever since then our STARS have seldom been STARS. Brad Pitt has barely opened a film. Yet, he’s a STAR. It’s all about perception over reality, and making perception stick. Lindsay Lohan might have been all sorts of hot, but that enabled her to be a STAR. Perception has been kicking us in the ass for 10 years now.
I knew it! I knew it! Now we have ad for On Line Srip Poker on the blog! That’s outrageous! That’s disgutsting! That’s obsecene.
BTW: Guru, you ever play cards?
(And by the way again: If you’re really just a 16-year-old playing around on the computer: I’m just kidding. Do you hear that, Mr. FBI Agent? Just kidding.)
Lay off jeff people. The guy has all of our post to check for grammatical errors. Someone has to do it. Besides that, Poland does not necessarily slag Joe L. Those two just seemingly enjoy busting each other’s balls.
I’ve never seen a poker ad on this website I think you people have some messed up, virus infected browsers. As far as Stars, Hollywood will take what it can get. Sure, sometimes they have to force stars down our throats if we’re not willingly choosing enough on our own. Stars are one of the few things in the business that can, to some extent, take risk out of the game. The more the merrier.
It’s the “posts” made to some of the older entries on the blog that we’re talking about. They’re not pop-ups or the like. Look at the “Recent Comments” list on the main page. That’s where you’ll see all the poker “ads.”
I agree with Dave that these box office pundits are being ridiculous, but I think he is missing a few key points that I think everybody is missing.
First of all, towards the end of last year, all you heard these pundits talking about was how 2004 grosses were going to be inflated by Passion and Farenheit, since they were films that brought audiences “that don’t usually go to the movies,” as if that never happened before 2004. (Short memory, any one remember when Sixth Sense, My Bit Fat Greek Wedding, or Titanic exploded?) And they fein shock when, guess what, the grosses for 2005 are lower? Seems like they were all too eager to proves themselves prophetic in this instance.
Every year is going to have its anomolies and we will see them, this year, too. And the other point is that box office grosses, as much as quality and marketing acumen are based on one very important thing…..location, location, location. It was obvious that Hithhiker and XXX 2 were NOT the films to start off the summer. If Fox got its act together and actually got Fantastic Four for the early May slot that it was meant for, if New Line or Universal were smart and blinked and decided to move one of their mass audience comedies off the same weekend, and if Paramount remembered that yes, Adam Sandler CAN open a big film in April…..well, we would taking about possible record box office for May, right now.
Think about this release slate:
April 29 – The Longest Yard
May 6 – Monster-in-Law (its original release date)
Fantastic Four (Fox should have kept Kingdom of Heaven to a later summer or fall slot)
May 13 – Kicking and Screaming
May 19 – Star Wars
May 26 – Madagascar (with some space from other comedies, probably would have had a shot at a Pixar-type opening)
You’re now talking about hundreds millions more in grosses. It is ALL about finding the right release date. The biggest mistake many studios made was getting scared off of the first weekend of May by Kingdom of Heaven.
And these kind of release date glitches happen every year, believe it or not, it even happened, LAST summer, I know, 2004, the year Hollywood supposedly got it all right.
It just happened much later. In a two week period, last summer, Hollywood decided to release ALL of their adult-themed thrillers, smushed right against each other – The Village, Manchurian Candidate, Collateral, and The Bourne Supremacy. And guess what? All but one of those films significantly underperformed, when all of them could have been potential smashes.
That’s why by late July, those year-to-year comparisons are going to start looking a lot rosier, trust me.
Joe Leydon said:
“So here’s something I’ll toss out to the blog as a whole: In 2030, what “stars” of today will be best remembered (if remembered at all) as merely transitory phenoms?”
well I’ll guess and undoubtedly be roundly attacked for it.
I think Orlando Bloom and any other gal or guy who falls into the TigerBeat poster boy/girl bill won’t be remembered any more than an eighth-grade crush–remembered with a little nostalgia but you don’t remember why s/he was important.
Others I don’t see as long-term staying power or as leads as in Box office draw:
Ethan Hawke, Drew Barrymore, Anyone from Friends, Matthew McConaughey, Catherine Zeta Jones(but she is great looking), the Gyllenhaals(Sp?), Ben Affleck, Reese Witherspoon, and many other pretty people who can’t open a movie but gets lots of stalkers.
There are a few others but they may have some longevity if they start getting more appropriate parts and carve a character actor history for themselves.
I can’t make sense about money stuff becasue it seems to depend so much on how a film is financed, who gets what on back end, and how much is P&A expenditure re. how much a movie Really makes. If the BO is truly going up or down or if it tracks along the free enterprise boom and bust which never really settles one way or the other. One thing I do wonder is why in sam hell are there so many gargantuan multiplexes which show way too many showings from week to week? They must waste a fortune in utlities alone. The cost definitely turns people off, and DVDs I think come out too quickly–my friends wait if they don’t get out in the first two weeks.
Anyone slaggin Ethan Hawke either does not pay that much attention to film or just does not like the guy. Either way; Hawke should be around for years to come as well as everyone else Lota dislikes. These are the people we have to work with unless they get put into some sort of Fatty Arbuckle debacle.
Oh yeah…sans the Friends cast, those are the people we have to work with, and Affleck has been in a lot of debacles and crap films. Yet, much like Wayne Fontes, he cannot be destroyed!
“First of all, Bloom doesn’t get as much as Crowe does. And young girls aren’t seeing a period epic about the Crusades no matter who’s in it. ”
EXACTLY.
But seriously, someone like Jake Gyllenhaal hasn’t “opened” a movie because he, er, hasn’t starred in anything that’s gone for a huge opening. And, no, he wasn’t the focus of The Day After Tomorrow so that doesn’t count. Donnie Darko, The Good Girl and Moonlight Mile? And he has Brokeback Mountain, Proof and Jarhead coming up… riiight. He’s totally trying to be the next Tom Cruise!
And we’ll see about Reese Witherspoon’s staying power when we see Walk The Line, which will make Reese, surely, a definite Oscar contender. And as long as Ethan Hawke continues to make movies like Before Sunset and Tape then I don’t want him to go.
And Dave, Gladiator started with around $35mil (i can’t remember the exact number), and in 1999 that was considered big.
Lastly, I’d much rather “Madagascar” be called that than something boring like “Zoo Story” (which sounds an awful like the horribly titled “Shark Tale”)
btw, “Rent” has a trailer out and word on the musical-theatre street is that it is quite good. Chris Columbus may do good yet!
But they are marketing it as a musical (how dare they) so people won’t see it.
u have ur ear to the grindstone in the musical theatre section camel? it explains a lot
You can slag Ethan Hawke all you like but the guy will keep making movies. His salary isn’t too high and he brings name recognition and talent to any picture.
If you are hoping that Orlando Bloom brings in a crowd of young girls you show him in a romantic comedy or just a plain old comedy. Like what Ashton Kutcher does. You don’t see him making period epics yet and he has been offered them. Girls will only follow a crush so far on screen.
jake gyllenhall has never brought in a crowd. he might be a good actor but hes never opened a movie.
definitely not slagging anyone in my list, I just don’t think they will be remembered as great impact either culturally or financially in 25 years time. Ethan Hawke is not a bad actor but lasting power in public consciousness? Don’t know about that. Ashton Kutcher may last a long time if he picks the right roles. “lasting” doesn’t necessarily mean good-to-great actor does it?
and re. openings…Aren’t there are only handful of men and women who can repeatedly open a big-ish movie, period (Julia Roberts did, who knows now, Russell Crowe, Keanu Reeves, WIll Smith, a few others)?
Forgive me for my overbearing theorizing, but back to the discussion of starpower. It’s clear that stars arent’ what they used to be. Stardom in and of itself doesn’t guarantee boxoffice. They have to be “brands.” To be a brand you have to give the audience what they want. Bruce Willis is a “brand” in “Die Hard” only. Tom Cruise is a brand in “Mission: Impossible,” not “The Last Samurai.” Tom Hanks is a brand in mainstream romantic comedies. The real brands these days are the creators and/or the medium itself. People will see “King Kong” because of Peter Jackson, not Adrien Brody or Naomi Watts. They go to Pixar films. While Coca-Cola is a brand, it succeeds as long as it stays within the confines of its basic flavors — the name Coca-Cola won’t sell if it’s Schnapps-flavored, just like a feel-good Depression-era boxing film won’t sell no matter who’s in it (Stallone’s Depression-era “Paradise Alley” didn’t sell well after “Rocky,” and many were disappointed with the box office of Hanks’ “Road to Perdition” – or “The Legend of Bagger Vance,” etc.) While the formula for box office success isn’t written in stone, there are certainly ways to diminish risk and most of these studios are too ignorant or ego-driven to follow basic rules. Why would anyone want to risk money in a crap shoot like “Fantastic Four” or “Stealth.” They may work, but it’ll be from just dumb luck, not strategy.
kutcher is 27 yrs old. lets give him a little time before we start questioning whether he can stay in the publics mind. who in 1984 would have said tom hanks would stay in the publics eye and be a top 20 actor?
Lota: Julia Roberts, Russell Crowe, Keanu Reeves and Will Smith are somewhat bankable stars (mostly filling up their own bank accounts), but only in films with plots/themes that best accentuate their branded personalities. However, I feel Julia has lost bankability; Russell is bankable in manly epics (“The Insider” is one of the decade’s best films, but for some reason audiences didn’t care about Russell in that kind of role); Keanu is a crap shoot (he lucked into “Speed” and “The Matrix,” the latter which could have just as easily have been another “Johnny Mnemonic” – “Constantine” was a dud); unless he plays a disabled man with turretts syndrome or something equally against type, Will Smith has proven to be the most bankable star in Hollywood. Tom Cruise is fighting too hard to maintain his brand – he should just pick the right films and RELAX – his likability factor is going down the toilet.
A businessperson may call it a Brand, but, I think it is more of an ability that actors don’t want to admit to–not everyone can open a movie or be a Lead.
Agents should face the fact (it isn’;t the execs) that their clients have limited range–every actor but a handful has a limited range. It’s understanding what that range is and doing roles that work which ensures paychecks and helps to ensure success(even the best planned movies sometimes don;t work if the timing is wrong etc).
Will Smith can do comedy and drama well, but most actors can’t. And actresses who are little teeny bopper cuties, how many of them will be able to do real drama or natural comedy once they are over the hill for the reason they got famous? 1 out of 10?
Most men aren’t leading men action heroes, most women aren’t enduring goddesses. It would be nice if we all were, but we aren’t.
I never though Cameron Diaz was very smart or a great actress, but she has been in a lot of good movies and some odd movies and she is someone, like it or not, that people remember. Someone in her camp is doing something right, maybe it’s her–maybe her agent. She could become a really good character actor as she moves into being an older broad.
Now she may f*ck it all up with her libel lawsuit.
cameron diaz has more concerns than the national enquirer. how about picking a decent movie?
Okay, letely yes Diaz has to pick a good movie but I wouldn’t right her off yet.
Shrek movies– so she’s a voice, but successful franchise
the Charlie’s angels movies were BAD ok, I agree with that
Gangs of New York was a good movie
and many other movies she’s been in either made money or got noms for awards (eg. any given Sunday, Being John Malkovich, something about Mary, Best Friend’s wedding, The mask)
and she’s a picked a couple weird movies that she was remembered in like The Last SUpper, not great, but I only remember her and the great Ron Perlman.
She was not the star of Gangs of NY. That was her high brow picture. She has made some terrible starring role choices. In her defense she really hasn’t made anything since The Sweetest Thing in ’02. Which is good for the paying public.
“she has been in a lot of good movies and some odd movies”…sed Lota
didn’t say she was The Star, Blustealer. I think her forte in the future will be as a character/supporting actor, not Lead.
You don’t pay supporting or character actors 20 million dollars, Lota.
Marketing Guru, you’re oversimplifying like crazy, even if your broad points are basically sorta correct.
If Tom Cruise isn’t a “brand” in The Last Samurai, how in hell did that movie make $110 million with no awards momentum? The Mission: Impossible movies are but a nice chunk of Cruise’s moviestar appeal; he was a huge star well before 1996, when the first M:I premiered.
Analysts love to talk about how a bunch of movie stars are losing it when their movies “only” make in the $100-140 million range, but if that’s your low-end gross, you’re doing really well. Would Collateral have made $100 million with Val Kilmer as the killer? Would Minority Report have made $135 million with Heath Ledger, or even Matt Damon? As I see it, Cruise has been holding up his end of the moviestar deal (get a certain number of people interested in a movie they might not otherwise notice at first).
And Tom Hanks is in no way only a “brand” in “mainstream romantic comedy” (wasn’t The Terminal pretty much a mainstream comedy with romantic elements? And it’s one of his few post-92 financial disappointments!). His non-romantic, $100mil+ grossers include The Green Mile, Cast Away, Saving Private Ryan, The Polar Express, and, yes, Road to Perdition, which “some people” thought underperformed. No, it didn’t make Spielberg money, but are there many other stars who could get a period gangster movie over the $100 million mark?
Even Bruce Willis, who is far less versatile (financially) than the two Toms, has had plenty of hits outside the Die Hard trilogy. Hell, if that were true, he wouldn’t’ve had a hit since 1995; in reality, he hasn’t had a hit since 2000 or so (unless you cound the Sin City ensemble). So, yeah, Willis hasn’t had a hit in awhile and audiences won’t follow him everywhere; but no, it hasn’t been ten years since his last big hit (Sixth Sense, Armageddon, The Fifth Element, Unbreakable, The Kid, The Whole Nine Yards). Oversimplification.
Of course, some actors only really make money in certain roles. But that’s Meg Ryan territory, not Tom Hanks territory, and there are degrees of it. There’s a whole class of guys who are “comedy stars” but not universal cash machines (Sandler, Stiller, Ferrell). But Hanks, Cruise, and Will Smith are probably the most versatile and consistent draws in this country.
Also: Aren’t the “ways to diminish risk” you speak of the main reason so many movies are such MOR mediocrities? I mean, your solution would be to never fund a project where Movie Star moves outside of a pre-determined moneymaking formula. Yes, Julia Roberts is gold in a romantic comedy, but if she made 10 in 8 years, would that still be true? Wouldn’t audiences start to get sick of what they’re “proven” to love?
Above, re: Julia Roberts, I meant “8 in 10 years,” not the reverse, which I typed. Not that it really matters.
I love Cameron Diaz, but I would concede she’s not at her best as a movie star (and I enjoyed both Charlie’s Angels movies; it’s mostly that The Sweetest Thing is one of the most horrible miscalculations of a star’s appeal I’ve ever seen).
But her “actress” career is another level; I thought she was great in “Gangs,” “Vanilla Sky,” “Malkovich,” and “Any Given Sunday.” And she’s more charismatic than a lot of would-be movie stars, even if her leading stuff hasn’t been consistent.
Cruise is the biggest star in the world. He can get any film to 100million bucks. Even if he is flying off the deep end into the Scientology abyss.
No Terence,
I wouldn’t pay Cameron Diaz 20 million dollars for ANY role.
And few people I would pay that amount. Like 4, and only based on last three-year window performance at BO. The Lucky Country Club has gotten too big and it shouldn’t exist in the first place. It sounds like a losing money business plan to me.
It would be nice to have a salary cap (inclusive of entourage costs–no one needs 27 staff+family members during a f-ing shoot, and if they do they should pay for it themselves) + back end if the movie made a profit. Actors shouldn’t be paid the big bucks unless the movie makes a profit anyway. That way they would be working all the way to the bank instead of laughing.
Some in Hollywood do pay her 20$ million since thats her fee and what she has received for her starring roles.
u can’t be taking 20 million dollars for films if u want to be a character actor. doesn’t work
I know what she’s paid on every movie, and she is overpaid, like most of the ephemeral A-listers have been over the last decade.
The studios need to get together and start having more sensible means of budgeting. There’s always an aspiring A-lister waiting behind the reigning A-lister currently getting overpaid for mediocre work.
lota thats called collusion and also called communism.
I love it when people who don’t have access to the accounting think talent is overpaid. Sorry to break the news to you but most A list stars are underpaid. How about the studios and the producers who take all the profits? Profits that aren’t capped and are everlasting. You think they would pay Adam Sandler 20$ million if he didn’t bring in 500$ million? These stars are worth every penny because they put people in the seats and sell films. The studios tried the communism system and it failed in the 30’s and 40’s.
how is it communism to have a balanced budget? The Stars have become 800 pound gorillas. I am not saying they shouldn’t be paid well, but paid reasonably and if the movie makes a profit–then they get the back end. It’s the paying up front that is too much. The budgets are getting ridiculous on movies that should be much cheaper to produce.
I actually preferred the old studio system compared to what replaced it.
But the end will come if the media companies who own the studios decide that they are hemorrhaging too much money.
you are right–if a movie MAKES 500 million then the star paid 20 million who got the butts on seats is underpaid.
If adam sandler brings in 500 million than he can get his 25% after it’s made–he’d make more.
Maybe that’s a good solution. Sandler movie makes 500 million, he gets 50 million on mext movie. If next movie loses 150M at the Intl box office, then Sandler agrees to work for Indie SAG rate so the executive who had faith to cast him in a 50 Mil role doesn;t get fired becasue of it.
SOme producers make money, some have all their cards maxed out putting up money on a production. Plenty of producers have gone bankrupt on a film Joe. If you are talking executives it depends who they are–yeah some of them are scumbag glad handers. Some of them are great (and sensible).
The last place you’d find communism was in the running of a studio. I thought communism is where the Talent is (and was). The studios have always been built on capitalism or they wouldn’t exist. It’s a business and always has been.
Lota is obviously a fan of studios making actors and talent work for scale and they’ll give them little bits of crumbs when they feel like it. Sorry for a free society and capitalism. It really hurts the huge corporations huh?
Lota what you propose is to go back to the old time ways. When studios controlled talent with long, iron clad contracts and they get paid nothing and didn’t share in the profits. That is not going to happen again. Don’t be jealous when you hear about stars making money. Why aren’t you jealous of executives making double what stars make?
I don’t think the studio big wigs are crying over paying these salaries. Knowing they are making twenty times that.
I don’t expect studios to go back to ‘old ways’ in the negative sense of bit part and supporting actors not getting paid much. The Stars were paid, most of them well versus the times. I doubt any of them would trade their salary at the time for what a mid-level electric company worker got.
studio bigwigs..that term means exactly who? Most executives do not make what the top 5 MGM dudes got, not even a tenth of that, some 1/100.
If movie budgets continue to push 120 million and up, the american box-office will be in a negative situation. How many movies make over 100 mil after P&A? not many versus the numbers of released movies these days.
Movie making is a business. I admire very much the stars who take Indie SAG rate & directors who get paid only a % up front and get paid later if there’s a profit becasue they believe a script will be a great movie.
Actually a lot of execs make more money than you could even dream about. But you are not asking them to take a pay cut. Only the talent. And on what basis? You think they make too much?
One, Diaz remains one of the THREE STARS of Gangs of New York. Go look at the poster, and feel like you are served. Since you have been. Collusion would anger more so than just about anything else Hollywood could pull in the eyes of Congress. These stars get paid what they do because they can. No one holds a gun to the head of the exec in charge of production to pay this amount to a star or else. And not like payment scales do not get adjusted over time or said star does not get a job. One last thing; Lota’s logic does not hold up. Since predominantly, the average budget of making a film probably stops high at 60. There are only a handful of 100 million plus productions a year. As Poland has pointed out Lota. Without those flicks making the money they do. There is no money to produce the other flicks produced and distributed throughout the year.
“u have ur ear to the grindstone in the musical theatre section camel? it explains a lot”
…huh? I’m gay, like musicals and am interested in Rent – is there a problem? Jokes about people’s sexuality are HILARIOUS!!!! non? There’s just not enough of them these days!!!
“jake gyllenhall has never brought in a crowd. he might be a good actor but hes never opened a movie.”
I know, and I explained that in my other reply. He hasn’t had any movies that were gunning for big opening weekends (apart from Day After Tomorrow but that wasn’t a “Starring Jake Gylennhaal” movie like the others I listed that were smaller releases). Read first please!!
“”The Insider” is one of the decade’s best films, but for some reason audiences didn’t care about Russell in that kind of role”
Russell wasn’t “Russell Crowe” then. It was only at “Gladiator” I think that people really stood up and paid attention (like they out to – pity about the arrest, he’s a great bloke)
“Some in Hollywood do pay her 20$ million since thats her fee and what she has received for her starring roles.”
Nobody is desputing that Terance, it’s whether she deserves it…
And Jesse… you’re awesome! Despite saying Diaz was good in Gangs (her accent was painful). AT LAST! SOMEBODY WHO ADMITS TO LIKING THE FIRST CHARLIE’S ANGELS!
in a nutshell i am saying no one should be paid big bucks up front.
Execs are on salary. Some have huge salaries, most don’t. My boss makes more than most of them and he’s mid-level. Producers do not necessairly make anything up front and can lose more than they put in if a movie doesn;t work.
If the movie ‘wins’ at the box office then everyone who made it happen gets paid, especially the talent that made it happen.
Most budgets are underest. before opening Kamikaze, and overest. after (so they don’t have to pay backend). Either way, the posted budget is rarely what the real budget is in re-shoots, insurance, unforeseen disasters, extra star demands which can be unbeleivable stupid and expensive and P&A.
The first Charlie’s Angels made me laugh.
i think lota would be spinning a different tune if he was the one trying to get paid. don’t ever question some persons rights to get paid. whos putting a gun to the heads of people to pay diaz 20 mill?
Diaz almost single handedly brought down Gangs. She was that bad in that small of a role.
She wasn’t that bad in Gangs. How can you expect her to hold up an accent when Leo was all over the place too?
Some people don’t know their movies. Lota is a SHE not a he, Bob. And who says I’m not trying to get paid and I’m not Talent? Doesn’t mean the system, if the shambles thing can even be called that now, of how movies are pre-budgeted is sensible for longevity of the film business.
Cameron Diaz wasn’t great in Gangs, but my point is, and always was, that she has been IN good movies and she is in general, doing something right (her personal life aside) even if she isn’t all that fantastic/oscar worthy.
lota if u were talent u wouldn’t be complaining about how much talent gets paid. its obvious ur a worker bee whos jealous that some people get paid a lot of money for something u think is easy
Average folks should never complain about how much someone else makes. They don’t know the business and how much someone is really worth.
I need to start acting. Get me some of this big pie. If Cameron Diaz and Adam Sandler can make the dough maybe I can. I’m a dreamer.
“Most budgets are underest. before opening Kamikaze, and overest. after (so they don’t have to pay backend). Either way, the posted budget is rarely what the real budget is in re-shoots, insurance, unforeseen disasters, extra star demands which can be unbeleivable stupid and expensive and P&A.”
what’s that got to do with me?
“Girls will only follow a crush so far on screen”….
I thought DiCaprio unshaven, delusional, and peeing in mason jars was pretty ballsy.