May 6, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
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
Dave you are forcing me to hit the Pabst Blue Ribbon. Maybe I’ll change my name to Frank too.
In fact in your rankings, you give the very reasons why certain individuals shouldn;t be there.
If someone costs alot of money, and their movies lose money, i.e. no in-the-black movies in the US in few years, they shouldn;t be in the top 23. They should be in the “we’ll see” holding pen.
Jodie Foster should be higher up.
Hathaway & Keaton at the very least should be in the top 23 somewhere. Defintiely before Ryan G or Rachel McA, both of whom I like, but their draw isn;t better than those left off.
I am glad Denzel’s on the list, and think it’s justified that WIll Smith is #1.
Lota, I don’t think DP’s list is based on profitability (the Jim Carrey problem) but just on ‘who can open a movie’. The general public doesn’t care how much red or black there is on a movie’s bottom line, and I think this list is based on DP’s perceptions of the audience’s perceptions. So that means he’s working on a very specific set of criteria – what the use of such a limited set of criteria is, I’m not sure.
I would agree with you, though, that at this stage in all of their careers, Hathaway, who has her own Disney franchise and certainly did more for Devil Wears Prada than I would have expected and Keaton are bigger ‘stars’ than Gosling or McAdams.
Sorry, Gosling’s Q rating is about a zero. He’s “the cute guy from The Notebook” and that’s about it. Better luck next time, Poland.
Maybe you ought to read what I wrote, Wreck… since he didn’t make the top 50 in anything but potential…
Yeah, but even mentioning him is just Poland wanking. Why not mention the potential of the dozens of other up and coming actors like Shia Labeouf or Emile Hirsh?
Because neither of them has the potential that Gosling has. They will both be in big movies, but neither will carry much of anything unless something changes.
So The Notebook and Half Nelson mean nothing to you, Wreck? Your call… but “wanking” seems like a reach (around).
I would put Shia Labeouf right at the top, because DreamWorks PR Machines tell me to. BTW, just in case you haven’t heard, Shia stars in DISTURBIA and TRANSFORMERS…
I think I have a problem with Pitt at number 2. Yes, BABEL did well in foreign markets, but it is after all an unusually international film. Is Pitt really responsible for its box office pull overseas?
Frankly, I think the guy is unbelievably over-rated, and until recently he hardly ever had 100 million dollar films. Yes, he was IWTV, but that was sold as a Tom Cruise flick. He had Se7en, but I bet that movie had legs and the word of mouth was plot driven. His other stuff is ensemble work: Ocean’s series, TROY. M&M SMITH put up surprising numbers, but it also had insanely strong publicity driven by a real-life offscreen romance. Leading up to the film the two were never photographed together. If you wanted to seem them, you had to watch the movie (and the movie was unbelievably awful).
I don’t think Pitt has carried movies the same way we’ve seen from Smith and Cruise.
The problem with Tom Cruise is that his image is crap because people flipped out when he jumped on Oprah’s couch. People spout the craziest conspiracy theories vis-a-vis Holmes, the baby, etc., and his turn as an evangelist for Scientology immeasurably compounded the bad feelings, which is in some respects a shame because we’ve seen his best work the last eight or so years (not counting MI stuff, especially 2, or even WotW). But basing everything strictly on box office records until now, I don’t see how Pitt can be ranked ahead of Cruise.
I think what Smith proved this year with Happyness is that he’s the real deal. Pitt can similarly demonstrate his box office power with Fincher’s Button project and Jesse James. If both of those do over a 100 million, or open big against reasonable competition, then I’ll be impressed.
The thing about Cruise is that he’s ultra-picky, and ridiculously good at choosing the right scripts and directors. Between Collateral, WoTW, and MI:3 he could have locked up both young males and middle-aged females. Instead the WoTW campaign was a disaster, and his stupid Scientology comments alienated his core female audience and he’s become uncool in the minds of young men. Lion for Lambs is not a commercial project, so I doubt he’ll win points with its cynical movie-star averse audience.
One other thing about Will Smith is that he’s not as much of a media creation. I think Brad Pitt’s star power can largely be credit to his tabloid press, and Cruise’s implosion has to do with terrible coverage. But we often don’t hear much about Smith. He’s not too black or “threatening” for White America, but he’s black enough to attract Black America. He’s never impressed me much as an actor, though I haven’t seen Pursuit of Happyness.
There are really only two actors working today that when people talk about them, they get the same reverance that people use when talking about the Bogart and Jimmy Stewart generation: Harrison Ford and Tom Hanks (Julia Roberts is close, but not there yet), now Ford hasn’t had anything to indicate he’s still a mega draw, on the other hand he’s had terrible taste in selecting scripts.
Hanks on the other hand, when he’s in a Hanks movie, like DVC, is still probably the biggest moviestar in the world, and I still think he deserves to be up there in the top five, at least.
no other argument with the rest of your listing or article, I especially liked the three rankings system.
“Is Pitt really responsible for its box office pull overseas?”
Yes, and for Troy, and Mr and Mrs Smith, and The Oceans films and so on and so forth. He’s probably the most reliable international opener there is.
And america ultimately didn’t give a shit about whether or not tom cruise jumped on a couch, it was tom cruise saying that Post Partum Depression didn’t exist that lost him an enormous chunk of his female audience loyalty. Women are leary of him now.
I don’t think Denzel can only do good foreign with Tony Scott. Tony Scott’s last movie before Deja Vu, Domino, made a grand total of 12 million foreign. And Domino had a negative cost of around 70 million bucks. It’s safe to say that Scott needed Denzel a lot more than than Denzel needed Scott. The pull of directors is grossly overrated. Even Tarantino and Rodriguez couldn’t make Grindhouse a hit, and they have a much larger public profile and cult following than Tony Scott.
Deja Vu could have been directed by anyone, and it’d probably do the same buisness foreign, I think. It’s taken quite awhile, but I think foreign audiences have simply gotten accustomed to Denzel, to the point where he’s seen, like Will Smith, as being “race neutral”. His movies have always done well on home video and DVD in foreign markets, but it’s finally translating into theatrical revenue. I think Denzel was a lot more responsible for the foreign success of Inside Man than he’s being credited for. And I think Deja Vu was mostly down to Denzel, in a familar role/genre, which is comfort food for foreign audiences.
When American Gangster does 150 million foreign, will someone claim he can only do good foreign with Russell Crowe (whose last two pictures have failed to do over 50 million foreign) or Ridley Scott (as with Tony, he’s another director than cannot guarantee a hit). Right now, Washington is the biggest draw in American Gangster, foreign and domestic, and the biggest guarantee that it won’t tank. Put it this way; Replace Denzel in AG with Terrence Howard, and keep Scott and Crowe on board, and I’m pretty certain the film would be Crowe’s 3rd box office flop in a row.
But I will be interested to see how Washington’s directorial project, The Great Debaters plays overseas. It’s one thing for foreign audiences to dig Washington as a badass cop in a hi-octane thriller or as a gangster, but if he can sell a non-action, all-black period drama to foreign audiences, he’ll really have earned his stripes.
Am I the only one who thinks Rachel McAdams is more of a media phenomenom than somebody that the public desperately need/want to see. I’ve never heard of anybody clamouring to go the next “Rachel McAdams movie”.
Chattering class pundits like David seem to be in love with McAdams. I know she’s been in several sucessful movies, but I don’t think any have been successful specifically due to her presence. The Notebook was a surprise, word of mouth success. Red Eye was a genre programmer, the concept being the main star. The Family Stone was an ensemble deal, full of recognisable faces. And The Wedding Crashers was Vaughn an Wilson.
McAdams strikes me as another Jennifer Garner. Journalists seem so bowled over by her charisma, cuteness and likability, that they’re overestimating the public’s fondness for the actor.
If anyone seems closer to living up to the poisoned chalice of being the “next Julia Roberts”, it’s Anne Hathaway. She’s young (8 years young than McAams), beautiful, has a mega-watt smile and the likability factor. Men wanna see her naked, and girls want to be her best friend. She’s also proving herself to be a very fine actress ( she’ll end up a far better actress than Roberts, imho). I also think she actually has a proven following from her Disney years. The tweens who grew up watching her in The Princess Diaries are now the aspirational teenaged girls who helped make THe Devil Wears Prada a hit.
“Because neither of them has the potential that Gosling has. They will both be in big movies, but neither will carry much of anything unless something changes.”
Something’s changed.
Dave, what’s with the kicks to foreign audiences.
“He would be much higher if his surprisingly popular lower-budget genre films were doing better overseas. But they may well just be a little behind the curve.”
Er, international audiences don’t like American Football movies or Urban flicks. Fact. So don’t blame us. it’s like when that guy in the NY Times said foreign cinemagoers were racists for not going to see movies aimed at black audiences.
“But as with Sandler, the international box office still doesn
I agree with Cain about Pitt being overrated. “His power overseas is what makes him so highly ranked–” which accounts for about 95% of his juice. Which of his movies have been successful in the U.S due primarily to his presence? Legends of the Fall (13 years ago)? Mr. and Mrs. Smith? What else? He’s definately a boost; I just don’t think he makes otherwise non-hits into hits, domestically-speaking.
A few more thoughts;
Anne Hathaway is Lindsay Lohan gone right.
Matt Damon is too high. No way is he a bigger draw than Denzel and Jodie Foster. The Oceans movies and The Departed are all-star ensembles that Damon cannot take anything close to full credit for. The Good Shepard was the closest recent thing to a “Matt Damon studio vehicle”, and it underperformed domestically, and tanked internationally. That was his “test”, and he didn’t pass.
He’s got one franchise going for him (Bourne), and the public seem more attached to the character than the actor playing him (much like a James Bond actor). Unless he continues churning out Bourne movies (and The Bourne Ultimatum is probably the last) I don’t see how he’s going to get any bigger. He hasn’t got the “aw shucks” charisma to be a Tom Hanks style all-American everyman. Besides, Hanks has already been replaced as the all-American everyman. His name is Will Smith, and I don’t think anybody else need apply for the go-to “everyman” position in the near future, as long as Smith is around.
Leonardo Dicaprio is too low (he should actually be higher than Damon). He’s a bit too reliant on all-star ensembles, but internationally, he’s a far bigger draw than Damon. Blood Diamiond was consider a domestic failure, but thanks to Leo, it still cleared over 100 million foreign. He’s to 20 material at the moment (possibly close to the top 10).
Nicole Kidman is too low (she should certainly be higher than Crowe and Wahlberg). How many actresses, besides Jodie Foster and Roberts, could power a talky political thriller like The Interpreter (has last studio release) to 162 million dollars worldwide? I can’t think of many. Her arthouse flicks tend to fail, but she’s become a lock for 100 million worldwide in any wide release studio picture (even garbage like The Stepford Wives).
Tom Hanks is getting desperate. The Davinci Code, and it’s upcoming sequel, were not “Tom Hanks” movies. They were behemoth publishing phenomenons on par with Harry Potter, Lord Of The Rings and The Bible. Jeff Daniels could have played the Tom Hanks role, and the movie would still have made a bazillion dollars. It remains to be seen how much of an audience Hanks can still draw under his own steam, but you simply can’t draw any conclusions from The Davinci Code.
Ryan Gosling doesn’t want to be a “movie star”, and I doubt he ever will be. He seems to be happier being a taller, better looking, less hammy, Canadian Sean Penn.
To answer Poland’s question from earlier, The Notebook and Half-Nelson are absolutely meaningless not only to me, but to moviegoing audiences.
Care to swap out your “potential” nominee now that Shia has helped Paramount open Disturbia to a $9m opening Friday?
Yeah, that’s a surprisingly large opening. Some of it has to be due to a good marketing pitch, but not all.
In Thailand, Hollywood actors that are well known are to the average person, without any references to their movies, are : (not in any particular order)
1. Tom Cruise
2. Tom Hanks
3. Brad Pitt
4. Julia Roberts
5. Will Smith
There’re probably others, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind.
Others, when they are advertized, will have their names attached to another movie, ie. ” … from the movie …”
***”Yes [Pitt is responsible for overseas success of Babel], and for Troy, and Mr and Mrs Smith, and The Oceans films and so on and so forth. He’s probably the most reliable international opener there is.”***
I disagree on that point. The biggest international star, and the most reliable draw overseas, remains Tom Cruise (at least up until the present moment). Troy was a sword and sandel epic featuring a huge cast. Violent, macho movies of that sort also do pretty well overseas.
***And america ultimately didn’t give a shit about whether or not tom cruise jumped on a couch, it was tom cruise saying that Post Partum Depression didn’t exist that lost him an enormous chunk of his female audience loyalty. Women are leary of him now.***
I agree that this is why people now claim to hate him, but he made those comments before jumping on Oprah’s couch, and they weren’t widely reported. However, post couch-jump there was a feeding frenzy, and people brought up Scientology/Post-partum in subsequent interviews, which naturally received more scrutiny. And then his comments there received even more scrutiny. People got sick of seeing the guy, the circus.
I guess my point with regard to Cruise/Pitt is that while Cruise was extremely self-conscious and had an excellent publicist in his rise to the top, his ascendance was also backed by solid, commercial films with the best directors. It was also nice to see him make pictures the public would not eagerly accept (Eyes Wide Shut, Vanilla Sky, Magnolia). Pitt’s ascendence to super-stardom was based, I think, more on his status as sex symbol than his body of work. Not many people liked Seven Years in Tibet, and I can say that I hated Meet Joe Black. Fortunately, though, he was perfectly cast in cult hit Fight Club and padded out his resume by working with all-star ensembles.
“Troy was a sword and sandel epic featuring a huge cast.”
As much as I like them, Eric Bana, Peter O’Toole, Bryan Cox, Brendan Gleeson, Diane Kruger and Rose Byrne. Only Orlando Bloom could even remotely be seen as the type of person to pull in a significent amount of people.
I agree that Matt Damon is too high. Sure, he has the benefit lately of starring with people like DiCaprio and Nicholson. The Good Shepherd didn’t “open” that highly, and considering you’re taking actors who “open” more than the end results.
Nicole Kidman, Jodie Foster, Anne Hathaway even regularly open movies to bigger than some of the men on the list. People like Steve Martin hardly open movies because they’re “STEVE MARTIN” but because he’s in a kids movie at Christmas time. Shopgirl, his best film in years, was sadly ignored.
Puhlease. This list cannot be accurate – where the hell is Carrot Top??
I am a movie fan from Brazil and can guarantee to you that Brad Pitt is a huge public draw. Him, Julia, Tom Cruise, Leonardo Dicaprio are all huge here.
“Troy was a sword and sandel epic featuring a huge cast. Violent, macho movies of that sort also do pretty well overseas.”
Then explain to me Kingdom of Heaven , with pretty boy Orlando Bloom.
Troy was a hit overseas because of Pitt, all of my friends went to see, hell, my mom went to see that crap, and believe me that says a lot of his appeal.
I also agree that Anne Hathaway is the closest thing that we have to Julia Roberts, she is likeable, talented and her movies have been very bankable, I wish she could get more credit, but since she doesn
Hey, Poland, no ranking for KRISTEN STEWART, aka K-STEW????
She’s gonna be bigger than Johansson, Evan Rachel WOOD, and Rachel McAdams combizzined.
“Then explain to me Kingdom of Heaven , with pretty boy Orlando Bloom.”
Uh, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN did do relatively well overseas, snatching up more three times its domestic take. Not as well as TROY of course, but still relatively strong numbers (165 mil)
ALEXANDER also broke 100 million foreign (133m).
Now, I have not seen any of these movies because the genre does not generally interest me, but I would be interested in the levels of violence in each. I’d also be interested in their respective marketing campaigns. TROY looked obnoxiously bigger, more violent, more spectacular. Finally, TROY has the pedigree of its source material, which is fairly well known throughout the world.
I’m not saying the guy isn’t big overseas, but he’s not as big as Tom Cruise. Plus he does lots of ensemble work, which makes it difficult to make a comparison. He’s carried very few movies.