PDA

View Full Version : How Hollywood works? 3 Strikes and You're Out???



dgiharris
07-03-2010, 12:14 PM
I was getting revved up to see Avatar: The Last Airbender and right before I was leaving for the theaters I looked at the reviews and they are bad bad bad so I didn't go.

M. Night Shyamalan seems to have run into a bad streak of movies.

This got me to thinking.

How many misteps can you have in Hollywood before you are knocked down from A-list to B-list?

How many until no one returns your calls?.

I'd like to discuss Actors and Directors since they are the most visible.

AtLAb had a budget of $145M and it doesn't look like they are going to recoup that.

Then look at Jonah Hex. That had a budget of $47M and they've only managed to pull $9M since their Jun 18th release date which is a really bad sign.

So, if you are M. Night Shyamalan or Megan Fox or whomever, when do you start to worry?

Also, just general discussion on the topic, i'd love to be enlightened...

Mel...

childeroland
07-03-2010, 03:29 PM
I think Jonah Hex and Jennifer's Body only prove that Megan Fox alone isn't a box office draw, which may only mean that she was overhyped, not that she's box office poison (it's not like the DC brand and Diablo Cody did much for those films either, and I doubt anyone could have saved Hex). Her bigger problem may be that with her perceived limited acting ability and drawing power and Hollywood's penchant for cycling through young actresses pretty quickly (look at Rachel Bilson, Amanda Bynes, etc.), there may be few roles for her going forward. She can't compete with, say, Natalie Portman or Carey Mulligan for roles based on her acting ability, or with Amanda Seyfried based on her drawing power, and someone else will come up sooner or later to take the sexpot parts.

M. Night will get another chance. Happening actually made good money, and Airbender's box office (probably 60m for the 5-day holiday) isn't catastrophic.

maestrowork
07-03-2010, 06:52 PM
Johan Hex was just really bad movie and even though Brolin and Fox are both A-list stars, they're not really box office draws.

M. Knight still has cinematic capital to spend -- his first few movies made a huge number of money and good will. But he's also burned many bridges with his arrogance, and he has to humble up if he wants to continue to make movies (unless he's like Michael Bay who makes blockbuster after blockbuster). Look at Jan de Bont -- he pretty much went out of work after Lara Croft (and his descent started with Speed 2 -- so yeah, exactly three movies and he's out).

So... I think there's still another movie or two left for M. Knight. Airbender is the first movie that isn't really "his" so it may be a bit of an exception. He may be able to carve out another path for being a "director for hire" like Michael Bay. But still, if Airbender doesn't make money (or enough), then I think his days are numbered, at least as a director. I think he still have enough bargaining power if he has a great script... but it seems to me that he's used that up too... when you consider the Sixth Sense his best movie and that's like, his first shot (before that he made a couple of small movies), that's rather alarming. Did he peak early?

robeiae
07-03-2010, 07:20 PM
I'm a-feared to post this in the Airbender thread, lest I get torn to pieces ;):

I'm just not all that surprised that this movie looks like a flop. For all the talk about it being more than just a kid's show...it's just a kid's show. And yes, I've watched--with my kids--many, many episodes. Part of what made it a GREAT kid's show was the goofiness of it all, imo. It's hardly on the same level of seriousness as Star Blazers or the like (now, there's a series screaming to be made into a movie with real people). Transformers was also goofy as a show. But let's face it, big robots that turn into cars and tanks is a much different thing than a couple of kids embarked on a Pokemon-like journey of discover.

So what does that mean for M? It means he directed a flop. But it wasn't his flop, as Ray noted. His career will still suffer for it--as it should--but them's the breaks.

willietheshakes
07-03-2010, 07:29 PM
I'm a-feared to post this in the Airbender thread, lest I get torn to pieces ;):

I'm just not all that surprised that this movie looks like a flop. For all the talk about it being more than just a kid's show...it's just a kid's show. And yes, I've watched--with my kids--many, many episodes. Part of what made it a GREAT kid's show was the goofiness of it all, imo. It's hardly on the same level of seriousness as Star Blazers or the like (now, there's a series screaming to be made into a movie with real people). Transformers was also goofy as a show. But let's face it, big robots that turn into cars and tanks is a much different thing than a couple of kids embarked on a Pokemon-like journey of discover.

So what does that mean for M? It means he directed a flop. But it wasn't his flop, as Ray noted. His career will still suffer for it--as it should--but them's the breaks.

Sure, if you view A:TLA through a Pokemon lens, it looks like a kids show. If you look at through the eyes of Campbell or Jung, it's something vastly different, and significantly MORE.

robeiae
07-03-2010, 07:54 PM
Well, you can view Star Wars through the same lens. Doesn't make it any less goofy. And that's not a bad thing, though I know some can't help but see it that way.

willietheshakes
07-03-2010, 08:02 PM
Well, you can view Star Wars through the same lens. Doesn't make it any less goofy. And that's not a bad thing, though I know some can't help but see it that way.

My reference to that paradigm wasn't to minimize the goofiness (which I like in A:TLA), but to point out that goofiness and a quest doesn't make it 'just' a kids show.

robeiae
07-03-2010, 08:09 PM
My reference to that paradigm wasn't to minimize the goofiness (which I like in A:TLA), but to point out that goofiness and a quest doesn't make it 'just' a kids show.It is a kid's show. People are free to enjoy it, of course, regardless of their age.

My point was that this is why the movie's floppiness was unsurprising to me: (somewhat) goofy kid's show made into a much heavier rl movie.

I haven't seen the movie, though I will since my kids want to see it, so I'm going by what I've read about it, to be fair. But again, I think it translated poorly into a movie of this sort. Thus, I'm saying its--apparent--failure is not all M's fault.

maestrowork
07-03-2010, 08:09 PM
I haven't seen any goofiness in the Airbender's trailers... maybe the movie is different. But the trailers take the movie WAY too seriously.

robeiae
07-03-2010, 08:11 PM
I haven't seen any goofiness in the Airbender's trailers... maybe the movie is different. But the trailers take the movie WAY too seriously.Yes.

Smileycat
07-03-2010, 11:56 PM
Well, there are some actors who lost some power in the past, like Kevin Costner. It was Ashton Kutcher who wanted him in The Guardian. The movie did not score well with critics, and grossed $87M worldwide, so it was not a big hit, but it probably recouped its cost. (not sure)

How did this affect Costner?

IMDb shows that Costner's film schedule picked up just a smidge afterward.

So, he was perceived as what before? A loser? Because of what?

BenPanced
07-04-2010, 01:36 AM
Costner scored big with The Untouchables, getting raves after that for Bull Durham and Field of Dreams. Some say he hit his peak with Dances With Wolves, but has never really recovered from the drubbing he took for Waterworld and The Postman, though he did garner some renewed interest with Swing Vote.

maestrowork
07-04-2010, 02:47 AM
It doesn't help that he was playing a loser in Swing Vote... kind of reminded people that, well, maybe he was (especially after Waterworld, etc.) I think he definitely peaked around the time of Dances with Wolves, and went downhill since the Bodyguard, JFK, etc...

mario_c
07-04-2010, 09:14 AM
Shyamalan's newest script was being roundly passed, and I wouldn't doubt the negative ATLAB buzz is affecting the reaction. Currently word is a reunion with Bruce Willis and a "return to his roots", which in sports would translate to "working on the fundamentals". :D You don't follow up back to back Razzies with a high-budget bomb and expect to keep coming to work and doing what you want.
Hollywood is full of comebacks and second chances - Mickey Rourke and John Travolta are the most glaring examples, just off the very top of my head. Those two guys fought hard and worked cheap to return to the A-list. Behind the camera, look at Francis Ford Coppola, who is basically spending his kids inheritance on passion projects (and Tetro, his latest, was made on a very lean budget despite it's exotic locales). Mr. Shyamalan would do well to heed their example.
But that may not happen if the buzz about the script "going out on the town" is true - hard copies traveling under the non-stop supervision of assistants (http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/06/shyamalan-shopping-new-movie-with-big-stars-exclusive.html) who return the script to Mr. Shyamalan's office when the executive has read the full script. What does he think he's distributing, nuclear codes? *smacks forehead*

dgiharris
07-04-2010, 09:34 AM
I just think M. Night Shyamalan has really screwed the pooch with Avatar.

There is a difference between making a bad film and pissing off a huge franchise fanbase.

A franchise fanbase is almost a guaranteed win. Granted, there is risk in everything but having a franchise fanbase means you get a HUGE boost in viewership, like money in the bank. And to screw that up...

His list of crimes include omitting some key characters, changing the name of the MC, and then there is the capital offense of just an overall badly written and directed movie...

I venture that his name is now a liability. I bet that mentioning his name in associationg with the next film will automatically decrease viewership by 15%.

I read an interesting article that AtLAb has to make $280M in order to be considered a success. They spent $150M on the film, another $130M on advertising. So far they are at $33M. And given that the bulk of your money comes from the first month of release and that the word-of-mouth is toxic, it does not look good. I project they will be lucky to make $100M on this film worldwide or $60M in the States.

p.s. Why on Earth would he decide to change the name pronouciation of the main character? Seriously, talk about ego and hubris.

p.p.s. Where were his people? Aren't you supposed to have a good #1 assistant who can tell you when you are fucking up? Where was that guy? The conversation should have went something like this.

M. Night: "I'm going to call him Aong because that is the correct pronouciation"
#1: "Sorry sir, you can't piss on 3 seasons worth of animation in which they call him Aang"

M. Night: "But its not correct"
#1: "The fans don't care and ultimately they are the boss. Don't piss off the boss."

M. Night: "Yeah but..."
#1: "No butts, change his name at your peril. Seriously, this is a no brainer, don't fuck with his name sir."

Jcomp
07-04-2010, 06:03 PM
I haven't seen any goofiness in the Airbender's trailers... maybe the movie is different. But the trailers take the movie WAY too seriously.

I'll concur somewhat with rob here and add another YES. And I really, really enjoyed the show, but it was whimsical, had a great sense of humor, had some heavy moments but wasn't nearly so relentlessly dark and intense as the movie makes it out to be. As far as fantasy goes, it was tonally "refreshing" for a show about a war-torn planet. The movie looks figuratively and literally dark, with so many scenes set at night or in the midst of cloud/smog covered areas, it makes me wonder if the filmmakers maybe only skimmed through the series.

As with Megan Fox, I think her slide is somewhat inevitable. She's not seen as a terribly good actress and the way she's marketed in movies often boils down to, "Come see this because Megan Fox is in it and she's smoking hot!" Which might have been more effective in the 80's or 90's, but nowadays, if I have an urge to see how hot Megan Fox is I'll Google her and save the money on tickets to a crappy flick.

Smileycat
07-04-2010, 07:03 PM
Costner scored big with The Untouchables, getting raves after that for Bull Durham and Field of Dreams. Some say he hit his peak with Dances With Wolves, but has never really recovered from the drubbing he took for Waterworld and The Postman, though he did garner some renewed interest with Swing Vote.


It doesn't help that he was playing a loser in Swing Vote... kind of reminded people that, well, maybe he was (especially after Waterworld, etc.) I think he definitely peaked around the time of Dances with Wolves, and went downhill since the Bodyguard, JFK, etc...

I see. You're both right. Well, I have a soft spot for Costner, so I hope he recovers.

mario_c
07-04-2010, 07:42 PM
I think Costner's new career as an engineer is working out for him. Who knew? :D

And dgiharris, that conversation would be with a script doctor like Michael Hague, John August or Robert McKee (can you imagine?). They coach the big studio writers for a hefty sum, and they are most likely called in to slap sense into the heads of a filmmaker who has gone rogue in the system, as it were. Consider it a declining filmmaker intervention.

Lady Ice
07-04-2010, 07:56 PM
I just think M. Night Shyamalan has really screwed the pooch with Avatar.

There is a difference between making a bad film and pissing off a huge franchise fanbase.

A franchise fanbase is almost a guaranteed win. Granted, there is risk in everything but having a franchise fanbase means you get a HUGE boost in viewership, like money in the bank. And to screw that up...

His list of crimes include omitting some key characters, changing the name of the MC, and then there is the capital offense of just an overall badly written and directed movie...

I venture that his name is now a liability. I bet that mentioning his name in associationg with the next film will automatically decrease viewership by 15%.

I read an interesting article that AtLAb has to make $280M in order to be considered a success. They spent $150M on the film, another $130M on advertising. So far they are at $33M. And given that the bulk of your money comes from the first month of release and that the word-of-mouth is toxic, it does not look good. I project they will be lucky to make $100M on this film worldwide or $60M in the States.

p.s. Why on Earth would he decide to change the name pronouciation of the main character? Seriously, talk about ego and hubris.

p.p.s. Where were his people? Aren't you supposed to have a good #1 assistant who can tell you when you are fucking up? Where was that guy? The conversation should have went something like this.

M. Night: "I'm going to call him Aong because that is the correct pronouciation"
#1: "Sorry sir, you can't piss on 3 seasons worth of animation in which they call him Aang"

M. Night: "But its not correct"
#1: "The fans don't care and ultimately they are the boss. Don't piss off the boss."

M. Night: "Yeah but..."
#1: "No butts, change his name at your peril. Seriously, this is a no brainer, don't fuck with his name sir."

Depends whether you intend to make a film 'based' on a TV series and open it out to other potential viewers (I'm assuming the TV series is an American thing- I've never heard of it) or whether you try to capture the spirit and awesomeness of the original. You can mess about with all sorts and still make a good film, even if it's a bad adaptation- but if the writing, acting and directing's bad, it's just a bad film.

As for the strikes, it depends on how talented the director/actor is deemed in the first place. Everybody at one time in their career is going to be involved in a flop but if they're good enough, they can be forgiven.

katiemac
07-04-2010, 08:48 PM
Airbender is likely to pull in $70 million for the five-day holiday weekend, and that's only domestic sales. It should bring back its budget.

Shadow Dragon
07-04-2010, 10:08 PM
I think the Avatar: Last Airbender movie was bound to be bad for two main reasons. Firstly, they picked the wrong director. They shouldn't have gone with a guy known for thrillers. They should have gone with someone who was used to doing action and comedy. Also, someone who would actually watch the series to understand why it's popular.

Secondly, any time you try to condense an entire series done to a single movie, you're bound to lose a lot of what makes it popular. They should have made the movie into a side story of the series.

Jcomp
07-04-2010, 10:14 PM
Airbender is likely to pull in $70 million for the five-day holiday weekend, and that's only domestic sales. It should bring back its budget.

If that holds up, factoring in the overseas take, unless it has a TREMENDOUS drop-off, it'll end up doing okay when all is said and done. Probably not well enough to warrant a sequel, but not quite poorly enough to bury Shyamalan. It'll probably fall short of its budget domestically but make up for that internationally.

Toothpaste
07-05-2010, 12:03 AM
I think the Avatar: Last Airbender movie was bound to be bad for two main reasons. Firstly, they picked the wrong director. They shouldn't have gone with a guy known for thrillers. They should have gone with someone who was used to doing action and comedy. Also, someone who would actually watch the series to understand why it's popular.

Secondly, any time you try to condense an entire series done to a single movie, you're bound to lose a lot of what makes it popular. They should have made the movie into a side story of the series.


While I am by no means a fan of the film, I think it's important to correct misconceptions early on so that rumour doesn't become fact.

First, M. Night was the one who asked if he could direct these films. He was introduced to the show by I believe a niece or someone like that in his life, he watched it, and was inspired. So to say he didn't watch the show is simply not true.

Next, he didn't try to condense the entire series into one film. From what I understand (and I've never watched the show), the series is 3 seasons long, and the plan was to make a trilogy of films that each represents 1 season. Now it still might be too much to condense (but then I always refer to LOTR which was condensed very well in my mind, so it can be done if the craftsperson is skilled enough), but he by no means had the ambition to turn a 3 season show into a single film.

Lastly, while he is known for thrillers and weirdness, he has also worked with a lot of children and directed them quite successfully. I could understand on the surface why he might be considered not such a bad choice to direct a film that must be carried essentially by kids and teens. Also he is known to be a very spiritual person, so I can also see people thinking he would be good to bring that to the table as well.

I still think he wasn't a bad director for the film, just a bad writer for it.

At any rate, just wanted to correct those couple of assumptions.

dgiharris
07-05-2010, 03:08 AM
^ Have to disagree a bit with the above. The reasons why IMO M Night was a bad choice is summed up rather well by the flim critic from the NY Times


At his best — and even in the best parts of his weaker movies, like “The Village” or “Signs” — Mr. Shyamalan is a master of the unseen, but 3-D, almost by definition, has no use for what the viewer can’t see. So the best way to watch “The Last Airbender” is probably with your eyes closed.



and Eonline


The Bigger Picture: Director M. Night Shyamalan is, of course, best known for slow-burn, low-key suspense films that end with dramatic twists. And that probably makes him exactly the wrong person for a would-be epic like this adaptation of the popular animated serial Avatar: The Last Airbender (a show frequently mischaracterized as "anime," despite being made in America).

Read more: http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/movie_reviews/b188583_review_last_airbender_epically_boring.html #ixzz0sl1FNrch


I just can't buy that M. Night would be the right choice for an action film like this. Or put another way, what other films has M. Night written/directed that are similar in scope to this?

If I were the Production company, I would be angling for people with Harry Potter, Comic Book movies, LotR, or even Pixar/Dreamworks experience.

All in all, M Night would be about as right a choice for this as whoever directed Pretty Woman or Silence of the Lambs.

Just because those were good movies doesn't mean i'd sign them up for something that is COMPLETELY different like a live action anime adaptation.

Seriously, they should have been angling for Harry Potter experienced type people from the start

Mel....

Toothpaste
07-05-2010, 03:23 AM
Look all I'm saying is I can understand why some production houses might have considered him a good choice. And I gave you the reasons for it, a connection with mysticism and a history of working well with kid/teen actors. Just because in the end many people feel he failed, doesn't mean that before all that there weren't solid reasons to give him a chance.

And directors genre cross all the time, so that is hardly a solid reason for not allowing M. Night to do so. David Yates (the director of the Harry Potters since number 5) had never done a fantasy film before he was on board for that series. And don't you remember how concerned people were when they learned that the director of The Frighteners was taking on Lord of the Rings?

At any rate, I'm not saying M. Night did a good job with this film, but I can understand the reasoning behind giving him a chance. In fact I far prefer the idea of directors of other genres coming in to do fantasy as there is a strong chance they can bring in a new perspective and breathe new life into the genre.

(also hon, I think you really ought to see the film, just in case you find something about it that makes M. Night not quite the villain you think he is. Also because you seem very passionate about this series, and if you are truly wanting to debate the merits (or in this case the lack thereof) of this film, you should maybe actually watch it. Jumping on any bandwagon - be it to diss or praise - in my mind, does not make for a solid argument)

dgiharris
07-05-2010, 05:24 AM
Meh,

*grumble grumble*

fair point about me having not seen the film and jumping on the bandwagon. But in my defense, all of my barometers (friends that share like tastes) have seen it and told me how dreadful it was.

Besides

this :deadhorse:

is so much fun, easy to do, and is a great workout :D

Mel...

Celia Cyanide
07-05-2010, 05:58 AM
Johan Hex was just really bad movie and even though Brolin and Fox are both A-list stars, they're not really box office draws.

What is the difference between being an A-list star and a box-office draw? I thought they were the same thing. If they're not, what's the big deal about being A-List anyway?

Jcomp
07-05-2010, 06:54 AM
What is the difference between being an A-list star and a box-office draw? I thought they were the same thing. If they're not, what's the big deal about being A-List anyway?

Well, I'd say some people are "A-list" talents or A-list "names" but they're not going to bring people in to see a movie by themselves. Forrest Whitaker's an A-lister, an Academy Award Winner, but probably not too many people would be running out of their shoes to catch the next Forrest Whitaker flick based on his name alone.

Another case would be our good buddy Orlando Bloom. I'd say he's an "A-lister" in that coupled with a great project or great supporting cast he can co-headline a blockbuster. He's a very recognizable name and face. But by himself he's not enough to overcome a lousy looking premise, lackluster commercials / trailers and a lack of supporting cast. So he's not a box office draw the way guys like Johnny Depp or Will Smith are, in that people tend to give them the benefit of the doubt even if the film doesn't look all that great.

At least, that's my take.

maestrowork
07-05-2010, 07:14 AM
What is the difference between being an A-list star and a box-office draw? I thought they were the same thing. If they're not, what's the big deal about being A-List anyway?

I think there's a big difference but not sure what... I'm not saying people don't go see a movie because of the A-list stars... they do, but A-List means you're the top of the list: either you can demand more money or you have prestige, but that doesn't always translate to box office draw, as in people go to see the movie BECAUSE of you. Hugh Jackman, for example, has box office draw. Kate Winslet doesn't. Leo DiCaprio does. Toby Macguire doesn't. They're all considered A-list, however.

Celia Cyanide
07-05-2010, 10:16 AM
Okay...I just looked it up on Wikipedia, and in the industry, it means bankable stars, which would be the same thing, and outside the industry it means, basically, famous people.

dgiharris
07-05-2010, 11:43 AM
I guess i've always thought of the A-list as different categories.

You have the Gold Standard. These A-list actors/actresses can draw people to a movie on Name alone, that is, plot/script are secondary concerns. This is a very rare club. In fact, once you make it to this list it is almost a lifetime membership. You'd have to have a serious string of bad movies to be downgraded. Actors that come to mind are: Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Johny Depp, Tom Cruise, Julie Roberts, Steve Martin, Anthony Hopkins, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Lopez, Cameron Diaz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jack Nicholson, Robert DiNiro, Meryl Streep, Jim Carrey and the like.

The next list down on the category is what I'd call the Silver Standard which are A-Listers who are great actors but their headlines do not trump the plot/script. These actors can headline but they need to be paired with a good script and other A-listers: Edward Norton, Don Cheadle, Tobey Macguire, Kate Winslet, Mathew Mconaughey, Jessica Biel, Asthon Kutcher, Micheal Caine, Ed Harris,

The next category would be the bronze A-listers. Very recognizable actors with great talent. But they are not strong enough to Headline major films and are often supporting actors: Forest Whitaker, Woody Harrelson, Eva Mendez, Paul Giamotti, Mark Wahlberg, Alec Baldwin, Philip Hoffman,

I think with the above categories, one trait in common is that once you are on the list, you are assured a spot for a long while. You have to pay your dues in order to make it to the top three categories. Also, you sorta slide up and down the scale but as long as you don't screw up too many in a row, you are safe.

But then there is a whole other subset of A-listers that I guess I would call flash-in-the-pans. Basically a Temporary A-list. These are usually the teeny bopper sensations and one hit wonders. Their position is tenuous at best and they need to string together some solid performances in order to cement their A-list status.

I'll be the first to admit i'm not an expert at assigning rankings as I'm not up on the latest and greatest stars, but that is more or less how I see it.

Instead of painting with a broad brush like "A-Listers" try thinking of it in terms of: Gold, Silver, Bronze, and Temporary.

I think that is a better method of categorization. Not all A-Listers are equal.

Mel...

robeiae
07-05-2010, 03:36 PM
Jennifer Lopez?

Did you know that there's a remake in the works for the Kurt Russell/Goldie Hawn film Overboard...starring J Lo?

Celia Cyanide
07-05-2010, 05:36 PM
I guess i've always thought of the A-list as different categories.

The A-List in the industry is bascially only ecomonic, and it is constantly changing.

I don't really acknowledge it outside of that, because I think it's really high school.

maestrowork
07-05-2010, 06:19 PM
A-Listers in Hollywood is money-bound, but it's not just based on one hit or flop... John Travolta, for example, is still an A-List even though his last few movies have all been flops. Robin Williams is also an A-List but he hasn't made a hit since... well... Mrs. Doubtfire! So I think for many A-Listers it's not just being "famous" (after all, there are many famous actors in Hollywood), but also a total body of work (such as Jack Nicholson, who hasn't really made any movies lately), and total draw (Kate Winslet is A-List because of Titanic, which alone is going to make her an A-List for a while even if she continues to make flops).

Take Josh Brolin for example -- he's been B-List forever. But then he was getting some great roles that put him on the map. Working for some high-profile and critically acclaimed movies such as No Country for Old Men pushed him toward the A-List even though they didn't make money. MILK (for which he got his first Oscar nomination) and W (for which he starred in his first major movie and was universally praised) finally put him on the A-List, even though he's never a box office draw. Never. So for Josh Brolin, it's more about doing "prestigious" work. Now, only time can tell if Jonah Hex will set him back a few years, but I don't think it will knock him off the A-List that easy. Once you're on the A-List, it takes a bit more than just a few flops to knock you off.

Other high-profile, prestigious A-List actors (other than Winslet) include Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson, Nicole Kidman, Charlize Theron, Tobey Macguire, Jake Gyllenhaal, etc. -- none of which has carried a box office hit by themselves (even Spider-Man; anyone can take Macguire's place. In fact, when he was hurt, Gyllenhaal was to take his place). And yet, they are still A-List because they have clout. They are names. Producers and directors go to them directly, without asking them to audition at all. That pretty much makes them A-Listers when producers are offering you jobs like that...

maestrowork
07-05-2010, 06:31 PM
Airbender made $40M this weekend, which is respectable, but not spectacular, especially considering it's the July 4th weekend. With the bad word of mouth, I predict it will have a significant drop next week, and I seriously doubt it will recoup its costs even with the international box office.

maestrowork
07-05-2010, 06:33 PM
Jennifer Lopez?


J.Lo is still a very famous celebrity and singer, but as an actress, I think she's dropped off the A-List already. Her last movie was a little-seen romantic comedy starring her and... practically nobody. It made like $15M or something... she's definitely NOT on the A-List as an actress.

Celia Cyanide
07-05-2010, 07:51 PM
J.Lo is still a very famous celebrity and singer, but as an actress, I think she's dropped off the A-List already. Her last movie was a little-seen romantic comedy starring her and... practically nobody. It made like $15M or something... she's definitely NOT on the A-List as an actress.

Yeah, kind of a shame, I thought she was pretty good. I don't know what happened to her, really, she started to believe her own hype. or something. She's very beautiful, but I think it became all about that for her, instead of choosing interesting roles, and giving good performances.

maestrowork
07-05-2010, 08:19 PM
Yeah, kind of a shame, I thought she was pretty good. I don't know what happened to her, really, she started to believe her own hype. or something. She's very beautiful, but I think it became all about that for her, instead of choosing interesting roles, and giving good performances.

Exactly. She was actually not a bad actress, as she shown her stuff in Out of Sight, managing to upstage George Clooney. But I do think she started to believe her own hype and went way out to self-promote, and it kind of backfired. She's insanely beautiful and sexy, but when she started doing all that publicity stuff she was seen as nothing more than a sexpot. She needs to stop making these inane romcoms and do something more serious like she did with Selena and Out of Sight. I think taking a few years off and being a mom has grounded her a bit, so maybe she can stage a come back as a serious, A-List actress? Who knows?

Celia Cyanide
07-05-2010, 08:29 PM
I didn't even particularly like Out Of Sight (not my favorite Soderberg, by a long shot) and I thought she was good. And romcoms may not be my cup of tea, but some people are good at them. She's not, really. I thought she had potential to be a really interesting actress, but she kind of became That Weird Famous Person, and just got annoying.

maestrowork
07-05-2010, 08:32 PM
She needs to deglam and go the Charlize Theron/Nicole Kidman/Halle Berry route and nab an Oscar... (yeah, I can hear rob laughing...) Doing a remake of Goldie Hawn's Overboard (which was a remake of Taming of the Shrew)... well, stay on the B-List she does...

Smileycat
07-07-2010, 08:37 PM
May I join in?

I think J.Lo is a truly talented person who can sing, dance and act. A true performer can do all three. I'm not saying they have to have a melodic voice, but that they can sing, which is different.

I remember watching her embroiled in the whole Bennifer thing and she handled it with grace, so I admire her that way as well.

I know her movies are not considered deep, but, believe it or not, she sucked me in (more than the writing did) that she was a struggling single mom in Maid in Manhattan, and that she finally resigned to the erroneous thought that she'd never find electric chemistry with a man who wanted her for his wife, someone she loved, in The Wedding Planner. And, I appreciated her struggle in Monster-in-Law. Further, I thought she is capable of meshing with her (especially male lead) co-stars, no matter who they are (think Matthew Mcconaughey, whom I do not think melds with anyone well).

Of course, it goes without saying that her turn in Selena showed she could act, period. To satisfy those of you who want to see more of that, she will have to turn away from the lucrative popular form of movie and make an indie.

Diana Hignutt
07-07-2010, 09:12 PM
First, a quick defense of fellow Philly person, M. Night: Unbreakable is a fanastic film and I consider it his peak. Sadly, that's all I got, Last Airbender is getting clobbered reviewise, so the defence rests. Night's got a tough time acoming.

And, altough I was one of the five people who really liked Jennifer's Body, Megan Fox is just about done, too. The reviews of Hex that I've read are tearing her apart.

Most people in Hollywood only get one shot, though, I think.

maestrowork
07-07-2010, 09:36 PM
I think Megan Fox has at least one more shot, but after the Transformers debacle and Jonah Hex, she'd better plan her next move really, really, really carefully.

dgiharris
07-07-2010, 11:27 PM
She needs to deglam and go the Charlize Theron/Nicole Kidman/Halle Berry route and nab an Oscar... (yeah, I can hear rob laughing...) Doing a remake of Goldie Hawn's Overboard (which was a remake of Taming of the Shrew)... well, stay on the B-List she does...

Its not so much that she needs to deglam, moreso that she just needs to find/take advantage of opportunities to widen her range some.

And she did that to some extent with Enough.

Romcoms aren't necessarily bad and I enjoyed Monster-in-Law, in fact, it made $82M which is extremely well for a Romcom is it not?

And I also don't think your comment is accurate about believing her own hype. She is one of the 'rare' entertainers that has managed to conquer both the music world and the movie world and that puts her in the Will Smith and Barbara Streisand club. Basically, yes, she is a big deal. Or put another way, it is okay to believe your own hype when it is true.


I think Megan Fox has at least one more shot, but after the Transformers debacle and Jonah Hex, she'd better plan her next move really, really, really carefully.

I agree. But I think its going to be in the opportunity of a supporting role. She needs to get in a GOOD film. Something that isn't teeny booperish and she needs a role that will distinguish her in some fashion. Something that makes us say "Wow."

Perhaps a Romcom or the female version of Hangover :)

Basically, I don't think she will be served by doing another role that involves being the side kick with explosions going off in the background.

Mel...

Celia Cyanide
07-08-2010, 12:39 AM
And I also don't think your comment is accurate about believing her own hype. She is one of the 'rare' entertainers that has managed to conquer both the music world and the movie world and that puts her in the Will Smith and Barbara Streisand club. Basically, yes, she is a big deal. Or put another way, it is okay to believe your own hype when it is true.

What I meant, and what I think Maestrowork meant, was that she started getting a bit weird, and really into herself. Not that she isn't beautiful, or good at what she does. But she started playing a lot of dull ingenue roles. In other words, she was just the pretty girl. It's one thing to do that when that's the only thing you're good at, like Megan Fox. But when an actress you already know is talented starts doing that, it looks like she's more interested in being pretty and being a "star" than actually acting. Jennifer Lopez was in a position in which she could have played just about any type of role she wanted, and her decisions were pretty disappointing.

maestrowork
07-08-2010, 03:02 AM
Romcoms aren't necessarily bad and I enjoyed Monster-in-Law, in fact, it made $82M which is extremely well for a Romcom is it not?


It made $82M because of Jane Fonda, and everyone knows that. Trying to repeat with more romcoms that by herself is not a good idea.



Perhaps a Romcom or the female version of Hangover :)


Hmm.... wrong target audience. :) But they already did that... it's called Knocked Up. It's a gross-out romcom and it did very well, making Seth Rogen a star. Now, that's a path maybe Megan could follow... I mean, if pudgy Seth Rogen could become a star like that, what could it have done for her!?

maestrowork
07-08-2010, 03:08 AM
What I meant, and what I think Maestrowork meant, was that she started getting a bit weird, and really into herself. Not that she isn't beautiful, or good at what she does. But she started playing a lot of dull ingenue roles. In other words, she was just the pretty girl. It's one thing to do that when that's the only thing you're good at, like Megan Fox. But when an actress you already know is talented starts doing that, it looks like she's more interested in being pretty and being a "star" than actually acting. Jennifer Lopez was in a position in which she could have played just about any type of role she wanted, and her decisions were pretty disappointing.

Exactly. I already said she was insanely beautiful and talented, and she had it all. But she started to take herself too seriously... etc. I mean, she started her film career humbly with two excellent performances (Selena and Out of Sight) without any hype, but as soon as she became a "big deal" she became cocky. She did all that publicity stuff, dressing up in weird, ultra-sexy fashion and got into public disputes with the media, etc. She became a walking self-promoter like Paris Hilton. She was having more fun on the red carpet and in tabloids than on sets. That's fine if she followed up with stellar performances and top-notch movies, but I think she got sidetracked by trying to become a SUPERSTAR (and she was, for a while).

But i think, despite the failure of her last film, she could still come back. She's a talented entertainer and after a few years of calming down (being a mother really grounded her in recent years, I think), she will find her groove again.

Smileycat
07-09-2010, 02:05 AM
I'm with you, Maestro. Agree with what you're saying.