PDA

View Full Version : celebrities-movies always flopping??



BUTLER REDSFAN
12-09-2007, 10:40 AM
I have never understood the celebrity of some stars...George Clooney,Brad Pitt,Nicole Kidman,Jim Carrey...the only time their movies seem to make money is an ensemble movie like Ocean's 11/12/13..Clooney had a hit tv show but again that was an ensemble...seemingly their movies seem to flop over,over and over...not sure why or how these movie companys constantly give these peopl 20 mill a movie for one failure after the other

redsfan1966
12-09-2007, 11:27 AM
With Clooney I understand the question...however the others you mention still bring big box office, believe it or not, especially when you figure in overseas rights, DVD fees, etc. They still have "buzz". Clooney I think has crossed the line from doing garbage like "Batman and Robin" to having the respect and clout to do whatever the hell project he wants and not worry about box office.

Chip R
12-09-2007, 11:35 AM
Interesting you mention this. Every Sunday morning they have a show called Shootout where these two Hollywood insiders discss the film biz and interview a coule of people. This morning they were talking about this very subject where films starring people like Be Stiller and Cate Blanchett and Jamie Foxx have bombed recently. They were saying the studios like for actors to be typecast and it makes it easier to sell the film. People aren't comfortable with change and odds are that they will go to movies where the stars are playing familiar characters. But they were also sayong that actors don't like to be typecast. Basically they were sying that it's not a new problem. It's existed for decades.

redsfan1966
12-09-2007, 11:38 AM
I have always missed watching Shootout--always forget it is on with the upcoming NFL games--but looks like a good show to watch. The typecasting angle really hits home with Stiller-if I see another ad for a film with Ben as a nice but befuddled guy who gets into mishaps with an eccentric female I will puke.

WMR
12-09-2007, 11:41 AM
Stiller is just way overexposed at this point. Audiences are sick of him

Don't really get lumping Pitt into that group. He's usually an exceedingly safe bet at the box office. For every Seven Years in Tibet there's several Seven's, Fight Club's, and Mr. and Mrs. Smith's.

WMR
12-09-2007, 11:42 AM
Jim Carrey was box office gold until he went all "THE MAJESTIC" on us.

MrCinatit
12-09-2007, 11:51 AM
I know a lot of actors who would give their left arm to direct a flop like Good Night, Good Luck, or act in Syriana.
Or to act in The Assassination of Jessie James By the Coward Robert Ford or Babel.
Or The Interpretor or Cold Mountain.
Of Carrey's last five movies, three (Fun With Dick And Jane, Lemony Snickets and Bruce Almighty) grossed for more than 100 million. One of the others - Eternal Sunshine For The Spotless Mind - was a critics darling.
For every bit of fluff like an Ocean's 13 or Mr. And Mrs. Smith, you will also notice actors taking on more responsible and acclaimed rolls such as Babel and Dogville. Fluff usually makes more money - but any respectable actor knows a hardcore roll will garner them a chance to work on those fluffy money machines - and some actors gain more satisfaction in rolls such as Micheal Clayton.
Of course, some will find themselves in the perfect marriage of both, a la Fight Club, O Brother Where Art Thou?, The Others, Snatch or The Truman Show - but those instances are rare.

Unassisted
12-09-2007, 06:15 PM
Clooney I think has crossed the line from doing garbage like "Batman and Robin" to having the respect and clout to do whatever the hell project he wants and not worry about box office.

I would say that Pitt, Carrey and to a lesser extent, Kidman have reached that point in their careers, too. They have families that they enjoy and they have as much money as they will ever need. That gives them the luxury to work on projects that interest them.

cincinnati chili
12-09-2007, 08:07 PM
I have never understood the celebrity of some stars...George Clooney,Brad Pitt,Nicole Kidman,Jim Carrey...the only time their movies seem to make money is an ensemble movie like Ocean's 11/12/13..Clooney had a hit tv show but again that was an ensemble...seemingly their movies seem to flop over,over and over...not sure why or how these movie companys constantly give these peopl 20 mill a movie for one failure after the other

Does Clooney get $20 mil. for the movies that flop or just the ocean 11 type movies?

For example: this site says that the entire budget for good night good luck was $7 mil. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433383/

This site says that it grossed 31 mil. at the box office and 23 mil. in video:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1152019-good_night_and_good_luck/

This site says he only got $350 K for syriana:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000123/bio

KittyDuran
12-09-2007, 08:25 PM
Interesting you mention this. Every Sunday morning they have a show called Shootout where these two Hollywood insiders discss the film biz and interview a coule of people. This morning they were talking about this very subject where films starring people like Be Stiller and Cate Blanchett and Jamie Foxx have bombed recently. They were saying the studios like for actors to be typecast and it makes it easier to sell the film. People aren't comfortable with change and odds are that they will go to movies where the stars are playing familiar characters. But they were also sayong that actors don't like to be typecast. Basically they were sying that it's not a new problem. It's existed for decades.Lots of typos, Chip... feeling OK?

GAC
12-09-2007, 09:08 PM
Will Ferrell is another one. But then, I'm no huge fan of his.

Travolta was like that too for awhile - making about 5 movies/year,and none really woth watching IMO.

Does the over-exposure increase their popularity/demand?

vaticanplum
12-09-2007, 09:42 PM
Will Ferrell is another one. But then, I'm no huge fan of his.

Travolta was like that too for awhile - making about 5 movies/year,and none really woth watching IMO.

Does the over-exposure increase their popularity/demand?

Are we talking about quality movies or movies that do well at the box office? "Flopping" implies to me that the movies didn't perform well. Will Ferrell's movies, by and large, make a flip ton of money. I can think of two offhand that really underperformed (Bewitched and Stranger Than Fiction), but that's it. Clooney's movies tend to perform well relative to what they cost to make, as chili points out, and most of Jim Carrey's movies have made a lot of money, as Mr Cinatit points out.

Yes, we see the same actors over and over again, but that's either because a) they're good (Clooney, Blanchett), or b) they're a good bet at the box office (Ferrell, Will Smith) and studios want something of a good bet when they're forking over billions of dollars to make a movie. Because we see the same actors a lot, odds are that there's bound to be a flop once in a while, but it doesn't really hurt an actor of that magnitude and draw unless s/he makes a ton in a row (I don't think any actor mentioned in this thread qualifies).

There are lots of independent films out there that showcase lesser known actors and at least these have a chance to be made. Things were far worse under the studio actor-contract system of decades ago.

Chip R
12-09-2007, 10:32 PM
One of the things that is way different these days is that actors and actresses have the pull to direct and produce movies. Clooney's a good example. He may do an "Oceans" movie to do "Good Night and Good Luck" for example. The former made tons of money while the latter didn't. It's a tradeoff which ironically was addressed in GN&GL where Murrow would do the Person to Person show - sort of like a Barbara Walters interview - to do a See It Now show. I'm not sure that is on point here but it may be something that should be taken into account.

MrCinatit
12-09-2007, 10:56 PM
Are we talking about quality movies or movies that do well at the box office? "Flopping" implies to me that the movies didn't perform well. Will Ferrell's movies, by and large, make a flip ton of money. I can think of two offhand that really underperformed (Bewitched and Stranger Than Fiction), but that's it. Clooney's movies tend to perform well relative to what they cost to make, as chili points out, and most of Jim Carrey's movies have made a lot of money, as Mr Cinatit points out.

Yes, we see the same actors over and over again, but that's either because a) they're good (Clooney, Blanchett), or b) they're a good bet at the box office (Ferrell, Will Smith) and studios want something of a good bet when they're forking over billions of dollars to make a movie. Because we see the same actors a lot, odds are that there's bound to be a flop once in a while, but it doesn't really hurt an actor of that magnitude and draw unless s/he makes a ton in a row (I don't think any actor mentioned in this thread qualifies).

There are lots of independent films out there that showcase lesser known actors and at least these have a chance to be made. Things were far worse under the studio actor-contract system of decades ago.

Stranger Than Fiction still follows the trend, too, as it was a huge critic's darling and got an Oscar buzz last year (FYI, I liked that movie...as well as Talladega Nights).
Smith follows the trend, as well - while he was doing fluff like Independence Day, Bad Boys and Men In Black (all hot sellers), he was sprinkling those with respectable films such as Ali and The Pursuit of Happiness, though Pursuit surprised many at the box office.

Some opt for the Cameron Diaz career path. She used The Mask to break in - then for four years, worked in the Indy film arena to hone her acting skills (no, she did not turn herself in the a Streep, but at least somewhat improved), along with making a name for herself as an actress instead of a face.
And with that, not only was she able to do smashes like There's Something About Mary and the Shrek franchise, but chose rolls she wanted in In Her Shoes and The Holiday.

Unassisted has a very good point, too - sometimes an actor will slow down after earning enough money to spend time with their families, occasionally peaking from retirement a la Gwenyth Paltrow.

TeamCasey
12-10-2007, 11:46 AM
Nicole Kidman isn't beleivable in any role I've seen her in. Just too princess like.

I want to see more Meryl Streep and Glenn Close!

C'mon ladies - if Judi Dench and Helen Mirren can do it ..... so can you!

dabvu2498
12-10-2007, 11:50 AM
Nicole Kidman isn't beleivable in any role I've seen her in. Just too princess like.


Come on! She was a great neurologist in Days of Thunder!!! :D

WMR
12-10-2007, 11:55 AM
You know her most unbelievable role?

TOM CRUISE'S WIFE


HEY NOW

BUTLER REDSFAN
12-11-2007, 07:48 PM
http://omg.yahoo.com/the-most-overpaid-celebrities/news/4721

Ironically, I just came across this today.

GAC
12-16-2007, 06:59 AM
Come on! She was a great neurologist in Days of Thunder!!! :D

She was the only positive in Batman Forever. Very seductive looking.

I thought she did a good job in Cold Mountain and The Others; but other then that..... Blah!

Too anorexic (and pale) looking for me though

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-11/16/xinsrc_5af9e9e1de0343739d74e46a492137e7_kidman.jpg