|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 12, 2015 7:58:34 GMT
"The Longest Ride" debuted at #35 for the year with a measly $5.5 million in sales. Either "Furious 7" is still getting all the love, or we've got another possible dud. I had no idea what that film was, the longest time I have ever tried to find a review that was anything but someone trying to be funny without actually admitting to they took their "cute" "quote" from the website rotten tomatoes and didnt actually watch the film. I want my 20 mins back. I didnt enjoy the search, and got precious few results. On the other score, Furious 7, my Kids went to see the film. Their initial reaction, and based on they have 15 or so years experience of what I like, "Dad you will want to see that film, its one you will like" On the score I actually know who did the restoration work on the Ford Escort Mk1 (blue) that was in the film, I want to see it in action anyway, even though it got wrecked worse than salvage, and definitely wont ever be repaired. But for my Kids to know I want to see it, I am sure they are right. Flying cars ... well, I always have a soft spot for that kind of action.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Apr 20, 2015 2:20:55 GMT
"Unfinished Business" is dead as well; it just finished its US theatrical run with a $22m shortfall, and I doubt it'll make it up internationally.
In contrast, "Furious 7" will likely cross $300m US domestic this week, while "Do You Believe?" needs a mere $600k to best both "Unfinished Business" and "Strange Magic".
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Apr 20, 2015 5:31:48 GMT
"Unfinished Business" is dead as well; it just finished its US theatrical run with a $22m shortfall, and I doubt it'll make it up internationally. In contrast, "Furious 7" will likely cross $300m US domestic this week, while "Do You Believe?" needs a mere $600k to best both "Unfinished Business" and "Strange Magic". "Unfinished Business " a Vince Vaughan film enough said.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 26, 2015 13:37:49 GMT
"The Longest Ride" debuted at #35 for the year with a measly $5.5 million in sales. Either "Furious 7" is still getting all the love, or we've got another possible dud. I'm sure furious 7 will do good. it's a popcorn movie, and those always do well. (popcorn movie: a movie where you go to eat popcorn and watch the entertainment without expecting any depth to it) Furious 7 has netted over a $billion to date, so 'do good' is an understatement*. I can think of only two other films this year that are guaranteed to go flying past that amount, Avengers Age of Ultron and Star Wars. (*Furious 8 has, for those who haven't heard, already been confirmed by Vin Diesel for 2017 (I think I got that right). Hardly a great surprise.) There are of course a lot of other big budget films out this year, but I'm not sure if any of them are guaranteed hits. Mad Max seems to have a good chance as all of the early reviews are positive, and given how long it has been since the last films came out it should feel fresh to most of the potential audiences. Terminator should, on paper, do well. But it is following on from two pitiful films that were released not that long ago and Arnie doesn't have the pulling power he once did*. I've also not heard any early reviews to indicate that it is as good as the trailer would like us to believe. (*This isn't just Arnie, the time of being able to sell a film purely on the star of the film seem to have gone. A well known actor may raise interest, but not actually make people go see a film...Something Robert Downey Jr showed with 'The Judge' or Johnny Depp has shown with more or less everything he's made in the last 15 years) The film I'm most interested in seeing how it performs is Ant Man. Marvel/Disney hasn't exactly done a huge amount of marketing for this yet, understandable as they were concentrating on Avengers, and the character himself is neither well known or all that liked. It appears at this point that they are going to be relying on the Marvel/Disney name to convince people they should go see this. It will be interesting to see if the Marvel logo can do this; Assuming that they don't up their marketing game as soon as Avengers is released.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 26, 2015 14:45:44 GMT
I'm sure furious 7 will do good. it's a popcorn movie, and those always do well. (popcorn movie: a movie where you go to eat popcorn and watch the entertainment without expecting any depth to it) Furious 7 has netted over a $billion to date, so 'do good' is an understatement*. I can think of only two other films this year that are guaranteed to go flying past that amount, Avengers Age of Ultron and Star Wars. (*Furious 8 has, for those who haven't heard, already been confirmed by Vin Diesel for 2017 (I think I got that right). Hardly a great surprise.) There are of course a lot of other big budget films out this year, but I'm not sure if any of them are guaranteed hits. Mad Max seems to have a good chance as all of the early reviews are positive, and given how long it has been since the last films came out it should feel fresh to most of the potential audiences. Terminator should, on paper, do well. But it is following on from two pitiful films that were released not that long ago and Arnie doesn't have the pulling power he once did*. I've also not heard any early reviews to indicate that it is as good as the trailer would like us to believe. (*This isn't just Arnie, the time of being able to sell a film purely on the star of the film seem to have gone. A well known actor may raise interest, but not actually make people go see a film...Something Robert Downey Jr showed with 'The Judge' or Johnny Depp has shown with more or less everything he's made in the last 15 years) The film I'm most interested in seeing how it performs is Ant Man. Marvel/Disney hasn't exactly done a huge amount of marketing for this yet, understandable as they were concentrating on Avengers, and the character himself is neither well known or all that liked. It appears at this point that they are going to be relying on the Marvel/Disney name to convince people they should go see this. It will be interesting to see if the Marvel logo can do this; Assuming that they don't up their marketing game as soon as Avengers is released. except pirates of the Caribbean.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 26, 2015 15:26:00 GMT
While the success of Pirates has been down to JD, that (and the marketing) was due to the character rather than JD's name. In fact I think when the first pirates film came out Orlando Bloom was the better known actor.
Even today, when JD's star has outshone OB's, the Pirates films seem to be marketed more for the character than the actor. Certainly none of the other films he's made have been able to gain any significant success based in him staring in them.
People today seem to like actors, but don't appear to use that as a reason to actually go and see a film. Sure, we know that some actors can (usually) be trusted to give good performances (RD jr for example) but that doesn't mean that the rest of the film is going to be worthwhile.
Studios appear to understand this, which is why actor wages have significantly dropped since the mid 90's when the big stars could demand millions (or a private jet) to appear. These days the bigger actors, again RD jr being an example, will at best manage to get a cut of the profits of a film. RD's money came from such an agreement in his contract rather than being paid during filming.
As an aside I'm noticing that we have in recent years been seeing more and more 'older' actors being brought into films. Either as the leads or as co-stars to help prop up films. Just as interestingly these actors seem to be the ones that have reputations not only as good actors, but also as being dependable and reliable. This seems to be especially true for Marvel, who used RD jr for Iron Man, Tommy Lee Jones in Captain America, Samuel Jackson in everything, Anthony Hopkins in Thor, Robert Redford in Winter Soldier...even DC got in on this act by casting Kevin Costner in Superman and Michel Cain in the Batman films (and Jeremy Irons for Bm vs Sm).
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 26, 2015 21:08:35 GMT
While the success of Pirates has been down to JD, that (and the marketing) was due to the character rather than JD's name. In fact I think when the first pirates film came out Orlando Bloom was the better known actor. Even today, when JD's star has outshone OB's, the Pirates films seem to be marketed more for the character than the actor. Certainly none of the other films he's made have been able to gain any significant success based in him staring in them. People today seem to like actors, but don't appear to use that as a reason to actually go and see a film. Sure, we know that some actors can (usually) be trusted to give good performances (RD jr for example) but that doesn't mean that the rest of the film is going to be worthwhile. Studios appear to understand this, which is why actor wages have significantly dropped since the mid 90's when the big stars could demand millions (or a private jet) to appear. These days the bigger actors, again RD jr being an example, will at best manage to get a cut of the profits of a film. RD's money came from such an agreement in his contract rather than being paid during filming. As an aside I'm noticing that we have in recent years been seeing more and more 'older' actors being brought into films. Either as the leads or as co-stars to help prop up films. Just as interestingly these actors seem to be the ones that have reputations not only as good actors, but also as being dependable and reliable. This seems to be especially true for Marvel, who used RD jr for Iron Man, Tommy Lee Jones in Captain America, Samuel Jackson in everything, Anthony Hopkins in Thor, Robert Redford in Winter Soldier...even DC got in on this act by casting Kevin Costner in Superman and Michel Cain in the Batman films (and Jeremy Irons for Bm vs Sm). the evolution of moviemaking is an interesting subject - Johnny Depp has always been one to star in quirky films most people don't see - pirates was actually blockbuster because of what it was rather than who was in it - though it really needed Depp in that role to work properly. as for star power an pay - I think that is a fundamental shift in how Hollywood does business - it is a lot safer to offer your actor a share of the profit than it is to give him a dollar figure. certainly if you make it big you won't reap as much yourself - but if it tanks, you're off the hook. as for the older actors - we are reaching a point where the ones who used to be the stars are now the wiser older mentors - but we are still getting a fair proportion of movies made where stars essentially appear as themselves - like Samuel L Jackson.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 26, 2015 21:51:03 GMT
I'm also wondering if work ethic comes into play with the older generation of actors. They are (usually) in a position to be able to pick and choose films while younger actors are trying to make a name for themselves.
My thinking is that when older actors are cast they are more likely to want to do the film for its own sake, rather than just for the money or fame. After all they don't have to prove that they can act (although in a few cases they do end up having to remind people they can)
Stars getting a percentage of the takings is the exception rather than the rule, and in RD jr's case was most likely part of his contact because Marvel took a LOT of risks with Iron Man. Not just with the film but also with RD himself, who everyone seemed to have forgotten could act and who hadn't had much in the way for success for quite some time. More usually actors are getting less per film, but being contracted for multiple films - which is as close to job security as an actor can hope for. Those who have a lot of success may be able to command better terms for playing specific roles, but I think the time when an actor can otherwise demand a shed-full of money purely on their name have gone. RD' jr's percentage contract only applied to playing Tony Stark not anything else Disney/Marvel might put him in. I think the other alternative is to agree to fund some project of the actors, or at least agree to distribute any 'independent' film they might make.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 26, 2015 22:30:01 GMT
I'm also wondering if work ethic comes into play with the older generation of actors. They are (usually) in a position to be able to pick and choose films while younger actors are trying to make a name for themselves. My thinking is that when older actors are cast they are more likely to want to do the film for its own sake, rather than just for the money or fame. After all they don't have to prove that they can act (although in a few cases they do end up having to remind people they can) Stars getting a percentage of the takings is the exception rather than the rule, and in RD jr's case was most likely part of his contact because Marvel took a LOT of risks with Iron Man. Not just with the film but also with RD himself, who everyone seemed to have forgotten could act and who hadn't had much in the way for success for quite some time. More usually actors are getting less per film, but being contracted for multiple films - which is as close to job security as an actor can hope for. Those who have a lot of success may be able to command better terms for playing specific roles, but I think the time when an actor can otherwise demand a shed-full of money purely on their name have gone. RD' jr's percentage contract only applied to playing Tony Stark not anything else Disney/Marvel might put him in. I think the other alternative is to agree to fund some project of the actors, or at least agree to distribute any 'independent' film they might make. actors in general tend to be poor at managing their lives and their money - some of the older actors may need the income.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 27, 2015 0:33:29 GMT
Errm, not really. Keep in mind that the media LOVES reporting on actors who go off the rails. (Or musicians etc)
Most are not better or worse than the average person...in fact many of them are probably better with money and their lives than average as they A; Tend to spend most of their 'working' lives in or close to poverty. And B; TV/Film is much more about reputation and contacts within the business. Or if you like its not so much what you know as who you know. For example Jamie ended up being offered Mythbusters because he knew Peter Rees (sp?) and had worked with him before. Adam, in turn, ended up on the show because he knew Jamie having worked with him. Grant ended up on the show for the exact same reason - he'd worked with them before. The nature of contacts requires you have social skills of some sort and a fairly decent 'life' outside acting. Yes, actors can party hard, but then acting is a VERY insecure line of work. Some 90%+ of those in the American Acting unions are unemployed at any given time. (One of my uncles was a camera man for Granada TV in the UK, and my aunt has lots of stories about several actors they got to know very well.)
What the media tends not to report is that many older established actors invest their earnings elsewhere. Sandra Bullock for example has her own production company and (off the top of my head) three resturants/shops. There is a reason they can afford to live in big houses, even when they don't work that much. Another example would be Stephen Amell, who part owns a vinyard.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 27, 2015 1:01:09 GMT
Errm, not really. Keep in mind that the media LOVES reporting on actors who go off the rails. (Or musicians etc) Most are not better or worse than the average person...in fact many of them are probably better with money and their lives than average as they A; Tend to spend most of their 'working' lives in or close to poverty. And B; TV/Film is much more about reputation and contacts within the business. Or if you like its not so much what you know as who you know. For example Jamie ended up being offered Mythbusters because he knew Peter Rees (sp?) and had worked with him before. Adam, in turn, ended up on the show because he knew Jamie having worked with him. Grant ended up on the show for the exact same reason - he'd worked with them before. The nature of contacts requires you have social skills of some sort and a fairly decent 'life' outside acting. Yes, actors can party hard, but then acting is a VERY insecure line of work. Some 90%+ of those in the American Acting unions are unemployed at any given time. (One of my uncles was a camera man for Granada TV in the UK, and my aunt has lots of stories about several actors they got to know very well.) What the media tends not to report is that many older established actors invest their earnings elsewhere. Sandra Bullock for example has her own production company and (off the top of my head) three resturants/shops. There is a reason they can afford to live in big houses, even when they don't work that much. Another example would be Stephen Amell, who part owns a vinyard. some do plan well, others don't.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Apr 27, 2015 2:07:17 GMT
Jason JankowskiFormer child star. Got bored with acting and focused on high school athletics instead. Graduated high school, went to college, and now works as an advertising executive. Honestly did not understand why so many people were scared for him because he dropped off the radar like he did. Voluntarily resurfaced when he realized that an entire season of "Transformers" was in rights limbo since no one could find him.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 27, 2015 9:11:27 GMT
Again, most child stars don't actually have that many problems even if suddenly realizing that the entire world doesn't actually love you can be hard for a while. The media however just loves running stories about child actors who've gone off the rails, ignoring all of the ones who haven't or who actually find it LESS stressful to leave acting behind them as they used to get bullied for being on film/TV.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Apr 27, 2015 17:02:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Apr 27, 2015 17:04:29 GMT
On a lighter note, I predict Avengers: Age of Ultron will not be on this list I saw it last night an d it was pretty good , including a blink and you will miss it shot of my old halls of residence at University.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 27, 2015 17:28:11 GMT
Bummer about sweeten. was appearing in the show related or just a way for people to have a connection? we'll probably never know.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Apr 28, 2015 6:12:38 GMT
Bummer about sweeten. was appearing in the show related or just a way for people to have a connection? we'll probably never know. You are probably right, unless there is an inquest as we would have here, we will not no the real cause, but this is where I differ from Cyber, the list of former child actors that die from suicide or drug overdose is high, River Phoenix, the actor that played Willis in Different Strokes for example. There are other like Drew Barrymore who get into drugs , though she has manage to recover her life. If you look online thee are a number of lists of former child stars that have got themselves into,trouble or sadly died, it may be the fact they had too much money too young, or the fact their careers ended far too soon but I think there is something there.
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Apr 28, 2015 7:34:21 GMT
"Willis" (Todd Bridges) is very much alive. He did, however, have issues with crack cocaine for a while.
Dana Plato, the actress who played his sister "Kim", did die of an overdose.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 28, 2015 8:37:22 GMT
And maybe the irreverent humour. I LOVED the films, not so much because of the action, or the story, but the throw-away lines that made me pause the film until I could see through the tears of laughter...
If anyone knows the scene, the Fork stuck in the wooden glass eye?... Who DIDNT laugh loudly at that?...
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 28, 2015 8:49:49 GMT
Also on a lighter note, following Films, I now know what the makers of Lego stories are up to.
If you know of the Lego game XBOX/PS/PC games?... Lego are doing a make of the Jurassic Park because of the new Jurassic World film?...
They then intend a "next in the series" for Marvel Avengers because of the Age of Ultron. It will be called Lego Dimensions...
I aint sure which is coming first/second in them two?... maybe Dimensions first as its being advertised, for september 29th.
Boih of those are on the web site.
And for any Star Wars fans, I have a whisper that cannot be denied that there will be a return to Star Wars Lego, because of the new films in production.
"Someone I know" knows someone who works for TT Fusion, Travellers Tales ..
|
|