| Re: Star salaries coming down in Hollywood [message #1005043] |
Thu, 04 May 2006 16:36 |
|
Joe Gillis wrote:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060504/media_nm/leisure_starsal aries_dc
>
>
> Carrey, star of hits like "Bruce Almighty," had been a big beneficiary
> of the 1990s' salary run-up during which he saw his paycheck hit the
> $25 million mark.
>
Arnold and Mel Gibson were getting that much in the early 90's.
> However, his recent big-budget movies like "Fun with Dick and Jane"
> barely topped $100 million in domestic ticket sales, leaving his star
> tarnished, the magazine said.
>
> Carrey's not the only one. Kidman is considered a risky bet after the
> box office failure of "Bewitched" and "The Stepford Wives" among other
> recent films.
Didn't the "Stepford Wives" star that dorky Ferris Buller kid? Why does
anybody pay ticket prices for a movie with that bland talentless bum?
>
> Will Ferrell's $20 million also made the list of risky bets given
> recent box office disappointments and Eddie Murphy's $20 million was
> considered downright "too pricey."
Murphy hasn't been a star since teh dawn of the 90s. I can't believe
the hype movies like "Metro" got, and his Nutty Professor was just
juvenile bathroom humour.
>
> But Tom Hanks' $25 million was thought to be "worth every penny"
> because he remains "one of the most bankable brand names in the world."
Why? Does anybody actually go and see a movie because of Hanks or
because of the movie's actual plot?
I'm going to see "The DaVinci Code" but certainly not because of TH.
I liked "CMIYC" very much and partially because of TH but not because
of him alone.
"SPR" was a great movie but TH was hardly the most captivating part of
it, I much prefered Barry Pepper's role.
Dragnet was an Aykroyd movie. Philadelfia and Forrest Gump were great
stories but not Tom Hanks vehicles.
> Oscar nominee Jake Gyllenhaal, at $5 million to $7 million a picture,
> and Rachel McAdams at $3 million to $4 million, were bargains.
This Gyllenhaal kid isn't much of an actor at all, he's another Freddie
Prinze generic teen flick actor. Hell, Ryan Phillipe is a much better
actor, the Aussie kid is also a better actor than JG.
Rachel McAdams is a name popping up a lot these days but for somebody
who doesn't obcess with following every single celebrety she's just
another faceless name out there, I can honestly say I never seen her in
a movie or I certainly don't recall her and I go to the movies 3 times
a week so if this faceless pseudo-celebrity was a star I dare say I
would be aware of her in mainstream media where she is presently a
nobody or a name that is only picked up in a long-range celeb-radar.
I'd rather see names like Cole Hauser or Paul Walker get more big
roles, these guys are genuine talent unlike Broderick, Gyllenhaal, etc.
Andr=E9
|
|
|
| Re: Star salaries coming down in Hollywood [message #1014185 ] |
Sat, 06 May 2006 19:42 |
|
homem-da-natureza [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>>But Tom Hanks' $25 million was thought to be "worth every penny"
>>because he remains "one of the most bankable brand names in the world."
>
>
> Why? Does anybody actually go and see a movie because of Hanks or
> because of the movie's actual plot?
I think both, equally. His acting is good, and he's also selective, so
when he's in a movie it's a good sign the show overall will be good. Of
course nobody bats 1000.
|
|
|
| Re: Star salaries coming down in Hollywood [message #1014189 ] |
Sat, 06 May 2006 21:10 |
|
On 4 May 2006 07:36:48 -0700, homem-da-natureza [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>> However, his recent big-budget movies like "Fun with Dick and Jane"
>> barely topped $100 million in domestic ticket sales, leaving his star
>> tarnished, the magazine said.
>>
>> Carrey's not the only one. Kidman is considered a risky bet after the
>> box office failure of "Bewitched" and "The Stepford Wives" among other
>> recent films.
>
>Didn't the "Stepford Wives" star that dorky Ferris Buller kid?
He may have acted in it, but based on the advertising, I'd say the
stars of the movie were women.
>>
>> But Tom Hanks' $25 million was thought to be "worth every penny"
>> because he remains "one of the most bankable brand names in the world."
>
>Why? Does anybody actually go and see a movie because of Hanks or
>because of the movie's actual plot?
Yes, it's quite likely that people go to see movies because of Tom
Hanks. Not me, mind you, but I will watch a movie because it has
Sandra Bullock in it, so I'm perfectly willing to think that there are
people for whom Tom Hanks is a draw.
|
|
|
| Re: Star salaries coming down in Hollywood [message #1014190 ] |
Sat, 06 May 2006 21:27 |
|
> so I'm perfectly willing to think that there are people for whom Tom Hanks is a draw.
``````````````````
I love him! But even I didn't see The Terminal or The Ladykillers.
They just repelled me.
|
|
|
