Stars who are box office poison

Halle Berry (that's why she moved to TV)

Sylvester Stallone and his exwife Bridget

Ryan Gosling

Stallone is really hard to look at. He looks like his face is melting. All he really ever had was Rambo and Rocky, and he turned that shit into box office gold. He's over. It's a different era now.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

[quote]Stallone is really hard to look at. He looks like his face is melting. All he really ever had was Rambo and Rocky, and he turned that shit into box office gold. He's over. It's a different era now.

Stallone's worldwide box office disagrees with you.

The Expendables $274,470,394t (worldwide)

The Expendables $305,428,192t (worldwide)

The Expendables $206,172,544t (worldwide)

The Escape Plan $137,328,301t (worldwide)

The Expendables $274,470,394t (worldwide)

The Expendables 2 $305,428,192t (worldwide)

The Expendables 3 $206,172,544t (worldwide)

The Escape Plan $137,328,301t (worldwide)

Reynolds and Gosling are driven by hype. I mean how the hell do they keep getting jobs. Now there's a list. Box office poison and yet they keep getting work. Don't hate me for saying this, but George Clooney's movies don't do real well at the Box Office, but his PR machine is pretty amazing. A lot of hype.

Vince Vaughan

Does anyone know what the box office was for The Expendables?

Nicole Kidman

Owen Wilson

Does anyone else find Owen Wilson hot?

R13 No. Though how he keeps finding yoga instructors to impregnate, we'll never know.

Now, don't forget us! Hyped to the max and no box office pull!

R13 Nope, I find him repulsive. He has always looked like an old English aristocrat or something.

Wasn't Ryan Reynolds poised to be the next big thing at some point and then he fizzled just as fast? For some reason I have always believed it was so.

Who the fuck did Reynolds fuck? He has never been in a hit but somehow got magically elevated to - allegedly - the A list? He's going down.

[quote]Who the fuck did Reynolds fuck? He has never been in a hit but somehow got magically elevated to - allegedly - the A list? He's going down.

Well, he's white. Isn't that enough according to DL and Hollywood?

[quote]Wasn't Ryan Reynolds poised to be the next big thing at some point and then he fizzled just as fast?

Surprisingly enough, his R-Rated superhero movie is getting HUGE buzz from Comic Com

Brendan Fraser. Buttah face.

R18 so did The Green Lantern... until it opened. His big, new movie this week Self/less isn't even in the top 10 this weekend.

Minnie Driver. Hollywood loves her, the public would rather undergo a root canal.

Ms. Hollywood Royalty

Colin Farrell.

Johnny Depp, George Clooney, Ryan Grosling

Olivia Munn, forever in Olivia Wilde's shadow.

Taylor Lautner(although if he would do a nude scene and jerk off while shoving a dildo in his ass on camera, it would probably become the biggest box office hit in history).

Ryan Gosling is not box office poison. Ryan Reynolds, though is finished no matter what happens to his comic book movie.

Vince Vaughn and Colin Farrell are similarly over. Their HBO show is dismal, and not in a good way.

Almost all of the turn of the century A-listers.

Thank you, R20. Those pathetic cosplayers at Comic Con love and hype everything every year. A critic I know likes to watch movies that he really liked outside of the festivals before he gives his review because the energy and hype can unduly and unknowingly influence you. Comic Con is the ultimate hype machine, people.

Not saying the movies are bad, but it is all a big commercial.

[quote]Ryan Gosling is not box office poison.

Nope I'm not! It's just that people don't go see my movies.

Gosling is becoming box office poison. His last three movies (one if which he directed) bombed. They were also critical failures. He is not in Reynolds territory because he can ride on past critical success.

Orlando Bloom owns this thread.

If he hadn't played that fucking Elf, Lagolas, and if he hadn't done the Pirates of the Carribbean franchise, he wouldn't even be a memory.

Well, Orlando was also a favorite victim of the bling ring

Orlando was a recreational drug user and party animal. He hung out with Leo until Miranda told Leo it was OK to bang her. Orlando minded. He also minded when that puyana went a round with Justin Beiber of all people. Orlando is no aging well.

But it is Hayden Christiansen who really owns this thread. Soon Ryan Reynolds will have a career just like Hayden's...straight to DVD. Maybe they can do a Netflix series together. Unless Yahoo signs them first. I sense a bidding war!

R34 Completely agree on Hayden. A broom with a hat could have done a better job as Anakin Skywalker.

Lots of you are just listing people who are long gone from the screen.

Minnie Driver? Brendan Fraser? Come on!

Yeah Liza Minnelli is box office poison these days too. As is Olivia de Havilland.

Except that he's great in "Shattered Glass." Like Natalie before him, one right role in one right movie could erase all that bad "Star Wars" blood.

Speaking of, Shattered Glass, Chloë Sevigny never really made it big in Hollywood

Oscar nomination aside. Think it was that on-screen blowjob that did it. Would Hollywood/America ever be ready for that?

That guy from Broke Back Mountain, can't think of his name, but he's made a bunch of flicks and none of them were very successful. Oh I think his name Jake something or other.

Who isn't box office poison?

Jake Gyllenhaal should be pushed as a better looking Dustin Hoffman, not as a macho cop, fighter. He's a pretty boy Jew with a nose job. But he can be funny. Whatever Nightcrawler type roles he's been doing. are clearly not building his brand. Southpaw will fail compared to Edgar Ramirez as Roberto Duran in Hands of Stone. But I'd like to watch them fuck.

It's crazy that there are three boxer movies coming out this year. I hate boxing and I hate boxing movies.

[quote]That guy from Broke Back Mountain, can't think of his name, but he's made a bunch of flicks and none of them were very successful. Oh I think his name Jake something or other.

Yeah but once they see this new frau I mean girl I'm dating everyone will rush out to see my new movie. This one is real believable! I tried to tell my management T-Swift was a bad idea. They never listen.

Marlene Dietrich

Kate Hepburn

Joan Crawford

Cameron Diaz

Malin Akerman

Julianne Hough

I don't actually like any sports movies and I really don't like to see people hitting each other.

Hands of Stone us coming out in 2016. However, it was shot about 3 years ago, so I have to wonder about the holdup in terms of quality. Ramirez looked so embarrassed to be in that Point Break reboot. As he should.

Johnny Depp.

He and Tim Burton poison everything they touch.

Gwyneth Paltrow

[quote]Joan Crawford

TINA!

GET THE AX!

What the hell is that woman's name. Oh yes... Madonna.

I like Jake G. But Nightcrawler was crap.

I stopped watching after about an hour. Rene Russo was creepily channeling Ann-Margret and Jakie Poo looked and acted like death on a stick.

I'm glad Jake G. seems back on track acting wise. but now it seems like everything is geared towards getting an Oscar which is the sure fire way not to get one.

Really? I thought "Nightcrawler" was both brilliant AND big box office. Has it (and Jake in it) already been dismissed?

[quote]I stopped watching after about an hour. Rene Russo was creepily channeling Ann-Margret and Jakie Poo looked and acted like death on a stick.

I don't even think that I made through an hour, maybe 45 minutes. I also didn't enjoy that twitchy bizarre performance he gave in Prisoners. Dataloungers raved about his performance and Jackman's. I didn't enjoy either.

I was washing dishes and wearng my dishwashing gloves. I couldn't touch my computer at 45 minute mark. well, at least I felt clean when it finally was off my screen. that was a dirty dirty production.

I liked Nightcrawker, but it did not do big box office despite a wide release. I thought it would have done better, but I can see that it is too creepy for a lot of people.

I will might finish it someday. It was just not right for the moment. it felt syphilic, as intended, but also pre-digested or regurgitated. Rene Russo was really bugging me.

all of them since the majority of actors don't open films anymore

Stallone and Ahnuld's appeal is around the world not in North America. Their shitty films keep making money in Thailand and Indonesia not America.

The Expendables 3

Domestic:t $39,322,544t 19.1% + Foreign:t $166,850,000t 80.9%

[quote]Stallone and Ahnuld's appeal is around the world not in North America. Their shitty films keep making money in Thailand and Indonesia not America. The Expendables 3 Domestic:t $39,322,544t 19.1% + Foreign:t $166,850,000t 80.9%

Did you overlook the word worldwide above?

R21 Is it a dwarf?!

Worldwide box office smashes count in my book, and therefore Stallone is not at all box office poison. Cinema is a mixture of art and commerce. If a star makes money for the company no matter how tacky or hackneyed the star, he/she isn't poison. Jolie's movies generally suck but she sells tickets around the world.

R22

Bring

Me

The

Ax!

Meryl Streep as a box office draw .. as Oscar, a sure thing, but do moviegoers stand in line to buy tickets for the latest Meryl Streep film. I think not

Reynolds just had a huge successful preview at ComicCon of Deadpool. It was the talk of the place. He may have finally found his project. I wouldn't count him out yet.

Please. Those Comicon things are bullshit. Reynold's movies are always hyped and then they open and they fail. They may even have a good opening, but they die, never make it past opening weekend.

r67 like was mentioned earlier, Reynolds had a great reaction toward Green Lantern too but it bombed. He just happens to get these fan favorite roles. No one actually sees the whole movie at these cons, just extended trailers.

R67, Please remember that it was Comic-Con and that those geeks love everything without question. It is nothing but a huge marketing festival. Most people don't know or care about Comic-Con or Deadpool. But the do know that Reynolds clocked yet another critical and commercial flop this weekend. At least those commercials will stop. He needs to try TV again.

I think they're trying to rebuild Jake's brand. But then he sabotages himself. I saw an interview he did about this movie, and he kept saying "this is all about family. This is about a man learning to become a father." Excuse me, but that's not going to generate any interest in a boxing movie. He should have talked about the fighters, or the fight scenes or about 50 Cent who's also in the movie. If he's trying to generate interest in the movie he sure as shit is doing a piss poor job. I predict that it will open in 3rd place IF he's lucky. But it might not even open in the top five. Jake cannot open a movie. They need to face it.

[quote]I wouldn't count him out yet.

Why? The studio did when they gave Deadpool a February release.

I'm tellin' ya. Ryan Reynolds = Hayden Christiansen

If I was counseling his career, I'd suggest Ryan partner with someone who knows what they're doing and set up a production company to do TV, Cable Internet, etc. He's not a movie guy. Not for the big screen. He keeps chasing that franchise gold, and doing crap movies and he is digging a deeper hole for himself.

Major Jake fan here and, even so, I am in no hurry to see YET ANOTHER BOXING MOVIE. How many times can they make that movie? Every four years or something. Always starring the white blue collar guy, usually from Boston (but not always). unless it's Denzel and that was a biopic at least. But the others and their prosaic titles? "The Boxer" vs. "The Fighter" vs. "Rocky" vs. "The Wrestler" (by association) vs. "Million Dollar Baby" (again by association though it at least had that hook) vs. "Raging Bull" vs..... what else? Feel like I'm missing a couple.

Tom Hardy

Rocky is a wonderful film and performance. I don't mind boxing movies if the character feels lived in.

[quote] he is digging a deeper hole for himself.

No the studio dug the hole for me. All I had to do was lay down in the box. Yeah, surprise, surprise that one flopped too!

Buried

Domestic Total Gross: $1,044,143

Distributor: LionsgatetRelease Date: September 24, 2010

Genre: ThrillertRuntime: 1 hrs. 40 min. MPAA Rating: RtProduction Budget: N/A

Domestic: $1,044,143t 5.5%

+ Foreign:t $18,108,337t 94.5%

= Worldwide:t $19,152,480t

Buried was a little indie that they tried to make a big hit for some reason because it is in no way a mainstream movie despite the heavy push and marketing. It made the movie look like a dud.

[quote]It made the movie look like a dud.

It was a dud. Did you see it. I cant believe I actually sat through it.

Taylor Kitsch

Madonna

Taylor Kitsch's films have actually made a fuckton of money. It's just that a couple of them, most notably John Carter, cost so much that only a record-breaking box office like "Avatar's" would have made a profit. Wasn't really the guy's fault.

Who ks the guy who did Jon Carter? Seems like he had three major roles that turned I into three major flops.

Never mind...looks like I got my answer.

R82: there is a difference between ticket sales and making money. If your point is that lots of people show up to see Taylor's movies compared to some of these others, I agree. If your point is that he has justified being cast as the lead in some major budget films, then I disagree

[quote]Taylor Kitsch's films have actually made a fuckton of money.

Are you referring to films where he was not playing a lead character? The few films that were his (he was the lead) did not make money.

[quote]If your point is that lots of people show up to see Taylor's movies

No, not really.

John carter & battleship made back their combined half a billion dollar budget with modest gains beyond that. Savages made over $40 million. Clearly lots and lots of eyeballs went to watch those films.

Battleship cost $205 million and only made $303 million worldwide...add marketing costs, which could be between $50 and $75 + million, subtract the percentage that goes back to theatres (in the US, it's 50%, in other countries like China, it could be 70-85%) and you have a HUGE, HUGE MONEY LOSER.

John Carter cot $250 million to make and took in$283 million worldwide, again marketing costs and theater split not included, so another HUGE, HUGE FLOP.

Snakes on a Plane, (wow 9 years ago now)...Flop.

Xmen Woverine..probaby lost money. $150 in production cost only/$373 worldwide box office

Lone Survivor... a modest hit. $40 million to make /$149 world wide box office. Not enough of a hit to get excited about.

The rest of his films are small indies.

So, yeah, Taylor Kitsch is box office poison.

[quote]Savages made over $40 million.

The production budget was 45 million. Worldwide box office was $82,966,152

Not quite 40 million

However, movies need to double or even triple their production budgets to be considered successful. t

Savages was another Kitsch money loser...$45 million in production costs/$82 million in wolrdwide box office. I don't think DvR/Digital sales and rental were any help in making Battleship and John Carter close to making a profit if I recall corectly, the studio had to write down both movies on its financial statements. The stock took a big hit.

I don't think you can blame an actor if a movie was so expensive, it can't turn a profit. That's the director's fault. Kitsch's movies did make money and I doubt he had a humongous salary either.

Have I and my pointy chin been mentioned yet. I can't get a hit to same my life. Don't you'll know I've got a family and an ex husband to support.

Um, R91, ddon't think you know how Hollywood works. These were "tentpole" movies, meaning the studio purposefully sank tons of money into their making for reasons that are too long to explain in a post.

These weren't runaway production costs like MIB3 or World War Z.

The studios thought they had a bankable star with Kitsch and they were wrong.

[quote]I don't think you can blame an actor if a movie was so expensive, it can't turn a profit. That's the director's fault.

The fact that the actor didn't create the budget or didn't take a big salary has no bearing on whether the film is considered a financial success or not. The actor cannot separate himself from the entire package.

[quote] Kitsch's movies did make money and I doubt he had a humongous salary either.

No the numbers tell a different story.

And R91 Kitsch's big movies DIDN'T MAKE MONEY. What are looking at are gross receipts that do not take into consideration the split with the theaters. Also, production costs do not include marketing costs, which for a tentpole can run up to, or over, $75 million.

This kitsch debate makes me think of Chris Pratt and the tenuous relationship between full and coming 'next big stars' and 'tentpoles'

If kitsch was in guardians of the galaxy & Jurassic world while Pratt was in John carter & battleship, would anything be different?

I'm not sure what the answer is to that...

Probably not John Carter. It was based on a 100 year old book better known outside the US and marketed all wrong.

Battleship is up-in-the-air. Same thing happened to Taylor Lautner...outside of twishit, his movies bombed. Neither Kitsch or Lautner were big enough mainstream stars to carry a movie and their agents and the studios should have known better.

Lautner and Kitsch do not belong in the same sentence together. One look at Kitsch and you can see why Hollywood might have imagined him a movie star. Kitsch is all wrong for such treatment.

Josh Brolin (Sin City 2 and Oldboy were huge flops)

Jennifer Lopez

guess what, Magic Mike XXL cost less than 15 million to make, so despite the poor box office and the universal hate from the gay men, the movie itself is financial success and it will make even more when the DVD is released.

I'm going to say...Chris Pine. Outside of Star Trek his movies have bombed...into the woods was more of an ensemble, so that doesn't count. His newest big budget, The Finest Hour, is getting negative buzz and is being dumped on January 29th, never an encouraging sign.

[quote]Lautner and Kitsch do not belong in the same sentence together. One look at Kitsch and you can see why Hollywood might have imagined him a movie star. Kitsch is all wrong for such treatment.

Say what?

R101, why are you getting pissy over gay men not liking a shitty, pandering movie? MM2 cost a like $50 million to market. That Variety article about it was crazy. And it is not 2002. Netflix and Amazon all but killed the dvd market.

Daniel Craig is a flop.outside of Bond which he only does every three years or so.

Gyllenhaal's movie, Prince of Persia is always described as a flop, but it made more than $300 Million worldwide. Aside from some animation, they sure didn't spend money on special effects. I don't think the movie cost more than $100 Million to make.

Every actor has a few flops. But that's very different from an actor who just doesn't register with the public and yet his handlers keep trying to make him happen. I think that Ryan Reynolds is a perfect example of that. As for people like Orlando Bloom, they're just trying to stay relevant. Orlando did so well with Costume dramas, people can't seem to see him in a modern day movie. Kit Harington is going to have to be careful of that. He is so completely identified as his Game of Thrones character, that people can't see him outside of that. It will be interesting to see how he transitions to other roles. The film industry is very competitive.

[57] I just don' t understand the hype, either. People, not just here, made Prisoners' s performances like the next best thing since sliced bread. I don' t think Jackman and Gyllenhaal are bad actors (not great either), but that movie had some of the most boring acting I have ever seen.

[106] I agree. There is a huge difference between actors who are "just there" but never make anything of interest, and actors who have a few flops here and there, either because the movie is bad or because they were miscast, or even because people associate them with a particular genre, and nothing else. As terrible as Orlando Bloom is as an actor, people remember him for The Lord of The RIngs and The Pirates of the Caribbean movies, and they associate him with period drama so much, because he was actually passable, than watching him playing a modern character just feels odd. Ryan Reynolds and Taylor Kitsch never had that kind of achievement. They don' t have a character or a genre they are associated with, they are not great, they just show up in mediocre at best movie after movie. People just don' t give a fuck about them, and the sooner Hollywood realizes it, the better! I would be really interested in Deadpool, but the fact that Reynolds is in it makes me want to gag! Someone actually charismatic and good could make it a great movie. Instead it will probably be passable and not worth a second view.

Prince if Persia was a critical and commercial flop. Apparently, it failure sent Jake G. into a depression and is why he won't touch blockbusters anymore.

Joaquin Phoenix ' movies don't make any money. His Woody Allen movie with Emma Stone looks terrible.

Nicole Kidman.

Gyllenhaal isn't exactly poison but no clue why Prisoners got so many plaudits - it's boring as hell. I enjoyed Nightcrawler. Gyllenhaal was ok in it, but the film was plot-driven and it wasn't his performance that caught the eye for me.

No-one is going to cast Taylor Kitsch as the lead in a big budget film again even though I don't believe either Battleship or John Carter were his fault. Anyone could have called it that there was no market for either of those firms - the buzz when John Carter was in production was that it was a super-expensive gamble on a massively out of date scifi novel that no-one had read for about a century. Which it was. I don't believe anyone could have saved that turkey. That said, Kitsch did zero to stand out in either. That said, Chris Pratt seems to do zero eye-catching in his performances, but has managed to be inoffensively cast in better films, hence his career versus Kitsch's.

Ryan Reynolds's career is baffling. It must be nearly over?? Clooney's career also makes no sense, his films don't make money.

True box office poison:

Jennifer Aniston Nicole Kidman (mentioned above, agreed) Vince Vaughan (mentioned above, agreed) Eddie Murphy Adam Sandler

TC.

You've taken the money. Just go already.

[R110]: John Carter' s biggest problems were that 1), not many people know about the source material, 2) that only the ones who read the book are interested in that franchise, and 3) that the original themes were butchered. People who know nothing about it are not interested and watch something else, and the smallest group of people who are interested didn' t show up because they took away the only two things that made the novel interesting, which are brutal violence and brutal sex/nudity! It should' ve been made like that and marketed as a small indie, R-rated movie, that way it would' ve been better (and also with actors who were interested in the original source instead of being there just for money/fame). I understand the desire to have another franchise to capitilize on, but there are a shit-ton of stories you can use to make a fun-for-everyone Disney movie without cannibilizing one that is clearly not for kids. That said, while I think Kitsch wasn' t the one responsible for flop, I am kind of glad he won' t get another big budget movie to lead because I think he' s absolutely devoid of any charisma and talent. The less we hear of him, the better!

Robert Pattinson owns this thread.

R105 the budget for Prince of Persia was $200 million. Wikipedia is your friend.

Prisoners was boring, derivative crap but critics love the director for some reason and critics review movies based on if they think the director is cool. . Nightcrawler was much better.

Well if this thread proves anything, it must be excruciatingly difficult to be a hollywood producer trying to make a buck for yourself and your money men.

Reese

Jennifer Aniston for sure. Why do they keep trying to make her happen as a movie star? She was made for sitcom TV, not movies. Most of her movies haven't done very well, have they? I was just watching "He's Just Not That Into You" last week, and found myself fast forwarding through all of her parts. Adored her on Friends, though.

I am pretty sure that all Anniston movies make out ok in the end. Otherwise she would never work so frequently and for so many years. For many people she is the perfect inflight companion.

Jim Carrey - One-trick wonder. Patricia Clarkson - Star wannabe, but no chance for leading roles Kate Winslet - Seems to have worked her way out of box-office movies. Bill Murray - Unable to carry starring role, now plays character parts.

Apparently Deadpool is going to be a big hit but I don't believe it as it stars Ryan Reynolds.

I liked Jennifer Aniston in We're The Millets. Shamelessly looking forward to the sequel.

Where are the Mullets?

JA developed a dry sense of humor when she started making movies. I miss the goofy, fun 'Rachel'. She flowed effortlessly back then.

Yes she is very clipped on talk shows.

R122 - You makin' fun of me?

I don't mind Jennifer Anniston and she seems teflon coated in that she never really embarrasses herself. All these years in Hollywood she remains likeable and occasionally amusing. George Clooney should have married her, not Amal.

The two most boring, narcissistic, entitled people in Hollywood get married? Sure, why not?

Yeah, you see it, too!

If they market Taylor Kisch as the heir to Paul Walker he might have a future. It's baffling, but Vin Deisel and The Rock are rolling in $$$$ from the garbage they grind out. Their's is a niche franchise not dependent on Marvel. I like the Rock because he has a sense of humor and he is obviously going to be the guy who keeps the genre alive in films like Arnold and Stallone made profitable. But the Fast & Furious frnachise is garbage. Jennifer Aniston makes money. Adam Sandler makes money.

Prince of Persia was unknown beyond the world of gamers, but it managed to make $335 Million worldwide. It got made because Disney was looking for franchises they didn't have to pay a lot of money for, or have a profit sharing partner for, and the Prince of Persia was one they thought could work. They were persuaded by 70+ year old Jerry Bruckheimer. He had a relationship with Disney and they forked over the money. They were looking for something that would generate the kind of success Pirates of the Carribbean generated. Jake was a lot cheaper than Johnny Depp.

[quote] Yeah, you see it, too!

Only because they're both overexposed and undertalented relative to how famous they are.

Robert Downey Jr. did a great movie with Jamie Foxx about a mentally disabled musical genius. Based on a true story. Both of them acted their asses off. It was brilliant. No one heard of it.

I liked The Judge. I really enjoyed it. Some people like plot driven movies. I like both plot driven and character driven, and The Judge was character driven. Duvall and Robert were brilliant, and so was the rest of the cast. You know when something is well cast, that's half the battle. Some of these actors need to learn to say No. Bale should have said no to Exodus.

Stars aren't responsible for the total gross, they're responsible for the opening. Ryan Reynolds can't open a film. The opening should be in line with the star's salary so JLaw now pulls down $20M a film then those films should at minimum gross $20M the opening weekend. That's why you hire JLaw. After that it's down to the filmmakers and studio, etc.

Trying to pin Battleship or John Carter on Taylor Kitsch isn't correct - those films were failures of concept. The studio heads roll over those. With Savages, what was his salary? That strikes me as Oliver Stone's fault. Though no one likes to be associated with a flop it could be argued that being associated with such high profile films actually raised his profile.

But big budget, tent poles are reliant on concept not stars. It's like Jurassic World - no one cares about Chris Pratt, they're going to see the dinosaurs. It helps that he's likeable but no one is attributing the grosses to him. Look at Sam Whatshisname from Avatar - highest grossing film ever. Didn't do anything for his career. The actors hired for these films are serviceable and easily replaceable. The only one worth anything is RDJ because he is in what is ostensibly a character-based franchise. For all these other people, they just fit the costumes. They're all dispensable. Like that British twat who played Loki years ago - career in the toilet, I'd say.

"He [Ryan Reynolds] has never been in a hit but somehow got magically elevated to - allegedly - the A list? He's going down."

He had a supporting role in one of Hugh Jackman's "Wolverine" films, and his upcoming "Deadpool" film is a spinoff of that.

Is Jackman producing it? That might be an answer to a FAQ...

It's funny that some actors keep getting cast in leads but if you ask the great, unwashed American public who they are - they have NO idea, never heard of Gyllenhaal, Fassbender, Brolin, etc. At least they are good actors and could conceivably get some Academy attention even if they can't put bums in seats.

But other leads just seem to get roles based on how many magazines they sell. The studios seem to think there is some synergy between tabloid coverage, magazine covers and tickets sold for Jennifer Aniston or Ryan Reynolds.. and there isn't.

Chris Pratt got lucky. Anybody cast in those two movies would have got a major boost. Pratt's nothing special. He's a light comedy actor, that's it. No range. If Taylor Kitsch had got those two roles, he would be Chris Pratt.

Anne Wedgeworth

Magazines? Tabloids? Have they sold in significant numbers in the last 5-10 years?

If you don't like Gyllenhaal fine. Just say so. But quit projecting. I like him. I'm a fan. Since the mess of Prince of Persia, he's been doing some very good work. His movies are smaller budgets, and they're marketing the movies better. Jake seems to have turned away from the Superhero franchise game, and concentrated on making films that interest him, and that are easy to finance. Source Code, Enemy, Prisoners, End of Watch, Nightcrawler, all were smaller budgeted films. He's got a decent enough career and he is getting respect as an artist. The reason they hype a movie or it's star is to generate interest. It's called marketing. It also boosts an actor's name recognition and helps them get more money per film. Capish?

As long as Ryans are a topic, let's take a look at Gosling. He's another one who can't seem to generate box office.

Marry, fuck, kill: Reynolds, Gosling, Gyllenhaal.

Marry - Reynolds Fuck - Gosling! Kill - Gyllenhaal :( though he is sort of cute sometimes.

Marry, fuck, kill: Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Willis

Kate Hudson. Her films lately are crap.

[Quote] Kate Hudson. Her films lately are crap.

I'm assuming you're defining "lately" as being the last 15 years?

The two last year, one with Franco and the other one with him out of scrubs.

I bet Kate Hudson films must have raked in some cash, because while her films may be crap to you, hollywood will not bank a star through 15 years of box office poison, which is the topic of this thread.

While Taylor Kitsch wasn't SOLELY responsible for his string of flops, and it's more than just Battleship and J.Carter, a more exciting, better well known actor would have generated better buzz lessening the blow that both he and the films took. He hasn't done any major films since 2013 and I don't think he has any in the works either. Being touted as "the next best thing" and picking roles out of your element is a recipe for disaster in Hollywood. He chose both movies, he is solely to blame for his poor choices and he is paying that price now.

There is a big difference between Chris Pratt and Taylor Kitsch. Taylor Kitsch was lesser known when he headlined the tentpoles. Kitsch only had Friday Night Lights and some box office failures. FNL wasnt a ratings success and appealed to a specific demo known for being fickle. Pratt had two major TV shows under his belt, The OC and Parks and Recreation -- one was a critical success and appealed to a broader audience. He also chose his movie roles more wisely.

John Carter, a film that has literally had several books written about it since documenting the complete clusterfuck of its marketing campaign (it was given to a woman who had NEVER run a movie marketing campaign before, for starters) and how it cost several high level Disney executives their jobs - made $300+million worldwide. More than half of that was domestic. That's a LOT of money for a no-name film about a no-name franchise starring a bunch of no-names. It was a really good movie, but it cost $250+million to make. That's *more than the Avengers film cost* and that's INCLUDING Robert Downey Jr's exorbitant salary. There is no justification for why that film should have cost nearly 50% more than the Avengers cost to make. That was a tremendous fuckup. Had it had the budget of, say, "The Hunger Games," which it certainly should have, it would have been a modest hit.

The reality is that at least 30% of its production budget was due to the multiple excessive reshoots by the director who had never directed a live action film before and shot it the way he shot his Pixar animations. Another 20-30% of its production budget was purchasing infrastructure and hardware for some of the very expensive high-end world-building CGI. The movie LOOKS expensive. But that infrastructure is still being used by Disney today and it's really unfortunate that John Carter was made to bear the brunt of that cost. Nevertheless, the film wasn't a bad one and a lot of people went to see it. $300million isn't chump change, but it was always going to fail out of the gate. It was a write-off for the studio and there's no way it was Kitsch's fault.

The big difference between Chris Pratt and Taylor Kitsch besides Chris Pratt's lack of noticeable Canadian accent is that Chris Pratt is funny and affable and Taylor Kitsch is not. He's great at playing twisted, damaged supporting roles. He's not an action star, he just looks like one.

R134, the reason the unwashed American public never heard of some of these actors that keep getting recast is because America no longer matters when it comes to the boxoffice. America now accounts for less that 40% of the boxoffice gross. Films like Prometheus and Clash of the Titans would never have seen sequels if it the overseas markets hadn't made them profitable.

In fact, most movies no longer open first in America. The major tentpoles open overseas days, even weeks, before America -- a huge departure from 10 years ago.

So while people are puzzled about Aniston and Gyllenhall...how do they play outside the U.S.?

Madonna BO poison

[quote]Films like Prometheus and Clash of the Titans would never have seen sequels if it the overseas markets hadn't made them profitable.

This is the reason we're getting Pirates of the Caribbean 5 despite POTC4 having been a tremendous flop stateside. It made nearly half a billion overseas.

Um, R145, the original production budget for John Carter was $250 million, meaning it would have had to have broken $500 million to turn a profit. With re shoots, the budget was rumored to have grown to $300 million. Also, only $73 million of the $284 worldwide box office came from the U.S., not half as you said.

You are correct on the marketing and that heads did roll, though.

I love Owen Wilson and find him very sexy, R13.

When they announced True Detective 2, I was hoping he'd be in it as a gay detective. It just fit.

R150 only if every 3rd line was "woooahow".

Re: John Carter -

[quote]With re shoots, the budget was rumored to have grown to $300 million. True, but that wasn't including the disastrous SuperBowl ad and the additional $75 million in marketing costs. I remember reading it would have had to have made $750 million just to have broken even. I read a lot about this at the time and it was a fascinating train wreck, the way the media gleefully reported on its probable, then current, then inevitable failure even before it was ever released. I'd never seen anything like it. It was never, ever going to be profitable.

For fuck's sake, the original Avengers only cost around $185 million.

It was actually, $220 million, R152. The $170 million includes a tax rebate. J. Carter received a similar rebate of $42 million, so net, it's budget would have been closer to $200 million, not including the $100 million in marketing.

^Oops, that should read the $185 million includes a tax rebate and not the $170 million.

R144 Chris Pratt was NOT better known. I didn't even know who he was, not being a TV watcher. He and Kitsch were equally unknown to the moviegoing audience (and of course the international audience). I can remember reading articles when he was making Guardians and industry people were questioning the wisdom of casting him as he was such an unknown and the thing he was best known for was being fat.

I don't find the two men very comparable. Pratt is sunny amiable and hot hunk next door. He fits in with the dad bod moment, whether he's buff or chubby. Kitsch is a bit tormented, a bit dark, a bit angular, a bit hooded (the eyes) and can look menacing. Not too too, but Pratt isn't any of those things.

Ah, I didn't know that you were the world's arbiter in what and who is well known. Next time I'll be sure to check with you first.

Jon Hamm. Remember him from that 60's set TV show?

Robert Pattinson. He must be nearing the point of considering British TV drama roles.

Johnny Depp is poison in anything outside his franchise.

Demi Moore. I wonder of she's considering reality TV with those troggy kids of hers.

Paltrow. She needs to stick to reviewing burgers and spa treatments on that site of hers.

R152 what is the point of splitting hairs? And "not including the $100 million in marketing?" Because that's throwaway pocket change? What point are you even trying to make? John Carter cost more than the Avengers even including RDJ's salary, and that is a fact. The reason it "flopped" was because of the studio's extreme gross overspending on it, not because it didn't make any money.

The point I'm making is the budget on both films were not all that different. Avengers was $220 million. The number you quoted is misleading as it includes a tax credit, the same credit John Carter received. You please try to get your numbers straight when comparing.

Oh, and R159, most of RDJ's compensation was "backend", so a good chunk was not included in the budget but rather it was a percentage of the movie's profit.

Blake Lively

Jennifer Connelly

R145: Who's The Mouse's going to blame for all the red ink on [italic]Lone Ranger[/italic] and [italic]Tomorrowland[/italic]?

Tom Cruise

Kevin Costner, remember water world? haha.

Remember The Postman -- Waterworld on land?

Costner may be poised for a comeback.

Or not, R168

Costner is the perfect example of how Hollywood gives the keys to the kingdom to someone who simply couldn't live up to anything people projected unto him. How many times does this have to happen?

He may not be poison just yet, but Brad Pitt can't act.

Shadowman25 a year ago

You guys are going to love this true story about Costner and why his movies continually fail at the box office. 5 Fact: Costner has not had a real hit since Water World bombed at the box office. And it's all because of a curse that was put on him by the son of an elderly gentleman who died as the result of an accident on Water World. And Costner, when informed of the old man's passing, snubbed the family and didn't respond or send any condolences to the family. Then to top it off Costner had the old man's only scene cut from the theatrical release and dvds.

This is the scene in Water World, where the old man was injured and nearly drown on set: The old man was in a boat outside the atoll gate trying to trade his long white hair for hydro (water), when Costner first appears to the people of the atoll for the first time. They had the old man stand up in the highly unstable little boat and then the smokers (bad guys) showed up on wave runner jet skis and caused a wake that threw the old man from the boat and he broke some ribs on the side of the boat as he fell into the water and nearly drowned, swallowing a bunch of sea water.

It turn's out that the old man's son is a direct descendant of the most powerful voodoo queen, in history, Marie Laveau. The son says that until Costner steps up like a man and admits his mistake and rights the wrong, that Costner will never have another major hit at the box office again.

Since then Costner has been pure, undiluted, box office poison to any film he top lines as the main lead.

Think about it. What movie has Costner had that was a huge box office hit since Water World? N.O.N.E. None!!!

0

{R170}

Give Kevin Costner a break. The man is 60years old. He doesn't fit into the whole comic book/superhero nonsense that has overtaken Hollywood films. He's doing the best he can with whatever material is available to actors his age. He's doing much better than other older actors who are doing films that go straight to dvd. No matter what else he does, he will always have a place in my heart because of "Field of Dreams" and "Bull Durham".

R172 that sounds more like a curse on his employers than Costner himself. Hasn't he still gotten regular work for the 20 years since waterworks bombed?

I just reposted a comment from above linked Hollywood Reporter article, R174. I found it funny and strangely appropriate to the discussion.

Carey Milligan and Kellan Lutz literally OWN this thread! He's a game show host for Pete's Sake!

Mods, shut this thing down!

Agreed R175. It was a fun story and made me think and giggle simultaneously...

Deadpool won't be big, everyone knows it. It's a low budget film and quite possibly will be rated R. Can't say I enjoyed Reynolds that much in the new trailer because he was the same funny Ryan Reynolds he always is but then again that is his strength. Action and the crude jokes seemed nice enough anyway.

We'll be getting some bulge at least.

Damn. Lainey just said Ryan Reynolds' Self/Less with Sir Ben Kingsley is atrocious. Totally awful. She condemned it in the strongest possible terms. And as she described the basic plot/premise, it actually sounded like it could've been interesting, or at least fun.

Bruce Fucking Willis

Adam Sandler, Katherine Heigl, Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise

Ethan Hawke

Kathryn Heigl OWNS this thread. She & her Momager are so awful, producers run the other way at the idea of them wanting a meeting.

Yeah, R183, Hag-l's series, State of Despair, was pretty much DOA when it debuted.

Ethan Hawke is I suppose an OK actor. I actually liked him in Boyhood, but he was obviously playing (a nicer version of) himself. Otherwise, he's annoying. All through awards season, he was so needy. He really thought Boyhood would shoot him up to the A list and became more and more desperate as Patricia Arquette got all the accolades. Lainey posted a funny gif from the Golden Globes of Hawke chewing out Matthew McConaughey. It seemed like he was screaming at him "how come I don't have your career?" and McConaughey was obviously stoned out of his mind and didn't give a shit.

Reading this thread, it doesn't sound Hollywood has any box office stars left. Who hasn't been called out in this thread?

DiCaprio seems to do alright especially since he doesn't have a franchise to prop up his BO numbers.

R186 - Will Smith isn't box office poison, although Focus didn't do great. Generally speaking, his films make bank. Same goes for Brad Pitt.

But yes, there aren't as many actors who can draw people in on their name alone as there used to be.

vadge fosho

It's the comicbook and franchise movies that do well, R186. Take the star out of the franchise, like Chris Pine or the Twi-whatevers, and you are not guaranteed success. Even the day of the comicbook movie seems to be waning. The Spiderman reboot and the last Avengers didn't do as well as their predecessors.

It's not that the suits actually blame a young actor like Taylor Kitsch for the failure of a big film, but they can't help but notice if he fails to wow the critics or the audiences.

He just failed to catch on, and these days when no actor is a reliable box-office draw, thats enough to drop a young actor off the A-list.

[quote/]He may not be poison just yet, but Brad Pitt can't act.

So true.

Brad Pitt was box-office poison throughout the nineties, today no pretty young actor would be given the chances to redeem himself that Pitt had.

It seems that studios have caught onto the fact that most actors don't actually put butts in the seats, but they can't give up on the quest for actors who do. So they keep picking up young actors and giving them huge publicity boosts, and then dropping them and going onto the next when they have a flop or two. You'd think they'd just realize that the day of the movie star is over and just hire the best actor for each role, but that doesn't seem to be something they can conceive.

Emil Jannings

Leo D's had plenty of box office flops: J. Edgar, Revolutionary Road were monumental losers. It's only his films with Scorsese that make big money. So Scorsese's as big a draw as Leo is.

Hmm, could these be the reasons as well that the Limeys are invading?

Jude Law at least had the sense not to allow himself to be thrust into the role of trying to carry too many movies by himself, and he's willing to endure the press junket. That's one thing that maybe those Brits enjoy doing more than us Yanks. Yanks often look so bored during interviews here, so maybe they're more animated overseas. Who knows?

I think there is an attitude problem though. I could understand the confidence of actors like Brando and Hoffman, because they paid their dues on stage and came up when, even if you were a 'star', you behaved yourself during interviews knowing a lot of people's jobs were at stake. Now, everyone who shows up on TV is a 'star'. Even these YT people think ofmthemselves as 'celebrities'.I saw one wman n YT, with a whopping 200 views a vid say,"You have to be careful when you're a YouTube celebrity because...". And todays legit actors seem to resent being expected to go on junkets, act like misbehaving teenagers the whole tour, get nasty towards the press, and it's ne lng whine. Remember the issue with Monique, who did Precious? She whined about doing an opening in Paris and allowed her husband to meddle in it, by telling her to demand like 200G's because it was interrupting their famiky time. When she caught wind the director criticized her for it, she went to the press and said nasty crap back at him and now she's practicakky blacklisted. That could have been a PIVOTAL game changer for Moniques career, but being expected to help open the film was, to her, not something she should be expected to do. In what Universe bitch?

I think the Brits see acting as a legitimate career and Yanks are embarassed by it somehow. So we create these indifferent, self-centered, actors who don't want to have to earn their way to the grave and, frankly, see acting as something that's only worth doing for a limited number of years. IOW, that ficklemania from the UK press filtered over here back in the early 00's, along with reality TV and the internet, and the actors coming up in all this don't LOVE ACTING, they LOVE MONEY/FAME,

Yeah, Ilm babbling and grabbing at straws, but I think the Puritan hangover that permeates our society teaches us to look down on Art as a career, not a noble pursuit worth doing for its own sake. We don't teach actors to love the written word so much as how to say the words, so during interviews they sound superficial and incompetent. I have actually met very young actors who seem proud of the fact they have never heard of Tennessee Williams, brag that they don't really 'get' Beckett but they 'would consider' being in 'some dead playwrites theater thing, if the pay was good', and would rather 'get a commercial' so they can kick around for a few months. IOW, they're not passionate about acting, storytelling, writing, reading...it's all just a sports car and they want in the drivers seat, wether they can handle it or not (no self-awareness). I think actors are groomed differently in the UK. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm for sure tired.

Brits actors tend to cut their own throats. They start out hot and in demand. Then they sign onto any film they're offered. They can't "rest" (Brit euphemism for an out-of-work actor). They end up going from hot to overexposed. Jude Law and Ewan McGregor are good examples. They both should have become A listers. Never happened. Fassbender signs onto any movie he's offered. How long till he becomes the 'formerly hot' Fassbender. Same with Cumberbatch, etc. They just can't turn a job down. Michael Caine's a great actor but nobody sees him that way because of all the terrible movies he made.

Brits think working - any work - is better than biding your time waiting for a great role. They end up destroying their 'brand'.

Colin Farrell was hyped as the next Brando and he, for a while, seemed to believe it.

No one has been given more chances than Colin Farrell. He's supposed to have "happened" for the past 15 years. He's had the good fortune to work with some of the best directors (Woody Allen, Terence Mallick, Oliver Stone etc.) The public just doesn't care to see him in starring roles. He's much more suited to supporting roles. He was good in "Saving Mr. Banks" in the role of the alcoholic father. Now he's been given the role on "True Detective". Not many actors with his string of flops would have been given this plum role.

Carl Weathers hasn't opened a picture in decades

R196, those were interesting points to consider. I do like Michael Fassbender a lot. I didn't know Brits have that attitude, but I did write a paper once in school about Peter O'Toole, and was floored by how someone so tall and so thin could work such insane hours in film and stage, and drink as much and for as long as he did, and stay alive! He was one of a kind and if I were going to aim at being an actor, I'd want to be a mix of him and Brando or Duvall, toss in some Hopkins and Mulgrew to the brew. And Fassbender lol Well, maybe the Yanks will calm the Brit actors down, and maybe the Brits will tug the reins a bit harder on the Yanks, and it will all, films and stage, get better and more promising through association alone.

All stars are DOA now. I can't think of a single actor / actress who'd open a movie on their starry platform alone.

We killed them by knowing too much about them with the internet and TMZ (and pretty universally finding them wanting, of talent, wit, charisma, likeability...), by creating reality "stars" who don't demand anything more than our shallowest interest and commitment until their car crash fifteen minutes are over and by studios shoving cash cow franchises down our necks instead of plain old good movies.

Pop has already eaten itself.

[quote]No one has been given more chances than Colin Farrell

Eric Bana?

Anyway, this is the curse of Spielberg

Spielberg has worked with many stars and their careers fizzled afterwards:

Colin Farrell in Minority Report

Eric Bana in Munich

Jude Law and Haley Joel Osment in AI Artificial Intelligence

Shia Lebeouf in that stupid Indiana Jones film

Tom Sizemore in Saving Private Ryan

Brad Johnson in Always

Jeremy Irvine in War Horse

All these films were supposed to make them BIG but it either never happened or their careers faltered after working with Spielberg. Just look at ET, one of the biggest box office successes and aside from Drew Barrymore, none of the actors from that film made it big.

Correction : Labeouf not Lebeouf

R202: dee Wallace stone made a nice little career as the frazzled house Frau dealing with suburban craziness

R196, I don't think that every actor wants to get to the top of the A-list, and have the kind of "brand" that marks a big box-office star. The obligation to the "brand" limits them to a narrow range of roles, and only allows them a little time at the top before they're considered one-note has-beens.

People like Fassbender and MacGregor may never become the next Tom Cruise, but they may be still working and getting raves when they're as old as Michael Caine is now. They're basically character actors who are photogenic enough to do leading roles; a character actor can play a range of people, while a star actor has a persona that carries over from film to film and is always recognizable. That's not how a good character actor wants to spend their career.

Julie Delpy

Russell Brand.

[quote] Jude Law and Ewan McGregor are good examples. They both should have become A listers.

They are A-listers in their own way, like is Fassbender. Saying they are B-listers just doesn't sound right. They are respected as actors and are really known all around the world. I don't find anything bad about working a lot. Those guys obviously want to work all the time even if they probably wouldn't have to since their pay is probably really good.

Yeah, reading this thread, you'd think Jude Law has a failed career or something. He could have just been a pretty boy or Malcom McDowell, who started out strong and deep-sixed his career. He came out of wilderness in his middle-age and found decent work. Law's been steadily employed for almost 20 years now.

Law is a legit actor and star. Sure he didn't turn out to be Cary Grant but how many do? Even if Law did everything right, there's no guarantee he would have been super A list anyway. It just doesn't happen for nearly everyone. And these days, BO isn't as dependent on star power anyway. 99.99% of actors would kill to be Jude Law or Ewan McGregor.

Jonathan Rhys Meyers is someone who has zero BO power. He's not poison only because no one would be crazy enough to invest huge sums of money in JRM to lead a movie. But talk about a guy who fucked his career up. Looking back at his early interviews--perhaps A list was never in the cards for JRM--just too odd and screwed up.

I'm trying to remember the last time I said: I have to catch the new Ewan McGregor flick!

OP, it's the scripts that are poison. You could put Sir Ian McKellen in [italic]Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2[/italic] and it would still be crap.

"And these days, BO isn't as dependent on star power anyway. 99.99% of actors would kill to be Jude Law or Ewan McGregor."

They were promoted as A-list leading men who could open a movie....and turned out not to be. So they failed on that level. Yeah, they still work and probably will for years, but they sure didn't live up to the hype.

[quote]Law's been steadily employed for almost 20 years now.

Jude Law's career is sad. He was responsible for his own decline. He was touted as the next big thing and he made a string of flops, not small ones but big ones, and today he's a character actor. He's not a star. Never was one.

To be honest, I can't remember the last time I thought that about any actor, R210. It's mostly teenagers and die hard fans that think that way.

My choice of which movie to watch when I'm in the mood, however, will be influenced by how much I like the actors and McGregor is someone I love watching.

Jude Law had a real chance at being a leading man, but his looks changed over night. Colin Farrell did the horrible Alexander and his leading career was over.

All three are still well known stars though, and they get offered interesting parts and they are still well liked.

Hayden Christensen is a better example of someone whose career was ruined by a bad movie. Jake Gyllenhaal never recovered from Prince of Persia.

I think RDJ is the only name right now that is being treated as a big movie star that can draw audiences based on his name alone, and even that is debatable. No star can save a truly bad movie.

[quote]OP, it's the scripts that are poison. You could put Sir Ian McKellen in Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 and it would still be crap.

Bette, is that you, still fighting Warner Bros for scripts I see.

[quote]Bette, is that you, still fighting Warner Bros for scripts I see.

I fought and I fought, but I ended up settling for a Disney sequel with a shirtless teenage boy with ESP and some horror picture there where they kept changing the ending and cutting stuff out. In all honesty, I thought Walt stopped trying to scare the kiddies after they all cried over Bambi's mother. Oh well, at least I never stooped to the likes of [italic]Trog[/italic] or tried to sabotage my daughter's burgeoning soap opera career by going on live television drunk on what I could only guess was rum and Pepsi.

Jude Law never became a star because he doesn't have charm and he can't do comedy.

Nobody seems to think of Chris Evans as BO poison. His last 2 movies were C level romcoms that went straight to DVD. Snowpiercer was an interesting concept, but he was terrible in it. Of all the Avengers actors his non Marvel work is the least impressive.

That is by I was wondering why Evans was talking about leaving the Avengers. Leaving to go do what? Direct another movie that was panned as a ripoff of Before Sunrise? He is not a bad actor but when has he ever been critically acclaimed? Some people don't realize how good they have it.

Spielberg and Hanks are referred to as The Twin Evils of Hollywood for a reason.

"Jude Law's career is sad. He was responsible for his own decline. He was touted as the next big thing and he made a string of flops, not small ones but big ones, and today he's a character actor. He's not a star."

Jude Law is a character actor who happened to be very good-looking when he was young. When his looks faded and the pressure to be a box-office draw went away, his career actually improved.

And IMHO good character actors have better careers than the A-list box-office draws. They do more interesting work, they don't have to deal with the financial pressures or the media harassment, and they may actually earn more money over a lifetime. A big star will earn tens of millions per film for a few years, a top character actor may earn a few millions per year for decades. If I were an actor, I'd want Ewan MacGregor's career, not Bruce Willis's.

[quote] Spielberg and Hanks are referred to as The Twin Evils of Hollywood for a reason.

Tom Hanks is a great man and a great humanitarian who has done lots of good for the community.

Pfft! We're not talking about who's a philanthropist. We're talking Film. So, pffft! to you, again and again.

Chris Evans seems like the most talented of the mass of Chrises currently being foisted on the American moviegoing public. I think it doesn't help that all these Chrises have such boring last and unmemorable last names. I can't keep them straight. Same with all the Ryans.

"If I were an actor, I'd want Ewan MacGregor's career, not Bruce Willis's."

Bruce is still working and I'd wager he STILL makes more money per picture than Ewan

[quote]Oh well, at least I never stooped to the likes of Trog or tried to sabotage my daughter's burgeoning soap opera career by going on live television drunk on what I could only guess was rum and Pepsi.

Well it is so wonderful to see that Mrs. Merrill hasn't lost her wit or her charm. Then again its very difficult to lose things that you technically never possess. Please do give my regards to Mr. Merrill. Oh wait. Now he is not the one that you murdered, is he? Oh no I remember now. That was Arthur Farnesworth. How unfortunate for you to have never found someone as wonderful and generous as my Alfred. Whenever you're in New York, you must come and see our newly renovated Fifth Avenue penthouse apartment. William Haines helped me decorate.

Chris Evans will eventually go the way of Ryan Reynolds. This year is Chris Prratt and Chris Hemsworth's year.

God, I hope not. Chris Helmsworth couldn't act his way out of a paper bag.

Hemsworth already had a massive $90 million dollar flop this year with that Mann movie. That Vacation reboot looks dire and will be killed by MI5. The whale looks the best thing about that Moby dick movie. It was supposed to come out in March, but after the flop in January, WB immediately pushed the movie back. It has been finished for two years already.

Evans just needs to try and pick some better projects. It seems like he picks them out of a hat they are so bad that no one could save them.

Evans is probably not getting exactly first crack at the best scripts. All those fucking mediocre Brit actors who are flooding our screens (I'm watching the unattractive and marginally talented Domnhall Gleason right now).

If Evans can't bank on his Marvel success, there might be something wrong with him. He was drunk during the AoU press tour, not a good sign. That Snowpiercer project was a good opportunity for him that he can handle more complex characters, but he failed miserably at it.

Daniel Craig

Evans is not a nice person. In fact, word is he's an asshole.

Hemsworth is going to do well with Ron Howard's whale movie. Personally, I prefer looking at Hemsworth to looking at Evans.

All the Chris actors are boring and either can't act or limited acting talent. None of them have ever given critically acclaimed performances znd have no box office power outside of their franchises. No one is interested unless they are on spaceships or superheroes.

Agreed, 233, the Chrisses are borderline non-entities on the screen. They are stunning to look at, but a massive letdown when they begin to act.

However, Chris Hemsworth does have the voice to transfix.

They need to follow the example of Paul Newman, but then he could act and seemed like he took interest and care in his work in taking diverse and unlikeable roles (HUD) and had decent box office until he died. Looks fade or there is some other hot fresh thing and you have nothing to fall back on at all. It is a viscous cycle if you only rely on your looks.

[R233] I agree. Evans, Pine, Hemsworth and Pratt have zero acring talent and are boring to death. Their respective franchises would have done great without them, in fact, I think they could' ve been way better had they cast actual actors instead of them. I know people think Chris Pratt is some sort of God of Charisma, but I disagree, and I honestly have no idea how they think that way. Granted, I think the same of Jennifer Lawrence, so maybe I am the problem. However they are all very nice to look at!

Which stars are NOT poison, but reliable money makers?

RDJ for men Jennifer L for women.

Isn't that it?

I agree with the poster above who argues stars don't function like in days of yor.... Do any stars have 3 or 5 or more runs of box office success?

Jude Law

R237: I' m still not sure Jennifer Lawrence can open a movie by herself outside of her franchise. The X-Men movies and American Hustle were not successfull because of her. Silver Lining Playbook maybe, just maybe, was big because of her, but it was by a famous director with a cast of famous people, so I have my doubts it was all on her shoulders. I think she is not different from the Chrises, to be honest!

RDJ is NOT a reliable money maker outside of Iron Man. The Judge flopped big.

Serena flopped and it had Cooper and Lawrence. Cooper flopped this summer with Aloha and it had a famous director and cast.

I want to see RDJ doing some interesting work. The Judge was basically Tony Starks, Attorney at Law.

So the business lesson here is, only certain franchises are money makers.

Is 50 Shades Part II going to make money?

Of course it is. Women love that shit, R242

No, R243. Women don' t love that shit. Stupid women do!

Can't open a movie on their own doesn't equal box office poison. Box office poison is someone who has flop after flop someone who always has underperforming movies. It could be that they make bad choices, aren't offered the good stuff, have bad luck or are not liked by the public. If an actor has had both hits and misses they don't qualify as poison.

Wilde is a good example because, in spite of a long filmography and a lot of promotion, she has never had a real hit. A lot of her movies lose money, some eke out a profit, but she just never attracts a big audience.

I call poison if you have a hugh successful franchise and repeatedly cannot open a non-franchise movie despite tons of promotion and at least mixed reviews for the movie. I don't count little art house movies which story (sad) altogether

Jennifer Lopez

R198, don't forget Inception. But I'm sure the big box office for that movie had more to do with its unique premise and the fact that Chris Nolan was just coming off of the white hot Dark Knight than anything to do with Leo.

Sorry, I meant R194.

Movie stars only count for the opening weekend. Can they "open" a movie? The final grosses are generally attributed to the quality of the movie itself (or the number of idiots who go to see it). And this only counts for studio movies that open wide. A well-performing indie will have much lower grosses (fewer theaters are willing to show it) but it will still be financially very successful because of its lower budget and lower costs to market.

Somebody who has a cult following but cannot open a movie to save his life (and, in fact, probably is a negative factor for indie audiences) is Joaquin Phoenix.

Mike Myers

"Is 50 Shades Part II going to make money?"

The first one sank like a stone after opening weekend, so probably not

Ethan Hawke cannot open a movie, but he's turned into a good character actor. He was very good in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

Whoever is responsible for a big opening for 'paper towns'

[quote]The Judge was basically Tony Starks, Attorney at Law.

The movie was awful, and his performance was terrible. Why doing such a cliché movie if you don't have an interest in the character anyway.

Uma Thurman

R255, RDJ and his wife make the movie through their production company. It was supposed to be an Oscar bait vehicle.

R252, you ignorant slut! 50 Shades made more than a half BILLION $$$$$ world wide and it opened at $ 85 Million. It was highly successful. The problem is the author is a pain in the ass and the director of the first one walked because no one can get along with the crazy bitch who wrote it. So the sequel won't be as good, but it will make money. The production budget was $40 Million for the first one. There are a lot of stupid women in this world because 50 Shades is a money machine.

To the topic: Robert Blake, Money Train. Funny link included.

"you ignorant slut! 50 Shades made more than a half BILLION $$$$$ world wide and it opened at $ 85 Million."

Yeah, and Magic Mike was a hit but the sequel is underperforming. 50 Shades did okay because of the hype, the sequel will be far less successful. Why are you defending that frau shit, anyway?

R257

I think it was more her vehicle, and she needed him to get financing. I doubt she can get any movie off the ground, she made one turd after another when she was with Joel Silver.

Jake did well in "End of Watch" and it did well at the box office, given its fairly low budget.

The real test for JG will be Southpaw. If he can't open this, he'll be done. About to turn 35 (expiration date to be a megastar for most), it'll be harder to fill the seats and he'll have to resort to TV.

I wonder how well known Gyllenhaal is for the general public. He has never really been a "movie star" per se. He's more an indie darling like Joaquin Phoenix.

R263: isn't turning to TV the future for actors at this point?

Will Smith - Focus flopped and After Earth was an enormous, resounding flop.

Focus would have flopped harder if Will hadn't been in it. Actually, without Will attached it wouldn't have even been released

Totally agree with R266. That is one of the most precipitous turn to box office poison in this generation

Although, to be balanced, will smith charged further into the rarified air with nothing of substance beyond a smile and a con than just about anyone:

Channing Tatum clearly learned that lesson well

"Will Smith - Focus flopped and After Earth was an enormous, resounding flop."

If 2 flops makes you box office poison....then EVERYONE is box office poison. Box Office Poison is someone like Olivia Wilde who ONLY makes flops

R270: that's disingenuous...

He took time off and flopped hard with 2 straight that were supposed to show he still had it. All of that in the context of his creepy nepotism with that dullard son of his and the fact he is pushing 50 and flopped hard trying to be sexy...

Why in the world would someone who never played sexy in his 20s & 30s think anyone would buy him as such as a mid 40s, beard marriage, awful stage dad, possible Scientology stooge at the most important point of his career in a quarter century?

Olivia Wilde can 't flop. She isn't a movie star and never has been. We're talking about movie stars who have lost their box office pull. Wilde never had any.

W&W to R272

[quote]He took time off and flopped hard with 2 straight that were supposed to show he still had it. All of that in the context of his creepy nepotism with that dullard son of his and the fact he is pushing 50 and flopped hard trying to be sexy...

Focus opened at #1. While the domestic total reached only 53 million. The foreign box office totaled over 100 million; allowing the film to triple the production budget.

Opening at no. 1 means jack shit if there's no competition that weekend. And you forgot to add to the budget the humongous amount paid in marketing. They flogged that movie for weeks. Cost a fortune.

R274: more disingenuous talk...

You can use global take to talk about tripling budget (without even factoring in marketing and overages as pointed out by R275). That's fine...

However, we all know that studio execs (like all corporate execs) keep score based on projections...

Focus was projected to open at 2.5 the gate it actually did. Being #1 in a weak cycle means nothing compared to that fact. Triple the budget was a loser in the eyes of those who invested, marketed, and expected Big Willie to deliver much, much more..,

If you are suggesting that film didn't hurt the fresh prince turned old man's brand as a bankable movie star, you are either lying or delusional...

I wasn't defending 50 Shades. I was correcting the impression given by saying that the first one didn't do well. It did. And the second will do well. Of course not as well as the first, but well enough not to be considered a huge flop. Now go find something to suck on.

There's a lot of stuff out here that makes money that I call garbage cinema, movies we never heard of that are huge martial arts things, or movies like the Jackass" series. A lot of "successful" actors make their money overseas and do so poorly in the US that it's straight to DVD for their product.

Gyllenhaal should have changed his name if he wanted stardom in the USA. I just don't see average folks dealing with that name.

Jake wants to be Mark Wahlberg. Not. Happening. People in Hollywood can't stand him. He's hanging on by a fingernail. That's why he keeps going to New York to do theatre and even his embarrassing attempt at singing. I'm told he was awful.

R279: It' s not like Mark Wahlberg is God on Earth. He' s medicore at best, and his movies are not particularly well liked. In fact, I think Jake Gyllenhaal is actually more successfull than him, with critics at least.

r279, Mark Wahlberg sucks. He's an awful person and he can't act. His movies are not usually big hits, either

Wahlberg does suck and he's another one who is turning into box office poison - quickly.

Kevin Hart

[quote]more disingenuous talk... You can use global take to talk about tripling budget (without even factoring in marketing and overages as pointed out by [R275]). That's fine...

I didn't say that the movie broke records at the box office. I didn't say that it was a career high for Smith. I spoke about tripling the production budget to turn a profit because movies that can at least double their production budgets are generally considered profitable (not flops). I didn't factor in marketing because the studios don't release that information and even the information that they do release (production budget/box office)may not be completely accurate. Because of this. We can only speculate. Which is what you have done. My speculations are no more disingenuous than yours. Even if we factor in 25 million (half of the production budget). Focus still doubled its production budget.

[quote]For a film which cost between $35 and $75 million to make, the P&A budget will most likely be at least half the production budget. And the numbers only go up with bigger films. "If the studio spends a lot on the budget, they're going to want to protect that investment by advertising it heavily," says Contrino.

[quote]So first of all, a word about Hollywood accounting — as you might already know, pretty much no movies ever officially make a profit. (For more on that, and other quirks of the system, click here.) But a rule of thumb seems to be that if a movie's global box office is double its production budget, then it probably made money. That's the rubric we're using here.

[quote]Triple the budget was a loser in the eyes of those who invested, marketed, and expected Big Willie to deliver much, much more.., If you are suggesting that film didn't hurt the fresh prince turned old man's brand as a bankable movie star, you are either lying or delusional...

I didn't say that the movie met all of the expectations of the investors; who I can only imagine would like for every one of their investments to make billions. The investors consider most of them to be flops. I made no mention of Smith's brand but it appears that Sony still has faith him.

The true co-owners of this thread are Superman's two dads, Messrs. Crowe and Costner. How they continue to be asked to carry films is beyond me.

As someone who likes both film and theater, it seems to me that many, not all, of the 'great actors' of old were, unlike today, people who'd trained and cut their chops in theater, then moved on to film. I just heard a lecture of Mulgrew talking about what Adler said to her when Kate nervously broke the news she was going to do a soap opera. That Kate could then escape the soaps on to a night time series, with some bit film roles here and there, says something and, of course, Kate kept her feet in the theater as well. She's a fantastic performer and has exceptional charisma and, imo, SHOULD HAVE had a career more akin to Judi Dench. And Judi's a good example as is Jacobi, Hurt, etc. Take it into the film crossover to people like Hopkins, Burton, Gielgud, O'Toole, Hoffman, Brando, and actors such as these and it's hard not to think,"WTF happened?". The 70's seems to have been the last generation of stage to film blow ups, like we had in these stars. I mean, look at Hopkins in a movie like "Magic". He was relatively unknown to U.S. audiences as any kind of 'lead' heavyweight, but the film did very well (if you've never seen it, do, because Burgess Meredith does a great part too). And, it seems the stories themselves were so much better.

I think audiences really do want these intense dramas, but they're being done either all wrong or just marketed as 'indie' films, which many less discriminating people might quickly dismiss as,"Oh, it's one of those arty, boring movie." Even the action film genre sucks now, if you compare them to films like Frankenheimer's. And I'm not sure a director like Lynch, Jarmusch, or Van Sant could even get distribution today like they did before (not that they can't now, but I think you get what I mean...and Jarmusch should have NEVER had a frat boy like Tarentino as ANY kind of 'competition'...Jarmusch and Van Sant's films will stand over Tarentino's in future film studies courses as they well should).

There's some disconnect between the development process of leading men and women actors, which should never be based on appearance as they are so much now, and that of production companies. And while LA, NY, and Chicago still reign as THE places to live for aspirants, there is definitely a ground swelling of rejection for their dominance, what with fairly successful areas like Atlanta and New Orleans and Dallas/Austin, and Miami being available to 'find work'. I think some talent is starting to reject the old pools, full of blood and broken bones from previous aspirants, in favor of doing what they love, but with less hassle and stress financially. The old pools aren't the only places they can find coaches and classes, without the bullying, as there are many fine Drama teachers nationwide due, if nothing else, to retirement or just loving to teach.

Smith made a shit ton of money for Sony with those Bad Boys and Men in Black movies, although I read the last one made a lot, but cost too much. Still, like with the Wackowski siblings, your goodwill can only stretch so far before they show you the door. But I don't think Smith is that bad...yet.

If you look at Smith's results on Box Office Mojo, he lost his mojo long ago.

[quote]If you look at Smith's results on Box Office Mojo, he lost his mojo long ago.

Why do you say that? He seems to be continuing a career pattern that includes big blockbuster franchises and smaller vanity projects. Smith has Suicide Squad and Badboys 3 coming. Which will both probably do really well. His lifetime box office is gross is close to 3 billion with is on par with the other male superstars his age.

Michael Douglas's cousin? R286

Hello? Jakie Poo sings? When, where, how do I experience this? R279

Ask and ye shall receive, r291:

Thanks! And that's funny! And he's cute there!

I've never understood how Ryan Reynolds became a big star.

He's not good-looking, has weird teeth, and a peculiar voice & speech pattern.

He was great in that first Van Wilder movie.

[quote]Ask and ye shall receive, [R291]

Gyllenhaal needed some butt pads under that gown.

R295, so he is still riding off some cult movie from 10 years ago. It is not as if it is a classic or critically acclaimed. He must have major dirt to have lost studios hundreds of millions of dollars and still book substantial gigs. At least Depp made Disney billions before he started going south these past few years.

In the right role Ryan Reynolds is enjoayable. I remember liking him a lot in Blade Trinity. I have high hopes for his Deadpool since it's perfect for him with raunchy joking and showing off a great body in a tight outift. He'll probably never be a super A-lister but after what happened with RDJ anything is possible.

Let's face it, Reynolds has had a great career for someone who started out in a sitcom. I must say I never thought it would be him to be the movie star out of those three when I was watching the show. His problem is his voice which is slightly too high and a bit annoying. But he's sexy and he's a fairly good actor. I think he will always find roles. And he might get his own Iron Man role someday.

Just got Vanity Fair. Channing Tatum is on the cover. Oops. Looks like VF presumed Magic Mike was going to be a bigger hit than it was. They are losing their touch. After Jupiter Ascending and MM, Tatum's going to do another Jump Street (yawn). His hold on the A list is faltering badly.

R298

[quote]In the right role Ryan Reynolds is enjoayable

Reynolds is boring as yesterday's dishwater. No wit, no charisma, no charm, limited acting talent.

and Reynolds' close-set eyes make him look like a chimp

No, r299, they already lost it. He was on the cover for that flop, White House Down in 2013. Then he was on the Oscar cover this pass year with Amy Adams and Reese Witherspoon as if he was as good as nominated. At least Adams has been nominated several times. Now this cover for a lame sequel that he could not carry despite endless promotion. I remember some media outlet saying a couple of years ago that Vanity Fair is jumping the gun on him as an actor and boxoffice threat. Embarrassing.

I don't dislike the guy, but for all these overhyped media or pr darlings, let's check in with you 5 or 10 years down the road.

R302 Gretchen Mol's fate beckons Tatum.

Except Tatum has already opened movies and Mol never did

Has Mila Kunis had a real hit in her own right? "Jupiter Ascending" can't have done her any good, and before that she was the weakest link in "Oz the Great and Terrible". Has she done anything to counteract the bad juju of two high-profile flops?

Maybe she was wise to marry rich.

Oh... Could Bob Redford open a glamorous picture back in the day...

From Vanity Fair's cover story on the underwhelming Channing Tatum:

"Here you had America's leading man, the biggest male star since Pitt or Clooney, the star brighter than all the others, behaving in private exactly as you'd want him to behave, exactly as you'd behave if you became a titanic box office draw."

Who did he blow to get that bullshit written? VF has egg (or cum) on its face.

Paul Bettany

The leaked Sony emails show why today's "stars" are so underwhelming. The arbiters in Hollywood have absolutely no intelligence, taste or wit and no experience of life beyond their own small privileged artificial social bubble. They have no imagination and no ambition. So the people they try to make into stars are blandly good-looking and they mirror their employers' shortcomings. The great Hollywood movie stars had talent and training and they had experience of life (which gave them presence and depth).

Tatum has not opened any movie on his own. He had the help of Jonah Hill and McBongo. Jumpstreet is dead without Hill and Magic Mike obviously needed McBongo in an artistic and commercial sense. Everything else is a flop or way underperforms. I was shocked that Foxcatcher flopped after a year and a half of hype and critics creaming themselves. His next two projects he has very small parts and don't need him to open.

I will give him those Nicholas Sparks movies he does, but I won't discount his leading ladies.

In the Sony emails he comes off as a total suck up. That's how you succeed gentlemen. Suck up to incompetents. They love it.

R286, good post. You ask WTF happened? In terms of actors having a theatre to film career path? Well, IMO, Television happened, and by the 70's there was a strong path from TV to film. Steve McQueen is one who readily comes to mind.

OK, my contribution for Box Office Poison is Ryan Phillippe. If it weren't for his ex-wife's husband finding him projects so he can at least contribute some child support, he's dead in the water.

As for Ryan Reynolds, he was lucky and now he's not. Did movie producers really think people came to see him starring in a Sandra Bullock movie? Please.

(R201) is absolutely correct. I don't think any franchise stars have been able to open a movie on their own outside of their franchises. All of the Chris's are overrated (Pine, Hemsworth, Pratt, and Evans)...time will tell with both Pratt & Lawrence if Passengers will open well. Chris Pratt is likable but it seems like his role in Guardians and Jurassic World are some variation of Pratt/Andy Dwyer (his character on Parks and Rec) hybrid. The thing with Pratt is that he markets himself well. Same with Tatum. Hollywood studios will do anything in their power to make Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Gosling and Tom Hardy happen. Hardy is actually talented though but I think he is like Jake G, more of a character actor then a leading actor. Even Charlize Theron overshadowed Hardy in Mad Max. Hardy was supposed to play the role Joel Kinnamen is playing in Suicide Squad and had to drop it due to filming on the Reverent. If he stayed in that role, he would have been overshadowed by Margot Robbie probably, who seems to be getting the most buzz out of that movie so far.

I think there's now a class of "movie star": guys who make money in Marvel/DC/blockbuster sequels (Downey, Pratt, Hemsworth, etc.) but otherwise don't have careers.

One thing I've noticed about the studio manufactured "stars" (who don't necessarily put bums in seats at movie theaters): they are personable, present well on chat shows, good humored, bland and inoffensive. They could also work as anchors on GMA. Tatum, Pratt and Ryan Reynolds have to be the poster boys for the Pleasant School of Movie Stardom, but George Clooney created it. They want TV actors in movies now. TV actors historically were different from movie actors because TV actors were "comforting" presences: you welcomed them into your living room, they didn't challenge you or upset you. You could watch them week after week, or not. Movie actors were scarier: you didn't know what they'd do. There was a mystery about them. TV actors felt familiar. That probably works in Marvel/DC crap but it backfires in "serious" movies.

Hardy was such a non factor in Mad Max. Any decent actor could have played that. I think he saw that it was going to happen again in Suicide Squad because the rumors were that his character is put to the side for other characters. That is why he and Jake G. passed even though Jake worked with the director before to great success. A forgettable role, so you get some one like Kinnaman. The emphasis will be on Leto, Robbie, Smith, Davis and one other person I am forgetting.

I think the film industry understands that there are very few, if any stars who can guarantee profits no matter what. It's a short list. That's why they full the calendar up with the tent pole commercial garbage generated by Marvel and the others. I agree with the person who said we know way too much about our movie stars now a days. Back when Bette Davis and Clark Gable made movies, you knew what you were told. There were tabloids back then, but only a couple, and the movie magazines were essentially the industry's way of creating the image and glamour they wanted you to see. Movies took less time to shoot and stayed in theatres longer. I also agreee about the reality show glut. It's so much cheaper and more profitable to a network to produce reality TV than it is to go for a TV series. I think game shows were a precursor to the reality TV shows we watch now. They had amateur hours and talent shows in the early days of TV and those are still around in their various mutations.

I think Hardy's a very good actor - much better than overrated Fassbender - but it seems like he's Bale lite to work with. And he isn't "audience friendly" in interviews. He doesn't schmooze. The most interesting actors working today (Hardy, Bale, McConaughey, Phoenix) all have the same problem. They've probably all got a screw or two loose, and you never know what the hell they'll say on late night talk shows. That freaks out studios so they push the boring bland, easily controlled nonentities like Tatum, Pratt, Hemsworth and Reynolds. They all probably lick ass like nobody's business. Something I think Joaquin Phoenix would be incapable of doing (though would anybody actually WANT Phoenix anywhere near their ass? He's so creepy.)

I remember reading an article interviewing a director with a movie coming out later this year that has gotten big critical acclaim, but the part I remember is that she could not get American actors to even consider one of the roles in the film because they are too scared about their image instead of taking on a challenging role and showing range. Now could you see Gene Hackman, Steve McQueen or Paul Newman talking some weak shit like that?

R318 that's like Will Smith turning down a couple of roles that would have helped his career because he wouldn't have had the biggest role and the most heroic one.

R317: Faassbender... I have no freaking idea why people think he' s any good. Overacting is his method, and he' s not even attractive/likeable enough to understand the "at least he' s funny/hot". Oh well...

I can't believe these two obvious Next Big Things Who Never Happened aren't in this list:

Clive Owen

Gerard Butler

r321, Clive Owen is a great one - so handsome and a good actor, with a brooding charisma. He never caught on, though, for whatever reason

Clive Owen owned 2005-2006 as far as visibility - he was in every movie! He fizzled out though.

Gerard Butler was the It Guy after The 300's success, and he was omnipresent in 2008. Gone now, though!

Sharon Stone

Actually sell tickets: Jennifer, Sandra, Meryl

Actually turn off buyers: Nicole, Mila, JLo

The last few posts reinforce what I've been saying for a while - Hollywood absolutely SUCKS at developing talent! It's not that there aren't talented actors in America, but for some reason the studios only want to push young, uninteresting, untrained actors. They have no interest in college-trained or theater-trained actors, the ones with skill and talent, they give all the breaks to rich kids or the children of their associates.

And when they need someone with actual talent, they run for a Brit or an Aussie, and ignore the well-trained Americans.

r326, there is a difference between actors and movie stars - being a theater-trained actor does not automatically mean you will be a likeable or charismatic star. Anyway, it's the public that makes stars - there have been tons of actors hyped as "the next big thing" but they fade away if the public does not support them

Of course good training doesn't give someone movie-star charisma, R327, but it doesn't rule it out either. But the big agents and studios aren't looking for the next Meryl Streep, they're looking for the next Scarlett Johansson; pretty things who can start in their teens and "learn in front of the camera". A talented and photogenic actor who follows Meryl's path of college, grad program, and theater... they're "too old".

That's why Hollywood sucks at developing talent, by putting talented actors through a grinder of ageism, nepotism, sexual harrassment, ignorance, and favoritism, the Hollywood Powers That Be are shooting themselves in their collective foot.

Butler just kept picking shitty movie after shitty movie after 300. Same with Cuba Gooding. Fine, do some paycheck ones, but you have to do some quality ones too.

Sad, but not sure what happened to Owens. It is like he fell from the top for no reason. Did he piss off someone?

Amber Heard.

Owen's a good actor but he never caught on with the US public (99% of whom have never even heard of him). Same thing happens with most actors. And they never become movie stars. They need charisma and a hook that differentiates them from all the others.

Movie stars who are also very good actors you can count on the fingers of one hand.

Christoph Waltz--good enough actor (2 Oscars in 3 years is nothing to sneeze at); problem is, when he's not working with Tarantino, nobody cares. He's the next Bond villain, so that might work for him.

Waltz is the epitome of a supporting actor. Plus, he is over 50 and very European. But hey, he knows his lane and has done well in it.

Michael Douglass has not opened a movie on his own for many moons, but I think he just aged out.

I like him, but Patrick Wilson. Universal pulled the plug on his movie with Chris Pine weeks before its release last year and it ended up straight to VOD/DVD. Wilson can't keep a show on TV either.

Waltz was pretty mediocre in that Django movie. He can't do funny.

Waltz gave the same performance in Django and in Inglourious thingy and got 2 Oscars. Ridiculous.

Was he supposed to be funny in Django? I thought he was funny in Inglorious Basterds. I could get past Pitt's rediculous accent even if it was done for effect.

Tina Fey can't seem to get a big movie hit.

Hollywood tried to make Patrick Wilson happen several times. Aaron Eckhart too. NEVER EVER was gonna happen for either one of them.

With Gerard B. I STILL don't why they even tried. THE worst American accent EVER. This includes Waltz in Big Eyes (atrocious BTW).

Tina fey is a terrible actress, very dull to watch even in comedy.

The entire cast from WATCHMEN

Butler has THREE blockbuster movies next year. How??? Why??

3??? Scotland please take him back. Enough of his no talent, closeted ass!

Miss Helen Lawson

Amber Heard is a good one...like Olivia Wilde she seems to have the minus touch. Her movies ALWAYS flop

Why doesn't Casey Affleck get better roles? He's 100X more talented than his brother, better looking too. He doesn't seem to get traction. Don't think he's box office poison because he never gets a crack at potentially lucrative movies. His bit part in Interstellar was great. The video scene where he tells his father his grandson has died was just devastating. He totally sold that scene.

I'd rather watch Casey Affleck than Ryan Gosling, and IMO they are very similar. Except Casey is the better actor.

Casey is a little bitch

R344, I don' t know about Casey Affleck, but good Lord, Ryan Gosling is boring as fuck!

You know there's a flip side to the box office poison angle. Think about some of these actors like Kate Beckinsale or Mila Jovavich, The whole Underworld series or the Resident Evil series. Those people make a ton of money. They will never win an Oscar, they are definitely not part of the Hollywood elite and can never really transition to "legitimate" movies, but they are doing very well thank you. Then there's The Rock who I believe will transition into the new updated version of Arnold.He's Scwartznegger's heir apparent.

Aaron Eckhart! I forgot about the many attempts to make him the Next Leading Man! Flop, flop, flop... Box Office Poison!

Justin Timberlake in Friends with benefits and that movie with Ben Affleck. Why are they trying to make him happen?

[quote]Tina Fey can't seem to get a big movie hit.

Don't blame me; I was one of the few people who actually bought a ticket to [italic]Muppets Most Wanted[/italic] and enjoyed it.

"He's 100X more talented than his brother, better looking too."

More talented? Yes. Better looking? No

Let's put it this way, Casey's face is much more expressive than Ben's immobile mask of a face.

OMG I don't know where to post this but a dead body was found in Demi Moore's swimming pool this morning. She wasn't at home. There apparently was some party at her house although no one knows who gave the party or who was there.

I posted it in this thread because Demi is regarded as Box Office Poison, for reals.

Who was the hottest Chattanooga Marine victim?

Please vote in the "pole".

Johnny Depp.

Who's deleting so many posts that are innocent?

Ohhhh, it's that freeper troll who was complaining that 'innoculate posts' were being deleted. He meant his, of course, which derail threads, are racist, sexist AND homophobic, of all things. And he's why we can't have nice things. And, yes, he did go to every thread, nearly, I posted n and FF'd my posts into obscurity from replies to the Depressed person to the discussion about WW2 and the monoarchy to the exercise thread to the 'which parent are you closer to' thread, to name a few. Mods, please help?

Ew Casey Affleck is a creep.

[quote] Casey Affleck has settled sexual harassment cases with two women who accused him of unwelcome advances during the filming of I'm Still Here, the "documentary" starring Joaquin Phoenix.

Producer Amanda White and cinematographer Magdalena Gorka had sued for $2m and $2.25m respectively, claiming they were subjected to outrageous behaviour while working on the film. White also said Affleck had broken a verbal agreement to pay her $50,000. Both women will now receive due credit for their work on the project, though no details of any financial settlement have been released.

White's original allegations included claims that Affleck hired transvestite prostitutes "for his personal gratification" during filming, referred to women as "cows", manhandled her when she rejected his sexual advances and instructed a camera operator to flash his genitals at her on several occasions. Gorka claimed she was subjected to a "near daily barrage of sexual comments, innuendo and unwelcome advances" by crew members, encouraged by Affleck.

Casey's a good actor but it looks like even creepier than his bro and his bro in law Joaquin.

Casey is a whore like his big brother only creepier. Don't why his wife is still with him but she's a Phoenix that might explain it.

That guy who was in that thing.

Bump.

Nicole Kidman is the queen of this.