Reese gets 15 million and Paul Rudd gets three?
|by Anonymous||reply 74||07/11/2013|
she's not worth it.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||12/11/2010|
And people find it such a hard concept to understand why she is the masterpower behind the bearding of Jake.%0D %0D Women own Hollywood. They pull the strings.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||12/11/2010|
Reece is the bigger star, OP. Are you slow?
|by Anonymous||reply 3||12/11/2010|
If he needs to be comforted because of this inequity, I'm available.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||12/11/2010|
Rudd is such a marginal talent.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||12/11/2010|
Reese Witherspoon didn't get 15 million for the piece of crap called "How Do You Know".
Witherspoon is faking numbers for publicity - here is the lie from 2006 about being "the highest paid actress":
"Reese Witherspoon is officially the highest paid actress in Hollywood. Reese is set to star in a horror film, %E2%80%9COur Family Trouble" in which she will receive $29 million. That price tag is $5 million higher than the previous top paid actress, Julia Roberts.
Reese%E2%80%99s Type A production company is also producing "Our Family Trouble", which is due out sometime in 2009."
|by Anonymous||reply 6||12/11/2010|
The H'wood trades confirmed the $15M for this movie. She rarely agrees to less. That's tip of the iceberg, too. The back end deals,the per diem she requires, and other perks she insists on,including private transportation, housing, etc. are $$$$. I wish Smoking Gun would uncover the "actual" cost,compared to the costs they publish.%0D %0D Type A Prod. is involved in more and more of her movies, because she has to kick in some "good faith" financing before other parties will ante up. So now she's "producing." She has first refusal on casting. She picks a guy like Rudd, who makes far less, on purpose. Her "magnet" is Owen Wilson, as insurance. %0D %0D %0D She knows her "star power " is weakening. She studies the market. She does nothing without consulting the Box Office analysis, and Q ratings, tracking polls, etc. and demographic appeal. %0D %0D She's one of the most successful, calculating people in H'wood."Dating" a guy from CAA who's now a top agent,(he wasn't before she started dating him) makes her very powerful. Do not fuck with her!%0D %0D In Water for Elephants she grabbed Pattinson, as her "magnet" and grabbed Christophe Waltz for far less, even tho he won an Oscar. She wanted Sean Penn, but he wouldn't do it. %0D %0D I love her image as a real People Magazine pleaser, selling her Avon, talking about scrap-booking on TV,with the heavy Southern Belle's accent, and being a Mom.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||12/11/2010|
[quote]In Water for Elephants she grabbed Pattinson, as her "magnet" and grabbed Christophe Waltz for far less, even tho he won an Oscar. She wanted Sean Penn, but he wouldn't do it.
I doubt Pattinson is going to bring in an audience (all of the movies sold on his name alone have failed) and watching her try to play 23 against a 24 year old tween heartthrob will be embarrassing. I agree she's calculating, but I don't know how smart she is. Her career is has been in a decline for years and these next 2 movies look like more of the same.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||12/11/2010|
C'mon, Op. Name all the movies Rudd opened big on the basis of his appearance in the movie.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||12/11/2010|
You may be right, R8. Forgot to mention her next romcom. This Means War just finished filming. It's about two guys who fight over/in love with the same girl. (Surprise!) For this one she got Chris Pine and the Inception guy, Hardy, who is hot right now, but wasn't when she signed him. I admire her. She's a great case study for B School...not film school.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||12/11/2010|
Water for Elephants is also a love triangle of sorts. I'm sensing a pattern here...
As for Rudd, maybe he's not as big of name as Witherspoon, but I bet from the studio's perceptive, his cheaper salary and the relatively modest budget of his movies, he's a much better return on investment than Witherspoon.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||12/11/2010|
haven't seen the movie, but beside the fact she is the lead in the movie, she has an oscar and is the bigger star.
so why should it bother us.
Also, it's hard to feel sorry for Paul Rudd getting a measly 3 million dollars for a role.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||12/11/2010|
Here's my take, FWIW:
I know who Reese is without a last name. I don't know who Paul Rudd is. Granted, I don't like to go to movies. But she is a much more well known individual.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||12/11/2010|
I could see Reese falling into Meg Ryan territory once she hits 40. Too old for rom coms, not enough talent/too cutsy for real drama.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||12/11/2010|
It's absurd that he gets 3 million. I wouldn't pay him more than 1.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||12/11/2010|
Meg Ryan is due for some kind of comeback, however modest. Or has she ruined her face and lost whatever talent she had?
|by Anonymous||reply 16||12/11/2010|
Straight guys love Paul Rudd. Believe me, they know who he is. But they won't care about him here.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||12/11/2010|
She was really boring on Letterman last night and he seems to have no use for her. Also, whoever did her hair should find another line of work.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||12/11/2010|
I'm gay and wuold totally do Paul Rudd.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||12/11/2010|
Hey Paul Rudd, welcome to the world of unequal pay.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||12/11/2010|
Ah, shoot now, R7, y'all are givin' mah secrets away! Tee hee!
|by Anonymous||reply 21||12/11/2010|
[quote]You may be right, [R8]. Forgot to mention her next romcom. This Means War just finished filming. It's about two guys who fight over/in love with the same girl. (Surprise!).%0D %0D Yeah, what a fucking shitty-ass boring piece of conceptual crap. Why can't Hollywood do something different and have the two guys see they have more in common and run off together. Or the girl gets sick of them and dumps them for a chick or some old dude. %0D %0D Hollywood is so damn predictable.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||12/11/2010|
Wait a minute R22 ... are you saying two guys fighting over a girl has been done before?!?
|by Anonymous||reply 23||12/11/2010|
"Women own Hollywood. They pull the strings."
You clearly don't live anywhere NEAR Hollywood.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||12/11/2010|
Another thread mentioned actors who feel foisted upon us --
Since Walk The Line, she seems foisted.
Too bad, because once, she was fun.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||12/11/2010|
Isn't this always the case when there is a big male movie star in need of a female ornament? When the salary for the main star is high the studio hires a cheap sidekick. I just Netflixed those Tom Hanks movies based on Dan Brown's books. In both films the actresses were not big names and, probably, worked for a fraction of Hanks's salary.
Same thing about most of these action films with a male hero. The girls are just that, girls. This trend must have started with the James Bond films.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||12/11/2010|
In what universe does Paul Rudd deserve three million for his crapfest movies? Has the guy ever had a hit at the box office? Clueless doesn't count.%0D %0D And Witherspoon does not deserve all that money. She hasn't had a hit in years, and the studios are foolish for allowing her to still coast on "Legally Blonde" and that undeserved oscar win.%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 27||12/11/2010|
Paul Rudd is really lucky to get 3M. I think he's happy as a clam about it.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||12/11/2010|
I've enjoyed far more movies starring Paul Rudd in the past 5 years than anything Reese has done.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||12/11/2010|
It's ALL about overseas appeal. Movie stars are brands. And it's about whether or not people overseas will buy their brand. She can open a movie worldwide. Rudd can not.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||12/11/2010|
[quote]And Witherspoon does not deserve all that money. She hasn't had a hit in years, and the studios are foolish for allowing her to still coast on "Legally Blonde" and that undeserved oscar win.
Her last two movies grossed $544 million world wide and that doesn't include DVD sales. Stop thinking about your neighborhood theater. She is popular all over the world and she did deserve the Oscar and another for "Freeway". You don't think she deserves the money, easy solution, don't pay her.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||12/11/2010|
Domestic box office is where it really counts and shes not cutting it. If you have factor in overseas box office, she's in trouble.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||12/11/2010|
Nonsense. She certainly did not "deserve" the Oscar for Walk the Line anymore than she "deserves" her $15M+ salary. Walk the Line was a mediocre, made-for-TV movie.%0D %0D Reese is a brand. She's a very ambitious, very smart woman who's All-American-Girl pretty, and just talented enough. She make movies for $$ and her movies make money. %0D %0D She knows she's beginning to wear, and her pull isn't what it used to be. She mixes repetitious,cliched, love triangle romcoms with a rare "serious" movie. You do know she has the rights to produce/star in a Peggy Lee biopic? %0D %0D Interesting comparison with Meg Ryan. Meg ruined her career with the Dennis Quaid divorce/Russell Crowe scandal, and bad plastic surgery.Did it to herself.Dumb. %0D %0D Reese is SO not dumb. No one and nothing gets in her way. She's relentless. Everyone in H'wood knows this. The suits love her for it. Her peers not so much. She's very practical and very professional. %0D %0D I'd bet in ten years, when she's mid-40's, she'll do a few vanity projects, spend more time producing and probably have one more kid, with this new guy she's currently dating who's an agent. She likes the fact she is de facto positioning to "run" CAA.%0D %0D No one will remember Paul Rudd's name. He'll be doing plays and the occasional movie five years from now with zero name recognition.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||12/11/2010|
I see this is yet another movie with forty-something Owen Wilson as a carefree slacker bachelor. It's just getting pathetic at his age.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||12/11/2010|
I can understand why the studio/Reese/Brooks would have wanted Rudd - as another poster said he's likely a great return on their investment. Owen Wilson OTOH, just baffles me. Sure he's had a slough of successes, but most of his hits are due to either the pull of the costar (Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller) or the vehicle (Marley and Me, whose success also should be credited to Aniston as costar).
|by Anonymous||reply 35||12/11/2010|
[quote]No one will remember Paul Rudd's name. He'll be doing plays and the occasional movie five years from now with zero name recognition.
Paul Rudd has been doing well for over 15 years now. I think he will be alright. Straight guys think he's funny, straight girls think he's cute. He has appeal. It maybe more low key then Reese, but I don't think his goal in life is to be the biggest star in the world.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||12/11/2010|
It's no more absurd to pay Witherspoon $15M than it is to pay Russell Crowe that amount.%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 37||12/11/2010|
She used to be fun and free-spirited back in the day..here is a video of her and Drag queen Brandy Wine
|by Anonymous||reply 38||12/11/2010|
Julia Roberts used to get just as much money if not more, and, I believe, Jolie still gets a shitload of money. Talentwise, Reese is ahead of both of these. At least she has some comedic talent (Election, Legally Blonde). I bet you that any woman in Hollywood who makes this much money is calculated and ambitious. Hollywood is no different than Wall Street. It's not a place for sentimental or those with passion or ideals. That said, no actor deserves to get paid $15 mil for three months of work.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||12/11/2010|
Jake is Not Gay!
|by Anonymous||reply 40||12/11/2010|
Paul needs to get some cock sucking pointers from Reese
|by Anonymous||reply 41||12/11/2010|
I just read a funny quote in EW that Reese thought she had turned in a dramatic performance in Freeway and was shocked when people laughed during the movie. That's when she knew "she was funny".
Are you funny if you unintentionally make people laugh? She has been figuring out how to turn herself into whatever is selling and market herself since she was a teenager. She has no artistic integrity, no soul and her movies are cinematic fast food.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||12/11/2010|
Why is she wasting what's left of her clout on idiotic romcoms?
|by Anonymous||reply 43||12/11/2010|
A James L. Brooks project is a cut or three above your average rom com, R43. But it does look lame from the trailer.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||12/11/2010|
OP = Rudd's Agent.
Look, you're lucky they didn't give it to Ruffalo who would've done it for a hot meal.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||12/11/2010|
"Her last two movies grossed $544 million world wide and that doesn't include DVD sales. Stop thinking about your neighborhood theater."%0D %0D I'm calling bullshit unless there's a link provided. %0D %0D And even given the dubious proposition that her shitty romcoms have made that much money worldwide, it doesn't mean much. She can't draw flies as a dramatic actress. The cute shit isn't going to sustain a worthwhile career, both professionally and economically.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||12/11/2010|
Sounds about right, OP...%0D %0D and it's your problem that your male ego can't handle it.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||12/11/2010|
[quote]She has no artistic integrity, no soul and her movies are cinematic fast food.
Isn't 99% of Hollywood that way?
|by Anonymous||reply 48||12/11/2010|
How can the studio even hope to make back it's investment on this? 140 million? Seriously? The trailer looks so lame!
|by Anonymous||reply 49||12/11/2010|
R31, I certainly hope you're not trying to credit her VO work as the reason Monsters v Aliens did well. You can't be serious.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||12/11/2010|
If you like Chris Pine, but you loathe Reese, do you go see This Means War? I don't know if I can get past my distaste for her to do it.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||12/11/2010|
There is no way they are making their budget back with this mess. If this is another flop, I wonder if the studios will still be willing to pay her $15 million asking price. This isn't 2005 and nobody is clamoring for another Reese romcom.
Ironically, weren't they sort of floating this as Oscar bait a few months ago? I think between this and Water for Elephants, Reese has been trying to be more 'serious' but this is a dud and WfE has an April release date which is the grave yard for movies.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||12/11/2010|
[quote]Her last two movies grossed $544 million world wide and that doesn't include DVD sales. Stop thinking about your neighborhood theater." I'm calling bullshit unless there's a link provided.
Oh for Christ's sake. Click on her last two movies and look at worldwide. And yes animation counts as only Disney doesn't promote the voice talent. Dreamworks does as everyone knows Mike Meyers and Eddie Murphy do the Shreks.
[quote]There is no way they are making their budget back with this mess. If this is another flop, I wonder if the studios will still be willing to pay her $15 million asking price.
Sweetie even the biggest box office never "make a profit". Studios are notoriously famous in their book keeping practices and as stated before domestic box office is just a fraction of the profits. Even huge bombs can make money on DVD, PPV, airline & hotel rentals, cable and TV packages. Don't mourn her career just yet.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||12/11/2010|
will this be her Gigli?
|by Anonymous||reply 54||12/11/2010|
she has a mustache in the film
|by Anonymous||reply 55||12/11/2010|
Apparently the budget on this thing was $120 million, with $50 million going to the talent alone!
|by Anonymous||reply 56||12/16/2010|
Liking Chris Pine and hating Reese Witherspoon is like being into beige but loathing taupe
|by Anonymous||reply 57||12/16/2010|
Beige has certain assets below the hips that taupe does not have.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||12/16/2010|
R53, you can't be serious. Voice work does not count and Reese lending her voice means fuck all. Nobody bought tickets to hear Reese's voice. Brittany Murphy lent her voice to animated movies that made hundreds of millions as well as "King of the Hill" - a hugely successful long-running TV show -doesn't mean anyone in Hollywood considered her A-list because of that.%0D %0D She's another ambitious star who so over-calculates everything that she winds up with a string of hits for a while, but nothing worth seeing. She doesn't choose scripts based on passion or artistic challenge but on cold-blooded box-office number crunching. She's the female equivalent of Will Smith or (when he was still hot) Tom Cruise. Even Swank has a better filmography than her. I think even Julia Roberts might. %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 59||12/16/2010|
I think this movie is going to bomb.
And here's the trailer to Reese's next film, Water for Elephants. Looks like soft focus Nicholas Sparks set in a Depression era circus.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||12/16/2010|
|by Anonymous||reply 61||12/16/2010|
They make far too much money.%0D %0D Reese maybe should get 3 and Paul 1.%0D %0D Julia R should get about 6.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||12/17/2010|
Right now Rotten Tomatoes has it at 37% fresh. Sounds like a disaster.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||12/17/2010|
Paul Rudd is NOT gay. He's married to Lisa Kudrow. A mismatch if you ask me.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||12/18/2010|
Reese should have to give her $15 million back.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||12/18/2010|
Paul Rudd is married to a woman despite his mild gay voice, but it's not Lisa Kudrow
|by Anonymous||reply 66||12/18/2010|
R62 should be a head of a Hollywood studio. Those people are not worth a fraction of what they get paid.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||12/18/2010|
Yes, it is Lisa Kudrow. I've seen pictures of the wedding.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||12/18/2010|
I think that might be news to Michel Stern, Lisa Kudrow's husband.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||12/18/2010|
that was tv r64
|by Anonymous||reply 70||12/18/2010|
yikes! she sounds like fun! %0D %0D and she is 34!!!%0D %0D That is like a year older than Catherine Zeta-Jones!!
|by Anonymous||reply 71||12/18/2010|
Reese Witherspoon says a blind date blew his chances when he corrected her grammar.
The actor's assessment of the date was reported in Showbiz Spy, with Witherspoon saying:
%E2%80%9CI had someone correct my grammar on a blind date, and I knew in the first 10 minutes that the date was over.
%E2%80%9CYou just don%E2%80%99t correct someone%E2%80%99s grammar.
%E2%80%9CI don%E2%80%99t know what I did wrong. I don%E2%80%99t know.
"I%E2%80%99m from Tennessee. I probably said %E2%80%98ain%E2%80%99t%E2%80%99 or something.%E2%80%9D
Moving on from that experience, Witherspoon is currently dating Hollywood agent Jim Toth.
Reece, 34, admits she enjoys talking about relationships, saying:
%E2%80%9CI%E2%80%99m literally the girl who talks constantly about relationships.
"I hang up with one friend, and I pick up the phone and call another one.
"It%E2%80%99s an ongoing dialogue all day long.
"I don%E2%80%99t understand a woman who doesn%E2%80%99t talk about love and relationships."
This. Never. Happened
|by Anonymous||reply 72||12/18/2010|
"I don't understand a woman who doesn't talk about love and relationships"%0D %0D %0D Reese: Hey honey I have a question about your relationship. Are you using a two year binding contract with a confidentiality clause? I usually do but I'm in the mood for a change.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||12/18/2010|
How can you not know Paul Rudd? He has been in almost every successful comedy for the last 5 years at least. Yes he has done movies that have failed but he has a definite appeal and natural comedic timing. A lot of people like Paul Rudd.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||07/11/2013|