UPDATE: Clooney’s ‘Leatherheads’ Fumbles Friday Box Office
I dive into this weekend’s box office forecast below. But first I need to deal with another matter. We all learned from today’s Variety that WGA member George Clooney went fi-core last fall after a 2-1 credit arbitration decision that only Duncan Brantley and Rick Reilly deserved screen credit on Leatherheads even though Clooney claimed he did a major overhaul on the script which he also directed and starred in. Well, this certainly explains why Clooney never walked the picket line alongside the striking writers.
Clooney told the trade ”he would have quit the WGA altogether, but that would have prevented him from working on all WGA-covered productions. He says he wanted nothing more to do with the WGA but didn’t want to be hampered in his ability in writing scripts.” Variety takes Clooney’s side. Not me. Forget the merits of his case: he was churlish and childish to go fi-core.
Earth to George: such disappointments happen every day of the week to real screenwriters — but they don’t pick up their toys and go home.
I’m not going to diss him for bigfooting the script because that is his right. Nor should anyone hold against him that he starred in it, he directed it, he produced it and he’s already got a villa on Lake Como. But, by going fi-core, he deservedly earns the enmity of 12,000 members of the Writers Guild for refusing to play by their rules.
The veteran writers who do the WGA arbitrations take them very seriously. They spend dozens of hours reading all the drafts, comparing all the changes, and then submitting a document justifying their decision. That’s then read by yet another member who confirms that it’s in line with all the Guild regulations concerning screenwriting credit. So this decision that went against Clooney wasn’t somebody’s whim or envy. Each arbitrator knows what’s at stake. (In order just to be an arbitrator, you have to have a screen credits…)
True, the deck is definitely more stacked against an actor-writer-director-producer, or any combination thereof, on a project. In order for a producer or director (also known as a production entity) to receive credit, each must have made substantative changes in over 60% of the script. The bar is higher for them specifically because of the old days when producers and directors self-administered credits, and everybody and his brother-in-law got a screenwriting credit.
The questions facing the arbitrators was this: did Clooney fundamentally change the story or the characters or the plot? It is a misconception that dialogue doesn’t count: if it fundamentally changed the tone and intent of the movie, dialogue does count. But it is the sum total of all the changes that determines who gets credit and in what order.
Now for the supreme irony: Clooney claimed his major overhaul transformed Leatherheads into a screwball comedy. And that seems to be the weakest part of the picture to top critics who gave it only 36% positive reviews. According to Rotten Tomatoes, their concensus is, “Despite a good premise and strong cast, this pro football romcom is half screwball and half fumble.”
All of Hollywood is especially watching Leatherheads‘ release to see if Clooney can open the movie. It’s not as if Clooney’s career is on the line. Only his paycheck. As one studio mogul said to me this morning, “He’s no Will Smith.” And if his non-ensemble big studio movies keep opening wide under $16 million domestic (Michael Clayton, Intolerable Cruelty, Solaris, Three Kings, Out Of Sight, The Peacemaker, One Fine Day…), then Clooney may have to cut his price accordingly. For all of his media darling coverage, he seems unable to attract moviegoers on his own. I’ve written repeatedly and negatively about Clooney’s box office performances. I think it’s not enough for him to be considered a big a movie star. He has to perform like a big movie star, too.
With a budget of $60 million, the Universal pic was nurtured by a smart marketing campaign that combined football, romance, comedy and nostalgia. Even better, Clooney hyped the hell out of the movie, eking out every ounce of PR possible. The comedy has been tracking well with older men and older women, who’ve been equally enthusiastic for weeks. And there is also a surprising amount of strength with young males and teens.
Even so, my box office gurus don’t expect the movie to be big. Universal is hopeful for high teens. Says a source, “if we can hit $20M, it would be an absolutely exceptional result”. My analysts think $15M-$16M. Bad news for George.
As for other pics, Nim’s Island starring Abigail Breslin and Jodie Foster for Fox/Walden is traditional family fare aimed at girls. Thanks to Saturday kiddie matinees, it should bring in $14M. The Ruins, that horror thriller from DreamWorks/Paramount, is predicted to make single digits.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.







The envy here is palpable!
BTW, with the exception of one pic, everyone of his others have MADE money!
having a negative opinion does not equate trashing – does that mean the only legit opinion of clooney can be a positive one?
george clooney is voluntarily in the public eye, and this is a forum for this topic – nothing improper going on here
if you don’t like the opinions expressed here, go elsewhere
good point “independant” producer, but here;s a tip: learn to spell your own name!
Are you guys nuts? Clooney is a HUGE international star, somebody every studio in this town is dying to be in business with. The movie doesn’t look great, but nobody’s perfect. His work speaks for itself.
what superstar wattage outside of Hollywood? Some people here are delusional. lol
This explains Clooney’s thinly veiled jab at the writers during the strike [also, the Oscars were on the line and a win would've revived his acting career.]
People who cannot disagree with others without hurling ad hominem insults, i.e. delusional, nuts, are not worth listening to.
Propaganda from those profiting from the Clooney gravy train will not change the numbers.
Bottom line, Clooney is not big box office. It’s a non-argument.
Huge International star? Because Oceans made money overseas? Because you can’t be talking about anything else that Clooney’s been in. Brad Pitt is a huge international star. I wouldn’t even call Matt Damon an international star and he’s done all those Bourne and Ocean movies but most people overseas would walk right past him on the street.
I also agree with whomever said that Clooney won’t be a successful producer until he actually leaves his ego at the door and realizes he’s not right for every script. The more you see of Clooney the less you enjoy or like him. Same old tired stories over and over again.
George Clooney has more talent and has done more great things for the world through his humanitarian efforts and socially-conscious films than anyone posting on this, plus Nikki combined. As far as his going fi-core because he lost his arbitration — so many WGA arbitrations are based on antiquated rules & they get it wrong as much as they get it right… also, his identity was probably more public to the arbitrators than other writers and that may have factored negatively in their ruling, since writers by-and-large resent directors who also write.
“Forget the merits of his case: he was churlish and childish to go fi-core.”
Riiight, because the man doesn’t have the right to take a stand if he believes the WGA was wrong. Gimme a break. If he did a rewrite, he should get credit. Why don’t you criticize the union for being anal about this kind of crap?
Maybe if the “real” screenwriters took a similar stand when they got screwed, this kind of crap would stop. If Clooney writes a script, he’s a screenwriter. He was nominated for an Oscar for screenwriting, so I’d say he also qualifies as a “real” one, Nikki.
Bravo to Clooney for taking a stand.
MC is right, the strike killed George Clooney’s acting career. The press was all set to hype Michael Clayton to no end in order to lift up that movie and make it a Oscar winner. Maybe 7 wins at the very least including Best Picture. Thanks to the WGA, we were saved four months of Michael Clayton/George Clooney hype which would have included him going on almost every late night talk show in the country the first full week of November.
The only problem was that Michael Clayton was released the first week of October, but you get the idea. With the strike underway, nothing was getting promoted which meant that the box office was hurting and people weren’t going to see expected Oscar nominated films, that is until there were rumors that Worldwide Pants and the WGA were looking into an interim agreement that would allow Dave and Craig to return to the air with writers.
With that, here is a trivia question: Who were Dave’s guests his first day back from the 2007-08 strike? The answer, Robin Williams, Ellen Page (whom I didn’t really know about until her first appearance on the Late Show), and a cameo by Hillary Clinton. If Dave bowed into corporate pressure, that second guest would have been George Clooney, not Ellen Page.
As a result of that show, Dave may have allowed the Democrat Party nomination to end in an convention fight in Denver because her appearance may have ended up with her winning New Hampshire. Meanwhile, Juno shot up into the top 10 at the Box Office and became the public favorite at the Oscars. In contrast, Mike Huckabee may have lost the Republican nomination just by appearing on the struck Tonight Show that very same night.
My Prediction for this weekend: Don’t be surprised to see Mims Island #1 after this weekend while Leatherheads will likely bomb, but will end up becoming good programming for ABC and ESPN.
Even if the movie does well, the idiotic PR from Clooney distracted from the movie. PR should have centered on that hot puppy John Krasinki and Clooney should have kept his sleazy private life private.
That said, he was well within his rights to go fi-core. It is one of the options. How ridiculous to suggest he shouldn’t choose the one he wanted. Maybe they did hold who he is against him.
Clooney deserves credit for trying to make decent movies. The real problem is that there aren’t writers of the caliber who wrote the best ’30s and ’40s movies. The movies he tries to make require wit, an understanding of human motivation, and a deeper understanding of certain issues. They haven’t demonstrated that.
Will Smith is amazing but he chooses movies that rely heavily on special effects or rather simple emotions. More importantly, Will Smith maintains a clean cut and likeable public persona which helps his movies open strong – no instant negatives in the public mind, only positives. Clooney has a very likeable public persona, but the drinking is making him age too quickly and the inability to grow up makes him look like a loser as he ages. Will Smith is, and Cary Grant was, careful to maintain public dignity, which is very important to the public, because they go to see people they want to identify with, or emulate. Clooney’s drinking and whoring no longer looks cool, just pathetic. And pathetic is box office poison.
Nikki, your evaluation of Clooney’s bankability isn’t wrong, but it’s incomplete.
You need to mention that he doesn’t “choose” marketable projects. If a film skews older, it won’t gross much. Proven fact. It’s not that Clooney’s not a star. It’s that the market’s changed. Look at Brad Pitt; is he “not a star” because his prestige flick flop?
Clooney’s a star, but he chooses projects that don’t attract the kids. But put him in a Jason Bourne-like action film and you wouldn’t question his draw.
It’s not the star, it’s the market.
For an entertainment site this is one hell of a weird crowd I’m viewing. If you don’t like Clooney for his pol. views fine. But use your heads for a moment and ponder this:
He makes adult films. And those are hardly getting made these days. The majority of pictures are greared toward teenagers, but mostly 15 yr old boys. When folks don’t go see a film like this, and i know it’s a certain crowd that will dig this kind of movie. But w/ low turn out, the less films will be made for “adult crowds.”
Thats why you get so many Knocked Ups, cartoon moives, Sci-Fi ones, Sequel after sequel. And Clooney is one of a hand full that can green light a picure b/c of his popularity. Hollywood is into making money. Thats it. It doesn’t give a shit if you’re a women in your 50′s and don’t get many films you can relate to. Or vice versa. A man in your 60′s. They’re more of those but not enough.
So something to think about but I get the impression that the majority on this site aren’t big film fans anyway but conservative haters that listen to what drudge, O’reilly, Ann C. and Hanity or Rush tell them how to think or feel about the hollywood elite. Because after all, it’s their fault we have a recession, endless war that wasn’t imperative, housing crisis, etc. It’s unique for so many conservative folks to frequent an entertainment site.
I’m curious as to what are Ms. Finke’s views are. Is she just pandering to the crowd she gets from Drudges links? Because she knows a large portion of traffic comes from his links to this site.
Actionman,
All of you Clooney bashers are f’ing delusional. Clooney can’t open a movie huh? Really? What planets are you on?
The Oceans films have made close to half a billion dollar world wide.
Yeah, Clooney can make crap films that make money. Ergo, Leatherheads.
Hey, I like the guy. Confessions was awesome, so was Good Night and Good Luck, so was Michael Clayton.
Leatherheads doesn’t look too good. But could be that the DVD sales will reap a fortune. Of course no one will ever know that except the studios who keep hiring him and wasting their money on his box office bombs.
It’s a fucked up industry in a fucked up world. But Clooney seems to know how to play it.
seriously, who cares if he went fi-core? staying in as a full member does nothing to benefit someone at his level, if anything it’s a hindrance.
I know people like to say ‘remember the people you moved up the ladder with’ and all that shit, but this is Hollywood. It’s a disgusting destructive town. He could be out of the business next week if the fates conspired against him. Besides, he still has to pay into the union and they get to use his money for their causes and he gets no vote, so where is the downside?
Anyone who’s actually worked in this town knows you have to make as much money as you can, as fast as you can because most don’t last more than 10-15 years tops.
#
Even if the movie does well, the idiotic PR from Clooney distracted from the movie. PR should have centered on that hot puppy John Krasinki and Clooney should have kept his sleazy private life private.
That said, he was well within his rights to go fi-core. It is one of the options. How ridiculous to suggest he shouldn’t choose the one he wanted. Maybe they did hold who he is against him.
Clooney deserves credit for trying to make decent movies. The real problem is that there aren’t writers of the caliber who wrote the best ’30s and ’40s movies. The movies he tries to make require wit, an understanding of human motivation, and a deeper understanding of certain issues. They haven’t demonstrated that.
Will Smith is amazing but he chooses movies that rely heavily on special effects or rather simple emotions. More importantly, Will Smith maintains a clean cut and likeable public persona which helps his movies open strong – no instant negatives in the public mind, only positives. Clooney has a very likeable public persona, but the drinking is making him age too quickly and the inability to grow up makes him look like a loser as he ages. Will Smith is, and Cary Grant was, careful to maintain public dignity, which is very important to the public, because they go to see people they want to identify with, or emulate. Clooney’s drinking and whoring no longer looks cool, just pathetic. And pathetic is box office poison.
Comment by Wannabe Industry Analyst — April 4, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
——————————————
Bravo to this whole post. You are so dead on! George’s schitck may have been funny when he was 30 but it ain’t anymore. While he’s grown older so has his audience. To younger viewers he’s grandpa. Grow up George. I saw him on Letterman and another show being interviewed and he can’t go more then a few seconds without launching into the whole drinking bit. But look at him. I don’t think he’s kidding. Clean it up George and stop promoting the hard drinking because it’s taking a toll on you. He’s just really disingenuous.
I’m a tv fan. I was never really hooked by ER. I always thought Clooney was over-hyped. And even back then when I was 15, I knew his good looks and charm got him more credit than he deserved. Someone here might call that envy, and sure, call it whatever you want, but ultimately it’s disgust at the meritless getting ahead. You can relate to that in all other aspects of life, can’t you–that co-worker who gets a promotion despite being a slacker, etc. Seems to me the WGA used that meritocracy ruler to measure his contributions, and he fell short.
Now that he’s gone fi-core, it’s no wonder that a) he didn’t support the writers’ worthy cause, b) he doesn’t support his own SAG union.
These actions fit the description of an egotistical, self-serving man instead of someone who really cares for his brothers/ peers in the interest of creativity and collectivity.
Yes, he’s entitled to do whatever he wants. Personally, I would’ve probably been childish, too, and gone fi-core in protest, but I’m just a tv watcher, haven’t played in hollywood and don’t have his wealth to be dignified about it.
But to not support his own SAG, which, due to his (undeserved?) status as a moviestar he won’t need to negotiate for him anyway… Well, that’s just a disservice to the real working actors. And so his WGA and his SAG dis-support, together, show a pattern of selfishness (and not just taking a stand or protesting what he felt was due him from WGA).
It’s another unclassy way to throw his influence around incorrectly on issues that don’t really concern him. He probably was never a true member of WGA nor serious about writing. As he stated, he just used it in order to work on projects. That’s just using WGA b/c it can help him, and then it’s just dissing SAG b/c it can’t really help him b/c I guess he goes through those back-end negotiations or whatever the term is. Shame on you, Clooney.
Hey, I’m just happy that there’s a movie star left in the world who even tries to be charming. Most of them are just doing gross-out comedies or bad action movies or both, and trying to make a whole career out of it. No, thank you. Give me charm, no matter how outdated it looks, any day.
Don’t worry, Hollywoood will make its money. They always do.
clearly “actionman” works for CAA
um….no….only douche bags work at agencies
My take is: look back at “stars” throughout the history of Hollywood. They all had ups and downs. Judy Garland was a massive talent, the studios coddled her, then treated her like shit and kicked her out the door. Granted, she had serious problems, but still, the whole “we’re family” thing Hollywood throws at you can very quickly turn into “we’re your worst fucking nightmare.” It’s a toxic town, full of toxic people, obsessed with ridiculous, high school level, feuds and jealousies. I remember walking to an audition on a lot about 8 years ago – I passed “The Judy Garland Building,” and “The Spencer Tracy Building.” I remember thinking, “great talents both, but – one, a pill addicted neurotic, and the other a terrible alcoholic with soul crushing guilt over his infidelities.” Both suffered enormously throughout their time as “stars.” It struck home that it’s all a charade, it’s all fake, and if you buy into it, as Clooney clearly has, it’s gonna get you eventually. Look at the venom of these posts! People are jonesing for him to suffer some horrible, tragic fall! It’s soul destroying, stardom. At least Clooney is trying to get a few good swings in before it goes to shit. I’ve never considered him a first class actor – he’s good, not great. The “no marriage” thing, the “lots of friends crashing at my place” thing – it’s like a young guy, just out of college. Only Clooney’s pushing 50, and once the “star” gravy train slows, he’s going to look around at his life and wonder if he missed something. Like having a family, something outside himself, so it’s not all about me, me, me. I don’t live in L.A. anymore. It’s bad for you.
The problem with Hollywood nowadays is that Hollywood is so quick to declare someone a star. That’s the wrong way to go. Why? Because the audience makes someone a star. Not Hollywood. When the audience reacts positively to an actor and goes to see them in just about everything they do then that actor becomes a star. Not just because Hollywood declared it so. Just like those awful It Girl and It Boy covers in Vanity Fair and how they destroyed careers before they barely began (paging Gretchen Mol and Julia Ormond).
In this case, Hollywood has declared George Clooney a star even though audience think otherwise. If Clooney was really a star, people would see his movies as opposed to only his ensemble flicks (which get helped by having the likes of Julia Roberts in them as in the Ocean movies).
Excellent points, MrsWakely.
Hey Nikki, you need to do an article on the real story, which is the failed generational change over. Recent big movies have been headlined by:
Mummified Geezers: Harrison Ford(66), Bruce Willis(53), Sylvester Stallone(63), Robin Williams(57), John Travolta(57), Tom Hanks(52), even Jack Nicholson(71)! And The Middle Aged: George Clooney(47),Julia Roberts(41), Eddie Murphy(47), Brad Pitt(45), and Johnny Depp(45). That’s just the abbreviated list.
Hollywood doesn’t keep recycling them because they secretly love old people! The studios used to know how to tend the garden for future mega-stars. But, they haven’t been doing it lately, and now they’re in a mini-crisis. The Sweet Spot for Movie Stars (women under 40 and men under 45): Tom Cruise(42) – [Broke into stardom in the 1980s!], Drew Barrymore(33), Angelina Jolie(33), Keanu Reeves(43), Matt Damon(38), Leonardo DiCaprio(33), Tobey Maguire(33), Russell Crowe(44), Will Smith(40) – [All broke out in the 1990s]
*** Recently Emerged Stars (Good Job Hollywood): Keira Knightley(23), Natalie Portman(27), Anne Hathaway(25), Katherine Heigl(30), …. and then ??? That’s it???? Notice there are also no males on this list. That spells trouble, and is why we’re still headlining stars from the 1980s.
To be fair, Hollywood has attempted to push some new males, but they’ve all been duds: Colin Farrell(32), Jude Law(35), Ashton Kutcher(30). Those are the big names, but there have also been a string of blink-and-you’ll-miss-them, no-hit wonders like: Jason Biggs, Chris Klein, Matthew Lillard, etc., etc. Bet you forgot all about them and their fleeting hype. There were many of them. Is there hope on the horizon? What does the future have in store? Still Questionable but Good Potential: Orlando Bloom(31), Shia LaBeouf(22), Hayden Christensen(27), Daniel Radcliffe(19), and Emma Watson(18), and then???
TV Stars: “The Next George Clooney” Patrick Dempsey(42) is uncomfortable close to 45! As is the long expected breakout star Matthew Fox(42) . Zac Efron(21) has a ginormous number of youtube hits, but, he’s still unproven in non-Disney musicals. Tom Welling(31) despite the huge # of youtube hits, has only headlined 1 film, to weak box office! His successful films were in supporting gigs.
This is the point we start randomly looking at the cast of big tv shows, throwing them out there, to see what sticks. (Eva Longoria in “Over Her Dead Body”??). OK, tv is looking skimpy, so we turn to: Justin Timberlake(27)! – Could he be the next Will Smith? His youtube hits dwarf all others, and he has a background in Disney tv. But, pop star to movie star rarely works. Even in this short list, we’ve started scraping the bottom of the barrel quickly. This is what happens, if you don’t tend the garden. Your hope for the future descends on actors over 40, random tv stars, and pop musicians!