Hammond On Cannes: Robert Redford’s Brave New Role … 
Hot Trailer: Jennifer Aniston And Jason Sudeikis’ … 
Warner Bros Tells Space Story, From The Bra Designers Who … 
Brad Pitt’s Plan B Banner Promotes Jeremy Kleiner To … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Don Jon’ 
Billy Crystal-Starring Comedy From Matt Nix & Larry … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’ … 
Hammond On Cannes: A New Day Comes To The Fest As HBO and … 
Cannes: Fleming Reflects And Finds Talented Trio A Breath … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’ 
Former Digital Domain CEO & Auditors Sued For Fraud By … 
ABC’s ‘Nashville’ Undergoes Production … 
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults … 
Alki David Agrees To End Name Games With Aereo And Barry … 
Next-Gen Xbox One Unveiled With Content Including … 
Cannes: Weinstein Co Acquires Keanu-Reese Sci-Fi Pic … 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Wolverine’ 
Ang Lee Departs FX Pilot ‘Tyrant’ 
How Many Times Does Seth MacFarlane Have To Say No To The … 
Cannes: Stanley Weiser To Script ‘Three Graves … 
Cannes: Deadline Crashes Palais Forum With Costa Gavras, … 
More and more, I believe that, with only a few exceptions, a studio’s choice of actress often makes little difference in what a film will do at the box office. [NF: What an effing neanderthal statement, Mike!] That is giving opportunities for unknown actresses to get great parts as the majors and minors look beyond the usual suspects to discover new talent. Latest evidence comes in the answer to this question about the Warner Bros remake of Arthur starring Russell Brand. Guess who’s getting caught between the moon and New York City, playing the lead role that once gave Liza Minnelli’s career such a big boost? I hear that after a lengthy search, Warners is in discussions with Greta Gerwig. After a slow build in indie films, she just starred with Ben Stiller in the Noah Baumbach-directed Greenberg. Gerwig is in talks to play the charismatic shoplifter who tempts a lovable drunk — and risking his trust fund–to take a chance on a woman who makes him feel alive. The remake is being directed by Jason Winer (best known for ABC’s Modern Family) and produced by Larry Brezner, Kevin McCormick and Benderspink’s Chris Bender. UTA reps Gerwig.
Loading ...
Of all the remakes, this is the most blasphemous of all. This is worse than remaking Casablanca. Dudley Moore’s performance is one of the true masterpieces of modern day cinema.
Stop remaking untouchable classics, and remake bad movies that could have been good, but were not.
This is a worse idea than Kidsbop. Horrible!! May the film get ruined at the lab!!
Amen and preach it. This remake is a complete travesty and I hope it dies a gruesome death in a money pit abyss (altho clearly Rusty and Greta aren’t costing much). A complete insult to all involved in the original, particularly the late Steve Gordon. Shame on everyone working on this remake. Have you no sense of decency?
Cool, another remake! Warner execs are GENIUSES.
This is a great idea. Gerwig was fantastic in Hannah Takes the Stairs and Greenberg. Go Greta!
What the ______ are you’re saying? Your headline, comment, and analysis is not only inaccurate, it’s downright dangerous. GET IT. Actresses do matter at box office. Often the material that they’re offered SUCKS. Back up Plan, for example, failed not because of JLO, but because the premise is an innane TV movie from 15 years ago. However JLO in Monster In LAw, Maid In Manhattan, Wedding Planner did work. It’s not that she doesn’t bring them in anymore, it’s just that the choices she’s making are wrong. I hear that EAT PRAY LOVE (which will rest squarely on Julia’s shoulders) is amazing. Angelina brings them in. And hellloooo Sandra Bullock, Miley Cyrus, Reese Witherspoon, Katherine Heigel, Meryl Streep, Jennifer Anniston. Come on. Name five men that “bring them in”. Will Smith, Johnny Depp, maybe Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt. The rest are just good actors. Stop with the sexism. It’s statements like that that solidify the boys club.
Good work Mike Fleming. Where’s Nikki Finke when you need her?
Shameonyou.
Actually, most male stars no longer drive butts into seats, either, as the last couple of movies starring Denzel Washington, John Travolta, Tom Cruise, Russell Crowe show. And even Downey Jr. is well-liked in genre movies like Iron Man or Holmes, but when he does a dramatic star vehicle like “The Soloist”, nobody goes to see it.
Or Robert Pattinson. In Twilight? Yeah… all line up. In his other movies? You can hear crickets chirping in the theatres.
Like it or not, most movies are no longer work on the “star model”.
Poor Mike, only half right…. the truth is the success of very few productions actually depend on any actor nowadays, male or female. The day of the Hollywood Star is on its death bed and there are very few bankable stars that guarantee box office. Very very few.
I hope one day the remake the Twilight films & turn them into something watchable with a descent script, dialogue, & acting.
Right on, Shameonyou.
Starring actresses may not matter in most movies, and neither do starring actors (Will Smith, the lone exception). Everyone else is only as big a draw as the movie they are in. Well-known (and well-paid) actors and actresses can no longer make successes out of badly executed bad material. Unfortunately, that doesn’t necessarily mean that good material executed well regularly translates into success either. But then, life isn’t fair. The seeming irrelevance of star actresses (in most fare) is also true about most star actors. Michael, it is a pox on both sexes.
The star model is like Andy Kaufman; it’s probably dead…but it might just reappear some day.
“More and more, I believe that, with only a few exceptions, a studio’s choice of actress often makes little difference in what a film will do at the box office.” Sounds like you’re saying that women’s roles are getting even more peripheral and generic. Gee, thanks Hollywood. So there’s still a use for stars, as long as the star is a guy, right? Except this movie “stars” Russell Brand, and how well known is he in the US? Maybe they just didn’t want to cast a well known actress as the love interest of someone who isn’t well known? Helen Mirren is taking the role for which John Gielgud won a supporting Oscar in the original, so presumably that’s a really strong role and she’s much more well known in the US than Brand so I don’t think your premise is proved by this movie. Also the actress who was just hired had a big write up in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/movies/28scott.html She sounds pretty unique, Scott says of her “Ms. Gerwig, most likely without intending to be anything of the kind, may well be the definitive screen actress of her generation, a judgment I offer with all sincerity and a measure of ambivalence. She seems to be embarked on a project, however piecemeal and modestly scaled, of redefining just what it is we talk about when we talk about acting.” So maybe she’s not some unknown interchangeable with any other unknown which your article implies.
Angelina brings them in? No. If you put Megan Fox in Wanted, Salt, etc, she would bring them in too. Honestly, Jolie is through but she has a “friend” in Brad Grey through her bf Brad Pitt.
It’s true that there are no “stars” anymore, people do not put butts in seats anymore. I like it as celebs are fucking insufferable.
I love movies, love acting, hate “celebrities”.
If you think Megan Fox in “Salt” would bring in even a third of what it will make under Angelina Jolie, I am going to ask that you look up “Jennifer’s Body” in Google. The movie, not the song.
missy,
comparing megan fox to angelina jolie in any category other than looks is totally insane. you should not be on this site… go back to idaho dimwit…
So is Russell Brand a draw now, i still haven’t met anyone that thinks he’s funny.
Bravo to the studios for replacing overblown, over hyped, under talented celebrity-stars. The true reality is that because of one hit, an “actor” is suddenly called “star.” It’s the story that makes them who and what they are. And even if the story is good, if it’s not the kind of part that the actor became famous for, i.e., right genre, then both the star and movie fails and the studio loses money. Stars do exist, but in specialty roles. Just as a heart surgeon would never attempt brain surgery to save someone’s life, a studio should never put a proven star in something other than what he specializes in, or the patient, i.e., studio, dies. Almost any passable actor could become a star with the right material. What the studios don’t do, in my humble and overstated opinion, is to cull the great wealth of talent that is in the theatre. Go to proven actors with raw talent that show they have the chops in theatre all over the world. The playing field will expand, level out, the price of talent will even out and thus the price of making films will be drastically reduced and profits will rise.
right on ed. if dancing with the so called “stars”
considers those on that dreadful tv show “stars” we’ve come a long way from real talent. “star” holds no weight anymore.
Yes, but… who will be the new Christopher Cross?
Great part for Russell Brand. If anyone can do it, he can…
I don’t agree with remaking “Arthur”. Hollywood producers have lost their creativity.
I know this is a recipe for disaster, but I have to agree with Mike Fleming. And he’s not being disrespectful, misogynistic or minimizing the contributions or talent of the actresses; he’s simply saying that for actresses other than maybe Angelina Jolie, the quality of the material is more important than the name of the actress. It’s not their fault, it’s just that they don’t get the free passes that some of the biggest actors get. Whereas there’s a certain, fairly large, fairly non-discriminating built-in audience for a “Will Smith movie” or a “Tom Cruise movie,” there aren’t really many actresses who have that kind of rabid fan base; names that will put asses in seats. They can’t get by on a wink and a nod, they have to actually perform. If a Julia Roberts movie is kinda lame, it does badly at the box office, but if a Will Smith movie is kinda lame, it just does less spectacularly well.
The real tragedy here is that a guy can’t make an observation like that, one that is actually an indictment of viewers’ prejudices against actresses, without Nikki Finke and a bunch of other knee-jerk feminists accusing him of being a Neanderthal.
Shut up.
Ditto.
See? Toldja!
you are mostly incorrect. will smith excluded, there’s not one male actor who can guarantee domestic box office success and i’ve worked with and respect many of them. brad pitt’s movies tank all the time (Assassination of Jesse James made $13 million worldwide), tom cruise has had his fair share of flops lately (Lion for Lambs), johnny depp is smart enough after years of middling box office success, to star in vehicles where the brand is bigger than him, russell crowe has flopped his last three (one with leo dicaprio – Body of Evidence), leo has had his fair share of flops (Blood Diamond – great movie, tanked nonetheless) and I could go on. no male actor is teflon except maybe will smith. and they are all overpriced. i’ve seen the studio numbers. male actors don’t matter either “domestically.” however, they do bring presales and awareness overseas and the only female actor that runs with that pack is angelina jolie and maybe sandra bullock now…
I never root for a movie to fail. Not even remakes.
In this case I’m making an exception. Hands off Arthur!
I hope Russell brand’s hollywood movie career is every bit as successful as peter cook’s.
Arthur is such a wonderfully crafted and performed movie – my only issue with it has always been the casting of Liza, she was entirely wrong for the part of the poor girl from Queens. I usually hate the expression “takes me out of the picture” but she does. Not a knack against her, just an unusual casting choice.
“Arthur” did NOT re-ignite Liza Minnelli’s (film) career – she has made all 4 films since – including the the dud Arthur2-On The Rocks. It was responsible for a string of unsuccessful Dudley Moore vehicles
Nikki — Mike is either right or he’s wrong. PC adjectives only makes thought stupid.
Stupid makes you … stupid.
DO Actresses have an effect on Box Office? It should be fairly straightforward to find out. Compile the “average” box office for all films of a certain genre, i.e. rom-coms, thrillers, gross-out comedies, over a decade. Then see how each actress performs in an “average” run for that genre, i.e. J-Lo in the average (not individual) roles for say, rom-coms.
You should of course do the same for ACTORS.
This is basically the methodology that Bill James pioneered in baseball, and Billy Beane and others used to make the small-market, limited resource Oakland A’s competitive. By using measurable statistics to find undervalued players who produced wins.
I would hope that smaller studios, with more limited budgets, do in fact run such analysis to find winners.
I have NO DOUBT that SOME actresses DO PRODUCE HIGHER BOX OFFICE than “average” over time. Individual films can be considered individual at-bats. The same is probably true for ACTORS. But they are probably not the folks people think. Is Adam Sandler a bigger money-maker (Funny People included) than George Clooney in comedies?
I would say, the evidence is yes. Because on average more people show up to see Sandler than Clooney in comedies. On my quick mental calcs (I could be wrong here).
Jennifer Aniston vs. Katherine Heigl? [I have not the foggiest] It should be relatively straightforward to find out. In action flics, is Angelina Jolie vs. Megan Fox the most valuable player? It should be fairly straightforward to find that out.
I would expect, as resources become constrained, generally, more analysis like this to take place, as studios compete for limited consumer dollars.
—————-
And in that vein, making a remake of a successful film seems a fool’s errand. The history of remakes of films that made money the first time round suggests that most of the time, it fails. This is true for remakes of TV shows as well. Everyone can run them in their head, flop after flop after flop.
I like money as well as the next guy. I can’t blame an exec for making a MAMMA MIA or SEX AND THE CITY, movies I would have to be paid to see, on the reasonable expectation that they will make a lot of money (and Kudos to Nikki for pointing out the obvious, that older women are underserved in the movie market, and these movies are cheap to make and generate mostly a lot of cash).
But doing something known, and well known, to fail most of the time, is just stupid. Its smarter generally to take films that failed, for reasons obvious in hind-sight, and eminently fixable, that had basically good potential. You know at least going in what the problem was, and how to address it (casting, script elements, promotion, etc.)
Leave ARTHUR alone. Good grief. Warner Bros. is gonna lose millions on this. Period. Gross, this makes us sick.
Wow, where do these geniuses keep coming up with these FANTASTIC (sarcasm) ideas? Dudley Moore’s performance was classic, even though the film sort of lost steam, at least for me. (Watch it again and you’ll see.) Nevertheless, this remake/reimagining/reboot madness must stop or at least slow down. Some reboots work (Bond, Batman, et al), while others are just bad ideas. What’s next, a new “Citizen Kane” in 3D with a CGI-ed Orson Wells speaking with an Australian accent?
all of you are idiots. not a single person in hollywood can come up with an original idea anymore. it is just the same trash, or “reimagining” over and over. the world, and especially hollywood, sucks. unfortunantly we have to live with it. laziness in the studios, and inane reality shows on television. look out big brother —- the orwellian kind—-your day is finally here.