2011-12 Season Network Rankings: Fox Still On Top But Down, … 
HLN Set To Air Daytime Emmy Awards 
Grant Bowler Cast As Richard Burton Opposite Lindsay Lohan … 
UPDATE: Dish Network And Broadcasters Ask Courts To Decide … 
Cannes Surprise Screening: Change Of Plans On Juan Antonio … 
Kevin Hart In Talks To Join Kevin James In ‘Valet … 
Anthony Hopkins Up For ‘Red 2′ Villain; Can … 
Cannes Conflicted Over ‘The Paperboy’ As … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘American Idol’ Posts … 
Ghost Of 2004 Hovers Over L.A. Screenings As Int’l … 
On The Road To Awards Season? Kerouac Book Finally Makes It … 
Michael Bay’s Name Pushed Paramount To Settle Injured … 
Several More New Series In Recasting Mode; Returning Ones … 
‘G.I. Joe: Retaliation’ Moving To March 2013 To … 
Directors Fortnight Says It Must “Police … 
‘Chronicle’ Helmer Josh Trank Takes On … 
Will ‘Pan Am’ Take Flight With Amazon? 
TOLDJA! ICM Management Buyout Complete 
DESPERATE: HuffPo & Oprah Team Up Now 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Great Gatsby’ 
How Did Women Pilot Writers Fare For 2012? 
SATURDAY PM/SUNDAY AM UPDATE: There is now a clear consensus over which motion picture was No. 1 at the box office this weekend. Sly Stallone’s action holdover The Expendables for Lionsgate is the easy winner after a nailbiter Friday. It was followed closely by a newcomer, another of those cheap Fox spoofs, Vampires Suck, which opened Wednesday. In fact, the order of the entire Top 10 kept changing more than usual day to day because no studio could agree on the grosses. In all, there were 5, count ‘em, new films opening in North America to almost close out the summer. Yet none of them could break $12.5M by end of Sunday.
Dimension/Weinstein Co’s horror pic Piranha 3D underperformed at the box office despite those higher ticket prices. Warner Bros’ urban comedy Lottery Ticket did a better per screen average considering its middling release. With a CinemaScore of only “B”, The Switch from Miramax (with production costs shared by Mandate/Lionsgate which has foreign) showed size does matter when it comes to theater count and box office order. Jason Bateman steals this rom-com but it’s not likely to stay in play long enough for people to even see his performance. Working Title’s Nanny McPhee Returns barely made a dent in the box office despite an “A-” CinemaScore, but North America is one of the last markets to debut. Universal began opening it internationally in April to grosses over $62.9 million on a $35M budget (with tax incentives).
Top 10 box office grosses:
1. The Expendables (Lionsgate) Week 2 [3,270 Runs]
Friday $4.9M, Saturday $7M, Weekend $17.2M (-51%), Cume $65.6M
2. Vampires Suck (Fox) NEW [3,233 Runs]
Friday $4.4M, Saturday $4.8M, Weekend $12.5M, Cume $18.8M.
3. Lottery Ticket (Warner Bros) NEW [1,973 Runs]
Friday $3.8M, Saturday $4.4M, Weekend $11.4M
4. Eat Pray Love (Sony) Week 2 [3,082 Runs]
Friday $3.7M, Saturday $4.6M, Weekend $12M (-48%), Cume $47.1M
5. Piranha 3D (Dimension/Weinstein Co) NEW [2,470 Runs]
Friday $3.6M, Saturday $3.5M, Weekend $10M
6. The Other Guys (Sony) Week 3 [3,472 Runs]
Friday $3M, Saturday $4M, Weekend $10.1M, Cume $88.1M
7. The Switch (Miramax) NEW [2,012 Runs]
Friday $2.7M, Saturday $3.3M, Weekend $8.1M
8. Nanny McPhee Returns (Working Title/Universal) NEW [2,784 Runs]
Friday $2.6M, Saturday $3.3M, Weekend $8.3M
9. Inception (Warner Bros) Week 6 [2,401 Runs]
Friday $2.1M, Saturday $3.4M Weekend $8.2M, Cume $262.2M
10. Scott Pilgrim vs The World (Universal) Week 2 [2,820 Runs]
Friday $1.6M, Saturday $1.9M, Weekend $5M (-53%), Cume $20.5M
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
Is there really only one vampire film in the top 10?
I don’t get how Scott pilgrim with its great reviews, good word of mouth — is the word of mouth good??? — drops 64 percent. It’s too bad. everyone if you have got nothing to see or want to see — go see scott pilgrim.
Niche films like Kick Ass, Snakes on a Plane, or Scott Pilgrim rarely have good legs, no matter how good the word of mouth may be. The target audience will show up on opening weekend and not many others will want to see it.
What’s amazing about the underperformance is Scott Pilgrim is in addition to getting all this good word of mouth, it’s not readily available on file sharing Bit Torrent sites in any acceptable form.
It’s not like Uni’s losing money here to the pirates. The only illegal copies you can get are either in Russian or are missing 15-20 minutes of the movie in English. And those copies didn’t pop up on the net until yesterday.
It’s a disaster when you can’t use pirating by teens as an excuse for low performance.
There’s just little interest in seeing the film.
Sorry, but I have about as much interest in seeing a Michael Cera movie as I do a Jennifer Aniston movie.
Thank you, Anna, I couldn’t agree with you more! The sole and simple reason why all these movies are bombs is because there are virtually NO bona fide movie stars anymore. Simply tune in to Turner Classic Movies, and you’ll understand why. Whatever the channel is showing doesn’t even have to be a “classic”. Even the silliest ‘B’ movie from the past towers over most of the crap Hollywood churns out today merely because the scripts of yesteryear were written by writers who knew how to WRITE (a lost art) and the actors and actresses had distinctive, intelligent personalities (not to mention sexual allure and great looks). One example: Had “The Prince of Persia” starred Rock Hudson or Errol Flynn or Tyrone Power at their youthful peak (and not the dweeby Jake Gyllenhal, whom I’m sure is a nice kid but a swashbuckling leading man NOT), that same movie would have been one of this summer’s major blockbusters. And try to picture “Eat Pray Love” with Lee Remick, Audrey Hepburn or Jeanne Crain in the lead (and not piano-teethed, horse-faced Julia Roberts). Enough said!
Here’s a backup; if only c would researched first;
Hide Feminist and socioeconomic criticisms
In spring of 2010, the feminist magazine Bitch published an article entitled “Eat, Pray, Spend”. The authors, Joshunda Sanders and Diana Barnes-Brown, coin the term “priv-lit,” or literature of privilege, and describe Gilbert’s “yearlong vacation,” as a key example of the newly emerging genre. “Eat, Pray, Love is not the first book of its kind, but it is a perfect example of the genre of priv-lit: literature or media whose expressed goal is one of spiritual, existential, or philosophical enlightenment contingent upon women’s hard work, commitment, and patience, but whose actual barriers to entry are primarily financial,” they note. The genre, they argue, positions women as inherently and deeply flawed, and offers “no real solutions for the astronomically high tariffs—-both financial and social-—that exclude all but the most fortunate among us from participating.”[16]
? Jump Back A Section
Apparently Fox did not want Vampires Suck to win the weekend, and that’s why they opened it on a Wednesday. They film earned about $7 million combined on Weds. and Thursday. Most of those people would’ve gone over the weekend had it opened on a Friday like everything else.
If Vampire Sucks had opened Friday it’d be looking at a $20 million weekend, bragging rights, and a higher week no. 2, since you got cache billing yourself as “the no. 1 movie” all next week. Not to mention being able to promote yourself overseas “as a no 1 movie at the U.S. box office.”
Without all that, all you got is the quality of the movie. Oh-oh.
Fire your marketing dept. they blew it.
After the success of MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3D, the third dimension was a way to ensure that even mediocre genre entries (FINAL DESTINATION 3D, anyone?) could make decent b.o. numbers. Now with the 1-2 punch of STEP UP 3D and PIRAHNA 3D, can we please put that theory to rest? Oh wait… we still have RESIDENT EVIL 3D coming…
If you think that PIRAHNA 3D made 10M WITH the inflated 3D numbers, what would it have made WITHOUT them? 8? 7? Or did most opt to see in 2D? Interesting, some of the more successful lower-budget 3D movies were released BEFORE the price gouging started.
Looks the audiences finally woke up.
That 1-2 punch of Step-Up and Piranha is actually a 1-2-3 punch that includes ‘Cats and Dogs 3D.’
The 3D gimmick is over. People will still see movies in 3D but it’s no longer enough to trump other elements like uninteresting concept, story, characters, etc. (I mean really, how many people were begging for a sequel to ‘Cats and Dogs’ or another ‘Step Up’ movie? Even in 2D these flicks would’ve disappointed.)
Piranha 3D was the most entertaining guilty pleasure of bi polar summer snoozer movie season of 2010!!!
Somebody please give props to Lottery Ticket for the highest per screen average and the huge cinema score rating already!
I give it MAD PROPS..good job
I’m surprised that the Switch has done as well as it did. The film has a shaky history with major re-shoots being done and late addition to it’s cast of Jeff Goldblum
Went to see “Expendables” last night. Screen I saw it on was about 60 percent full but HEY, the audience seen to be having a blast. From where I sat this was an exciting, fun filled, humorous and the most realistic violence in a film I have seen. If you ever wanted to see “waterboarding” up close then see this film. The stunts were great although I dislike the rapid cut editing but overall I LOVE ALL OF IT. As for Stallone direction I think he did a great job on the film as evidence by the positive responses of many that have seen it.
Jennifer Aniston will be back doing television in 3, 2, 1…
She probably should give up the movie star thing. She was very funny on Friends and given the right material, thrive in a comedy series.
Not by herself she won’t. Unless you bring back the Friends cast who were all more talented than she was, that woman WAS the weakest link. I maintain Aniston isn’t as charismatic or interesting enough to sell a TV series on her own either. She’s no Julia Louis Dreyfus, Christina Applegate or Patricia Heaton. She just ain’t. She needs to thank that ubiquitous pity party that is the tabloid ‘triangle,’ for her career. Thank her divorce. Thank Angelina Jolie, as ther perceived animous is what made people rally — but that’s wearing really thin (her getting her PR guy stephen huvane to hire new bestie chelsea handler as client, and act as a pittbull attack dog against Jolie, won’t help either). There are a few holdovers who insist on wearing their threadbare ‘team aniston’ shirts – but they’re getting older and don’t even give a f* anymore. How about casting Lisa Kudrow in a decent movie — isn’t she the one who started off the Friends run, winning comedy hardware as the most talented (I recall she was getting praise for Indies up the wazoo), and yet she can’t get arrested?? No justice.
Shut up Reality Check, Stacy, etc…
There are plenty of screenplays going around and a plethora of producers and studios. Let Lisa Kudrow and whomever else get their own movies. It makes no sense to blame Jennifer Aniston for the lack of attention other people are getting. You might as well blame her for Justin Bieber, I mean seriously. Apples and oranges.
Lisa Kudrow is the funniest and the most talented, too bad she didn’t married a Mr. Brad Pitt.
How a Scott Pilgrim boondoggle happens:
There are about two thousand geek movie websites. They all go to Comic-Con. Their only friends are other geek webmasters. They all leave messages on each others’ websites, leading to hundreds of thousands of comments. They are all obsessives with no life, thus the ability to devote loads of time to running a geek movie website. They have few, to no, friends who aren’t part of this geek web circle.
Universal publicists look on the internet and see a hundred thousand twitter and comment messages on two thousand movie websites. They see a huge response at Comic-Con, from these same two thousand webmasters. They say to themselves, “We have the next Avatar on our hands! Look at all the noise this movie is already generating!” Then Universal pours more and more money into marketing this sure fire hit to the non-geeks. What Universal failed to understand is that the Comic-Con crowd, the 2,000 geek webmasters, the twitterers and the commenters were all the SAME people, talking to EACH OTHER. You can have every geek movie site post two years worth of positive press on a movie and still have nobody outside that circle read one word of it. They are written, read by, and influence only each other.
A few thousand websites is a pretty nice base. It’ll get you about a $10 million opening. Not terrible. However, these websites, with the added comments, it can look truly immense on the internet. This often fools the unwary into an over-commitment of marketing money and over-estimating a phenom.
The Chudders comment on Hitfix, who comments on AICN, who comments on Slashfilm, who comments on Collider, who comments on Latino Review, who comments on SuperheroHype, who comments on Chud. So on and so on. And all of them reach no one outside that circle.
I agree with Round’s comment. And while I enjoyed both KICK-ASS and SCOTT PILGRIM (yes, I ENJOYED them both immensely), history indicates that, no matter how many tantrums the fanboy web folk throw on board such as this, the niche geek pics do NOT translate across the spectrum… barely reaching one quadrant, let alone four.
And, lest I be blasted for mentioning the dreaded “quadrant,” the budgets of these films do NOT support such a poor performance at the b.o. If Scott Pilgrim was made for $20M, it wouldn’t be a debate. But costing up to four times that, not even stellar DVD sales are going to help. (And face it, the same people who ran out to buy/redbox/download KICK-ASS on video are the same ones who saw it in the theater… again, lending credence to Round’s theory that it’s very segmented and unfortunately isolated crowd.)
And by the way, these films do not translate well overseas.
The studios are so desperate for a “sure thing,” they continue to spend tons of marketing dollars at Comic-Con… when the actual track record proves that it’s a waste. What will it take to get it to stop?
Let the fanboy web folk tantrum begin…
It’s not just the geek movie sites. The comic sites get all up in a lather, too, thinking this will be the movie to bring their hobby back to being popular. They then always resort to “this movie will stick around due to word of mouth!” It’s completely an echo chamber.
If the enormous success of movies like Iron Man and The Dark Knight doesn’t drive overall comic book sales toward mainstream popularity, I hope nobody is seriously hoping Kick Ass or Scott Pilgrim would do it. Likewise, if Road to Perdition couldn’t get the mainstream to take comic book storytelling seriously, they shouldn’t expect Kick Ass or Scott Pilgrim to do it either. Fair or not, comic books seem to do more for movies than movies do for comic books.
Another thing that hurts these movies is that the rabid geeks who pimp these flicks go full-jihad on you if you don’t bow face down on the dirt and praise the greatness of said awkward geek-niche film.
These Kick-Ass Scott Pilgrim lunatics are truly unhinged and it reflects poorly on the sub-genre they’ve chosen to embrace.
The bob-ombing of Kick-Ass, The Losers and Scott Pilgrim coming in such rapid succession has made me realize something. To the psycho-geek fanbase this is clearly about a lot more to them than comic books or “supporting something different.” This is about validation. They have invested real emotional and psychological capital in these films. They see these movies as validating their lives and the fact they keep bombing is a personal defeat for them.
They’re realizing they’re a small circle of largely irrelevant oddballs and it hurts them to finally accept this.
They blame the marketing, Michael Cera, internet piracy, but they refuse to blame the movie itself. They simply can’t admit that people might not want to see it because it’s just not a good movie.
I’ve met born-again right wing Christo-fascists who were more willing to admit there were cinematic flaws in Passion of the Christ than I’ve met psycho-geeks willing to admit there was anything at all wrong with Scott Pilgrim. Crazy.
If Scott Pilgrim was made for $20M, it wouldn’t be a debate. But costing up to four times that, not even stellar DVD sales are going to help.”
Why did this movie cost so much? Cheesy vid-game graphics were central to the movie’s look–were they _that_ expensive to do?
You know the industry’s in trouble when they’re paying Aniston 8 mill to star in a flop.
Yeah, well, I take any of her published earnings numbers with a rather liberal helping of S. Huvane-provided salt. She may have made $8 for Bounty, but I don’t for a minute believe she made $8 for a film in which there is no strong male lead to carry her. Not that Bateman isn’t a fine actor (he is), but he isn’t going to put seats in the theatre as a Butler can potentially do. Unless every producer in LA has lost the ability to do basic math, I’m guessing her reported earnings are padded to keep the masses believing she is actually an A-List movie star (all box office evidence to the contrary).
Don’t tell me that the industry believes that just because the tabloids are still flogging the dead horse that is Jen’s rivalry with Angelina that people are still interested in seeing her.
You know the industry’s in trouble when they’re paying Aniston, period.
I expected to hate Pilgrim and I actually ended up admiring its aesthetic. The movie worked, in spite of Michael Cera. Not surprised it opened poorly and then fell off the map in week 2, though. The movie was probably esoteric to a fault. Unlike The Switch or Vampires Suck, we haven’t heard the last of Scott Pilgrim, that I can guarantee you. It’ll be revisted for some time to come. But, the DH comment section for the weekly box office report isn’t about championing quality, originality or longevity, so let’s commence with dancing and spitting on its profitability grave.
Also, The Expendables is brawny fun. Definitely a “turn your brain off and kick up your feet” type of viewing experience, which is enjoyable every now and then. They should unearth Van Damme and Seagal for the sequel.
Besides her recently offending special needs people, why has Aniston garnered so much hate? I don’t ask this rhetorically– I’m truly curious. Is it merely her bad box office as of late or that people think she can’t act, or is it a personal thing about how she is to work with? I’m not what you’d call a fan; I’ve just never had a strong feeling about her one way or another. She seems typical, and it seems odd that just her name conjures up such vitriol. Could anyone enlighten me?
I think people, especially those who work in creative arts professions, typically get downright indignant when they see someone, unwarranted and undeserved, get propped up. When time and time again (in the case of Aniston, a good 15 years or more) she fails to deliver and yet still we are assaulted with this massive PR push, almost as if her previous bomb which was only 3 mos. ago, had never happened. It’s fatigue, and frustration and bafflement and a sense that an injustice is happening. LOL There’s really no mystery to it. If you peel back the layers, you’ll also see people who recognize her over-saturation for what it is, blowback from drama she (or her PR) deliberately created re her personal life 6 years ago. Her opening salvo was crying on Oprah and a ‘tell all’ in Vanity Fair – setting herself up as the innocent bystander ‘scorned woman,’ and demonizing her ex. She’s used it (some say falsely) to rally dumped women everywhere. They in turn have driven almost ALL of the interest in her, post-Friends. Unfortunately for her, it doesn’t translate to box office. Tabloid and blog interest, and all the good-will generated from 6-yr long pity parties, does not, a movie star make. If it did, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian would be movie stars.
I don’t get it either candy. Some posters on here have made it their full time job to knock Aniston. I used to resent her at the time when she was actually *overrated* – when everyone had that Rachel haircut and she was voted FHM’s sexiest. But now I am sort of indifferent to her, I don’t see what her big crime is… promoting her movies enthusiastically? That’s part of her job, isn’t it? She would get attacked for not doing so, a la Kirsten Stewart.
Trying to get people to feel sorry for her? Does she do this overtly? In any case I *do* feel sorry for her, I don’t think that she has to purposely try to drum that up, it seems to me a natural reaction to her situation and a direct consequence of the fact that Brad and Angelina are always making movies, always promoting themselves too and every time they do, implicitly reminding the world of Aniston.
Always making the same type of movie and having no range? Er, Julia Roberts, Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, SJP, Matthew McConaghey…
Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie doing movies reminds the world of Jennifer Aniston? What world are you living on? The only reason I know she exists is because SHE is everywhere, not because Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are everywhere. I don’t associate them with her, at all.
As for feeling sorry for her “situation,” that crap happened years ago and people break up all the time, what makes her so special? The average person learns to move on and people don’t feel sorry for them. I think the “woe is her” reaction is what is bothering people, because after six or so years you still feel sorry for a multi-millionaire just because Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie continue doing movies? Is the whole world supposed to be put on hold because someone went through a breakup? After six years of listening to others go on about feeling sorry for her, I can see why there’s a backlash.
I’m not saying any of this as an attack on you, since you admit to being indifferent to her and are far from being the problem, I’m merely trying to explain why there seems to be a backlash.
It’s the bad B.O. plus her limited acting range plus the media’s obsession with her divorce and more recent relationship; some of which are believed to be contrived to improve ticket sales, plus there’s the belief that there’s very little she won’t do for attention including reports that her publicist staged an airport near riot by calling the paps to let them know she was coming…
Also notice that in almost every magazine shot she’s not posing but mugging…
Folks gotta transfer their pent up hate somewhere.
But at least their posts provide good amusement since Aniston will never be aware of them. Just like I direct mine toward Adam Sandler, who will similarly never know or care I posted about him!
Gotta keep the net in perspective to the real world.
I beg to differ. I believe Ms. Aniston is QUITE concerned about how she is perceived. On her most recent, devastatingly bad press tour, re: the O’ Reilly matter, she repeatedly said “people say bad things about me all the time”. Well, how would she know if she or those in her employ did not spend at least a modicum of time perusing the blogosphere (and for the record, I believe it is well beyond a “modicum”). Moreover, even someone of her substantial means would not have the incredibly expensive, nearly-24-hour-a-day PR assistance that she does were she not OVERTLY concerned about a public image that is quickly tarnishing.
There are many reasons that Aniston is disliked by women (and I believe they have little if anything to do with Jolie). Women are not stupid. Yet Ms. Aniston and Mr. Huvane insist upon mounting a 1950′s-style, never-ending PR campaign that assumes we are. This ENDLESS planting of ridiculous stories EVERY SINGLE WEEK, stories about nothing — “Jennifer Aniston Ate the Same Salad for Lunch Every Day For 10 Years” — this blanketing the media in the name of constant saturation is INSULTING.
And this business of plucking unsuspecting actors’ names out of a hat (Jason Sudeikis????) and fabricating a new “love story” for her each week assumes women are spread out on their sofas in polyester pants (stretching at the seams), breathlessly waiting to to hear about “Jen’s love life.” WE ARE NOT. And her penchant for being unable to sell anything without getting naked … I believe educated, intelligent women have simply said “enough!” Why can’t she be marketed as a COMPETENT ACTRESS rather as a 41-year-old femme fatale with a picture of Dorian Gray in her closet?
She and Huvane can continue this charade of pretending she is still wildly popular, OR, they can look at her recent box office earnings, and via basic math, determine that she IS NOT. They can pretend she still has a devoted female base panting to live vicariously through her, OR, they can look at the facts. With Management, L. Happens and now Switch, women have STAYED HOME IN DROVES (for Bounty, they came out to drool over Butler, not to see her).
When your “A-List” client is ROUNDLY beaten by Bow Wow, it is time to wake up and smell the coffee brewing on your granite-topped counter. Drastic changes in the way she is marketed to the public are needed, or soon she won’t have to worry about screwing up on press tours, because there won’t BE any.
She simply needs to do a role outside of her comfort zone, a role completely unlike herself. And it should be a minor role that shocks or surprises people that she “had it in her.”
And she should not receive any kind of top billing for appearing in such a role. It should surprise people.
Kinda like Tom Cruise did in Tropic Thunder. He stole the show even though his role was minor. And it was completely different from any other character he’s ever played.
The Belltown suggestion of making a Fanboy spoof movie is excellent.You could include the Comic-Con crowd, AICN,and other internet web-sites catering to these special interests. All these sources could be part of a vast inter-galactic plot to hijack the film industry and transform it into COMIC BOOK MEDIA.COM.Thereafter any adventure film not anchored in fantasy will be banished.
Jennifer Aniston is boring and overrated. Why does she keep getting work?
The same could be asked/said about me, plus I’m fat!
Saturday Night Fever, Grease, Look Who’s Talking, Pulp Fiction, and Face/Off Paleeeeeese! Grease alone in top grossing sales bests anything and everything Aniston has touched.
Guess America doesn’t think single mothers should be deliberately having children out of wedlock after all.
Oh Hollywood, when will you ever learn and stop trying to push your lack of values down our throats?
Oh Mumfy, when will people such as yourself stop dumbing down this site with your uninformed opinions?
Like Washington’s/Congress’/Limbaugh’s/BillO’s/Gingrich’s are any better…
Don’t movies that depict tons of blood and violence also show a “lack of values”? Don’t a lot of those movies do very well at the box office? Maybe The Switch’s lack of success had more to do with it being a terrible movie than the immoral subject matter…
Bravo~ Kevin~
Like movies with so called moral to the stories do any better; i.e war films, political preachey types. One simple solution to movies make a dayum good flick and people will flock. Movies are so damn rotten lately that I would pay upward of 50 bucks to see a film run on TMC on the big screen.( When I say this I do not mean a remake either.)
Did they also contact the agents of the following people
Jon Stewart – “That is either the most profound or most retarded statement I’ve ever heard” and countless other times
Ben Stiller – retard appeared something like 17x in Tropic Thunder
Kristen Chenoweth – compared herself to a retard on the Today Show
Kristen Stewart – “It’s so retarded. We’re characters …
Bill Maher
Kathy Griffin
Guy Ritchie
The writers, directors and producers of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Speed Racer and Nancy Drew
Matt Damon and Ben Affleck’s Good Will Hunting and its promotion of blue-collar Boston townie-cool “retaahded”
Tina Fey – who said she had to fight NBC’s S&P division to use the word in a sketch
and finally
The Office writers – Michael Scott character – “You don’t call retarded people retards. It’s bad taste. You call your friends retards – when they’re acting retarded.”
Ben Stiller caught a ton of flack for Tropic Thunder. Lindsay Lohan did too when she used the word once, as did Family Guy. Those are just off the top of my head, I don’t know about the other examples but it’s definitely not uncommon for people to get snared in the news for using the word.
First thing, that little ‘retard’ club list is fraudulent. Works of fiction (Books, screenplays, etc.) don’t count. That’s like saying the mini-series Roots couldn’t use the n-word – a work of fiction can be comprised of anything – as it’s depicting the human condition and all it’s imperfections, and sometimes inhumanity. As to the actual people on your list — you’re only making the point of those calling for Aniston to apologize, as those that you list, all got flack for saying it, and quickly stated their regret and apology. Typically, everyone who’s used the word has gotten flack, be it as adjective or noun (as Aniston used it, which, in my opinion is worse as she is talking about an actual ‘person’ who she believes IS one) – and they apologize. End of story. How about YOU quit being an apologist for a dumb asss who says something hurtful. When the Special Olympics committee can make Barack Obama express regrets, yet Aniston a TV schmoe thinks she’s above it all – you know she’s deluded. I sometimes think this woman could use the n-word and her dwindling old gang of ‘team aniston’ cows would walk across broken glass to justify it. It was WRONG – she should apologize.
First, unlike Aniston, most of those people had the good grace to APOLOGIZE IMMEDIATELY (or, in at least offer the courtesy of a PUBLIC response) once made aware of their errant behavior. Second, they are not HONORARY BOARD MEMBERS of an organization dedicated to special needs children, as Aniston is (Lili Claire Foundation). So while they were equally wrong, their “credibility meter” was not turned up to HYPOCRITE, as Aniston’s was.
Aniston is like the cockroach of the media. She’s everywhere. She stars in so MANY bad movies. And she does endless promotions for these movies. Not only that, she sells perfume, bottled water, etc. It’s beyond ridiculous. What we need is some Romantic-Comedy Raid! There’s so many other better actresses out there who are NOT RACHEL in every film they make. Time to move on Hollywood!
Have you also noticed that her people start ‘dropping,’ blurbs about movies she hasn’t made yet to drum up interest? Like with the Horrible Bosses movie she and Bateman are in, google Jen & topless and you’ll get some planted b.s. by her PR rep, where he’s discussing nude scenes in movies that haven’t been shot, as the movie hasn’t even started filming (stay tuned for Jen’s teats in 2013!!). I mean really – is this necessary? Then they wonder why people are just so tired of seeing her mug everywhere. there’s like 500 blurbs on that Sandler movie too – not about Adam, or the premise of the movie, or the director, but about how so and so got along with Jen, who’s just human sunny delight. It’s deliberate like frigging propaganda. Whoever her PR guy is, if he has any other clients, if I were them, I would revolt.
Movies she hasn’t made are movies I’m not going to see. IMDB gave her top billing in Just Go With It. Will Adam sandler and Nicole Kidman help her get a hit; or will it flop again (will she blame Heidi Montag?) She’s got close to a dozen projects planned which means we’ll be having this debate again.
Good for Sly.
Nice to see an R-rated action flick kicking ass atop the box office for two weeks in a row.
Studio idiots obsessed with pre-branded properties and the chasing of toy revenue (yeah, that worked well for Joel Schumacher’s career) should take some fucking notes.
Oh please, what’s with this “Aniston is a proven loser” bit or that she’s a TV star.
Let’s see, Aniston has had 7 films in the last 5 years. One film didn’t make its budget (Management), another only made 2x its budget (Love Happens with good DVD sales) and the other 5 made more than 3x their budgets. Yet you say that Aniston is a TV star.
Has anyone called George Clooney a TV star or said he should go back to TV? He’s made 8 films in the last 5 years and 3 of those didn’t make their budget back (Good German, Leatherheads and Fant Mr Fox) and lost big money.
So Aniston who had 1 small bomb (an $8M film), 1 breakeven flop and 5 very profitable movies should go back to TV but Clooney who had 3 big bombs (with budgets of $32M, $58M and $40M) is a movie star? I don’t get why haters bother posting.
I saw The Switch and thought it was a good movie, more a dramedy, mixture of heart-warming and funny at times. Weird little story but a lot of movies have strange stories. They all did a good job and yes the story is told from Jason’s character’s perspective and Jason did a standout job. He was more the central character. In a few of the interviews I saw that was stated and I thought that was obvious from the trailer but she’s the bigger name so I guess this gets marketed as her movie and certainly picked up in the media as her movie. It definitely entertained me for a few hours.
How do you know when Jen’s deluded friends are posting?
.
a) When they liken Jen’s movies, to Oscar winners and their Oscar winning movies (Aniston V Clooney <–Bahaha! Michael Clayton didn't do great box office, so there! Yeah but there was Clooney, yet again, at the Oscars)
.
b)When by the end of the post they will have passed the buck to the male co-star, blaming him for the FLOP that is Jen's. 'It's really Jason's/Clive's/Aaron's/Gerald's movie, Jen was happy to support them!!,' they'll cry, except in instances where the movie may have been a moderate success ( by virtue of the cute yellow lab who sat atop the NYT bestseller list for 10 years…or, Jim Carey), then, not surprisingly, even though Aniston's JUST the gf/wif to Owen Wilson, or Jim Carey, it becomes HER movie. LOLOL.
Such hypocrisy.
To be plain, I see three reasons for knocking your view:
1. Clooney is male. So yes the double-standard is there.
2. He takes risks in producing and/or acting in his various roles; he doesn’t stay in one genre at all.
3. Have you ever seen the man in public? In any interview? He’s got class and smarts. He’s personable.
Hope that makes it plain.
Sly & Co. are proven commodities and released worldwide at the same time, Yeah! Womens’ movies will only ever appeal to 1/2 the population at best, menopause movies to an even smaller fraction. The economy is really bad, which should be great news Hollywood but they insist upon shooting themselves in the foot with the mountains of niche effluence they are putting out. On the upside I saw a movie off a torrent last week that I can’t wait to watch at the movies when it comes out here in Europe (Next year?). Yes, Vampires suck, why? Because it is what Hollywood does best, brainless entertainment.
The Switch…thought it was going to be awful and was shocked. I , swallow, enjoyed it. The showing I went to (2:00) was relatively full and people were laughing out loud throughout. I think this movie might have some good word of mouth. It was enjoyable, a lot more than EPL, and unfortunately probably the victim of bad timing. Maybe Aniston does do the same role, but she is still more watchable than Hudson, Diaz, Heigl, Barrymore, Garner who could be accused of the same.
i don’t give two shits about aniston, other than that i think she’s only been in one good movie and seems like a nice gal, but the hate that i read for her everywhere on the internet just seems to unnecessarily vicious and unwarranted it almost makes me want to root for her. her only crime is choosing the most terrible movie projects, and the way people go on about her, you’d think she was the most horrible human being alive.
Well, she is friends with the most vile evil person on cable, Chelsea ‘sex tape,’ Handjob — so it’s not quite the stretch to think, yeah, maybe YOU, have got her pegged wrong. Aside from that – she just makes horrible movies and needs to go away. Also, who are these people who let message board posters determine who they’ll ‘root’ for, as you say – as if you were somehow ‘objective,’ and on the fence before about this woman. Please. Stop lying. You’re probably wearing your team t-shirt now.
I agree Greg. I don’t get it. So she makes some really horrible decisions, but why is she so hated? I also tend to find myself rooting for her because I loved The Good Girl so much and thinks she has it in her somewhere. I have never understood this hatred for her on the internet. She is definitely not the only one who makes bad movies, and her bad movies have seemed to make some money.