Ric Robertson Taking Paid Summer Hiatus From Movie Academy … 
‘The Big C’ Finale Airs On Showtime Tonight 
Obama Scandals Bring MSNBC 7-Year Low While Fox News Rises 
Ang Lee Departs FX Pilot ‘Tyrant’ 
DreamWorks Eyes January For ‘Glimmer’ And Dylan … 
Warner Bros TV & ‘Smallville’ Co-Creators … 
How Many Times Does Seth MacFarlane Have To Say No To The … 
UPFRONTS 2013: TV Spinoffs’ Almost Perfect Year 
OSCARS: Animated Feature Rule Change 
Cannes: Relativity Sets ‘Hunger Games’ Liam … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: Billboard Awards Surge From 2012, … 
Cannes: Park Chan-wook’s ‘Sympathy For Mr. … 
Cannes: Stanley Weiser To Script ‘Three Graves … 
Yahoo CEO Foresees Big Opportunities To Sell Ads On Tumblr 
Disney, Lucasfilm Animation Prep ‘Star Wars … 
Cannes: Deadline Crashes Palais Forum With Costa Gavras, … 
Hammond On Cannes: Sun Comes Out As Parties, Deals And … 
Kelly Rowland, Paulina Rubio In Talks To Join ‘X … 
‘Fast & Furious 6′ Breaks Records In … 
Specialty Box Office: ‘Frances Ha’ Triumphs As … 
‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ $164.5M Global: Lower … 
SATURDAY PM/SUNDAY AM UPDATE: Sources tell me Friday’s and Saturday’s North American grosses and weekend and cume for the Top 10 are:
1. Paranormal Activity 2 (Paramount) NEW [3,216 Theaters]
Friday $20M, Saturday $13M, Weekend $41.5M
The success of Paranormal Activity 2 is a classic case of, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Like the sleeper smash original, the sequel was made for a bare bones budget of $3 million and now is the biggest horror opening ever (record held by Friday The 13th at $40.5M). It logged a “B” Cinemscore, and the audience was 61% under age 25 and 54% female. The director of the first Paranormal Activity, Oren Peli, stayed on as producer along with Akiva Goldsman and Jason Blum. Katie Featherston, who was at the center of the first film’s action, also returned. Paramount set Tod “Kip” Williams to direct the sequel after first choice Kevin Greutert departed when Lionsgate and Twisted Pictures enforced an option that made him the director of Saw 3D, the film that opens against Paranormal 2 on Halloween weekend. Interesting choice of a filmmaker best known for directing The Door in the Floor, an inventive adaptation of the John Irving novel A Widow For One Year. Screenplay by Michael Perry, and Christopher Landon and Tom Pabst.
The production and its viral and online marketing campaign stayed true to the original, even down to the intimate handheld style of the first with its so-called “found footage” positioning and a media budget half of what a studio would normally spend to get film to this gross. Paramount was gushing what a “spectacular number” $6.3 million is from 1,800 midnight screening locations, passing Watchmen‘s $4.6 million as the highest midnight grosser of all time for an “R”-rated pic. Whereas the first film started off as a sleeper in a few college town locations and expanded its release week by week as word of mouth grew and a smart TV ad campaign got going, Hollywood was convinced that PA2 could break the $30 million barrier, always tough for any R-rated flick. But $41.5M is overwhelming. Especially since the best weekend of the first was $21.1M. Rotten Tomatoes showcased 75% positive reviews for the horror film, almost as good as the original’s 82%. “There is no Blair Witch curse here,” a Paramount exec gushed to me by email.
Promotion kicked off in July with a trailer paired with the Twilight Saga’s Eclipse and sparked controvery in Texas when patrons were complaining that their teens had nightmares after watching it. So Cinemark execs pulled it from several theaters because of multiple complaints it was “too scary”. Paramount of course marketed the first installment of the psychological thriller precisely on the basis that it was frightening the bejesus out of college town moviegoers. Both the plot and the characters were kept under wraps with fans left to speculate if the couple featured in the first film would return for the sequel. Fans only had it confirmed this week when a short clip was posted online with katie discussing that her boyfriend, who doesn’t fare well in the first film, wasn’t feeling up to hanging out that day, leaving fans to debate whether Paranormal Activity 2 was a sequel or a prequel.
2. Jackass 3D (Paramount) Week 2 [3,111 Theaters]
Friday $7.5M, Saturday $8.2M, Weekend $21.6M (-57%), Cume $87.1M
So Paramount knocked out Paramount for a #1-#2 punch at the box office. Hard for Jackass 3D not to do $125m domestic.
3. Red (Summit) Week 2 [3,273 Theaters]
Friday $4.5M, Saturday $6.6M, Weekend $15M (-31%), Cume $43.5M
Excellent hold for Red, showing that the +35-aged crowd is starving for adult fare at the box office.
4. Hereafter (Warner Bros) Week 2 [2,181 Theaters]
Friday $4.1M, Saturday $4.9M, Weekend $12M, Cume $12.3M
After platforming in 6 theaters in NYC and LA and Toronto last week, Hereafter went wide Friday and increased +19% for Saturday with 80% of its audience over age 30. Three different studios had told me this month that the pic, despite featuring multiple Oscar-winner Clint Eastwood directing Oscar-nominated screenwriter Peter Morgan’s very personal spiritual script starring Oscar winner Matt Damon, wasn’t tracking well. But Warner Bros execs told me that “was not really accurate. We aren’t tracking as well with young audiences, but that’s to be expected with this kind of film. Given that younger respondents are so bombarded right now in the marketplace with Halloween horror films, as well Jackass 3D and The Social Network.” The studio’s 30-second tsunami TV spot tested the best overall, and ran in sports programming, but I felt it made Hereafter look like an action flick instead of the thoughtful and comprehensive pic it is. By contrast, another 30-second provocative spot targeted older females. The result was that, by Friday, Hereafter experienced some encouraging momentum and was in better shape on tracking. Awareness was already quite strong among older moviegoers (75% of the sample aged 25+ were aware already) while First Choice among those aged 25+ more than doubled over the past week. Only Red had higher choice among the 25+ crowd Friday.
5. The Social Network (Sony) Week 4 [2,921 Theaters
Friday $2.2M, Saturday $3.2M, Weekend $7.3M, Cume $72.9M
6. Secretariat (Disney) Week 3 [3,108 Theaters]
Friday $1.9M, Saturday $3M, Weekend $6.9M, Cume $37.3M
7. Life As We Know It (Warner Bros) Week 3 [3,019 Theaters]
Friday $2M, Saturday $2.7M, Weekend $6.1M, Cume $37.6M
8. Legends Of The Guardians (Warner Bros) Week 5 [2,236 Theaters]
Friday $775K, Saturday $1.4m, Weekend $3.1M, Cume $50.1M
9. The Town (Warner Bros) Week 6 [1,918 Theaters]
Friday $820K, Saturday $1.2M, Weekend $2.7M, Cume $84.6M
10. Easy A #(Sony) Week 6 [1,632 Theaters]
Friday $565K, Saturday $800K, Weekend $1.7M, Cume $54.7M
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
PT Barnum said it best.
There is a sucker born every minute.
so go profit from it and leave us alone with your trite, smug, moronic commentary
I agree..the 1st one sucked and this looks like more of the same cheap ” NON-SCARY” stuff
aptly said. Studio will make $$ on PA 2 because there is a sucker born every minute. 2nd weekend will see big drop.
The first one was great! Scary as hell.
Haven’t seen the second yet.
Thank you.
The first one was terrible. I’ve seen episodes of Unsolved Mysteries that were scarier. Don’t believe the hype…
My friends told me the first one sucked balls.
So I’m gonna RedBox it. Amazing that my fellow countrymen would shell out 10 bucks on utter shit. But that’s what we do, right?
What Jack is really saying is:
“My friends told me the first one sucked balls, so not only am I going to let them do my thinking for me (and ignore the fact that many people say the first one was fantastic and one of the scariest movies they’ve ever seen), but I’m also going to have the nerve to criticize other people for paying to support a movie franchise that I have never seen. I’m even going to go so far as to authoritatively call it ‘utter shit’ even though I have no idea what I am talking about.”
Excellent post, Wannabe. Jack’s post kinda proves there is a besserwisser born every minute to accompany the sucker, hm?
Brillent comment; it sums up almost all of the kids here who like to criticize PA2. Not that it’s the best horror movie ever made, but putting down other’s who like it shows immaturity. If you don’t like it, don’t go see it. End of story. Instead of starting another paragraph ranting about how stupid these American teenagers are for wanting to go see an October horror movie.
Best response post ever
This proves that the American public is, by and large, filled with stupid people who shouldn’t even be allowed to exist, let alone spend their own money.
That is really unneccessary. So because people like crap movies, they “shouldn’t have a right to exist.” Misanthropic much?
Elijah you nailed it with “That is really unneccessary. So because people like crap movies”
JACKASS 3D
CRAP MOVIE!
Isn’t one’s taste in movies subjective? I think the two best films of the year are “The Social Network” and “Catfish” (interestingly enough,) yet I still have a strong desire to see Jackass. There is something to be said about checking out of your head for 90 minutes now and again.
I saw both of the movies you just mentioned. I don’t agree with “Catfish” however, as that is more like a documentary, and wouldn’t belong in a Best Picture race.
So a horror movie opened big. In October. And all of a sudden the American public is too stupid to live? (You realize horror is popular in other countries too, right?)
Hereafter and Red are both connecting with older audiences. The Social Network got great reviews and is doing well. Ditto The Town and Easy A. Jackass 3D is doing great — so what? It’s lowbrow slapstick which Hollywood’s been doing for decades.
I look at the top ten and see a public hungry for plenty of different interesting choices.
Michael,
Your comment is too reasonable to exist on an internet comments thread.
Absolutely AMAZING! Good for it. The movie rocked! What a fun time. I want to see it again, and I hope for a third, which seems a no-brainer now.
no brainer…..
you said it….
I didn’t
I always thought it was hard to trick the American movie going public twice, but apparently I was wrong.
Yes. Maybe you’re, uh, wrong…?
I saw the first one, and it sucked. The scariest movie you will ever see? Haha, I didn’t jump once during the first movie. Sorry, but I’m not wasting $7-$8 to see another crappy Paranormal Activity.
Where do you live that it only costs $7 to see a movie?
I’ll do you better than that… Northeast Tennessee – $5.50-6.00.
Where? This is really cheap.
Yuba City Ca. For us old retirees, all shows, all day Monday, $5………
$7 to $8? Whereabouts outside of Wichita do you live…?
It’s now down to 69% on rotten tomatoes, and yes that’s a clear difference from the first movie.
It’s gonna be huge. Can’t wait to see it. Fun, scary movie.
kudos to adam goodman. he was the first to see the potential in the original movie, pushed for reshoots and kept it from being forgotten. without his tenacity, the sequel would not have ever had a reason to be made. come to think of it, he was also this passionate about the first Transformers movie, when everyone else at the company thought it was just a toy movie. Good going Goodman.
“Robert Not So Wise” and “redmenace” you should see it before pissing on it. I have nothing to do with the movie in any way, or the studio and I saw it last night and I’m still scared to walk around my house and it’s broad daylight. It’s so much fun.
Why would I do such a foolish thing? I saw the first PA and it was awful.Paying my hard earned money to see a sequel to an awful movie would mean beening suckered twice.
@JK
I think the American people should have the freedom to spend their money however they like.
If you’re so offended by the fact this movie made money, then get out of our country!
If the film plays hardcore frontloaded like New Moon (which did 18% of its opening weekend at midnight), Paranormal Activity 2 still gets to $34 million. But midnight screenings generally make up around 5-8% of the opening weekend take, meaning that, if PA2 plays like a normal genre entry (Iron Man 2, Jackass 3D, Watchmen, etc), it could pull in $75-90 million this weekend.
It’s an insane number and hard to wrap one’s head around, but the recent midnight numbers for a Friday opener seem to bare that out. Even Pirates 2, Spider-Man 3 The Dark Knight did just 7-11% of their opening weekend in midnight showings. We’ll know in several hours, but the numbers seem to bare out a HUGE opening weekend.
My audience didn’t really seem to enjoy it, probably because the characters aren’t nearly as likable as Micah and Katie. It relied way too much on jump-scares (The first film used these in moderation and it was very effective), plus the “floating” scenes were pretty ridiculous imo. It was a lot better than I thought it would be, but it’s a far cry from the original.
With WOM likely being lukewarm, I could see this weekend going as high as $65m, but it definitely won’t match the first film’s final haul. Still likely to be a huge profit for everyone involved, and I’m sure we’ll see PA3 next year.
Mike is apparently one of those people who shouldn’t be allowed to spend his own money. Roger Ebert summarized this movie as a series of “Gotcha!” moments in search of an interesting plot. What entertains people these days is pathetic.
Roger Ebert also gave Hereafter four stars, so forgive me for not caring what Roger Ebert says, ever.
Yeah totally. This one time Ebert gave a [good/bad] review to [movie title], which was really [bad/good], therefore I will never read his reviews again.
Greatest comment ever. So true of internet posts about film critics in general.
Was BORED out of my mind watching the first one! Kept waiting for the BIG scary part to happen—nothing. Really can’t believe people want another….
What business do you think this is RNSW? It is a circus and these cats are putting out a product that works. They aint clubbing people over the head–kids wanna escape and JB+SS are filling that void. Get over it.
Ok I was WAAAY off on JACKASS 3-D..I was sure no one would go see that tired old crap…with PA2 I was wrong again. I was thinking NO WAY people will go see this after being ripped-off by the 1st one…I was wrong again.. I guess I need to put together some stupid brain content for the American Audience, because that is what they are paying for…in DROVES
But of course you’re not putting anything together for anyone, are you…?
not watching it in theaters. i saw the original on dvd alone past midnight, the it scared the hell out of me.
From the lines that wrapped
around my theater tonight
I am guessing
40-50 M OPENING WEEKEND
oh that’s smart. take your 1 crummy theater and multiply it by 2,000. cuz there’s no way that any theater could possibly have different amounts in ticket sales. you should work for gallup.
you know what’s funny? he’s pretty damn close. closer than “8% means it’ll hit 90 million” up there…
The stupid American public really came out in force this weekend. So Sad!
The American Public isn’t so stupid after all. Over 98% of them DIDN’T see the movie this weekend.
Somehow it’s grossed over 40 million so far and it’s been out for 3 days…you guys need to get laid…or go think of a way to make people wait in line around a theater to see your film….because it doesn’t matter where his ‘crummy’ theater is. A movie doesn’t make that much money so fast if people don’t see it.
It was a really bad decision to release Hereafter during the Halloween “season.” I get that it was probably a counter-programming move but it should have been released on Christmas day when people are feeling more spiritual.
Very nice thought. I agree.
Me three—–was definitely a Christmas release.
Paramount should just make it official and put Amy Powell in charge of marketing. Her team is the one making these low-budge movies mega-hits.
You mean it wasn’t due to the “you asked for it” social media campaign? I’m shocked!
The idea did not come from her btw. It came from within her department, despite the amount of credit she may be taking for it.
She has not made such a splash with anything else, really. So I’d keep her where she is, and just keep watching.
Where do you live, $7-8 seems like a bargain compared to LA prices of $12-$16!!!!
Hearafter flopped because I’m sure many people are boycotting radical leftists Matt Damon’s work. And it’s Hollywood generic spiritualism.
Oh, sure. That must be why all the Bourne movies were SO unsuccessful, right?
lol
Go back to DrudgeReport, clown.
The Bourne movies were successful prior to him being as vocal with some of his more politically divisive rants, so the franchise withstood the heat.
Now try comparing Hereafter to his more recent box office offerings like Invictus (37 mil domestic), Green Zone (35 mil domestic) and The Informant (33 mil domestic.) That’s a more accurate depiction of Damon’s draw since he forgot the Michael Jordan principle.
Hereafter didn’t really flop for an offbeat adult drama. It’s in the same range as Invictus and Changeling. By the way, no need to make “leftist” plural in that context. Also, your second sentence is structurally confusing.
Once again, what is it about wingnuts that they always think everybody else agrees with them? The more extreme people get the more they think everyone’s right there with them. When it’s, you know, the opposite.
Hereafter is bombing because it looks like crap, and when you see the ads the can’t tell what the hell it’s about. It’s about a psychic guy … who’s a psychic guy? PA 2 isn’t bombing because the first movie was a phenomenon, so on top of everyone who saw the first one and liked it they’re getting business from everyone who didn’t see the first one and feels like they missed out on something.
Spirituality in film works for the Tyler Perry Madea films and The Blind Side. Those movies play well in middle America. Clint Eastwood, a representative of evil Hollywood doing it doesn’t. He has no church movement behind him. I expected this movie to do better. Gran Torino was rated R with tougher subject matter and opened higher.
Also, people have gotten used to Matt Damon being an “action guy”. This just looks like drivel.
Thank you.
I completely agree. I’m a huge Matt Damon fan and had no burning desire to catch HEREAFTER opening weekend. That had nothing to do with his politics (which beyond expressing a desire to not have Palin be VP, I’m not sure why he’d be considered a “leftist” anyway). The fact is the trailer just didn’t do it for me.
Look at all the whiners.
How dare Americans and Canadians go see a horror so close to … Halloween. The humanity!
Pretensious hypocrites. You represent everything that is wrong with this industry. Are all of you sitting there reading Victor Hugo, with some soft classical on, pipe in hand? No, chances are you are gushing over a script that deep down you know is pure crap, while Teen Wolf II is playing on the TV in the background, and a copy of US Weekly is sitting on your coffee table.
Paranormal Activity 2 costs under 5 million to make, it satisfied the audience, was actually scary (shocking for a horror film I know), and did really well. That model WORKS.
Or would it be better to spend ten times as much for something that in the minds of the egomaniacs is “for everyone.”
People like this ruin this industry and have lost touch with today’s moviegoer.
So when are we going to start treating Matt Damon like Jennifer Aniston? Even with heavy-hitters like Clint Eastwood, the guy can’t open a movie unless it’s part of the Bourne Identity Franchise. Clooney can’t carry a hit unless it’s part of the Oceans franchise. Yet we treat these two, especially Clooney like he’s some huge star outside of Hollywood when he clearly isn’t. I use Aniston as an example because we treat her like she is just a TV Actress who should basically do us all a favor and kill herself. Sure her movies completely suck, but audiences have had to suffer through a string of unbelievably boring and self-important vanity projects from Damon and Clooney that bombed at the box office while the press and sites like this have heaped nothing but praise on them. What gives?
The quality of the movies is the difference. Aniston movies don’t make money nor are they memorable or high standard of excellence.
Other than maybe Will Smith, actors names don’t open movies. People need to get over the this person can’t open a movie crap. I mean if this is the case than Johnny Knoxville is one of the biggest moviestars in the world. And the difference between Damon and Aniston is that Aniston does the same type movie over and over, Damon does something different every time out.
ITAWY.. Matt is a good actor but like Clooney and Aniston they all need a franchise or another big name with them to bring in the BO and neither of them have Global appeal. Another thing that is telling to me is they all seem make way TOO many movies in a year. It seems like we just saw Matt on the screen and then here he is.. same with Clooney.. and I won’t go into Aniston (who seems to be trying to stay out of the media) but that won’t make a difference. Matt is hardly in the media, but none of them have the ability to pull a large audience on their own. And please lets not say The American was #1 (it had a 5 day total of less then 20 million) FAIL.
These actors never give the audience a chance to miss seeing them on the big screen. They churn our movies like crap on an assembly line. I love Clint, but he should have gone with another Actor, especially since he just worked with Matt.
And I so agree. so sick of them painting Clooney as the MEGA STAR that everything he touches is Gold. He has had very few memorable performances; including Michael Clayton.. a film that won Oscar but no one talks about.
The Academy will again kiss his ass and give him another nomination because they want to celebrate through him that Old Hollywood standard. Sorry they are wrong. Clooney is a major kiss ass.
Well, for starters both Clooney and Damon tend to class up the joint. Not everything they do is a homerun but as actors you have to give them credit for taking some risk and collaborating with top tier talent behind the camera. Anitson doesn’t do that. There doesn’t seem to be any ambition to the work Aniston is doing at all. I think Clooney and Damon are guys who’ve already made more money than they could ever spend in a lifetime and now want to work on films of quality. Those films don’t always work, but at least you have big stars who are trying to make good films. Eastwood is 80 years old. Nobody knows how many more films Clint has in him, so why wouldn’t Damon jump at the chance of working with a guy with four Oscars shooting a Peter Morgan script? Up in the Air was a solid commercial movie. True Grit looks absolutely fantastic.
I get your point, but for every “Up in the Air” we get crap like Men Who Stare at Goats, The Informant, The American etc. I respect that they take risks, but why are they getting paid movie star money when they basically deliver really expensive art house movies that make slightly more than Art House money. Shouldn’t their salaries be more in line with William H. Macy and actors of that pay grade who class up the joint? And keep in mind, if Clooney and Damon weren’t going for big blockbusters their films wouldn’t open in 2000+ theaters. Damon’s “The Green Zone lost nearly a $100 million at the box office. Classy or not, where are all the articles talking about their troubled careers? In what business do you get an A for effort, when you bring in C- style cash? It seems like we hold people like Clooney and Damon to different standards than we do others simply because we like them better. Even when they lose a fortune for the studios. It’s worth noting that lots of middle and lower level people in Hollywood lose jobs to cover these insane losses. If Aniston ever lost $100 million at the box office and cost people work like that we’d set her on fire and run her out of town and then write a million articles about what a failure she is. We do that even when her films actually break even or God for bid, make money. Hollywood is a business, not a popularity contest decided by a few insiders. Well, it is, but it costs the larger industry a massive fortune and the audience doesn’t seem to like Clooney or Damon as much as the press or these insiders do.
The Informant! wasn’t crap. Come on.
The films you mentioned are not crap. They are valid attempts at breaking convention. Matt Damon’s performance in THE INFORMANT is pretty special and risky, certainly more demanding than the running, jumping, and standing still performances he gives in the BOURNE films. Would they be as successful with someone else? The extraordinary profits from this franchise allows him to take a risk now and then. Remember, he’s only responsible for his salary and this is a free market system, the lastI heard.. Clooney has given world class performances in a number of movies including SYRIANA, MICHAEL CLAYTON, and the Coen Brothers’ films. He is the most important component of the OCEANS franchise. All of the others could easily be replaced by stock actors but not Mr. Clooney. These two actors are solely responsible for billions of dollars of revenue and profit for the industry so the notion that they be paid as stock actors is absurd. Neither has to answer to or be blamed for industry woes or misguided filmmaking. They are actors, not writers, producers, or directors. They enter into these ventures with trust and are betrayed by the other elements and nothing they have done could remotely be considered ‘crap.’
Rev. Slappy, if you think Jennifer Aniston is getting offers of the same quality that Clooney and Damon are getting, forget about it. They’re established enough inside Hollywood to pick these interesting movies. You don’t have Clint Eastwood or even Jason Reitman knocking down Aniston’s door. But beyond that, the roles out there for forty-year-old women just aren’t there. For forty-year-old men…take your pick.
Mike, you have a point about Clooney not being a huge star outside of Hollywood. There’s definitely a disconnect there. But it’s also true that these actors by choice pick movies that have a limit on their commercial appeal. If you’re a big star in a weird or boring-looking movie, the audience isn’t going to come out. Even Will Smith, the biggest star in the world, isn’t immune to this (Ali and Seven Pounds topped out at $60 million.)
The reason Damon only finds huge success in the Bourne trilogy is that those are the only popcorn movies he’s made recently. If he was Tom Cruise and regularly accepted movies like War of the Worlds, Mission Impossible et al, his stardom wouldn’t be in question.
I agree Mike Hollywood’s much value to damon and clooney they are not very good actors as they think, not seen any clooney movie that really has any meaning or its sound performance.
Because the movie is the star, and in the end everyone knows it even if they don’t want it to be true. Will Smith is great and all, but put him in a serious drama and you’ve got trouble. Let him play the wisecracking know-it-all in an action movie and you’ve got business. There are really only brief periods of time when any #1 actor can do anything and people will go. Tom Cruise in the late 80s/early 90s. Maybe Brad Pitt in the mid 90s. Will Smith a few years ago and still to a certain degree now. Johnny Depp to some degree now. That’s all I can really think of recently, but those aren’t really triumphs of “this guy can open any picture any time”, they’re more triumphs of choosing the right roles. Tom Cruise could open any movie where he was the intense guy trying to climb back into or up the food chain. Will Smith can open any movie where he gets to play Will Smith. Johnny Depp can open any movie where he gets to play Jack Sparrow. Angelina Jolie can open any movie where she gets to play the 90 pound martial arts expert. When they deviate (or get old, or make too many movies, or actually act) they get in trouble.
I agree, most of these people can only play one role. Like Aniston, Jolie can only play one role, the 90 pound action star. Hilarious observation btw. Does anyone really think a 90 pound anorexic chick could kick anyone’s ass, seriously? Depp is the one who actually pulls in big money playing his quirky man covered in make-up schtick. Other than Donnie Brasco, he’s never done well without the make-up. I’ll be curious to see how The Tourist does considering her looks like a bloated mess in all of the trailers.
I think what my point in this thread has been is about perception. Who’s considered a big star and who isn’t. The numbers reveal a completely different reality than the press coverage does. If you add up production and marketing costs, Jolie and Damon barely make more profit than Aniston, but they are perceived to be much bigger stars. (It probably helps if you care about Africa. I hate to be cynical, but let’s be realistic. The positive press glow you get from that certainly doesn’t hurt.)
Don’t get me wrong, I actually like Damon and Clooney, but I’m tired of them getting this mega-star treatment when their box office receipts are often tenuous at best. Good for them that they can pick and choose the roles they want to play. There are millions of well-written male roles floating around Hollywood so it’s not a big effort to find one. For someone like Aniston, she has to wait until Sandra Bullock and Katherine Heigel turn down what few roles there actually are for women and those roles pretty much suck. Aniston could go indie. Judging from The Good Girl she does actually have the talent for it. But at this point she’s waaaay too famous to go indie. Besides, she’d have to wait for Michelle Williams and Maggie Gylenhall to turn down the role first. Even Bullock just spent the past ten years in career oblivion until The Proposal and The Blind Side came along. Renee Zellwegger hasn’t had a proper hit in almost SIX years. Neither has Kate Hudson. Cameron Diaz probably lives off her Shrek money and the first Charlie’s Angels film because the girl can’t open a film to save her life. But she’s fun and carefree and the industry loves her so she gets a pass on her flops too.
“Don’t get me wrong, I actually like Damon and Clooney, but I’m tired of them getting this mega-star treatment when their box office receipts are often tenuous at best.”
Appreciate your post, which is full of interesting points. But I wonder about the above statement. Is the ability to make a lot of money the best reason to consider an actor a big star?
I am drawn to movies Damon and Clooney are in because I enjoy watching them, and a movie is more likely to be interesting (to me) for their presence.
Agreed, they seem to appear in as many bad movies as they do good movies (which isn’t a bad average for an actor). I didn’t like The Informant! or The American. I keep hearing the same thing about Clooney’s movies from my friends who went to see them: Nothing much happens.
But these two guys come across as intelligent and likeable people in interviews. They’re handsome and charismatic. And, both of them can actually act.
Aren’t those the reasons we consider them to be “stars”? Is making a ton of money a better reason to venerate someone than any of those other, equally superficial reasons?
I completely understand what you’re saying but if we use that measure, shouldn’t we treat Michelle Williams and William H. Macy and all the other superb actors who play great roles in small little films like huge stars?
Keep in mind, Damon and especially Clooney get treated like they bring in HUGE money. Damon actually has with the Bourne Franchise. But Clooney? As I said in one of my previous posts, I’m talking about what the films actually earn. Sure we can give these stars an A for effort (minus The American, The Informant, Men Who Stare at Goats, Intolerable Cruelty, The Peacemaker, etc.) but why do we treat them and pay them like they are huge earners?
I’m sure Clooney has more than $100 million sitting in the bank but he doesn’t have the box office receipts to back that up. Wouldn’t it be great if William H. Macy could afford to lounge around his villa in Italy. Or Paul Giametti? Or Michelle Williams, Maggie Gylenhall, Daniel Day Lewis. There are so many great actors out there who make great films, but they don’t get the HUGE STAR treatment or the huge star paycheck.
william goldman writes about this better than anyone, i think, in his various books (adventures in the screen trade, which lie did i tell?, who killed hollywood and other essays) but he echoes similar sentiments.
he wrote about mel gibson and richard gere very perceptively regarding their careers in the 80′s. i think this goes for george clooney as well. gere and gibson had breakout hits with “an officer and a gentleman”, “american gigolo”, “mad max” and the road warrior.” hollywood loved them because, in addition to giving good performances, they reinforced what they believed to be true: these guys looked like movie stars, and by god they should be. so they started making movies with them and for the next few years, it was flop after flop. look at both their careers for the next few years (gere a little longer) and you see no big hits. mostly flops, in fact. at that point one would think they were finished. but hollywood wouldn’t quit them – they continued to work. why? they were losing money for the studios, but they still looked like movie stars, and nobody wanted to face the fact that maybe they weren’t anymore. and then came “lethal weapon” and “pretty woman.” both breakout hits and once again, hollywood said “ha! we told you so.” look at clooney – breakout tv series hit with er. then flop after flop in feature films. but he looks like a movie star, is a decent actor and is charming as hell in interviews. the town refused to believe he wasn’t a star. then comes “the perfect storm.” “ocean’s eleven” and so on. it reinforced what the town believed. that a guy that walks, talks and acts like a movie star, and has one hit under his belt already, should be a movie star. they’l get the benefit of the doubt every time.
for the record, i have enjoyed work by all of these guys and think of them as movie stars, for what it’s worth. just saying, goldman understands how and why the town does what it does. btw, his favorite quote is “nobody knows anything.”