SACHA BARON COHEN BANNED FROM OSCARS: EXCLUSIVE 
Cassian Elwes And Mark Burg Start Evolution Independent To … 
Simon Cowell On Search For New ‘X Factor’ Hosts … 
J.J. Abrams And Paramount Extend First-Look Deal Through … 
‘Spartacus’ Alum Jai Courtney Lands Coveted … 
BREAKING: SAG Anti-Merger Members File Lawsuit Against … 
Disney Taps Edgar Wright To Helm Johnny Depp In ‘The … 
IMAX Names Former Paramount Exec Andrew Cripps President Of … 
Conan O’Brien’s TBS Late-Night Talk Show … 
Paramount President Of Animation David Stainton Resigns 
Oscar Countdown: Sherak On Kodak Theatre’s New Name, … 
Costumers Designers Guild Awards: ‘Dragon … 
Oscars Scoop: George Clooney’s & Melissa … 
CAA Signs ‘The Help’s Tate Taylor 
UPDATED: 2012 Oscar Party Roundup 
NBC Brings Back ‘Community’, Schedules … 
Weinstein To Take On MPAA ‘Bully’ Rating 
TOLDJA! Michael Fassbender Commits To Ridley Scott-Directed … 
Charlie Sheen Resumes ‘Two & Half Men’ … 
Comcast Launches Xfinity Streaming Service For Older 
Sarah Palin Doc ‘The Undefeated’ Finds TV Home … 
EXCLUSIVE: Matt Damon is in early negotiations to star in Neill Blomkamp’s scifi film Elysium for Media Rights Capital. Damon will join District 9‘s Sharlto Copley in a film that is shrouded in secrecy. While a Damon commitment–they’re in the early stages of deal making right now–will make Elysium a more enticing piece of business, MRC won’t take it out to distributors until next year. It will come to the market when it has its major cast.
This will be the second MRC project for Damon, who stars with Emily Blunt in the George Nolfi-directed The Adjustment Bureau. That film, which is based on a Philip K. Dick short story, will be released by Universal in March. Damon, who starred for Clint Eastwood in Hereafter for Warner Bros, next stars in the Coen Brothers drama True Grit. He’s repped by WME.
Loading ...
Damon needs a hit. Badly.
And Blomkamp does not need Damon.
Don’t do it, guy. Not worth it. District 9 was stronger by virtue of not having some overpaid US Weekly regular to distract from the work.
Really? I thought he’s had a nice run. Didn’t even recognize him in the True Grit trailer until the end. Not sure if it made money, but he was great in The Informant. I’ve never been disappointed and he rocked in Bourne despite being the last guy I would have guessed for the role.
Matt Damon’s career is doing great. He would be perfect for Elysium.
“down the dank
mouldering paths and past the Ocean’s streams they went
and past the White Rock and the Sun’s Western Gates and past
the Land of Dreams, and soon they reached the fields of asphodel
where the dead, the burnt-out wraiths of mortals make their home”
—Odyssey 24.5-9
So cool! loved DISTRICT 9… tho I hear ADJUSTMENT BUREAU is a disaster
Yes, from the trailer AB looks like a train wreck. But MD is always solid.
Anyone fancy analysing, for an amateur like me, Matt Damon’s current stock? He’s not really had a big opening, or even been in a particularly successful film, since Ultimatum, and has had a series of poorly-performing films in recent times, with Adjustment Bureau looking set to join that group. True Grit will likely be successful, but he is not the lead. So, how is it looking for him?
It’s looking good for him. He can write and he has a friend who can direct.
He’s handsome as ever and a true joy to be around.
Ah the damon hating non industry fools who populate this sight. Get in the business. Matt Damon is doing just fine in our town.
What’s with all the Damon-hating? Like George Clooney, he’s one of the few actors who chooses smart films regardless of their box office potential? This country is dumbed down enough already; it doesn’t need more Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell films. Damon – whose only misstep was “Stuck on You” – has starred or co-starred in some of the best, most intelligent films of the last 10 years, including “The Departed,” “The Informant,” “Invictus,” and yes, even “Hereafter.” And “Inside Job” was the best, most timely and important film this year. Who cares about boxoffice? I’d rather see intelligent, thought-provoking flops any day over “Transformers” or “GI Joe.”
The sad reality is that the Andrew Breitbart/Matt Drudge/John Nolte have a blacklist website called Big Hollywood. The RNC decides which actors are to be boycotted, and then the talking points are disseminated first at Big Hollywood and then those original posts are linked to Fox News, Newsbusters, Newsmax, and most importantly, Drudge. When the low-information right winger sees the exact same talking points copied verbatim in multiple places, they come to the conclusion that said talking point is on the minds of millions and millions of people. Moreover, because the typical low-information right winger is both unable to think for themselves and fear being ostracized from the herd, they dutifully play along and come to sites like this to repeat the same thing they read on Big Hollywood. Damon got in their crosshairs when he said he wanted to ask Palin how old she thought the earth was.
You should see some of the stuff Nolte’s crew have said about True Grit, without seeing one frame of the film. Hell, the position of Jeff Bridges’ goddam eye patch was seen by these clowns as a leftist political slam.
Somebody needs to take their tinfoil hat off. Yikes.
Oh, get bent. The fact of the matter is that Big Hollywood and Drudge have the same owners and operators. Go over to BH and get a load of the sheer volume of actors they bash as “un-American” and the like. Then look at the comments on those threads of people who pledge “never to see a movie with that America hater, Matt Damon, etc. etc. etc”.” Ever wonder why the comment level of this site plummets whenever Drudge links here?
It’s not “tinfoil hat” asshat. The reality is that the far right movement conservatives have been extremely effective in spreading misinfomation through the use of repeated and similar sloganeering on multiple echo chamber websites. If you can’t appreciate the effectiveness, you’re too fucking stupid for words.
but it’s so comfortable! hahaha
Pete is right.
Matt Damon always plays Matt Damon. Some might call him a star for that. Some call him boring for that. He does not always invest himself in his roles. In fact, I can’t remember the last time since Talented Mr. Ripley, that he played a role with any kind of mystique or something that departed from his usual self. The Bourne films he is simply doing a minimalist job.
But he’s become a household name, can sell tickets so he gets work. Can’t fault him for wanting to work with the great directors, but that never seems to help him make a great fall, as the story is always lacking. Or it’s his repetitous approach to his roles. He is a good actor, just doesn’t have a lot of range it seems. Or he does & he’s not sharing it with the rest of us.
Which is why he’s not won an Oscar since the burgeoning days of his career, in 1998.
RE: Jack S.
Matt Damon will be fine…. if Katherine Hartwicke can still have a career for wasting peoples money, Damon will be okay just ‘doing his job.’ The movies that he’s in don’t bomb because he’s in them (unlike Hartwicke who has the power to actually ruin a decent film — Lords of Dog Town) , they suck from the get go. True Grit will put him back on top and Elysium will keep him there.
I always wonder about the validity of the proposition that an actor must be able to generate box office earning single-handedly. It just doesn’t seem like that concept works very well. In order for a movie to be of high quality (or even just to sell a lot of tickets regardless of quality) at least 10 people need to do a very good job – the writers, director, and some of the cast. Any actor can look terrible in a movie (it sometimes occurs to me that the entire purpose of the second three Star Wars movies was to prove this point) if either the writing or the directing or even the casting is uninspired.
Now, the people who fund movies know this; but they still seem to single out lead actors for particularly large salaries (and blame) for projects. Is this rational, given all of the other factors involved? It seems to me that writers and directors should probably be paid more and actors relatively less, given the importance of each in the process. Are investors star struck by actors or are good actors a better heuristic for picking good projects to back than good directors or good writers?
Great point, Josh.
It seems to me that writers and directors should probably be paid more and actors relatively less, given the importance of each in the process.
In a perfect world, this would be true. But the public’s overwhelming tendacy to gravitate toward material with recognizable casts (rather than filmmakers) will provide the impetus for this trend to continue.
That said, certain filmmakers get their pieces of the pie via back end/prof. part. Ironically, how much they get depends on how well the “actors” can bring in their audiences – which winds back up at your original point.
Matt Damon can make a zillion dollars just by signing onto another Bourne movie. He’s got a franchise that’s both a critical and commerical success that he can go back to whenever he wants, playing that character for another 15 years if he wants to. He likes to work with interesting directors on projects that aren’t sure-fire hits, and his presence on a project helps get it made. In my mind, that’s exactly what someone with his clout should be doing.
Love Damon. Love Blomkamp. Love sci-fi. Could work big time. Could be an epic fail. Speculating on this site won’t effect either outcome in the least.
But it is fun to try….
Can we please put a moratorium on anyone over the age of 11 from using the phrase ‘epic fail’?
I remember when Matt Damon was director driven and would only work with high profile directors like Eastwood, Speilberg, Minghella, Redford and Van Sant. But now going with Nolfi and Blomkamp? 30 Rock recurring guest role? What is he doing? All in the name of WME packages? Matt wake up. Could be time for a change.
CAA time to send out the soldiers and save a good actor.
Blomkamp’s District 9 was certainly better than each of those 5 directors last films.
Not a sci-fi buff but anything should be better than Hereafter.
Damon makes interesting movies. He takes risks. The Informant, Invictus, Green Zone, Hereafter…these movies do not have a guaranteed box office hit formula. They are just unique and interesting stories that Damon did very well in. It’s too bad they did not catch on at the box office, but I appreciate him for choosing unique projects. True Grit will bring him back to the top of the box office. That is for sure.
Matt Damon rarely immerses himself in a role like, say, Jonny Depp frequently does. He has his standard performance which he tweaks for each role. That’s not to say he’s a bad actor, just not a very interesting one. But I’m glad he may collaborate with an up-and-comer like Blomkamp. A hungry and talented young director is precisely what any mid-career star needs to rejuvenate themselves.
he’s a pro ‘the adjustment bureau’ had a neophyte director in over his head
All I know is a new Cohen Bro.s film is opening soon.
Put on yer tin foil hat and do an epic flail!
-Maybe Damon will get a part as one of those rabbits in David Lynch’s garage -THAT would be epic!
In response to someone called WOW…for your information Mr Ignorant, yes Matt chooses directors from whom he could learn, as he has his own aspirations to direct. And again, for your information, Blomkamp has been the youngest A-list addition to Hollywood’s A-list directors list – the guy is only 31 years old but his District 9 had 4 Academy Awards in 2010, he’s got his own signature style film making, why wouldn’t Matt Damon be not interested? Matt is so intelligent like it would be beyond your imagination to grasp. As for 30 Rock appearance – Matt and his wife love this show, and it was his sheer pleasure to be in that show.
Matt does carefully consider the films, and the box office dollars are far from the decising factor. He appreciates the dialogue, the storyline, and the people that work on a movie, so you guys just shut up about Matt’s lack of diversity or talent.
I agree on many points with Josh and Pete.
correction:
line 4 should read “Academy Award nominations”