Gravity

[Electrix]

For years studios have been clueless when it comes to making big female-lead movies. The same studio that got Christopher Nolan to make Batman Begins had 10+ writers and a special effects guy working on Catwoman the year beforehand. The bad movies (and subsequent flops) caused studios to avoid having actresses as leads, and now they have a situation where only Angelina Jolie can carry an action movie.

Many actresses are capable, they just aren't given the chance.

 

[dark_b]

i agree

 

[Hunter Rider]

The point being missed except by Project is that whoever they cast whether it is male of female they are going to need to be a star draw because of the material invovled.

 

[Octoberist]

I would think Charlize Theron could be a draw, but she's on the down low as of late and she'll be busy with Mad Max next year. I bring up Theron because she is in the same age range as Jolie (early 30s), and she's a damn good actress.

Now, Zoe Saldana has the potential to be a draw, but she's in the making. She's not at that level yet, depsite the movies she's been in, BUT she would be another good choice. Kate Beckingsale maybe a few years back would have been a decent choice too.

The bottom line..yeah, unless it's Julia Roberts, Jodie Foster (believe it or not), or Jolie, I can't think of anyone else at this point that have the same weight. (GRAVITY..IF YOU WILL)

 

[Laderlappen]

Salt : 244 Million
Wanted : 341 Million
Mr. And Mrs. Smith : 478 Million

even Changeling was able to double its 50 million dollar budget

The biggest movies by the maybe biggest female star on the planet, these numbers are really not that high considering. It has to be mentioned, this is world wide.

 

[Passdom]

I really hope the casting gets sorted out. This is by far one of my most anticipated movies

 

[Hunter Rider]

The biggest movies by the maybe biggest female star on the planet, these numbers are really not that high considering. It has to be mentioned, this is world wide.

The point is they are still very good numbers by the only woman that can open male audience aimed movies and all are in very easy to sell genres, this here is a tough sell even with a big star, without one it wont fly, hence why WB even went back and asked Jolie again.

 

[Laderlappen]

The point being missed except by Project is that whoever they cast whether it is male of female they are going to need to be a star draw because of the material invovled.

material and marketing is everything. If the movie isnt a money-maker, it doesnt matter much how famous the star is.

Personally I just hope Cuaron cast a great actress, and make it a great film. Thats the only things that matters to me.

 

[Hunter Rider]

material and marketing is everything. If the movie isnt a money-maker, it doesnt matter much how famous the star is.

Personally I just hope Cuaron cast a great actress, and make it a great film. Thats the only things that matters to me.

I don't think that is true, many movies that hit big wouldn't have if they didn't have a star draw.

I'm sure we all are but this discussion is about the studio and why they aren't keen to invest in a film of this type without someone who has proven bankable.

 

[Laderlappen]

The point is they are still very good numbers by the only woman that can open male audience aimed movies and all are in very easy to sell genres, this here is a tough sell even with a big star, without one it wont fly, hence why WB even went back and asked Jolie again.

I don think the numbers are bad. Im not saying that. These movies are the typical kind of movies that sell. I think if they would have cast any other star who would be somewhat belieavable in the role, it would have made just as much money are almost as much. I think Jolie's starpower has very little to do with it.

I don't think that is true, many movies that hit big wouldn't have if they didn't have a star draw.

Starpower is not nothing sure, but it is not near as important as what people think. Thats what Im trying to say. Just look at the all time box office list. Very little of these movies had big stars.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I don think the numbers are bad. Im not saying that. These movies are the typical kind of movies that sell. I think if they would have cast any other star who would be somewhat belieavable in the role, it would have made just as much money are almost as much. I think Jolie's starpower has very little to do with it.

That's just a guess though, at the end of the day there is no evidence of any other woman opening the types of films Jolie has and the list of failures that have tried is long. It's like in the 80's, there were tonnes of big muscly guys making dumb action films but none of them drew like Sly and Arnie b/c they had that x factor that drew in the audience.

Starpower is not nothing sure, but it is not near as important as what people think. Thats what Im trying to say. Just look at the all time box office list. Very little of these movies had big stars.

Yes and this is indicated in the pay cut deals some top stars are taking, however the films that have hit big like Twilight, Avatar, Transformers etc.. are ripe with marketable teenager aimed material, they appeal to the demo so strongly they can avoid casting big names, however what we are talking about here is a film that to many will sound like a total bore, and is far from having mainstream appeal, now if they were making it for $20M there'd be no issue, but they want to make a niche movie on a blockbuster budget, if you try that you need the insurance of a star because you don't have demo safety net.

 

[dark_b]

i disagree with the new article that Shia brings so many people in the theater.

its was f.... Indiana Jones and the other was a big robot named Optimus Prime who was owning metal junk.

 

[Hunter Rider]

i disagree with the new article that Shia brings so many people in the theater.

its was f.... Indiana Jones and the other was a big robot named Optimus Prime who was owning metal junk.

Shia's other movies have done well, like it or not the guy is popular.

 

[dark_b]

he is popular. i agree with this. and brings a lot of fun to hes characters. i am a small fan of NONONONONONONONONO

but some articles made it loosk like IJ and TF2 were popular because of SHia. like Will Smith movies. this is BS.

 

[Hunter Rider]

he is popular. i agree with this. and brings a lot of fun to hes characters. i am a small fan of NONONONONONONONONO

but some articles made it loosk like IJ and TF2 were popular because of SHia. like Will Smith movies. this is BS.

Not sure which article that was, the one I read was that his salary vs how much the movies he was in made, made him the most bang for your buck actor for studios, but that uses the TF box office lol, still Sam Jackson uses the Prequels to be the biggest box office star of all time. t:

 

[Laderlappen]

That's just a guess though, at the end of the day there is no evidence of any other woman opening the types of films Jolie has and the list of failures that have tried is long. It's like in the 80's, there were tonnes of big muscly guys making dumb action films but none of them drew like Sly and Arnie b/c they had that x factor that drew in the audience.




Yes and this is indicated in the pay cut deals some top stars are taking, however the films that have hit big like Twilight, Avatar, Transformers etc.. are ripe with marketable teenager aimed material, they appeal to the demo so strongly they can avoid casting big names, however what we are talking about here is a film that to many will sound like a total bore, and is far from having mainstream appeal, now if they were making it for $20M there'd be no issue, but they want to make a niche movie on a blockbuster budget, if you try that you need the insurance of a star because you don't have demo safety net.

It is just a guess yes, but no argument in this thread has been a fact. Thats why this is a neverending argument. What we agree on is that its not a typical boxoffice friendly movie and is likely to flop. What we disagree on is how important the starpower of the star is.

 

[dark_b]

still Sam Jackson uses the Prequels to be the biggest box office star of all time. t:

hehehehheheheh

 

[matrix_ghost]

Not sure which article that was, the one I read was that his salary vs how much the movies he was in made, made him the most bang for your buck actor for studios, but that uses the TF box office lol, still Sam Jackson uses the Prequels to be the biggest box office star of all time. t:

They also have Anne Hathaway up there as an actress who also performs well and they used Alice In Wonderland for the calculations
Seriously wtf. She wasn't even the main star

 

[Hunter Rider]

It is just a guess yes, but no argument in this thread has been a fact. Thats why this is a neverending argument. What we agree on is that its not a typical boxoffice friendly movie and is likely to flop. What we disagree on is how important the starpower of the star is.

The facts are in the numbers, Jolie has had hits in a genre other actresses have failed in, she is the only actress ever to have a male lead action role changed to a woman, and she's the one WB are desperate to get into this film. I don't think we disagree on star power at all, I think if the concept is richly marketable you can get away without star names, but if your movie is in a niche and you want to spend big money, you need a star name to make it viable.

 

[Electrix]

moon only made 9 million

sunshine made 32 million

space like movies have not made really huge bank

Those movies didn't make huge amounts of money because there were distributed by smaller studios and were given limited releases.

Star Trek did well.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Those movies were only given limited releases.

Star Trek did well.

You can't really compare Star Trek with those movies.
Star Trek is a wellknown brand like Star Wars . Granted it did suffer from nerd love which is why the last movie is a frikkin miracle for getting the general audience to watch a Star Trek movie.
But really you can't compare dramatic SCI-FI movies like Moon to escapist entertaiment like Star Trek.

 

[Hunter Rider]

They also have Anne Hathaway up there as an actress who also performs well and they used Alice In Wonderland for the calculations
Seriously wtf. She wasn't even the main star

It seems a pretty popular way of trying to make out someone is a star draw, like Tobey Maguire for instance.

 

[Project862006]

it does bank on the name do you honestly think i am legend would of made 585 million WW w/o will smith?

 

[Electrix]

You can't really compare Star Trek with those movies.
Star Trek is a wellknown brand like Star Wars . Granted it did suffer from nerd love which is why the last movie is a frikkin miracle for getting the general audience to watch a Star Trek movie.
But really you can't compare dramatic SCI-FI movies like Moon to escapist entertaiment like Star Trek.

I was just suggesting people aren't turned off by space movies. Moon and Sunshine were smaller films and didn't make lots of $$$ because of lack of marketing/distribution etc, not because people hate movies about space.

 

[matrix_ghost]

I was just suggesting people aren't turned off by space movies. Moon and Sunshine were smaller films and didn't make lots of $$$ because of lack of marketing/distribution etc, not because people hate movies about space.

Sunshine had bigger marketing then Moon but compared to blockbusters , yeah the marketing was lackluster. I haven't seen Moon though Sunshine just never would''ve been a big hit. It really was a drama movie and especially at the end i was like "where does this movie want to go ? SCI-FI , horror like Alien , pseudo mindrape like Solaris". It was a very confusing movie.

As for Gravity , have there been space movies that have succeeded at the BO lately ? I'm not talking about known brands like Star Wars or Star Trek. But movies about space in general.

Sunshine and Moon are recent examples. But there's also been Mission to Mars , Supernova , &red Planet.
To my knowledge the only one that succeeded at Apollo 13