1 2 3 4 5
I have a Yahoo group with hundreds of writers from ... URL I can post, but I have plenty of it.

I can't begin to compete with your status in the movie/publishing worlds, but it does genuinely surprise me that you've encountered widespread audience opinion that people avoid movies because the star's off-screen shenanigans have been loathsome.

Well, why would it serve me to make it up? I'm used to putting things in print years in advance of other folks saying so.

But Hollywood goes through regular cycles like this. I'm sure you know about Fatty Arbuckle, biggest star in Hollywood during the silents at one point, accused of murder, acquitted, but he was dead at the box office. The reason it happens a lot these days is the blogs like Drudge; the TV tabloids follow him and PerezHilton and others slavishly and word gets around fast.
I stayed away from Russell Crowe movies after his hotel ... not, as most do) who feels differently than I do.

Perhaps I misread it but are you saying everyone you know has sworn abstinence from Crowe/Cruise movies because of those actors' behaviour?

Everyone I know is pretty large. I know some people who have differing opinions but the majority of folks I hear from - particularly the hundreds of writers on my Yahoo group - get fed up with stars who behave outrageously and say so. Russell Crowe's latest bomb is a comedy whose trailer didn't look bad, but I think people in general just have a bad taste for a guy who throws a telephone at a lowly hotel clerk over not getting a call through long distance.
Having seen some of these films (at full price) - the ones I saw deserved to flop. But it should also be noted that even though these films flopped (many were supposed to be hits) 2006 managed to be a good year for box office. That 2005 slump is over! The audience came to see the other movies.
All the King's Men

Haven't seen it. Wasn't out long enough, and got terrible reviews. The bad buzz wasn't about the release delays, it was from the folks who saw it at film festivals. But even if it had gotten great reviews - it was a bone they threw to Zaillian, not a film that anyone thought would make any money.
Basic Instinct 2

Yikes! As I said when the film came out, I wish Stone had killed *me* so that I wouldn't have had to watch any more of the film. When people in the cinema are poking their own eyes out with soda straws, you know it's a bad movie...
Flushed Away

Title kept me away... and we just had too many animated films with cute animals.
Flyboys

Took Devlin forever to get this off the ground... and that should have been a hint. Sold as a war film - and never sold me on the excitement of bi-wing planes. I was going to see it... but just never got around to it.
The Fountain pic proved too complex for auds and crix alike

I'm sorry, but "complex" is a good thing... unless it's a codeword for confusing and unfocused. This looked like a mess from the trailer - 3 stories, 3 time periods, and the throughline is some dude trying to find a cure for a disease? That spells boring to me. I think Aaronofsky is really overrated... and he keeps making career mistakes like turning down big commercial films like BATMAN BEGINS to make films like this.
Freedomland

Has Joe Roth ever made a film that people paid to see? Add to that - this is not a commercial project, so when it makes $12 million... that's to be expected.
A Good Year

Again - not a commercial project. A vanity film for star and director. When they say that it "failed to reach a broad audience" I wonder if there was ever anyone in the biz who thought it had a chance in hell of reaching a broad audience?
Lady in the Water

Night is also overrated - coasting on one film, and those fumes is gone. Paid full price, and wish I had my time back. Again - a troubled project... so why didn't anyone pay attention to that? I think he can direct, but can't write his way out of a paper bag.
Poseidon

Another film I paid full price for - and it has to be one of the worst written disaster movies ever! Everyplace it could go wrong, it did go wrong. The original was cheese, but it also worked. Just look atone small aspect: Original lead was a priest who had stopped believing in God, Remake lead was the Mayor of NYC with a teenaged daughter. Which of those is the more interesting character? Which is a character? Kurt Russell couldn't make this guy 3D!
The Wicker Man

Again - we have the art house director who hasn't got a clue how to make a genre film given both writing and directing duties. Mistake. I didn't think there was any way to remake this film... hey, there wasn't! Male virgin... with a daughter? I just skipped it, because it got crappy reviews and the trailer didn't look good. The valuable lesson that can be learned from this film - let the genre experts make the genre movies.
Poseiden was the only film on this list that was a true flop - everything else was someone's ego getting in the way of their common sense.
- Bill
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
All the King's Men Domestic gross: $7 million When it comes to winning formulas, "King's Men" had it all: an all-star cast (Sean Penn

I wonder who the target demo for Sean Penn is. Who likes this guy, besides critics? IMO, he's not handsome, he doesn't have charisma, he doesn't seem to be a "man's man," nothing.
As far as "All the King's Men," Penn was too young and obscure for the older audiences who might have been interested in the story that inspired the film. He's also too old and obscure for the younger audiences who've never heard of the story behind the film. Why would he be expected to open a movie?
Lois
The trades can't ever take into consideration a major reason the majority of the public doesn't see certain films - ... to Tom Cruise. The trades can't really talk about that much because their reporters want access to those same stars.

I really think those movies would have failed anyway regardless of the stars' alleged bad behaviour, and I really don't believe the alleged (and not necessarily illegal) behavior of total strangers is much of any sane reason to do anything, let alone stay home.
Basic Instinct 2 was rubbish and even if it hadn't been, it was left far too long after the original. Though it used the themes from the original, even the score is uninteresting. The remake of The Wicker Man was utter, utter rubbish and one of the worst films of the year; it just plain didn't deserve to make money. Cage should be ashamed of himself, but not for being weird and considering a switch in religion. For making a crap film that defiles a fine original.
Lady in the Water I liked. Not perfect, but I enjoyed it: it was unusual and MNS isn't afraid to nail the camera to the floor and film a three-minute scene in one shot. I like that far more than the Tony Scott four-shots-to-the-second hyper-edit migraine technique he used in Domino. I suspect people avoided it because they didn't like the last one or two MNS films, and lukewarm reviews.
I passed on A Good Year because I don't really like Ridley Scott and it's a PG-rated gentle comedy. There's really nothing for me there. But if Crowe does a crime thriller or a SF movie or a horror movie - or if Ridley Scott does them - I'll go. Scott did Alien and Blade Runner which were great films, and I enjoyed Black Rain. But I've not really cared for his films since; Gladiator was okay and great to look at but I've no desire to see it ever again.
I missed All The King's Men simply because they didn't bother releasing it anywhere near me. But I'd have gone to see it anyway. I know Penn's politically on the left and I really don't care; it's just not something I can use to justify boycotting a movie. Maybe he does come across as a babbling idiot in interviews (on a TV show not screened in the UK so I've no idea what this particular instance was all about) - hell, maybe he is just a babbling idiot. But from what I've read, ATKM had enough problems (some of which were discussed at length on mswm, I believe - about the most interesting characters being the peripheral ones) to damage it when it finally came out.
Mission Impossible 3 was fun. I think it's better than the second one, and I had a good time watching it. It really doesn't bother me that Cruise jumped on a sofa somewhere and insulted Brooke Shields. Really, who cares? If MI3 failed, it's probably because they spent so much on the damn thing that it couldn't possibly make its money back unless everyone on the face of the earth went to see it four times.
I'm really looking forward to Mel Gibson's Apocalypto. Maybe it'll fail - but I really doubt that would be because of his drunken ramblings. Certainly at least some of the reviews seem to be in favour.

I really think that if the stars do anything to genuinely *** off the paying public, it's got to be something big enough to destroy their careers, like murder or child molesting. The IMDb has no listing for anything after
1994 for OJ Simpson.

Hercule Platini
I really think that if the stars do anything to genuinely *** off the paying public, it's got to be something big enough to destroy their careers, like murder or child molesting. The IMDb has no listing for anything after 1994 for OJ Simpson.

There are two schools of thought, apparently.
1: If a movie star behaves badly I won't go and see any more of his films.
2: If a movie star behaves badly, I'll let his film stand or fall on its own merits.
The problem with School 1 is that if you have a very narrow definition of bad behavior, you're left with just about nothing to go and see.

What would Borat do?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
But Hollywood goes through regular cycles like this. I'm sure ... and PerezHilton and others slavishly and word gets around fast.

I don't think that's the same at all. He was accused of murder. If it had been slapping a photographer ... claret one night, it probably wouldn't have mattered. It certainly wouldn't now - it's a different world 80 years on.

And what do we make of Roman Polanski? I do understand why some people boycott his films. Not only did he *** an underage girl, he skipped town and to all intents and purposes got away with it with no detriment to his career.
Apparently (unless I'm totally mistaken) the girl now a middle-aged woman has basically said it didn't bother her then and it doesn't bother her now. That's not why I continue to go to his movies. I go because they're good.
As for politics, well I dunno. I still like Wagner and he was a rabid antisemite. Leni Riefenstahl was totally in with Hitler and his gang but she made fine films. I'm not a fan of the Republican party but I don't have a problem seeing films made by and with Hollywood's right-wingers because of that.
The mileage of others caries widely.

What would Borat do?
The mileage of others caries widely.

And varies.

What would Borat do?
I don't think that's the same at all. He was ... wouldn't now - it's a different world 80 years on.

And what do we make of Roman Polanski? I do understand why some people boycott his films. Not only did ... have a problem seeing films made by and with Hollywood's right-wingers because of that. The mileage of others caries widely.

You're both wildly missing the point.
It has nothing to do with what YOU think.
It has to do with what the mass of moviegoers think, and they don't think like you do. Bad behavior gets punished at the box office by the majority of North Americans. It might take a while, but accumulated bad behavior - which might not matter for music fans - is punished at the box office. Christian Slater, anyone?
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Ok - what's the role of the screenwriter(s) in a flop?

Damn good question.
They are often completely rewritten.
I once saw a tape of a TV show that bore my name, and I doubt if more tha 20 words I wrote were on the screen.
Do they get a free pass?

Unfortunately no. But... memories are short. The best strategy is to be working on the next project before the flop is released.

If you can.

What would Borat do?
Show more