Jeriosnal
-
Posts
75 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Jeriosnal
-
-
36 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:
i didn't say he needs to take risks i just said he doesn't take risks. AGAIN, i'm not managing his career here. just pointing it out.
What's an example of a risk someone took that you think won big? I'd like to examine that.
-
2 hours ago, CoolioD1 said:
the revenant's budget ballooned through reshoots tho it wasn't gonna be that big when he signed on and we'll just have to agree to disagree on the riskiness of Wolf. i just always see leo as an actor who plays it safe. none of his selections ever surprise me. i don't think any of those movies failing would hurt his station he's still exclusively working with the a-list filmmakers. like i said he doesn't have to change his methods it works for him but working with an up-and-comer, helping them get a bigger budget project funded w/ his star power, would be a genuine risk.
Where are these up and comers with ambitious projects worthy of turning down a Scorsese, Tarantino, Nolan, Spielberg, etc.? I don't understand this whole "taking risks" thing. Shouldn't career advancement be about appearing in the best stuff you can possibly get into? Why would you randomly eschew that to give some newbie director a bigger budget? Did they write the greatest script in cinema history or something? The reality of the industry is...there isn't much great talent around director-wise, so you have to fight for every opportunity, even as an A-lister. DiCaprio understood that from a young age, and didn't falter once he was a made man. Call that not taking risks, I call that being not a dumbass and possibly cultivating the most impressive career in the medium.
-
1
-
-
My local AMC only has two showtimes up so far (6:30pm and 10pm) on Friday and Saturday, so I bet lots of people haven't even bought their ticket yet because of weird stuff like that.
-
3 hours ago, Pure Spirit said:
I’ll try to help. Big business isn’t about being stoked about the contract they have, it’s about squeezing whatever profits they can without deviating from the corporate culture overtly. If execs at Disney believe they can win a concession from Cameron or make an example out of him, and it would make them more money in the short or long run, AND it is the type of thing they are known to do as part of their business culture (that’s the question mark for me) they’ll do it. It’s a constant battle. Having a contract is just the table stakes, big contracts are renegotiated all the time. So instead of looking at the contract in terms of “that’s a lot of money,” look at it as “is that the best Disney can do?” Personally, I think it is, but I wouldn’t put it past Disney to squeeze Cameron and block his re-releases to extract concessions.
Wouldn't Cameron just threaten to never work with them again? Literally, call them up and say "WB is getting my next multibillion dollar franchise."
-
Nope. Dwayne Johnson is a star, but a limited one who seems to only sell pre-existing IPs, or unmemorable trash. Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Will Smith, etc. have been in some bad movies, but they've also been in a number of major films. The Rock is about as close to the old school action stars as Kevin Hart is to Eddie Murphy, which is to say, not that close.
-
1
-
-
The Lion King should change its release date. Tarantino coming for Disney's wig.
-
4 hours ago, straggler said:
In that case it would likely have been subjected to the same critical shellacking.
How does this work again? If she is in a big hit she did not contribute in any way. If she is in a film that does better than should be expected under the circumstances-Passengers or RS, which will make more OS than Atomic Blonde made WW despite being "rotten" and a two and a half hour non-action film-she gets no credit. And if she delivers great performances in successive interesting films, so what? OK.
Why mention Atomic Blonde like Charlize Theron is a box-office juggernaut? She's not. She's virtually as unproven on her own as Lawrence is.
-
Basically she was falsely claimed to be a huge box-office draw on the basis of Hunger Games, X-Men, and O. Russell films, when none of the grosses for those movies had much to do with her. Now that she's trying to sell movies on her own name and they're not doing so great despite massive marketing budgets, she's been exposed the way Lawrence detractors predicted she would be when her fans were comparing her to actual box-office stars who'd been making hits for 25 years. Bravo to the PR agencies, but it was a con game.
-
Jennifer Lawrence stans seething.
-
Lawrence stays picking bad movies. Her fans are suckers!
-
$600 million worldwide. IT Pt. 2 better change dates.
-
2 hours ago, HesAPooka said:
She's worked with good directors and yet every time a new movie comes out the complaint is she doesn't suit the role. Other than Winters Bone, Hunger Games, and Silver Lining she's stuck out in her films in a negative way. Not a good thing.
That's the problem though, she hasn't really. O. Russell is easily the greatest director she's worked with and, lo and behold, he's the one most responsible for her career success. Aronofsky has always been erratic and was coming off of the lousy Noah. Ross and F. Lawrence are just journeymen capable of nothing great. Tyldum is a hack, despite IG getting Oscar noms. etc. If J-Law actually got the Spielberg movie happening and a QT film, her career would look very different right now to the average person despite her very limited talent.
-
5 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:
Days of Future Past was solid, Serena was shot way back in mid-2012, and mother! is better than everything Leo did in 1998-2001 combined (and even if you hate it, her commitment to that performance is self-evident, which should matter to the Hollywood execs and filmmakers who cast movies). The final two THG movies were successful and I don't really see them being widely derided. That just leaves Joy, Apocalypse, and Passengers, one of which got her another Oscar nod, and the other two made money and will hardly do her any harm.
In other words, it is what a career looks like. With its ups and downs. She is not in 2013 anymore, and she never could have been.
I'd argue that the film is worse than every movie Leo's ever done, including Critters 3.
-
3 hours ago, Valonqar said:
JLaw knows what she's doing. It'll all pay off in a long run. She's making a transition to adult roles. Can't play teens forever and she didn't take that route anyway (her roles in DOR movies were for older actresses). Leo did the same thing after Titanic and look at him now.
Working with Woody Allen, Randall Wallace, and Danny Boyle resulted in three movies with negative reviews, but is hardly as poor as Lawrence's 2014-2018, which is like if Leo made 6-7 movies as bad as The Man in the Iron Mask between Titanic and Gangs of New York.
-
Hunger Games making bank doesn't make you 90s Tom Cruise/Will Smith. Lesson learned.
-
It becomes more clear every day that Lawrence owes her career to O. Russell. It'll just keep tanking if she continues working with journeymen and scrubs. Saying she'd be smart to avoid a Tarantino movie is a damn joke.
-
It's fantastic this is flopping. Predictably, audiences aren't falling for PT's empty showmanship. If he ever writes a strong story again, he'll stop losing money.
-
Razzies screwed up by not nominating The Last Jedi.
-
1
-
-
One of the most shockingly stupid movies I have ever seen. And the dialogue? So bad it makes the prequels' look like Billy Wilder's work.
F
-
1
-
1
-
-
This will get a high per theater average when it opens limited, then flop hard in wider release. Bad cinemascore too. PTA officially the most overrated living director.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:
8/19 of her films have made less than Fracture, and here's what they were:
4 of these were small indies before THG
Winter's Bone was an indie film released in June to very few theaters that resulted in her first Oscar nomination
House at the End of the Street was a decent horror hit (largely thanks to Hunger Games afterglow)that came close to Fracture's total
mother! is a non-mainstream film that went wide
Serena was a piece of shit that no studio wanted, yet JLaw is still getting roles!
How many of her films grossed more than Fracture that weren't:
Pre-existing franchises like The Hunger Games or X-Men
O. Russell films after he started exploding with The Fighter
Sci-fi films with another fake A-lister that spent many times the budget of any of his films pre-Blade Runner 2049
I'll wait.
She's never proven herself the way even someone like Jeremy Renner has with Wind River or that crap Hansel and Gretel movie. It's always something that would make money without her, or something that doesn't make money with her. lol
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. La La Land was Gosling's first hit with him as a focal character since Crazy Stupid Love (he was hardly the focus of The Big Short), and only two of his films have made over 80M (three if you count CSL's adjusted total). Hell, Passengers made more than nearly all of his filmography.
Still, Fracture made more money than Lawrence's non-O. Russell/non-franchise films, and had no huge budget or marketing like Passengers. The misperception of her bankability is part of why her fans were so stunned at mother! being a big flop. They didn't listen when sage voices said that Hunger Games making money doesn't suddenly make her 90s Tom Cruise/Will Smith.
-
1
-
-
Do you guys think Jennifer's ever asked Emma Stone to put in a good word with Gosling to star with her so that she could have another box-office hit in a non-franchise?
-
1
-
-
Mendelson went out of his way to defend mother! like he invested money in it. Sad!
-
1
-
Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood | July 26 2019 | Digital Foot Technology | RIP Cinerama Dome
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
J-Law's brand is not excellence.