CoolioD1 Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 So what we're saying is, all actors are flops and shouldn't be trusted to be in movies and should all be replaced by cute little yellow CGI characters, right? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Well, Cry Baby was more mainstream than his trashier pre-1985 movies. He had some name recognition among critics. 76% on RT. Ebert giving it 3 out of 4 stars. It was not some obscure underground flick that critics snobbed or ignored to rediscover 20 years after. What I say is that Hemsworth doesn't have something as interesting as Cry Baby on his early resume to draw leggit comparison to Depp at the same point of their career. Cry Baby opened poorly and finished poorly. John Waters was always a cult director. This is the man who gave Divine her 15 minutes of fame. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Bachelor Party, Production budget = 6 million, U.S. Gross = 38.4 million The Money Pit, Production budget = 10 million, U.S. Gross = 37 million So why are they not hits, just because they didn’t make blockbuster numbers? Also A League of their own? He was already a hot commodity with movies like Big and Turner and Hooch prior to that film. He had a flop (Bonfire of the Vanities), and a disappointment prior to that (Joe Versus the Volcano), but Hanks was not washed up when he did a League of their own. You're forgetting PUNCHLINE, NOTHING IN COMMON, THE 'BURBS, MAN WITH ONE RED SHOE, none of which either made a lot or were critically acclaimed. In fact, they were not looked on favorably at all. But you're making my point for me. Someone can have a whole string of disappointments and middling hits and suddenly reinvent themselves (either in movies or now in TV as well). So again, it's way too early to write him or Collins off. And I say that without really caring about either of them at all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 So what we're saying is, all actors are flops and shouldn't be trusted to be in movies and should all be replaced by cute little yellow CGI characters, right? Coolio is a genius! We need more of this: I love them so much 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 And bonfire of the Vanities was not a flop, it was the John Carter of the late 80's 90's. It had a 47 million dollar budget, which was more than Batman, Last Crusade and Back to the Future 2. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fancyarcher Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 (edited) You're forgetting PUNCHLINE, NOTHING IN COMMON, THE 'BURBS, MAN WITH ONE RED SHOE, none of which either made a lot or were critically acclaimed. In fact, they were not looked on favorably at all. But you're making my point for me. Someone can have a whole string of disappointments and middling hits and suddenly reinvent themselves (either in movies or now in TV as well). So again, it's way too early to write him or Collins off. And I say that without really caring about either of them at all. The Burbs was at the top of the box office for two weekends. It was also released after Big, and Turner and Hooch, and helped to establish Hanks as a draw at the time (Ebert even pointed this out when he and Siskel reviewed the film a week after its release). Edited August 22, 2013 by Boxofficefanatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Cry Baby opened poorly and finished poorly. John Waters was always a cult director. This is the man who gave Divine her 15 minutes of fame. Where is the cult director on Hemsworth resume? Because Depp movies flopped but are rated good and still talked about whereas Hemsworth movies flopped but there's nothing at all to write about today, tomorrow, in 20 years from now. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Well, Cry Baby was more mainstream than his trashier pre-1985 movies. He had some name recognition among critics. 76% on RT. Ebert giving it 3 out of 4 stars. It was not some obscure underground flick that critics snobbed or ignored to rediscover 20 years after. What I say is that Hemsworth doesn't have something as interesting as Cry Baby on his early resume to draw leggit comparison to Depp at the same point of their career. C'mon man, you know better than to use RT for any pre-internet movie. CRY BABY was hammered by critics. It wasn't any sort of critical darling at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 C'mon man, you know better than to use RT for any pre-internet movie. CRY BABY was hammered by critics. It wasn't any sort of critical darling at all. Ebert didn't hammer it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 (edited) In other news Mortal Instruments is bombing over here (following every YA adaptation that opened here this year so far), Pain & Gain is also bombing (because we live in piracy's paradise) and Jobs is breaking out (I know, I am surprised too). Edited August 22, 2013 by CJohn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tawasal Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 I can't believe cairo and boxofficefanatic haven't given up yet and admitted that alot could happen with Liam's career even with such flop. It's not like it's going to kill you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fancyarcher Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 (edited) In other news Mortal Instruments is bombing over here (following every YA adaptation that opened here this year so far), Pain & Gain is also bombing (because we live in piracy's paradise) and Jobs is breaking out (I know, I am surprised too). How? Is Steve Jobs super famous in Portugal? Edited August 22, 2013 by Boxofficefanatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 All in all, there's no need to go compare to Depp and Hanks when Ryan Reynolds is a perfect actual exemple how flopping multiple times at BO as a lead does not end a career right away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tawasal Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Ebert didn't hammer it. The Burbs was at the top of the box office for two weekends. It was also released after Big, and Turner and Hooch, and helped to establish Hanks as a draw at the time (Ebert even pointed this out when he and Siskel reviewed the film a week after its release). I don't think you guys believe in what you are saying anymore. You just wanna keep the argument and debate going to just keep doing something other than ogling at threads and posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 The Burbs was at the top of the box office for two weekends. It was also released after Big, and Turner and Hooch, and helped to establish Hanks as a draw at the time (Ebert even pointed this out when he and Siskel reviewed the film a week after its release). I quote myself again: none of which either made a lot or were critically acclaimed. In fact, they were not looked on favorably at all. Besides which, an 11m OW was not exactly setting the house on fire, even back in '89 (though the movie was not a flop financially). If you want to try to establish some sort of solid hit, use DRAGNET. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fancyarcher Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 I can't believe cairo and boxofficefanatic haven't given up yet and admitted that alot could happen with Liam's career even with such flop. It's not like it's going to kill you. I already mentioned that Liam has a chance to become a successful actor, but that as far as I’m concerned he shows no such promise when he’s young. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tawasal Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 All in all, there's no need to go compare to Depp and Hanks when Ryan Reynolds is a perfect actual exemple how flopping multiple times at BO as a lead does not end a career right away. You just nailed this conversation to the ground. 1998 to 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Ebert didn't hammer it. No, but he's known for occasionally liking critically-reviled movies, especially camp/cult ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 All in all, there's no need to go compare to Depp and Hanks when Ryan Reynolds is a perfect actual exemple how flopping multiple times at BO as a lead does not end a career right away. Depp, Hanks and DiCaprio were worse off at the beginning of their careers than Hemsworth is in his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tawasal Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 I already mentioned that Liam has a chance to become a successful actor, but that as far as I’m concerned he shows no such promise when he’s young. If you did then it should be over with this, then why the hell are you still arguing with baumer and telenachos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
