RED SPARROW | 03.02.18 | Fox | Jennifer Lawrence

[trifle]

7 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Funny thing, Fox France is promoting the film like crazy on the biggest french  movie site Allociné.

Red Sparrow sponsored ads everywhere.

It was #1 in Germany for weeks, and is still going strong.  I can see why they'd hope for a repeat.

[ChrisTelclear]

8 hours ago, The Futurist said:

Funny thing, Fox France is promoting the film like crazy on the biggest french  movie site Allociné.

Red Sparrow sponsored ads everywhere.

Someone from France said the reviews for it are very good there, I'd expect it to do well.

[ChrisTelclear]

So since the thread has devolved into an "I don't like JLaw" thread, I'll try to explain what's going on with her.

 

Imagine, if you will, you're Jennifer Lawrence and you decided to take one of your friends out to dinner.  As you sit down you start to notice that everyone in the room is looking at you.  Next thing that happens is cell phones start to come out and they start taking your picture (how rude is that?!).  Then someone decides they are going to walk up and ask for a selfie, or autograph.

 

What do you do now?

 

In your mind she should smile pleasantly and give the fan what they want.  The problem with that is if she agrees she's now completely screwed.  Everyone sees that and what do you think happens next?  Yep, it's a stream of people wanting selfies, or whatever, from her.  She wouldn't even get to eat, or just enjoy a day out with her friend.

 

This is exactly what is happening to her, and the people who are bold enough to do that to a celeb in public are also the most difficult to deal with.  They believe it's their right to bother you, (like apparently many people here do), and they aren't going to go away quietly.  The shutdown needs to be emphatic.  I know from past statements that she's tried politely and quietly shooing them away and it didn't work, so she had to move to the next level and do it loudly and firmly to send a message to the room. 

 

She also said she's scared when people approach her in public, as I'm sure you can imagine some of these people are really creepy.

 

So why did she take the unusual step of stating this publicly? I'm assuming the problem must have reached epidemic proportions with her and she went to the nuclear option in an attempt to make it stop.  She was beyond caring what people thought anymore.  I believe her thinking here is if I say it most people will get it and not approach me in public, then I don't have to be put in that uncomfortable position.  She said herself she doesn't like being rude, that's not the way she was raised, she doesn't like having to do it. She's just trying to make it stop.

 

Was it a mistake?  Probably, since most people don't understand what it's like they just think she's being a jerk. Could it have been said better?  Yes, with an explanation like I've put here it might have been better understood. But she did it herself in her own clumsy way.  She doesn't have her publicists write her statements for her like most celebs, she does it all herself.  She's not very good at it sometimes, but I honestly think she's desperate.

 

This is not unusual behavior for a celebrity, the unusual part is that the celebrity stated it publicly.  The internet is littered with stories about celebs who refuse selfies, and are rude to fans.  Charlize Theron.  Are you not going to her movies anymore? Just curious.  Have you stopped going to Russell Crowe movies?  Tom Hardy? Christian Bale  No?  Why is that? These guys are assholes.  Does the "I'm not going to their movies" thing only extend to people who admit they are rude to fans?  You're putting expectations on her you're not putting on other actors or actresses.  Margot Robbie recently talked about how her life changed after Suicide Squad.  She had to hire security, she's had stalkers, she's been frightened, and she doesn't have near the fan base JLaw does.  At some point she's going to have to start sending people away too.

 

Look, like her, don't like her, don't go to her movies, whatever, that's your business. But are you really saying she doesn't have a right to get through dinner without being bothered?  Is she supposed to be a prisoner in her own house and never go out?  Is she supposed to feel scared all the time in public?  Just give this some thought.

 

 

[The Futurist]

Jlaw is just too honest for her own good and people don't know how to deal with this level of honesty because they rarely hear it from anybody.

[Lordmandeep]

I think a lot of people don't find anything special about JLAW these days as she is simply well rather overhyped these days.

 

In the past 4 years, her only performance of any note was in Joy. 

 

American Hustle and Silver Linings feel like a long time ago.

 

I am not arguing she is not talented and she is not a draw though.

 

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Lordmandeep

[ChrisTelclear]

11 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

I think a lot of people don't find anything special about JLAW these days as she is simply well rather overhyped these days.

 

In the past 4 years, her only performance of any note was in Joy. 

 

American Hustle and Silver Linings feel like a long time ago.

 

I am not arguing she is not talented and she is not a draw though.

 

 

If you mean "special" as in public perception, then I agree, the bloom is a bit off the rose there, but she was lauded by critics for her performance in mother!.  Some thought she deserved an Oscar nom, she won, placed, or was at least on the long list, for many critics end of year awards.  The movie was just too out there to get any awards traction.  I think this one qualifies as a performance of note.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alli]

9 minutes ago, ChrisTelclear said:

 Some thought she deserved an Oscar nom, she won, placed, or was at least on the long list, for many critics end of year awards.  The movie was just too out there to get any awards traction.  I think this one qualifies as a performance of note.

 

 

 

 

 

 

She'll always get Oscar attention/noms/wins. The Academy loves her. And i expect her Oscar bait movies to do well. Joy made more than Red sparrow. As long as she releases in December her oscar Bait movies she'll do good. she needs that "quality movie" hype

 

. I don't think she can sell a normal movie to the general public tho...to the not sophisticated public.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Alli

[The Futurist]

Jlaw s talent is once a generation.

Lessers be damned.

[rockNrollaDIM]

I still need to see this. 

[Firepower]

On 02.04.2018 at 3:27 PM, WrathOfHan said:

Lawrence took a paycut for mother!, so it wouldn't be surprising if she does another one for her next movie.

Maybe because Aronofsky was her boyfriend? You know, friends with benefits.

On 02.04.2018 at 3:31 PM, ChrisTelclear said:

We don't know what she really got for RS, it might have been $15M, we just don't know. But $20M was her quote at the time.

 

Like has been said, you're selling something that doesn't have a natural appeal to a large audience, a hard R slow burn spy thriller.  You need an A-List talent to even get it made, and to sell it.  Allied is the best example of the same type of movie, and RS has out performed it across the board, and that was with Brad Pitt as the lead.  You're going to probably pay at least $10M for a lead actress in this case.  Would $59M really have made this that much more profitable?  Would you have sold as many tickets without JLaw as the lead?  Probably not.  I'll bet with a less salable actress you wind up in the exact same place.

 

Let me put it this way, if you swapped Alicia Vikander and Jennifer Lawrence in their roles for RS and TR, what do you think would've happened?  I think we'd be looking at better box office for TR, and much lower for RS.  There's no comparison on the draw. For most people, prior to TR, she was "Alicia Who?".  

 

Then there's Passengers.  That thing had awful reviews, yet it managed to make a profit in theaters, although much less than originally hoped.  It's also done very well in the secondary market, just a bit under $18M.  That's very good by today's standards.  She, and Pratt, were worth every penny they paid them.  Because without them Passengers bombs at the box office and loses money.

 

I think the movie cost too much due to the location shooting.  If they had cut back, shot on some sound stages, maybe they could bring this in at $50M and they'd be looking at a small profit.

 

If you can't make your movie profitable, you're not worth 20 mln $. Period. JLaw is a great actress and maybe has some draw, but not enough to justifiy this kind of salary. She's not Jolie-level of draw at the peak of her career. There are many other great actresses with reasonable demands. And 40 mln $ version of Passengers with Keanu Reeves and Rachel McAdams would've made at least the same profit as JLaw-Pratt version, maybe even more with better movie.

17 hours ago, straggler said:

I think she earned her salary completely. There are things today that cannot be controlled, including the combination of snowflake film critics and the way RTs affects box office. Passengers made money despite being torpedoed by critics trying to kill the film. Maybe the studio was naive regarding Red Sparrow given the content and how the genre has performed. But RS will still make twice its budget and has outperformed every other film in the genre with the exception of GWTDT which had massive advantages. And Jlaw's performance was extraordinary.  

Do you realize that RS won't be profitable and studio will lose money? That means she didn't earn that paycheck, it's as simple as that. Passengers would have made at least the same profit with the original cast and budget.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Firepower

[misafeco]

2 hours ago, Firepower said:

Maybe because Aronofsky was her boyfriend? You know, friends with benefits.

If you can't make your movie profitable, you're not worth 20 mln $. Period. JLaw is a great actress and maybe has some draw, but not enough to justifiy this kind of salary. She's not Jolie-level of draw at the peak of her career. There are many other great actresses with reasonable demands. And 40 mln $ version of Passengers with Keanu Reeves and Rachel McAdams would've made at least the same profit as JLaw-Pratt version, maybe even more with better movie.

Do you realize that RS won't be profitable and studio will lose money? That means she didn't earn that paycheck, it's as simple as that. Passengers would have made at least the same profit with the original cast and budget.

So what? Should she give back the money to the studio? 

[WrathOfHan]

2 hours ago, Firepower said:

Maybe because Aronofsky was her boyfriend? You know, friends with benefits.

The didn't start dating until production wrapped.

[EmpireCity]

Wow you guys can be such fucking weirdos sometimes.  

[ChrisTelclear]

1 hour ago, Firepower said:

If you can't make your movie profitable, you're not worth 20 mln $. Period. JLaw is a great actress and maybe has some draw, but not enough to justifiy this kind of salary. She's not Jolie-level of draw at the peak of her career. There are many other great actresses with reasonable demands. And 40 mln $ version of Passengers with Keanu Reeves and Rachel McAdams would've made at least the same profit as JLaw-Pratt version, maybe even more with better movie.

Allied, slow burn spy thriller, meh reviews, a little more romantic, not as off-putting content, Brad Pitt as the lead.  It did worse than Red Sparrow, and RS isn't even done with its run.  It cost $85M to make, and I'm sure Pitt got at least $20M.    She basically just out drew Brad Pitt who is one of the biggest male leads on the planet. 

 

Also, Black Panther crushed everything at the box office the last month, and you have to take that into account since it impacted the entire domestic, and international, box office for the first three weeks RS was out. Every movie out during this period took a big hit.  Fox downgraded the OW from about $22M to the mid-teens based on the performance of BP. That's a big adjustment. 

 

Have you seen it?  Why do you think people showed up for it?  To see Joel Edgarton?

 

Did RS cost too much?  Yeah, I think it cost too much.  Should she have taken a little less upfront to ensure it would be profitable?  Maybe, but who knew it wouldn't get good reviews, and BP would devour everything in it's path?  Nobody. That's a gamble you always take.

 

Are they maybe overestimating her drawing power?  Maybe.  I think she's a bigger draw when she stays closer to her HG/DOR type movies than when she goes way out on a limb, but she still is able to draw an audience regardless, just maybe not as a big as they thought.   It's a riskier game now too, Rotten Tomatoes makes it very hard to sell anything new if it doesn't get good reviews.

 

I'm sure moving forward she's going to get less money for her projects, especially the riskier ones, and that's how it works, you get paid for what you produce.  But at the point she signed on the dotted line for Passengers and Red Sparrow her movies had done over $5 Billion, with a "B", at the box office and she was the biggest female star on the planet.

 

 

[HesAPooka]

4 hours ago, Alli said:

She'll always get Oscar attention/noms/wins. The Academy loves her. And i expect her Oscar bait movies to do well. Joy made more than Red sparrow. As long as she releases in December her oscar Bait movies she'll do good. she needs that "quality movie" hype

 

. I don't think she can sell a normal movie to the general public tho...to the not sophisticated public.

 

Because it had Bradley Cooper and Deniro. Lawrence is not a draw.

[AJG]

4 hours ago, The Futurist said:

Jlaw s talent is once a generation.

Lessers be damned.

 

Shes certainly no Brie Larson.... not even an Alicia Vickander.

[straggler]

5 hours ago, Firepower said:

Do you realize that RS won't be profitable and studio will lose money? That means she didn't earn that paycheck, it's as simple as that. Passengers would have made at least the same profit with the original cast and budget.

She gave a great performance, she is the main reason people are seeing the movie, she received excellent notices even from critics who did not like the movie and the film is doing quite well measured against other films in this genre and will continue to do well in the home market. I thought it was an exceptional film, but some things like the RT's scoring system and the way it tends to punish polarizing films are hard to control. But I guess my definition of earning a salary is broader than just the immediate box office receipts. You can argue that another lead actress would have been less expensive, but accounting for that, would the film do the same box office with the same reviews? 

 

How do you know Passengers would not have cost almost as much with a different cast? Let's assume it would have cost $90 million instead of $110. Are you really certain that it would have been just as profitable against those toxic reviews without Lawrence and Pratt? It is hypothetical but I have my doubts.  

Edited April 3, 2018 by straggler

[The Futurist]

We should vote.

 

Jlaw.

 

Yay

 

or

 

Nay

 

 

[TalismanRing]

27 minutes ago, straggler said:

She gave a great performance, she is the main reason people are seeing the movie, she received excellent notices even from critics who did not like the movie and the film is doing quite well measured against other films in this genre and will continue to do well in the home market. I thought it was an exceptional film, but some things like the RT's scoring system and the way it tends to punish polarizing films are hard to control. But I guess my definition of earning a salary is broader than just the immediate box office receipts. You can argue that another lead actress would have been less expensive, but accounting for that, would the film do the same box office with the same reviews? 

 

How do you know Passengers would not have cost almost as much with a different cast? Let's assume it would have cost $90 million instead of $110. Are you really certain that it would have been just as profitable against those toxic reviews without Lawrence and Pratt? It is hypothetical but I have my doubts.  

Passengers was budgeted at $30-40m when Reeves was attached.  It also would have been a different film since it was going to lean on the dark thriller aspect and we would have seen the male lead more slowly descend into madness before he woke Aurora who would have been introduced later in the movie (not possible with Lawrence starring at $20m).   With that tone they wouldn't have gone whole hog on the expensive sets.

[straggler]

40 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

Passengers was budgeted at $30-40m when Reeves was attached.  It also would have been a different film since it was going to lean on the dark thriller aspect and we would have seen the male lead more slowly descend into madness before he woke Aurora who would have been introduced later in the movie (not possible with Lawrence starring at $20m).   With that tone they wouldn't have gone whole hog on the expensive sets.

My understanding is that Reeves was attached in 2009 very early in the project. A Solaris like approach would have been interesting, but I think the story changed before Lawrence and Pratt came on board.