Wednesday Box Office - (Asgard pg 17) R1 about 15, Sing 11, Ass 4.5, Pass 4.1, Moana 2.2

[JennaJ]

8 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Also, of course the actress gets all of the backlash. Typical.

 

What about Chris Pratt? 2016 was supposed to be the year he solidified himself as a big star and that didn't quite pan out.

 

The posts people had here were not about her being the problem with the movie, though. Doesn't seem to me like they have anything in particular to do with Passengers, but with Jennifer's overall image and the way she is perceived.

 

I don't think either of them is to blame for this movie underperforming. It seems like the main issue causing bad reviews was the script, and the main thing preventing upfront demand was terrible marketing by Sony. Nowadays no movie star can sell a badly marketed turd (or perceived turd, can only go by reviews until I see it). To expect that of JLaw and Pratt would be unreasonable.

[Nova]

26 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Also, of course the actress gets all of the backlash. Typical.

 

What about Chris Pratt? 2016 was supposed to be the year he solidified himself as a big star and that didn't quite pan out.

We aren't talking about Chris Pratt because we aren't talking about Passengers specifically. Chris Pratt is a conversation for a whole other day and quite frankly I have no idea why Sony paid him as much as they did when besides his franchise films, he's had zero box office clout. 

 

The conversation is about JLaw and I think it's an important conversation to be had about how women not only in Hollywood but the work place in general are treated. We are specifically talking about Hollywood in this instance. It's a conversation that includes casting women that are too young for certain roles (which JLaw has been) and a conversation of equal pay.

 

The recent conversation has shifted as to how JLaw has been precieved by the public and industry in recent times. Jlaw got her equal pay but then stopped fighting for equal pay across the board which is what she originally claims she was fighting for. Essentially she becomes a "feminist" when it benefits her and then stops all together when it doesn't. At least that's the perception I've gotten from folks when they talk about her. *And please not this isn't exactly how I feel about her but rather an observation I've gotten from how others feel about her.* 

 

The only conversation that Pratt belongs in is the equal pay one but he got paid less for Passengers than JLaw so what are we going to be talking about in regards to him? 

 

Weve all agreed that the amount of money Sony gave both of them is way too much. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by Nova

[filmlover]

13 minutes ago, straggler said:

It would be helpful if you are going to critique an essy to actually bother reading it. You clearly never read it. It was an essay about different standards as applied to how men and women are expected to act in business, not about deserving more money. The whole point was that she did not fight for her market value because she did not think it would be socially acceptable. 

 

But this does show why I think she needs to avoid anything political at all. Because detractors don't care what you actually say, they will find a reason to resent you anyway. Actors are much more vulnerable than other entertainers because they depend on broad audience appeal. 

 

All the revisionism and goalpost moving when it comes to Lawrence and box office gets tedious. She powers the Hunger Games to heights beyond anyone's expectations where the entire show depends on her performance as Katniss, and now anyone could have done it, anyone could have made consecutive $400 million (US) grossing films (would have been three if Mockingjay wasn't split), anyone could have made the critics, who hate YA films generally, take notice and treat the films with respect. Right. And SLP, which had one of the coolest box office runs in recent years and was absolutely driven by the critical reception if her performance and WOM, had nothing to do with her. And American Hustle had nothing to do with her (she basically saved that movie). And DOFP becoming one of the greatest comic book films of all time had nothing to do with her. Etc. 

 

For a box office site the understanding of box office here is sometimes surreal. Point out another star that would have had more success in a film like Joy which did not get the reviews that are the lifeblood of an awards seeason film. It seems reasonable that if you talk about drawing power you make those comparisons. Jlaw literally carried that movie. Otherwise you get Our Brand is In Crisis. Joy was undone by its price tag, but still made money. 

 

Passengers is a misfire, but not because of her or Pratt. It needed a better script, director, marketing, release date. It happens. But haters hate. 

 

 

 

   

The weight of expectations for JLaw has come partially from how quickly she's risen to the top. At the beginning of the decade, hardly anyone knew who she was. Winter's Bone was the first time she actually caught anyone's attention. After that, her next movies were supporting roles in the blockbuster X-Men: First Class and a pair of indies (The Beaver, Like Crazy) in which she played love interest to Anton Yelchin (RIP). Then The Hunger Games came along and brought her worldwide exposure before Silver Linings Playbook would solidify her status as leading lady (although to be fair, she signed on for that movie well before The Hunger Games hit since she was an 11th hour replacement for Anne Hathaway). Passengers is her big star test since most of her movies (and biggest hits) since her Oscar glory have either been continuing to work with David O. Russell (American Hustle, Joy) or were contractual obligations (Hunger Games and X-Men sequels). But the lesson here is that starpower doesn't cut it in 2016 when you have a subpar movie on your hands.

[baumer]

In the grand scheme of things Jennifer Lawrence should have gotten paid a lot more for passengers and Chris Pratt did. Jennifer Lawrence, to her credit, has been in a lot of high grossing films over the last decade or so. So she got a big payday. Chris Pratt has been in two big grossing films and you can't really say either one of them were because of him. So I don't begrudge Jennifer Lawrence making her big bucks for passengers but at the same time like others have pointed out when you publicly come out and cry poor because you're not making 20 million and only 15 million, 99% of the people that are going to your movies are never going to see 15 million dollars in ten lifetimes. So you kind of alienate the people who have allowed you to have this wonderful life. And that's where the problem lies I guess.

[baumer]

But back to the numbers at hand. That's a great opening day for sing. It is obviously a film where the business is going to be spread out quite substantially over the next 3 weeks. The number for rogue one is also very good and although I'm not 100% convinced it will make 500 million it does look like it's trending that way. I'm personally disappointed in the number for passengers as I absolutely loved the film and it will probably make my top 20 of the year. But there's other inherent problems with the behind-the-scenes stuff and plus critical backlash which always bugs me, has killed it as well. Hopefully people do take time to go and see it over the holidays and discover how truly wonderful of a film it is.

[Nova]

1 minute ago, Christmas Baumer said:

In the grand scheme of things Jennifer Lawrence should have gotten paid a lot more for passengers and Chris Pratt did. Jennifer Lawrence, to her credit, has been in a lot of high grossing films over the last decade or so. So she got a big payday. Chris Pratt has been in two big grossing films and you can't really say either one of them were because of him. So I don't begrudge Jennifer Lawrence making her big bucks for passengers but at the same time like others have pointed out when you publicly come out and cry poor because you're not making 20 million and only 15 million, 99% of the people that are going to your movies are never going to see 15 million dollars in ten lifetimes. So you kind of alienate the people who have allowed you to have this wonderful life. And that's where the problem lies I guess.

Personally I think they were both overpaid for this particular film BUT JLaw deserves that check more than Chris Pratt does. His check is a complete mystery to me. 

[Beals]

Wait...did I just read that ”Jlaw” made DOFP one of the greatest films of all time and that she was what powered THG to high grosses? Ok. No wonder the socalled stans of this woman have such a bad rep...

I am sure that being based on a huge YA franchise at the height of the YA frenzy had nothing ro do with THG success, amd I am sure that the director, special effects, action scenes and most importantly, The Xmen/Marvel brand had nothing to do with DOFP success. Nope. It was all our dear lady of the buttscratching rocks.. *facepalm*

[filmlover]

Just now, Nova said:

Personally I think they were both overpaid for this particular film BUT JLaw deserves that check more than Chris Pratt does. His check is a complete mystery to me. 

Hollywood's desperate for new leading men. Chris Hemsworth got paid $10M each for Blackhat and In the Heart of the Sea and obviously isn't seeing those kinds of checks ever again.

[Nova]

1 minute ago, filmlover said:

Hollywood's desperate for new leading men. Chris Hemsworth got paid $10M each for Blackhat and In the Heart of the Sea and obviously isn't seeing those kinds of checks ever again.

LOL He did not?! 

 

*Goes and checks* 

 

OMG he did. Wow. Hollywood is desperate. Well damn. 

[JonathanLB]

I already had this debate with my sister over Hunger Games so I'm not doing it again but it's absolutely laughable to suggest she was responsible for the box office success of movies with such an enormous fan base already that they propelled the first movie to a $152M OW. She didn't create the success of Hunger Games any more than Daisy Ridley created TFA's success. If anything Hunger Games created her. There are a thousand other prettier actresses who would have done just fine with that material and been easier on the eyes frankly. The idea of paying her a bunch of money because she happened to be in a big franchise is absurd. Not to mention if she's so great at driving box office how come she looked so bored in those mailed-in shitty performances in the last two absolutely unwatchably garbage final 2 movies that lost a large chunk of the box office from Catching Fire? Oh it's because the source material sucked? Ok great so if the material is awesome we give JLaw credit and if it sucks then we don't blame her? Sorry can't have it both ways! Fucking hypocrisy right there.

[filmlover]

2 minutes ago, JonathanLB said:

I already had this debate with my sister over Hunger Games so I'm not doing it again but it's absolutely laughable to suggest she was responsible for the box office success of movies with such an enormous fan base already that they propelled the first movie to a $152M OW. She didn't create the success of Hunger Games any more than Daisy Ridley created TFA's success. If anything Hunger Games created her. There are a thousand other prettier actresses who would have done just fine with that material and been easier on the eyes frankly. The idea of paying her a bunch of money because she happened to be in a big franchise is absurd. Not to mention if she's so great at driving box office how come she looked so bored in those mailed-in shitty performances in the last two absolutely unwatchably garbage final 2 movies that lost a large chunk of the box office from Catching Fire? Oh it's because the source material sucked? Ok great so if the material is awesome we give JLaw credit and if it sucks then we don't blame her? Sorry can't have it both ways! Fucking hypocrisy right there.

[Beals]

1 minute ago, JonathanLB said:

I already had this debate with my sister over Hunger Games so I'm not doing it again but it's absolutely laughable to suggest she was responsible for the box office success of movies with such an enormous fan base already that they propelled the first movie to a $152M OW. She didn't create the success of Hunger Games any more than Daisy Ridley created TFA's success. If anything Hunger Games created her. There are a thousand other prettier actresses who would have done just fine with that material and been easier on the eyes frankly. The idea of paying her a bunch of money because she happened to be in a big franchise is absurd. Not to mention if she's so great at driving box office how come she looked so bored in those mailed-in shitty performances in the last two absolutely unwatchably garbage final 2 movies that lost a large chunk of the box office from Catching Fire? Oh it's because the source material sucked? Ok great so if the material is awesome we give JLaw credit and if it sucks then we don't blame her? Sorry can't have it both ways! Fucking hypocrisy right there.

 

The film is a huge hit? iT's all thanks to her presence.

The film flops? It's the release date, the dumping the film in few theaters, the marketing, the weather, the material blablablah.

Same bs all the time.

If she is held responsible for the hits, then she can be blamed for the flop turds like Serena, the crappy thriller about that house on that street, and the crappy, anything but joyful joy.

 

 

[baumer]

It's kind of hard to blame anybody except for the studio for Serena. That film wasn't even released. I mean okay it was released in like three or four theaters with no marketing behind it LOL

[JonathanLB]

3 minutes ago, Beals said:

 

The film is a huge hit? iT's all thanks to her presence.

The film flops? It's the release date, the dumping the film in few theaters, the marketing, the weather, the material blablablah.

Same bs all the time.

If she is held responsible for the hits, then she can be blamed for the flop turds like Serena, the crappy thriller about that house on that street, and the crappy, anything but joyful joy.

 

 

 

Amen! Couldn't have said it better. Joy was blah. Not awful but I wasn't feeling much joy towards it. It just seems odd to me to credit an actor with the success of well known brands or franchises with big fan bases. I'll give her some credit happily but not half and not 100%.

[Nova]

I can't take anyone serious who thinks that JLaw is the reason why the Hunger Games were a box office success because the first hunger games opened to $152M. If we all agree that she wasn't household name up until that point then why oh why would she be responsible for the film opening to $152M? 

 

You can argue that from a critical standpoint she's the reason why the film got good reviews but she wasn't the reason why the film did what it did from a box office standpoint. That's like someone arguing that Daisey Ridley is the reason why TFA and now Rogue One made as much money as it has. Sure she's a part of it but she's not the reason. 

 

[JohnnyGossamer]

4 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

If you've seen DDL in My Left Foot, Redmayne in TTOE is simply reductive. 

Insert Michael Keaton "Fuck yeah!" vine after Spotlight won Best Picture. As to say, Keaton agrees and should've won for Birdman.

[Lordmandeep]

The hunger games was successfully due to the concept of the actual games.

 

Once the games was taken out the sequels collapsed in box office.

 

Also I think unless your RDJ playing games iron man no actor should be 15 to 20 million for a role.

 

I think a small upfront and bigger back end deal would also put some pressure on actors to help sell a film or ensure to put a maximum effort in it...thinking from a studio point if view.

[JonathanLB]

Exactly it's an asinine argument showing zero box office knowledge or film knowledge and coming in a post saying how other posters here are clueless about the box office? Look in the mirror dude. Yeah some chick who had been in nothing significant was the reason for a $152M OW. Ok. And yeah 90% of audiences check RT before heading to the movies; that's why the Oscar nominees always gross the most money and why Transformers 2 was such a massive flop. Wait... nm.

[misafeco]

JLaw talk again?

 

[Nova]

2 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

The hunger games was successfully due to the concept of the actual games.

 

Once the games was taken out the sequels collapsed in box office.

 

Also I think unless your RDJ playing games iron man no actor should be 15 to 20 million for a role.

 

I think a small upfront and bigger back end deal would also put some pressure on actors to help sell a film or ensure to put a maximum effort in it...thinking from a studio point if view.

Small upfront and big back end deal is what Ryan Reynolds got for Deadpool. I think it's the best case personally for all parties involved. Because then as an actor however successful your movie is at the box office you get a slice of the pie. And if it fails at the box office no one talks about how you didn't earn your check or whatever.