A QUIET PLACE | 04.06.18 | Paramount | supernatural horror film

[ChipDerby]

16 hours ago, Water Bottle said:

 

There's only one thing that I thought they were stupid for.

 

 

  Hide contents

That is their decision to keep the baby.

 

 

I'd think there are a few things with this...

 

Spoiler

One is... it was probably a very emotional reason. They had recently lost a child, I doubt losing another one would be easy.

 

Two is... I would think it would be VERY dangerous to try an abortion. And, they had 8-9 months to plan ahead, and they did a pretty decent job of it, imo.

 

[AndyK]

So, on Saturday, I went to the cinema and watched "A quite Place" and listened to "Infinity War".

 

 

[AndyK]

The one problem I had with the movie ending....

 

Spoiler

She shot the creature with the gun, doesn't that negate the threat from them ?. An army would wipe them out.

 

[WrathOfHan]

22 minutes ago, AndyK said:

The one problem I had with the movie ending....

 

  Hide contents

She shot the creature with the gun, doesn't that negate the threat from them ?. An army would wipe them out.

 

Spoiler

It's implied that the creatures need to be vulnerable to die. The loud frequency caused its skin to go crazy.

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by WrathOfHan

[TombRaider]

I wonder how much money john-emily got for this considering he directed it? the budget says 17m and made 312m. it'd suck if they only got 5m or so between both

Edited May 28, 2018 by TombRaider

[Barnack]

4 minutes ago, TombRaider said:

I wonder how much money john-emily got for this considering he directed it? the budget says 17m and made 312m. it'd suck if they only got 5m or so between both

People with key role on a movie (director, writer, lead) tend to have back end points and for each jobs, known name pretty much always do, the movie does not seem to have been pre-sold much, so they almost certainly made a nice fortune:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=aquietplace.htm

 

 

 

[TombRaider]

3 minutes ago, Barnack said:

People with key role on a movie (director, writer, lead) tend to have back end points and for each jobs, known name pretty much always do, the movie does not seem to have been pre-sold much, so they almost certainly made a nice fortune:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=aquietplace.htm

 

 

 

Yeah I think it should always be about that. Salaries should depend on the box office #s

[Barnack]

4 minutes ago, TombRaider said:

Yeah I think it should always be about that. Salaries should depend on the box office #s

They always do on large number I think (maybe for some exceptional MCU/Star wars case) but certainly outside the franchise world no one ever made just a million, there is always a performance bonus in place, for writers, producers, directors and actors at least.

[Jay Beezy]

2 hours ago, TombRaider said:

Yeah I think it should always be about that. Salaries should depend on the box office #s

I'd argue that all star salaries need to never go to eight digits. It feels like an unnecessary cost especially when three payments of seven digits is enough to retire on.

[TombRaider]

1 hour ago, Jay Beezy said:

I'd argue that all star salaries need to never go to eight digits. It feels like an unnecessary cost especially when three payments of seven digits is enough to retire on.

it's crazy how back then (not sure now) people got huge salaries after just a hit movie. like lindsay lohan got 7,5 million for that flop Herbie after mean girls? some studios make some dumb decisions

Edited May 29, 2018 by TombRaider

[Barnack]

37 minutes ago, TombRaider said:

it's crazy how back then (not sure now) people got huge salaries after just a hit movie. like lindsay lohan got 7,5 million for that flop Herbie after mean girls? some studios make some dumb decisions

That a strange example, that was after Parent Traps, Freaky Friday, Mean Girls 3 giant hits and a 100% batting average (and some form of TV career for kids ?).

 

And Herbie was a big success, accepting to pay 7.5M sound like an easy no brainer.

 

Studio's does not make many dump decision (without the benefit of hindsight).

 

2 hours ago, Jay Beezy said:

I'd argue that all star salaries need to never go to eight digits. It feels like an unnecessary cost especially when three payments of seven digits is enough to retire on.

I imagine Dwayne Johnson would be tempted to take a loan / co-investor himself and keep all the money while risking not making any instead of taking that deal.

 

[eddyxx]

I went with my female friend to see this 2 weeks ago. I didn't tell her anything about the movie as I too didn't know much about the plot other than a SNL sketch I saw and that the movie had rave reviews online so I was eager to finally see it. Well she ended up hating the ending but I liked the movie well enough lol

Edited May 29, 2018 by eddyxx

[Jay Beezy]

On 5/28/2018 at 9:14 PM, Barnack said:

I imagine Dwayne Johnson would be tempted to take a loan / co-investor himself and keep all the money while risking not making any instead of taking that deal.

 

That sort of mentality bit Adam Sandler in the ass and the same can happen to him. Gravity pulls you down eventually. Baywatch cost 69M but it looks cheaper than that because about a third of that went to the Rock’s salary.

[Barnack]

45 minutes ago, Jay Beezy said:

That sort of mentality bit Adam Sandler in the ass and the same can happen to him. Gravity pulls you down eventually. Baywatch cost 69M but it looks cheaper than that because about a third of that went to the Rock’s salary.

Sandler is a good example of that, developing/making/producing the movie himself and selling them at a huge blackbox price to a studio instead of being paid a salary by someone.

 

Cruise, DiCaprio, Walhberg lot of them have their own production company being involved in what they do and could probably decide to do like Sandler if they were offered a very low pay cap.

 

It can bit you in the ass sure but that was not your or my point I think.

 

You statement if I resume it correctly was not just a moral one, but I took it:

 

Studio should refuse to a compensation deal that would ever gave more than 9.5m to an actor, would it be Bullock in Gravity, Depp returning for a pirate sequel or Johnson/DiCaprio next project.

 

My point is those actor does not have to do a studio financed movie were they are simply paid employee if the deal is not good enough, a studio need to buy their participation in there project with in competition everyone else that would accept to finance that actor project. The decision is not between paying them less than 10m or more, it is doing movie involving them or not, if they could pay them less I imagine they would.

[TombRaider]

sandler was way past his prime when he started doing that

[Barnack]

3 minutes ago, TombRaider said:

sandler was way past his prime when he started doing that

Happy Madison was funded in 1999, just after is crazy 1998 year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Madison_Productions

 

Not sure what is your point exactly, if you get the 20m+ first dollar gross and creative freedom without having to do this, why would you take any risk or do any extra work ?

 

My suggestion is that if studio refuse to pay you, you can make the movie outside the studio system, even if the 6 studio collude and say ok we all stop to pay them more than 10m ever including bonus on a movie like suggested.

[Jay Beezy]

2 hours ago, Barnack said:

Sandler is a good example of that, developing/making/producing the movie himself and selling them at a huge blackbox price to a studio instead of being paid a salary by someone.

 

Cruise, DiCaprio, Walhberg lot of them have their own production company being involved in what they do and could probably decide to do like Sandler if they were offered a very low pay cap.

 

It can bit you in the ass sure but that was not your or my point I think.

 

You statement if I resume it correctly was not just a moral one, but I took it:

 

Studio should refuse to a compensation deal that would ever gave more than 9.5m to an actor, would it be Bullock in Gravity, Depp returning for a pirate sequel or Johnson/DiCaprio next project.

 

My point is those actor does not have to do a studio financed movie were they are simply paid employee if the deal is not good enough, a studio need to buy their participation in there project with in competition everyone else that would accept to finance that actor project. The decision is not between paying them less than 10m or more, it is doing movie involving them or not, if they could pay them less I imagine they would.

I’m not saying the studio should refuse to pay more. I’m saying the star should accept to be paid less.

 

For a movie that cost 69M, no one person should have been paid 20M. That’s before you ask about Zac Efron’s pay. I’m also morbidly curious about Priyanka Chopra’s pay for playing the villain because no one should be getting significant pay for a villain in a Baywatch movie.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Jay Beezy

[Barnack]

Well that a valid opinion and for many project they actually do.

 

But Baywatch is a pure cash grab, everyone working on that should try to be paid as much as they could no ? Hard to imagine any arguments why not. Why not accept what investor are ready to pay ?

 

The movie probably cost something around 85-95M to finish with that $69m net cost, Florida and specially Georgia having a very generous tax credit program.

 

For that specific example why would Johnson should not have been paid 20M, do you think the movie does not do 25-30m less than that 177M without him almost for sure ? They were probably really happy to have paid him and have is presence save it and turned it into a nice over 2.5x it's budget at that box office, instead of a 55m movie doing 120-150m with someone else.

[Jay Beezy]

16 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Well that a valid opinion and for many project they actually do.

 

But Baywatch is a pure cash grab, everyone working on that should try to be paid as much as they could no ? Hard to imagine any arguments why not. Why not accept what investor are ready to pay ?

 

The movie probably cost something around 85-95M to finish with that $69m net cost, Florida and specially Georgia having a very generous tax credit program.

 

For that specific example why would Johnson should not have been paid 20M, do you think the movie does not do 25-30m less than that 177M without him almost for sure ? They were probably really happy to have paid him and have is presence save it and turned it into a nice over 2.5x it's budget at that box office, instead of a 55m movie doing 120-150m with someone else.

A budget number means different things depending on how it’s allocated. And cutting 20M in half still gets him to 8 digits, albeit gross pay. He’s already rich. He shouldn’t have been paid 20M because he usually doesn’t tread in R-rated territory. And the movie was pitched as something with certain expectations that it didn’t deliver on, i.e. a 21 Jump Street approach. Not to mention the ensemble approach it needed.

 

Perhaps a better example would be Johnny Depp who was still demanding sizable paychecks despite the numerous flops.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Jay Beezy

[Barnack]

9 minutes ago, Jay Beezy said:

He shouldn’t have been paid 20M because he usually doesn’t tread in R-rated territory.

How much do you think that movie with a unknown lead would have done WW (or somewhat known but accept to do pure cash grab movie with no artistic anything for 500k or less) ?

Edited May 30, 2018 by Barnack