Tuesday
30Jun2009
Fox Tapping the Brakes on Tony Scott's 'Unstoppable'
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 11:57AM
It has taken a little while longer than expected for us to really see the financial impact of the writers' strike and the troubled economy on Hollywood. The movies, on the whole, are performing at a similar pace when compared to previous years, but in many cases it's not the traditional blockbusters but rather films like Taken, Paul Blart, and The Hangover that are saving the industry. In fact, those three films and Fast and Furious account for more than one dollar in every nine spent at the movies this year.
Colin Boyd | Permalink | in Chris Pine, Denzel Washington, Fox, Tony Scott | Print Article | Email Article | 7 Comments | Share Article
Reader Comments (7)
It's plainly ridiculous when some of the best people in the business can't get a job.
Shows you how much the studio execs know and how they are really worth THEIR pay.
Still, smaller budgets mean more focus on ideas and less fear of risks, so us audiences may be the winners in the end.
Once the dust settles.
WOW WOW WOW WOW!
This sucks!
I was looking forward to the duo working together and seeing their chemistry, if any, and see if CHRIS PINE can actually act, let alone go toe to toe with the mighty Denzel Washington!
-should note, Pelham should not have cost sooo much money, I mean when I read it was that expensive I was quite surprised given the film and the plot and all that jazz...
-come one Colin go easy on Denzel he's great and kicks all these "new generation" actors out of the park, but he maybe losing some traction in recent years so indeed you are right even though I hate to admit Denzel is losing fans, he needs an Oscar worthy script or something of greater substance for us to see
Jeez Colin, your insight and knowlegde and opinions are really insightful I mean shit how the hell are you not a studio exec or something because the points you make are really crazy!
Ridiculous budgets are usually the result of ridiculous actor salaries. It didn't help Angels & Demons or Pelham. When was the last time an actor was paid lots of cash and then was the main reason that a film made money?
Maybe studios are finally asking where all the money is going.
Well, actors are a commodity, as any. The vast movie-going public does not choose to see a film because of the producer, director, screenwriter, director of photography or production designer. It chooses actors it likes. It's what makes money for studios and it's only fair that the studios pay for this commodity.
Denzel is a decent actor but he is not very versatile and his star appeal has vaned quite a bit. The problem with Denzel is that he always tries to be likeable and there is no depth to his characters. In American Gangster he was just a nice man, who happened to run drugs and shoot people in order to look after his mum better...
Still, he was really good - and had some edge - in Man on Fire, which I think is an overlooked and underrated film
It's interesting that you bring up the salaries in relation to how much a movie makes. Every year, Forbes knocks out a list of who the best bang for the buck performers are. In the past few years, it's Matt Damon and Vince Vaughn by a mile. Will Ferrell is among the worst investments, along with Nicole Kidman. I don't remember where Denzel is off the top of my head, but I think he'd take less. Not half his salary, but less.
As for Tom Hanks in Angels & Demons, Sony knew when they made that deal - reportedly $35 million upfront or something like that - that the movie would do better overseas, so the $125 million it made in the U.S. is actually OK for what they were trying to accomplish.
The Forbes Ultimate Star Payback list is quite funny but it shouldn't be taken too literally.
Basically, Forbes just look at the three last movies (within the last five years) of each star on the list and calculate a fictitious gross income based on sales and divide it by the lead stars' salaries.
This means that the list will be topped by those who starred in the biggest box office successes in the last few years. This year's list could be topped by Christian Bale, for instance.
Also, chosing a star low on the list, such as Nicole Kidman, does not mean that a film will fare badly. On the contrary, Nicole Kidman seems to have deliberately chosen to do serious roles in smaller movies, which means that she won't be able to compete with blockbuster actors.
So the Forbes list is just a way of telling us who starred in the biggest box office hits during the last few years.
According to Forbes 2008, Denzel Washington's movies made almost 8 dollars for each dollar that he was paid, which is still pretty good, although a historic record by now. He was number 16 on the list, just ahead of Jolie, Crowe, Depp and Smith.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/22/star-salary-roi-biz-media-cz_dp_ph_0722payback_slide_2.html
"Well, actors are a commodity, as any. The vast movie-going public does not choose to see a film because of the producer, director, screenwriter, director of photography or production designer. It chooses actors it likes. It's what makes money for studios and it's only fair that the studios pay for this commodity."
That's not correct. Moviemaking is a collaborative medium. Would you pay 10 dollars to go see Denzel lead his life at home without a script? No
How about just reading a script from fade in to fade out? probably not. The director may have had something to do with that.
Making an enjoyable movie does not need to be stratospherically cost prohibitive however, to claim that all it takes is actors to make a movie successful does not do justice to all the talented people who make that star seem attractive, intelligent, responsive, timely... etc.
You should probably thank the sound mixer for allowing you to form an opinion about denzel in the first place.He makes him sound like a star.