Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
sdpfeiffy

The Business: News, Rumours, Analysis, and More

Recommended Posts

Seriously?! Did they learn NOTHING from Crystal Skull?!

Harrison Ford can keep playing Indy, but the only way he came back for Star Wars was if

Han Solo died

?! I don't understand him.

Edited by Spartan Girl
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Seriously?! Did they lean NOTHING from Crystal Skull?!

I thought Crystal Skull kind of killed the franchise.  I love Indy but isn't he getting a bit too old for all the running etc.? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Seriously?! Did they lean NOTHING from Crystal Skull?!

Harrison Ford can keep playing Indy, but the only way he came back for Star Wars was if

Han Solo died

?! I don't understand him.

I remember reading the rumour that he only did Star Wars on the condition he got another Indiana Jones. Seems he just preferrs Indy to Han.

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't know they will still producing those films.  I guess they're more profitable than I thought.  Hopefully, Dylan can recover from his injuries.  Run over by a car? Sounds very serious. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't know they will still producing those films.  I guess they're more profitable than I thought.  Hopefully, Dylan can recover from his injuries.  Run over by a car? Sounds very serious. 

They kept the Maze Runner budgets pretty moderate. Nowhere near Divergent or Hunger Games levels- the first movie cost around 30 million, the second cost around 60 million. The domestic hasn't been gangbusters, but internationally they've made over 300 million dollars each. According to good ol' Wiki, they've made 660 million dollars, against a total production budget of 95 million. Pretty darned profitable.

 

In any event, the last movie isn't getting split up so it makes sense to finish this out. Hope he has a speedy recovery.

Edited by methodwriter85

Share this post


Link to post

I'd heard rumours about this for a while. Poor Debra Messing. I read somewhere that was her dream role. I get the choice; Cate is a legit movie star, the talent is unquestionable and people will take the project seriously with her name attached.

 

More than anything, I'm curious to see Aaron write something with a woman as the actual lead. I don't think he's ever done that before (I really am racking my brain and coming up blank but I'd be happy to be wrong) and considering the criticisms of his past works (some very deserved) it'll be interesting to see what he ends up writing when a woman has to be at the centre of his story.

Share this post


Link to post

That's too bad about Debra Messing.  I think she's even got the "Lucy eyes."  Blanchett?  Not so much.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'd heard rumours about this for a while. Poor Debra Messing. I read somewhere that was her dream role. I get the choice; Cate is a legit movie star, the talent is unquestionable and people will take the project seriously with her name attached.

 

More than anything, I'm curious to see Aaron write something with a woman as the actual lead. I don't think he's ever done that before (I really am racking my brain and coming up blank but I'd be happy to be wrong) and considering the criticisms of his past works (some very deserved) it'll be interesting to see what he ends up writing when a woman has to be at the centre of his story.

I think Debra Messing would have made a great Lucy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

What I'm interested in seeing is how Aaron Sorkin approaches the slapstick aspect of Lucille Ball. I mean, in real life, I'm sure she was very articulate, but she was still a slapstick comedian and that's not really something you see in the very verbose Sorkin style.

 

I do like that they went with somebody older- Lucille was in her 40's throughout the run of I Love Lucy, and she was close to 30 when she ran off with Desi. It wouldn't have felt right with them using an ingenue for the part.

Edited by methodwriter85

Share this post


Link to post

The era in which this will presumably be set is perfect for Sorkin's patronizing brand of sexism, so I'm quite hesitant. 

 

But Cate Blanchett pulled off Katharine Hepburn well enough, something I thought impossible after watching several good actors take their shot at Tea at Five, so I'll give it a whirl at some point.  But, yeah - Sorkin.  Women.  Jackass.

 

It's funny (to me) to hear the Debra Messing talk, given how many people over the years have said she should play Myrna Loy.  I don't think anyone should play Myrna Loy.  Lucille Ball?  That ship has sailed; I vaguely remember Frances Fisher in a TV movie.  We'll see; unlike with Loy or Hepburn, I am not a fan (nor am I a non-fan), so I'll be more forgiving.  But, again - Sorkin, writing for a woman.  That always requires an actor who can elevate what she's given.  Blanchett might be up to the task.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The era in which this will presumably be set is perfect for Sorkin's patronizing brand of sexism, so I'm quite hesitant. 

 

But Cate Blanchett pulled off Katharine Hepburn well enough, something I thought impossible after watching several good actors take their shot at Tea at Five, so I'll give it a whirl at some point.  But, yeah - Sorkin.  Women.  Jackass.

 

It's funny (to me) to hear the Debra Messing talk, given how many people over the years have said she should play Myrna Loy.  I don't think anyone should play Myrna Loy.  Lucille Ball?  That ship has sailed; I vaguely remember Frances Fisher in a TV movie.  We'll see; unlike with Loy or Hepburn, I am not a fan (nor am I a non-fan), so I'll be more forgiving.  But, again - Sorkin, writing for a woman.  That always requires an actor who can elevate what she's given.  Blanchett might be up to the task.

 

 

The I Love Lucy thread reported this news a few months ago.

 

See, I'm a HUGE Lucy and Lucille Ball fan. I know she's not everyone's cup of tea, and there are a lot of people who aren't fans of the show. But I am. I love it. Never fails to make me laugh. For me, I don't think anyone can play Lucille, but I'm keeping an open mind.

 

As for the Frances Fisher tv movie, Before the Laughter, it was horrible. I detested it because it made Lucille come off as this needy, pathetic, insecure woman. And from what I understand, that wasn't the situation. Her children hated that movie, and I think I read how Lucille Arnaz had said that it was a hack job on both their parent.  And of course they had Maurice Bernard, playing Desi. A guy who can't stop stuttering and mumbling when he's speaking his lines. It was just horrid.

 

How much of this will be about Lucille before I Love Lucy, I don't know. Or if it will include that part of her life or skim over it? I though I was the only one not a fan of Sorkin. Glad to know I'm not alone. I think the only movie of his I really liked was A Few Good Men.  Even if he got how the military is supposed to comport themselves (mainly how Tom Cruise's character kept acting as if he was a civilian and didn't act like the Navy Lieutenant he was, with respect to protocol). Jack Nicholson and Kevin Bacon were the best thing about the movie. And that last courtroom scene of course!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

You know what, after LeBron James stole the show in Trainwreck, I'm actually really excited about this.

Share this post


Link to post

They had a producer, star, cast and distributor all lined up and no one did the due diligence to see if they had the rights?

Share this post


Link to post
On May 3, 2016 at 8:30 PM, absnow54 said:

You know what, after LeBron James stole the show in Trainwreck, I'm actually really excited about this.

At the very least, he'll probably be better than Michael Jordan.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/2/2016 at 3:12 PM, BetterButter said:

You know, I liked LeBron in Trainwreck, but Space Jam is one of those movies that really doesn't need a sequel.  And that's coming from someone who's watched Space Jam at least once every 6 months since it came out in 1996.  Though, what's coloring my feelings on this is that it's an insanely nostalgic movie for me - I lived in the Chicagoland area as a kid, and some elementary schools got to see the movie before it came out in theaters, mine being one of them.  Space Jam and Michael Jordan are just so linked with my childhood, that I don't need to see another Space Jam.  

Though, if they do make it, it'll at least probably be better than Kazam...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

On 1 juni 2016 at 5:58 AM, methodwriter85 said:

So, is Mary Poppins supposed to be immortal? How is she only in her 30's if the Banks children are about 20 years older?

Wouldn't seem implausible to me, given that the first movie ended with her flying off into the sunset with her umbrella (if I remember correctly). A magical eternally young-ish nanny who shows up when families need her, was what I always imagined her as.

In other news, John Carney has openly apologised on Twitter for his recent comments about Keira Knightley. As far as apologies goes it's a pretty good one, although singling her out to begin with is still a lousy thing to do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, xaxat said:

How Much Everyone Working On a $200 Million Movie Earns

I didn't realize that the head scriptwriter makes almost as much as the director. And that stunt people are paid so little. These guys are often put in life and death situations, and they only make a few thousand bucks? Even the stunt doubles for the lead actors only get paid about $100,000.

Share this post


Link to post

On 5/6/2016 at 9:36 AM, Princess Sparkle said:

Though, if they do make it, it'll at least probably be better than Kazam...

I'm pretty sure I could clear that bar filming friends doing amateur improv with no prep on my Flip camcorder.

Share this post


Link to post

If any of the people involved in casting have seen Valentine's Day, they won't let Taylor Swift anywhere near this movie. Her acting made Eric Dane and Ashton Kutcher look like members of the Royal Shakespeare Company in comparison.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Taylor was in The Giver for about 30 seconds, not sure how that is indicative of her acting abilities. And she certainly doesn't have the vocal abilities for Glinda, not even close.

They need to cast Broadway people for this, at least for the vocally challenging parts. They might get away with casting some young pop artist for Fiyero.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Today in "Well, of course!" news, Bryan Cranston will be playing Zordon in the new Power Rangers reboot.  I figured they were going to find some way to get him into that film, since one of his earliest roles was voicing some of the monsters on the show.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 21/07/2016 at 11:01 PM, xaxat said:

The Wall Street Journal ran a story on how studios pay close attention to review aggregation sites like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB.

I just hope that that they have read 538's recent work on those sites that show how they are broken and how men consistently give lower grades to movies featuring or appealing to women.

Wait, wouldn't men giving lower grades to movies marketed to women kind of be expected? Back when my wife and i were dating we went to a ton of movies, and we would usually alternate who would get to pick. On average I would like the movies i picked better then the movies she picked (which were typically movies marketed towards women). It is not like there is a subjective way to rate movies so if i was the kind of person who rated every movie i saw then the ones i picked would on average get better rating then the ones she picked. And it is not like it would be an everytime thing either since i am sure i picked some bad movies. But if you averaged it out over a whole population it i would think people would generally like movies marketed to them better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately, those preferences don't even out. There's more about 538's methodology here. (It applies to IMDB TV ratings, but I would be surprised if it wasn't true with movies as well.) The article covers a lot of info, but these two points stuck out the most to me.

Quote

When you look at shows that have at least 10,000 ratings and raters who skewed male or female, a different picture emerges. Of the top 100 shows that skewed male, 3.3 percent of female votes were 1 out of 10. But of the top 100 shows that skewed female, 6.7 percent of male votes were 1 out of 10. That’s a pretty huge difference.

And

Quote

 Women gave their top 100 shows, on average, a 7.8 rating, about the same score they gave the top 100 male-dominated programs, 8.0. But here’s where that Twitter egg’s perception might come from: Men gave their top 100 an average score of 8.2 but gave the top 100 female-skewed shows a mere 6.9 average ratings. Shows with more than 10,000 ratings are inherently popular and yet men thought the programs in that group that skew female were below average.

Check out the chart at the bottom of the article. If gender preferences influenced movie reviews equally, the lists would be balanced. It's not even close.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size