The Business: News, Rumours, Analysis, and More

[methodwriter85]

It sounds great, but it also sounds more like a sequel than a reboot.

 

I don't really care about bringing the old characters back, but I do want three things- better special effects, and a scarier storyline, and a hard, gritty R. I do not want yet another PG-13 Mean Girls-inspired film or something that looks like that crappy Beautiful Creatures film.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/movies-lose-director-cary-fukunaga-797890?facebook_20150525

 

I'd bet cash that I know what the "creative differences" are.

[AimingforYoko]

I'd bet cash that I know what the "creative differences" are.

Yeah, cash.

[JBC344]

I'd bet cash that I know what the "creative differences" are.

From what I hear this actually seems to be a legitimate case of creative differences.  Gary wants to make "It" into a two part movie and really delve into the source material.  New Line is hesitant about spending the money to shoot two simultaneous movies with no box office history. 

[Traveller519]

This isn't a rumor or anything... more of a wish. Seemed like the right place. 

 

I would very much like for someone to write a movie for Mary-Lynn Rajskub, Lennon Parham, Susan Yeagley, and Alison Becker. The levels of cute could not be contained, and there would be some excellent riffing.

 

Return to your business.

[BetterButter]

Make-Up Legend Rick Baker Is Retiring

[JBC344]

What a shame.  He really is the best in the business.  I wish him a great relaxing retirement.  Hey Marvel, jump on this immediately and hire Rick as a consultant to all Marvel movies and tv shows.

[Chrissytd]

Disney Pulls The Plug On Tron 3
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/disney-not-moving-forward-tron-798941

[Trini]

Disney Pulls The Plug On Tron 3

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/disney-not-moving-forward-tron-798941

 

:-(

Well, if it takes another 20 years to make another sequel, at least the effects will be even more awesome?

[Chrissytd]

Eddie Redmayne cast as the lead in Harry Potter prequel

http://deadline.com/2015/06/eddie-redmayne-harry-potter-prequel-fantastic-beasts-and-where-to-find-them-jk-rowling-1201425358/

[BetterButter]

Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson to Star in ‘Big Trouble in Little China’ Remake

[xaxat]

From what I hear this actually seems to be a legitimate case of creative differences.  Gary wants to make "It" into a two part movie and really delve into the source material.  New Line is hesitant about spending the money to shoot two simultaneous movies with no box office history. 

 

So The Hobbit gets three movies and It can't even get two.

 

That's not fair.  

[Chrissytd]

War Machine Acquired By Netflix

http://deadline.com/2015/06/netflix-brad-pitt-war-machine-general-stanley-mcchrystal-movie-1201439353/

[DollEyes]

Chris Hemsworth to play receptionist in Ghostbusters reboot, according to director Paul Feig:

 

http://www.twitter.com/paulfeig

 

My verdict: I think it's a great idea. CH is not only hot, he's proven on Jimmy Kimmel Live, SNL & in the upcoming Vacation reboot that he can be funny too.  I also think that it would be hilarious that at least one of the female characters hit on CH's character and failed because he's gay.

Edited June 11, 2015 by DollEyes

[Spartan Girl]

This Ghostbuster reboot had better be fantastic!

[pivot]

I had high hopes until I heard about Wiig's involvement. She was the worst part of Bridesmaids and tends to be a giant screenhog. I am hoping she is taking a back seat to Melissa's character.

[methodwriter85]

I had high hopes until I heard about Wiig's involvement. She was the worst part of Bridesmaids and tends to be a giant screenhog. I am hoping she is taking a back seat to Melissa's character.

 

Methinks there will be legendary stories about Kristen Wiig not handling being the supporting character to Melissa McCarty well.

 

 

My verdict: I think it's a great idea. CH is not only hot, he's proven on Jimmy Kimmel Live, SNL & in the upcoming Vacation reboot that he can be funny too.  I also think that it would be hilarious that at least one of the female characters hit on CH's character and failed because he's gay.

 

It would be hilarious if Chris's character was gay, and I can soooooo see Chris having a blast with that.

[JBC344]

Methinks there will be legendary stories about Kristen Wiig not handling being the supporting character to Melissa McCarty well.

 

 

It would be hilarious if Chris's character was gay, and I can soooooo see Chris having a blast with that.

Why so?  My understanding is that both women are good friends and like working with one another.  Did I miss something?

[Slade347]

My guess is Hemsworth will probably have one or two scenes and they'll be funny. He's already shown that he has a good sense of humor about himself and that's half the battle in those type of situations. 

 

The movie itself? Well, I just have trouble seeing any Ghostbusters film working without Bill Murray.

[DollEyes]

It would be great if Murray, Dan Ackroyd, Ernie Hudson and Sigourney Weaver had cameos.

Edited June 17, 2015 by DollEyes

[AstaCharles]

I had high hopes until I heard about Wiig's involvement. She was the worst part of Bridesmaids and tends to be a giant screenhog. I am hoping she is taking a back seat to Melissa's character.

I don't mind the cast but I hate that it's a reboot. I'm a huge fan of the original, I don't want to see the same story with a different cast. It feels like the Spider-Man franchise, I don't want another origin film. A friend of mine suggested they should just make the Ghostbusters Inc. like the DeVry Institute so it could be set anywhere with a different threat to the city.

[pivot]

I didn't realize it is going to be a reboot. I hope they change the story around enough so it isn't as boring as the Spiderman re-boot.

Wiig pretty much pushed out the other female comedians on SNL and a lot of male ones as well. She was such a screenhog that I can see her having problems with McCarthy taking the lead role.

[JBC344]

My understanding is that while a comedy, Paul Feig wants his version to be darker and scarier than the original. 

 

Do we have confirmation that this is going to be a reboot?

Edited June 16, 2015 by JBC344

[raezen]

Does this mean that Slimer isn't going to be cute anymore?

Edited June 16, 2015 by raezen

[absnow54]

The story of Passengers has been interesting. Once a $35 million Keanu Reeves/Reese Witherspoon venture, the budget would barely cover Jennifer Lawrence's and Chris Pratt's reported salary to star in it (she's getting $20 mil to his $12.) These two are arguably the biggest stars on the planet right now, so it may be a worth while gamble.

[methodwriter85]

Wow, Jennifer Lawrence is getting 20 million? I thought that was unheard of these days. She really is this generation's Julia Roberts.

[ruby24]

I call BS on that. There was actual proof that Julia Roberts herself was the reason her movies made money in the 90's, back when you could tell if it was the star that drew the crowds. In this case to give her credit for the success of The Hunger Games would be the same as giving the Twilight success to Kristen Stewart. Or the Harry Potter success to Daniel Radcliffe. These were pre-sold franchises with a rabid teen audience who would have seen those movies no matter who was cast in them. She was basically an unknown when that first movie opened, she sure isn't the reason it was a hit.

 

I also don't see how she's the reason for the DOR movies success- both were awards bait movies with lots of Oscar buzz (SLP wasn't even making much money at all until the nominations came in). This is a huge risk for them- she's totally untested, unlike past stars like Roberts, Cruise, Hanks, etc.

Edited June 17, 2015 by ruby24

[JBC344]

I call BS on that. There was actual proof that Julia Roberts herself was the reason her movies made money in the 90's, back when you could tell if it was the star that drew the crowds. In this case to give her credit for the success of The Hunger Games would be the same as giving the Twilight success to Kristen Stewart. Or the Harry Potter success to Daniel Radcliffe. These were pre-sold franchises with a rabid teen audience who would have seen those movies no matter who was cast in them. She was basically an unknown when that first movie opened, she sure isn't the reason it was a hit.

 

I also don't see how she's the reason for the DOR movies success- both were awards bait movies with lots of Oscar buzz (SLP wasn't even making much money at all until the nominations came in). This is a huge risk for them- she's totally untested, unlike past stars like Roberts, Cruise, Hanks, etc.

I agree, I like Jennifer and think she is very talented, but she isn't worth 20 million a movie.  Her box office is benefitted from doing built in franchises as opposed to actually drawing in crowds.

[SallyAlbright]

Emma Stone just revealed that she passed on Ghostbusters because she didn't want to commit to a franchise. Bummer!

 

As for Jennifer Lawrence, she is totally unproven as a box office draw on her own. She's been in a huge franchise (THG) and then Oscar-bait films that had great ensemble casts and many award nominations to boost attendance. Until she strings together a few films that she leads on her own, I don't think she is worth anywhere near $20 million. In fact, I don't really think anyone in Hollywood deserves that these days, when franchises are the main draw. The only person I can think of who consistently carries films (that make money) is Leonardo DiCaprio.

[absnow54]

Does $20mill against 30% of profits mean she gets $20million + 30% of whatever the film makes once it breaks even? Or is the $20million contingent on making up 30% of the profit? I've heard of actors getting a backend percentage, but 30% seems ridiculous! I wonder if she'd be able to make these sort of demands with Sony if the e-mail hack hadn't happened.

[Dejana]

Wow, Jennifer Lawrence is getting 20 million? I thought that was unheard of these days.

 

Not exactly:

 

Compared to Lawrence, other stars have gotten $20 million paychecks with much less scrutiny, and with far more meager results. Liam Neeson received $20 million for Taken 3, which didn't even crack $90 million domestically, and Sacha Baron Cohen got at least that much money (and by some accounts, even more once scripting and producing fees were factored in) for 2012's dud The Dictator, which grossed a measly $59 million in the States. When Baron Cohen inked his megabucks deal, it was greeted with rah-rah, "go Sacha" enthusiasm at Deadline; I can't help but wonder if the difference in tone now has something to do with Jennifer Lawrence's gender. If, say, her frequent co-star Bradley Cooper had upped his quote to $20 million on the back of last year's megahit American Sniper, would his reasonable request have generated nearly the same amount of scoffing?

 

I think this is kind of a disingenuous argument that ignores how Liam Neeson and Sasha Baron Cohen, for example, had huge hits with more "original" properties before landing those big paychecks. OTOH, Jennifer Lawrence has had box office hits outside of franchises, yet sometimes it feels like there's an eagerness to present a million mitigating factors to her success, to the point where it doesn't really count. I would also challenge the author's contention that it's her gender getting people up in arms about her big pay day, when I think her youth is a big factor as well. Has there been another Hollywood actor who's matched her combination of critical acclaim/box office success/popularity at such a young age since DiCaprio? And there was a big backlash to Leomania for a while, post-Titanic. I remember a lot of guys hating him, saying he looked girly and was overrated, acting-wise. They didn't seem to totally get over it until the mid-2000s and The Departed. 

 

Anyway, the movie landscape has changed a lot since the nineties, especially for young hopefuls. If Julia Roberts and JLaw switched birthdates, IMO Julia would be trying out for Twilight and The Hunger Games and Jennifer Lawrence would have been up for Pretty Woman or Sleeping with the Enemy. So, to say that young stars now aren't headlining original properties to $100 million like they used to, so they're not "really" box-office draws, well, how many of them really get the same opportunities? The romantic comedy genre, a major vehicle for female movie stars in the past, is practically comatose in terms of box office (and it's not like those rom-coms went without being criticized for being frivolous or denigrating to women, in their day).

 

When a twentysomething actress leaps at the chance to star in something that isn't just some franchise or a helpless girlfriend role, she gets caught up in a controversy about "stealing" some role that should have gone to someone older but didn't because Hollywood is so ageist, and just wait until she's the one put out to pasture. Instead of constantly questioning why Scarlet Johansson or Jennifer Lawrence always have much older love interests (the latter doesn't, though after seeing multiple Hunger Games movies, maybe putting her with guys her own age isn't the best idea), why not ever wonder if the leading men could stand to be younger? Think of the sort of movie stardom that Tom Cruise, Leonardo DiCaprio, Will Smith or even Ben Affleck had attained by the age of 30, the types of roles they got to play, and compare it to actors that age today. Shia LaBeouf was there once, but talk about imploding. Now, it's a big deal that they want to get an actual teenager or college aged actor to play Peter Parker, instead of starting off with a guy in his late twenties like Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield.

 

There are a lot of franchises now and not all of them click with the public, especially with the YA genre. People say that anyone could star in a franchise and it wouldn't make a difference, but if you'd switched Jennifer Lawrence and Kristen Stewart in The Hunger Games and Twilight, would either have been as successful? I tend to doubt it, though I don't think either would have been an outright flop. There's no way to know, of course, so all we have are wildly differing opinions. I think being a box office draw in today's Hollywood is a combination of the right star with the right material, whether that material is "original" or part of a franchise.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Dejana

[caracas1914]

I think Liam Neeson's action movies do quite well in non USA  box office  also, so that's a possible  factor for his pay scale.

[ruby24]

I don't care that they don't make movies like the kind Julia Roberts was in- when they did that was the way to measure their success. For a franchise with an already there fanbase that will see it because of the pre-existing property, the star doesn't matter and isn't worth as much. We have no idea if she's a draw the way Roberts was. Melissa McCarthy on the other hand, is someone who's clearly a draw based on her persona and has an audience that wants to see her, so she, imo, is someone who's worth the money.

[caracas1914]

For a franchise with an already there fanbase that will see it because of the pre-existing property, the star doesn't matter and isn't worth as much.

 

 

Not necessarily, some James Bonds, for example, didn't do as well as others.  A Franchise only works if the first one is successful warranting more, and the casting is crucial because even fans have preconceptions so it's not as if a franchise is a guaranteed hit regardless for future installments. 

 

ON a broader level, is  ANYBODY worth the money if they land on the wrong project/cast/script?   George Clooney certainly couldn't lift Tomorrowland and even Will Smith, Tom Cruise, etc have had major flops.

[Athena]

I think Liam Neeson's action movies do quite well in non USA  box office  also, so that's a possible  factor for his pay scale.

 

Indeed. While Taken 3 barely made $88 million in the US, it did about $236 million worldwide. Both the first two films did well in the USA and abroad. The franchise has done extremely well and it's in large part because of Liam Neeson. It's not fair to compare him to Lawrence because Neeson's trilogy rested largely on how he did in the first film. Similarly, Sacha Baron Cohen is an auteur so I don't think it's farfetched for him to ask for more money since he writes, directs, and produces his work.

 

Movies have changed, and Lawrence's demand is the fact she is The A-list actor of her generation. Which male actor of her age group is getting the same critical acclaim and box office profit? I'm not even a big fan of hers nor do I think she deserves $20 million more than McCarthy or others in the $15 million club, but I can see why her team has asked for this.

[caracas1914]

Movies have changed, and Lawrence's demand is the fact she is The A-list actor of her generation. Which male actor of her age group is getting the same critical acclaim and box office profit?

 

That's another point, she gathers Academy Award noms.

 

It does bother me that if a male  actor headed the box office (like Jennifer did with "Hunger Games: Catching Fire" and "American Hustle) in 2014 nobody bothers to qualify it by saying he's part of a franchise.   One could argue the same thing of , say, Chris Pratt now that both GOTG and JW are huge hits, they are still part of the franchise mold.

[JBC344]

I don't think anyone is "blaming" JL for asking/getting/basking in a big payday.  What we are saying is that her "box office" draw is not the same as say the women of the 90's (Julie, Sandra).  Yes. times are different, but the reason stuff like this is important is because JL is ending those franchise movies that have aided her success and now will be a real test to her draw as a "box office" earner.  The next few movies after Hunger Games and X-Men are going to be very important for both her career and asking price.  It's called "Show Business" for a reason.

[JBC344]

That's another point, she gathers Academy Award noms.

 

It does bother me that if a male  actor headed the box office (like Jennifer did with "Hunger Games: Catching Fire" and "American Hustle) in 2014 nobody bothers to qualify it by saying he's part of a franchise.   One could argue the same thing of , say, Chris Pratt now that both GOTG and JW are huge hits, they are still part of the franchise mold.

Is that really true though.  Now I love Chris Pratt but do people really talk about his "acting" or do they talk about how nice/funny/great personality he has.  Now I personally have seen his other work and no he is good, but I would argue the same point about Chris.  I don't think that he is worth 20 million as well. Now I will say that he had a harder job with Guardians than say Jennifer had with Hunger Games, just cause Guardians isn't as well known. 

[SallyAlbright]

Is that really true though.  Now I love Chris Pratt but do people really talk about his "acting" or do they talk about how nice/funny/great personality he has.  Now I personally have seen his other work and no he is good, but I would argue the same point about Chris.  I don't think that he is worth 20 million as well. Now I will say that he had a harder job with Guardians than say Jennifer had with Hunger Games, just cause Guardians isn't as well known. 

 

Yeah, I adore Chris Pratt but I don't think he's worth 20mil either. Guardians was a good step in the right direction, since it wasn't a well known property, but it still had the "Marvel" label to help it out, and Jurassic World is considered part of a franchise. It's nothing personal against Lawrence, she just is still quite unproven at this point IMO. I read all of the Hunger Games books and knew I would go to see the movies before they were even cast. I had no idea who she was when she got the role, and I didn't really care. That's why people qualify her box office success with those movies by saying they are part of a popular franchise.

[yourstruly]

 

Why so?  My understanding is that both women are good friends and like working with one another.  Did I miss something?

No! Haven't you heard, women hate interacting with each other at all times no matter what!

[methodwriter85]

My comment about Jennifer Lawrence was mainly just about how 20 million paydays seem rare these days- that the 10 million payday has become more of the standard for the "top" performers.

 

I do think Jennifer Lawrence DID bring a lot to the table as Katniss Everdeen- the franchise was a big draw to the tweens, but it wouldn't have worked with someone who didn't have the gravitas to pull it off.

[ruby24]

I'm not so sure about that. Teens don't seem to be very discerning in terms of quality. Case in point, the Twilight movies. Piles of shit that still made piles of money.

[methodwriter85]

Right, but the Hunger Games had cross-over appeal- it wasn't just the teens, and it was a critically acclaimed hit.

[Dejana]

Right, but the Hunger Games had cross-over appeal- it wasn't just the teens, and it was a critically acclaimed hit.

 

Exactly, movies like Divergent and The Maze Runner or even a non-fantasy one-off like The Fault in Our Stars were driven by the tween/teen audience in large part, but there's a big difference between making $125-150 million and the $400+ million that Hunger Games movies have brought in. It's not that you can say the only difference is JLaw, because THG was more popular and the concept itself was very easy to sell to the general public in a way that something like Divergent never was. However, there have also been non-franchise movies from Tom Cruise or Leo or Will Smith that were more about the concept, special effects, the director, or the script, that probably would have succeeded starring someone else.

 

OTOH, I feel that Jennifer's work as Katniss is miles better than what the young leads of Twilight or Harry Potter were ever required to do in those movies. It's not like she has to distance herself from Catching Fire, and play some starving naked junkie in an indie film, to prove she can "really" act. You had multiple critics saying it was a shame about genre bias at the Oscars, because her performance in CF was just as good/better than her supporting turn in American Hustle that year. I think it may be why some give her so much credit for the Hunger Games franchise and didn't necessarily regard the young stars of YA other franchises the same way.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Dejana

[raezen]

I enjoy JL'so performance in THG but I have to add that the franchise also has some really great supporting performances as well from very established actors. I think only Harry Potter has more established actors supporting kids( but by the end of that series you could probably list on one hand the Brits that hadn't been in HP).

I mean Donald Sutherland doesn't have to do ANY work he doesn't want to do st this point but he does it and then he does the interviews stating that it is work that he feels ha an important message. That has probably helped give the series a little more credit as well.

Edited to add; While I do want this film to be successful because there really aren't enough original stories being put to film anymore to be honest they have waited so long to do it is it going to be perceived as all that original anymore? I mean they are talking about marketing it as Gravity with romance. There was Interstellar last year and then there is Matt Damon's Martian coming out in Nov. The two stars had better be as bankable as they believe because the concept might lose it's luster.

Edited June 18, 2015 by raezen

[pivot]

Studios also look at DVD/Blu-Ray sales/rentals. That's the reason Jennifer Aniston was getting good paychecks for so long. Her movies didn't do huge box office, but they had huge sales/rentals. Clooney had the same situation.

[SnoGirl]

It's been reported that James Horner, music composer, has passed away in a plane crash. Amazing music in movies is one of my favorite things, and his music was no exception. Braveheart is always included in my movie music mixes. So sad.

[methodwriter85]

So it looks like the speculation was wrong- Tom Holland is the new Spiderman.

[caracas1914]

I wonder when we will have the first leading man box office star who is openly gay. I think once it happens, all the previous talk of why it's not economically feasible will fade away.

[methodwriter85]

I wonder when we will have the first leading man box office star who is openly gay. I think once it happens, all the previous talk of why it's not economically feasible will fade away.

 

Well, it should have been Luke Evans and there's a lot of buzz around him, but then he ran screaming back into the closet once Hollywood came calling.

 

Edited to add: Apparently he did recently start to acknowledge his sexuality again. Kind of. Hmm. Like I said, there is a lot of buzz around him.

 

I can't really see Neil Patrick Harris ever really being a typical lead- he's too quirky. I also don't know if I think Matt Bomer really has the ability to lead a movie- he might be more of a "t.v. guy who does movie roles occasionally".

Edited June 25, 2015 by methodwriter85