Non-Sport Update's Card Talk NSU Home | NSU Store | In The Current Issue... | Contact Us |
Page 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Hits and Misses of 2022
 Login/Join
 
Gold Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
He's had a few financially successful comedies over the past 20 years, most notably the ones with Ben Stiller. But no dramas that can even come close to The Godfather Part II, Taxi Driver or Raging Bull. He will be 80 in 2023. Maybe he just does not care at this point.
 
Posts: 3885 | Location: NY | Registered: August 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Diamond Card Talk Member
Picture of Raven
posted Hide Post
It's harder to name the exceptions, than think of once admired male actors who are looking to draw a paycheck from anything in later years. It's usually the guys, only because the ladies have shorter movie careers in general and hopefully have a little more sense. Wink

Al Pacino, Bruce Willis, Nicholas Cage, Val Kilmer, Mickey Rourke, Eric Roberts, Christian Slater, to name a few. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sly Stallone and Johnny Depp now appear in very unreliable work.

Straight to video has many once notable stars that kind of imploded and ran out of money due to excessive behavior or bad health. Some of them made tons of cash in their prime years, but they acquired high maintenance lifestyles along with wives, friends, ex-wives and children to support.

Jack Nicholson didn't quite sell out but is basically retired and unseen these days. Warren Beatty isn't around much either. International actors like Anthony Hopkins have aged and still do quality work, but they may not have had the Hollywood life. RDJ was headed that way until he reformed. Brad Pitt is still going strong, but he's not that old. See what him and DiCaprio are doing in another fifteen or twenty years. They are following in De Niro's footsteps. No matter how much money anybody makes, they can always manage to run through it all if they try hard. Big Grin
 
Posts: 10188 | Location: New York | Registered: November 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
Jack Nicholson is 85 now, so how much time does he have left ? I don't think he's done a movie since "The Departed", and that was back in 2006, I believe

Warren Beatty has done 1 film over the past 20 years. He is 85 also. He did that film "Rules Don't Apply" which had a very limited release, and bombed.

I was surprised how Stallone has done so many straight to video/VOD action films in recent years, none of which anyone has heard of. In fact, he's done some low budget stuff, where the film was made for a mere 5 M. I see that he's not in Creed 3 coming next year.

Brad Pitt is now 58, so he's not a spring chicken anymore. Smile
 
Posts: 3885 | Location: NY | Registered: August 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Diamond Card Talk Member
Picture of Raven
posted Hide Post
Yes, that's what I meant. Nicholson and Beatty are part of the few exceptions. They just stopped working, but obviously kept their money enough not to have to be accepting garbage roles for the cash. And many of those direct to video/VOD projects are often financed overseas by strange investors. Older formerly well-known stars like Willis and Stallone and Wesley Snipes just get hired for fast bit filming to put their names on the credits and their faces on the box covers. It's a lot like the spaghetti westerns used to be.

Another exception I forgot was probably the main one, Tom Cruise. I think if it ever really comes out, he has a very questionable private life, but money will never be a problem for him the way he has been defying the odds.
 
Posts: 10188 | Location: New York | Registered: November 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
I would say that Tom Cruise is the ONLY 1980s guy who is still an A list star. All of the rest of his generation were relegated to TV along time ago (Molly Ringwald, Judd Nelson, Andrew McCarthy, Matthew Modine, Anthony Michael Hall, etc.)

Even Robert Downey Jr. has had no hits since 2008 aside from the Marvel and 2 Sherlock films. He tried a few other things, and all failed (Doolittle, etc.)

And once promising John Cusack is doing only direct to video/VOD movies. He hasn't been in anything major in 20 years
 
Posts: 3885 | Location: NY | Registered: August 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
Picture of mykdude
posted Hide Post
If Warren Beatty dies on March 20th, 2025 at 10:17 AM I will be officially freaked out!

____________________
Just because it's rare doesn't mean it's valuable.
 
Posts: 4734 | Location: Tennessee | Registered: March 09, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Silver Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy C:

Even Robert Downey Jr. has had no hits since 2008 aside from the Marvel and 2 Sherlock films. He tried a few other things, and all failed (Doolittle, etc.)


I don't think you are giving Downey enough credit here. If you take out Marvel and Sherlock, you're left with several movies that he did specifically because they were low-key, anti-blockbusters. And even so, he did Tropic Thunder ($196 M) and Dolittle (a quarter billion dollars).

And the movies you are ignoring represent over a billion dollars worth of Sherlock, and 12 billion of Marvel. Kind of hard just to say they don't count.
 
Posts: 2115 | Location: Huntsville, AL United States | Registered: November 30, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
Bill,

I partially agree with you. However, Doolittle cost over 175 K to make and it grossed 251 M. So I am sure the studio lost money.

I remember back in 2014, RDJ also did "The Judge" with Robert Duvall, which cost 50 K and grossed 84 K, according to Wikipedia

I hear he is working on Sherlock Holmes 3 now
 
Posts: 3885 | Location: NY | Registered: August 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
Looks like Halloween Ends underwhelmed at the box office. People are blaming the fact that it was simultaneously available for streaming
 
Posts: 3885 | Location: NY | Registered: August 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Diamond Card Talk Member
Picture of Raven
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy C:
Looks like Halloween Ends underwhelmed at the box office. People are blaming the fact that it was simultaneously available for streaming


"Halloween Ends" did OK business, just not record shattering, if that's what people were expecting. Personally, I think it's doing better than it deserves. I have not seen it, but I did see the last two, and think there is more than the streaming issue going on. There is a mild spoiler coming up.

1. Yes, if its simultaneously streaming of course some people are going to choose that and the theatre audience will be decreased. That would be obvious, but the money is still being made.

2. This new trilogy isn't that good. The first part was alright and was welcome, but "Halloween Kills" was a slog. The expansion of a pretty simple story to spread it out to the town at large made the whole thing look truly stupid.

3. Both new films were excessively gory and had numerous characters created just for the slaughter. Sure "Halloween" was the original slasher flick, but it was original, and it was scary. We cared who died at least a little. These films aren't scary set ups because there are too many killings and they come too fast. They aren't funny either because it's all too brutal, unless the various methods are supposed to be the fun part.

4. The character of Laurie has changed in a way that Sarah Conner changed before her. It's hardly an original idea either. Jamie Lee's turn in "Halloween Kills" was not even that important a role and we all knew that the final movie was still to come. Now here comes the mild spoiler.

5. Nobody truly believes that "Halloween Ends" is the end. Maybe if it bombs, but it won't bomb. Enough people will see it in some form regardless, because that's what people do. Watch franchise title movies simply because they saw all the others. So there is a "cheat" in this film to continue something and that "cheat" actually consumes a good part of the plot that should have been about wrapping up the Michael Myers and Laurie Strode saga that has spanned 44 years.

6. Being curious like everyone else, I'm sure I will see it for myself eventually, although probably not until the DVD. I would have liked just one more picture with a finite ending to the whole thing years ago. I thought that was "H20", but that just lead to Laurie's death in "Halloween Resurrection", until that was all erased and went backwards again. Being unsatisfied with endings just seems to leave you unsatisfied with other endings. Big Grin It's past time to drop this title, for me anyway.
 
Posts: 10188 | Location: New York | Registered: November 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
They were expecting it to make 55 M and supposedly it made 41. I don't know why they keep these horror franchises going. Thankfully it's been a few years since we've seen Jason or Freddy Kruger.
 
Posts: 3885 | Location: NY | Registered: August 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Silver Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy C:
I don't know why they keep these horror franchises going.

Because they're cheap to make and almost always turn a profit.
 
Posts: 1556 | Location: NJ | Registered: August 28, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
I remember in the second half of the 1980s, when they were churning these films out every single year---Friday the 13th, Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street. Every film was the same. I think that by 1989, their luck ran out at the box office.

I took a look and the last Friday the 13th film was the 2009 reboot and the last Elm Street was 2010

Hopefully they don't return !
 
Posts: 3885 | Location: NY | Registered: August 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
Picture of mykdude
posted Hide Post
Smile $17M budget $137M world box office....so far.

Halloween Ends cleared its $30M budget in the first weekend.

Barbarian $4M budget $40M world box office.

Terrifier 2 $250K budget $2.5M box office.


This is why they keep coming back.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mykdude,

____________________
Just because it's rare doesn't mean it's valuable.
 
Posts: 4734 | Location: Tennessee | Registered: March 09, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
Picture of mykdude
posted Hide Post
With movies such as Bullet Train, Woman King and Nope hovering at the break even point a few films have gone on to be hits simply because they could keep their budgets in check.

The Invitation $10M Budget, $25 Domestic, $8.6M International

Where the Crawdads Sing $24M Budget, $90M Domestic, $46.7M International

Fall $3M Budget, $7.2M Domestic, $8.9M International

Smile $17M Budget, $73.8M Domestic, $66.5M International

Terrifier 2 $250k Budget, $2.5M Domestic, could end up at $3.5M before hitting streaming services next month.

____________________
Just because it's rare doesn't mean it's valuable.
 
Posts: 4734 | Location: Tennessee | Registered: March 09, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Diamond Card Talk Member
Picture of Raven
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by mykdude:
Terrifier 2 $250k Budget, $2.5M Domestic, could end up at $3.5M before hitting streaming services next month.


The selling point on this one seems to be that you will lose your lunch. For only $250k, the vats of fake blood must have cost more than the actors they scraped up. Wink

There's no FX in the budget on this one, it's as good as a student film project. However when it comes to maniac Clowns, there is always going to be an audience. Big Grin
 
Posts: 10188 | Location: New York | Registered: November 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
Picture of mykdude
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Raven:
However when it comes to maniac Clowns, there is always going to be an audience. Big Grin


Oh yeah, personally I have no desire to see it but have to admit I was a bit impressed over the production value I saw in the preview. Crazy thing is that it was probably made on cell phone technology.

____________________
Just because it's rare doesn't mean it's valuable.
 
Posts: 4734 | Location: Tennessee | Registered: March 09, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Diamond Card Talk Member
Picture of Raven
posted Hide Post
Black Adam opens this weekend, and I don't know how well it will do, despite having box office king Dwayne Johnson in the title role. Johnson has had his share of misfires occasionally and I really don't see much in the trailers for this one, but it has the DC connection and The Rock.

For some reason he just doesn't look great to me in that outfit and the story of Black Adam, which I never knew, seems more Mummyish than anything else. It should easily beat "Halloween Kills" and the other new competition as it started off good in previews, but I see no predictions. Warner Brothers has a lot riding on this DC extension and if gets more than 60M they will be very happy.
 
Posts: 10188 | Location: New York | Registered: November 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
Pierce Brosnan is in "Black Adam" as Dr. Fate, so 007 himself is still hanging in there, at age 69.
 
Posts: 3885 | Location: NY | Registered: August 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
Picture of mykdude
posted Hide Post
Aldis Hodge cards are drying up. Last one sold for $14 but asking price on two others is past the $100 mark.

41% critics Tomatometer but so far the audience seems to like it better.

____________________
Just because it's rare doesn't mean it's valuable.
 
Posts: 4734 | Location: Tennessee | Registered: March 09, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  
 


© Non-Sport Update 2013