why would this mutt take less money for a movie that in all likelihood will make a fortune from all the people that read the book and want to see tha movie unlike the fagflicks nobody wanted made let alone wanted to see...???
Posted on 01/22/2006 7:45:36 AM PST by television is just wrong
THE Da Vinci Code is one of the most eagerly anticipated films of the year but its significance to Hollywood may go deeper than mere box office success: Tom Hanks has delighted his studio bosses by accepting a pay cut for his role as the book’s art sleuth hero.
There are too many theatres. Many theatres close you you will soon be closing. Why not? It happened with KMART.
Looking forward to End of the Spear. Unfortunately some of the money will go to SoddomWood for their propaganda movies.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
I know. So could a lot of us.
These guys are just way overpaid for what they do.
Gives them way too much time on their hands when they are not working.
When I'm watching Fox News and they have McCuddy on or something, I'm at a loss most of the time because I don't know the people he's talking about. Usually the wife has to explain but then she's not always sure.
Happily ignorant in a red county in a blue state.
The only role Hanks hasn't been cast in yet has been as a deeply disturbed and complicated four-eyed octopus from Mars.
yeah he is way over exposed.
I saw him many years ago. In a restaurant called "Dalt's". bottom floor of where my husband was working at the time. He was sitting in a boot near the front door. Cubby holed, so you could hardly see him.
Most of them are marketed overseas, not here. Many of them do make money overseas even when they fail or are never even shown here.
I wish he'd hide from the Silver Screen. Enough Tom Hanks already.
It's pretty bad when I consider that the only movies that I saw last year were:
Elektra
Son of the Mask
Robots
Sin City
Monster-in-Law (on video)
Madagascar
The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3D
Sky High
Tim Burton's Corpse Bride
Chicken Little
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
And I only saw Elektra and Sin City because I had time to kill and they were what were playing conveniently (and it was a sort of consensus thing, too.)
Almost all of the rest were movies I took my son to see. Some were good, some weren't. Some were so dumb even he didn't like them -- and 9-year-olds *always* like kid movies, if only for the popcorn and nachos.
Hey! What's unreasonable about that? The government does it with every paycheck earned by Americans. [/sarcasm]
why would this mutt take less money for a movie that in all likelihood will make a fortune from all the people that read the book and want to see tha movie unlike the fagflicks nobody wanted made let alone wanted to see...???
The cost of being a liberal mouthpiece for the Democrat Party.
The problem with Hollywood is that it is such a pain in the ass to go to a movie theatre these days that most people don't bother. On top of that, it is now affordable for most people in the middle-class to put a high-quality home theatre system in their homes. I have a 65" HD screen with surround-sound in my home already with a 50" screen down in the basement for the kids. We'll probably never go to a movie theatre ever again.
If I want to see a movie, I'll get the DVD or I'll get it "on demand" from the cable company. I don't have to wait in line to buy $10 tickets only to sit next to rude people who can't sit still for more than 15 minutes and have to constantly get up (making me stand up to let them by) to buy another drink, snack or go to the bathroom. Don't have to deal with the lines, the parking lot scramble and all the other annoyances. If I want a beer, I just hit the PAUSE button and get up and get myself one.
There were enough good movies made over the past 50 or 60 years to keep me from ever running out of movies to see even if Hollywood stopped making them today. But most of the time, my wife and I would rather watch documentaries on Discovery or History channel. Or we might watch some old TV series that were actually pretty good like "Twilight Zone" or "X-Files."
I agree. way over exposed.
I agree. way over exposed.
Tom Hanks...as a deeply disturbed and complicated four-eyed octopus from Mars...coming to a "Big Box" Theater near you.
You asked for it...
The Polar Express was good, but the kids got bored. They did alright in Narnia, and it held their attention.
There have been a couple of more adult (PG-13/R) movies the critics raved over and we bought on DVD, a couple of which would have been OK, but were ruined by the 'obligatory' gay character or scene. If I wanted that in my living room, I'd go down to South Main and invite some of them over (NOT happening).
We have an extensive library of movies on VHS, and many are old enough to rip and burn onto DVD, I suppose, but I do not have the equipment to do so, (although I'd like to, and save the tape for a master copy before the tapes or the machine get too worn).
But hollywood is deep into the gay thing and agenda crap, and suffering at the bottom line, so now they will cut their own throat and hang theater owners out to dry.
As for 'stars' nowadays, the sky is pretty dark, with only a few notables like Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, and the 'old timers'. I do not even know who most of the newbies are, either.
Their pay cuts should be reported to the FEC as an in-kind donation to the DemocRAT National Comittee. It is the price they are paying for promoting Bush hatred and liberalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.