Posted on 11/17/2009 8:05:59 AM PST by EveningStar
Hollywood studios are now thinking twice about splurging on A-list movie stars and costly productions in reaction to the poor economy, but also because of the surprising success of recent films with unknown actors.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
ping
Good. The money can be better spent elsewhere.
Too many studios seem to believe that certain stars will guarantee a big box office even if the srcipt stinks. Maybe they are beginning to learn that this is not the case.
I completely agree.
Maybe flaming, haughty liberals are now box office losers?
It’s been ages since we’ve gone to the movies. We refuse to line the pockets of fellow terrorists that also hate their country. If we do see one of their movies, which is rare, it’s done through Net Flix.
Who the heck is an A-list movie star anymore? Nearly all the ones I can think of are retreads from the 1980s.
For every A-list actor there are probably a hundred actors out there who can read the lines and emote on screen as well as well or better for less than one-tenth the pay. The other nine-tenths of the pay isn’t for acting but rather for the name on the marquee. If that isn’t working then there is no reason to pay the big bucks.
The effects were great, but the script was weak and predictable. It shouldn't have been so hard to spend another million on a script and maybe 30 million less on special effects for a movie that would be better in the end.
We’re birds of a feather..last movie I saw in a theater was Saving Private Ryan.
If these studio idiots have been actually doing their jobs, like actually studying the economics of the movie business, they would of realized several years ago A list stars do nothing for the profitability of a movie. Look at the biggest franchises in recent history: LOTR, Harry Potter, X-Men, Transformers, Batman (I am not talking about Keaton/Clooney,etc crap), etc none of them were star driven. They were about a nice theaterical experience. Look at the Star Trek revamp not one A list star but fans flocked to see it because it was faithful to the source material.
It’s too bad that the left wing Cusack appears to have a hit in 2012. His career was on life support.
Which moonbat left winger was not in 2012????
The two Batman films with Michael Keaton were very popular. But that was 20 years ago.
What it means is that the powers that be in Hollywood are finally realizing that a good film is first and foremost a good story, and starts with a good script. You can very easily take a ton of star power and two tons of CG special effects and ten tons of money and make a movie that people stay away from in droves.
The Dark Knight had a marquee cast - but it also had a very good script as well. I think the message is that the best actor cannot save a bad script.
The free market will eventually correct market imbalances and allow for the efficient distribution of resources — when left on its own.
I heard Bob Mondelo on NPR give 2012 the absolute worst review I've ever heard him give anything, period, hands-down. He said, and I quote, "By the time it's over, you'll think it IS 2012."
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.