Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hollywood rethinks use of A-list actors
Reuters ^ | November 13, 2009 | Alex Dobuzinskis

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: actors; budget; hollywood; movies; moviestars
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-127 next last
To: CrazyIvan

They are doing well for the most part. 2012 being the most recent example. Movies are still a very cheap form of entertainment.


21 posted on 11/17/2009 8:22:56 AM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

B-List stars acting mistaken for what was once A-List acting.


22 posted on 11/17/2009 8:23:53 AM PST by Pistolshot (Brevity: Saying a lot, while saying very little.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Hollywood is coming around to that whole supply and demand capitalism thingy?

Who'd a thunk it?

I have always said, actors/actresses are no more than jesters. They are entertainers. Their job is to provide something to distract me from my important life at my leisure and whim. I choose how I would like to be distracted and in what fashion as my time permits. It does not take a whole lot of training to be an actor. Most of them are one dimensional and the product of a successful opportunistic endeavor. Right place at the right time.

Some are truly magnificent and talent is apparent in the exceptional cases (Tom Hanks, Dustin Hoffman, many of the “las generation”).

For most successful on scree thespians, their entire existence and self worth is nothing more than the measure of a person from their bubble of peers. They have little grasp on the real world and look down on the “do-good” day to day hard working Americans. Their measure of importance boils down to what cause they can champion to establish some importance or contribution to society. Their perspective (from inside the bubble) leads them to some of the most insane causes. But it is the wackiest of causes that gets the MSM all wee-weed up, gives them a “stage” and encourages mindless bloviating on topics they are grossly ignorant about. It is unfortunate that so many American's feed the market of opinion for these fools.

Disclaimer: As all generalizations impart bias for the few excepted individuals, I recognize there are honest, hard working, respectful and humble individuals of the on screen celebrity persuasion.

23 posted on 11/17/2009 8:24:13 AM PST by Tenacious 1 (Government For the People - an obviously concealed oxymoron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: y6162
It’s too bad that the left wing Cusack appears to have a hit in 2012. His career was on life support.

It's hard to believe we were introduced to this guy as the cigarette-hiding-in-mouth dude from Class, not to mention his *brilliant follow-up* as one of the dorks in Sixteen Candles.

24 posted on 11/17/2009 8:24:16 AM PST by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

When I started following what they were doing with CGI in the early 90’s, I started telling my kids that eventually, movies will say, in their ad copy, “Starring the VOICE OF...”.

I just watched the 3d version of A Christmas Carol. “WHO” the star voice was behind the CG was irrelevent. Their “voice” acting ability is all that mattered. I realized, during the credits, that Jim Carey was the voice of not only Scrooge, but several characters. But I did not recognize it even in scrooge.

Actors look to be going the way of every other job. That is, no notoriety, but paid based on quality, not “fame”.

That is a good thing.


25 posted on 11/17/2009 8:24:24 AM PST by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2nd Bn, 11th Mar

“We’re birds of a feather..last movie I saw in a theater was
Saving Private Ryan.”

Just about the same here.
I lived in Los Angeles during 1995-2005.
The films I actually saw in a theater:

Independence Day
Heavy Metal (when my hipper younger brother visited)
We Were Soldiers
The Aviator
Downfall (”Untergang”; a GREAT film about Hitler’s last days)

By and large, I just won’t part with my hard-earned $ for the
generic crap that Hollyweird carpetbombs us with on a weekly basis.


26 posted on 11/17/2009 8:24:51 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CrazyIvan

“Hasn’t Hollywood traditionally done better during bad times?
I’ve always heard that people went to the movies as a
substitute for more expensive entertainment, and to forget
about poor economy.”

Yes. Shirley Temple (now Temple Black) eared $100,000 a year during FDR’s Great Depression.


27 posted on 11/17/2009 8:25:27 AM PST by Leo Farnsworth (I'm not really Leo Farnsworth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

We haven’t spent money to go to a movie (other than I-MAX) in a couple of years. I think the last regular movie we saw was 300. In part it’s because it is too darn expensive, but also because, in general, I don’t want to support these communists. I do make exceptions with some of my favourite directors/stars if the movie looks exceptional. Just haven’t seen much that looks exceptional coming out of Hollywood in the last 10 years or so. We did see a great I-MAX movie a few weeks back—Sea Monsters—about the sea animals that lived in Kansas. Even my mom liked it which is saying something.


28 posted on 11/17/2009 8:26:45 AM PST by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Question Liberal Authority

Bruce Willis never made a bad movie (that I can think of). He’s way underrated as an actor AND he’s a conservative.

The others on the list I won’t watch because they are stupid, silly and make stupid movies.

Julia’s okay but not a draw anymore.


29 posted on 11/17/2009 8:26:49 AM PST by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CrazyIvan
"...people went to the movies as a substitute for more expensive entertainment..."

Heck, is there a more expensive night out than taking your family to the movies? Between the ticket prices and the snack costs .. and the general atmosphere of chaotic anarchy inside the theater itself .. I would rather go to the dentist (and it would probably be cheaper to do so).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RESISTOR

Swear allegiance to the flag, whatever flag they offer;
Never hint at what you really feel.
Teach the children quietly for, someday, sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still.

Der Elite Møøsënspåånkængrüppen ØberKømmändø (EMØØK)

30 posted on 11/17/2009 8:27:24 AM PST by BlueLancer (I'm getting a fine tootsy-frootsying right here...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

I’ve thought for years that the Hollywood star system was a relic from the golden days of the big studios.

In a few years, once CGI evolves to its next generation, the whole notion of live actors will be obsolete. Then, with a few software changes, a director can create exactly the character he wants and make it do exactly what he envisions. No more compromises with temperamental tarts or talentless twirps. The auteur will truly control the entire esthetic.

Look for today’s divas to be performing sexual favors for the price of a tuna sandwich.


31 posted on 11/17/2009 8:27:56 AM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VOA

Saw Downfall on DVD. You forget you are watching a movie. Incredible performance.


32 posted on 11/17/2009 8:28:26 AM PST by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MozarkDawg

I loved Cusack in Say Anything and that other early teen movie, but now I can’t stand him.


33 posted on 11/17/2009 8:28:29 AM PST by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CrazyIvan
Hasn't Hollywood traditionally done better during bad times? I've always heard that people went to the movies as a substitute for more expensive entertainment, and to forget about poor economy.

In the past that would be true. Movies were a relatively inexpensive night out. Today, it's different. Movie theaters demand high prices, the price of amenities is ridiculous, and the entertainment per dollar is the pits. Coupled with movie rentals and On Demand movies, why bother?

34 posted on 11/17/2009 8:28:42 AM PST by bcsco (Hey, GOP: The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

The recent Batman movies had very strong ensemble casts but none of them were really A listers like Cruise. Probably the cast of the Batman Begins earned combined what Cruise did for appearing in War of the Worlds that came out the same year. Batman Begins made Christian Bale a star. He was bit of a unknown commodity most famous for playing the kid in Spielberg’s Empire of the Sun. Makes much more sense to spend your casting budget on great character actors like Caine, Friedman, Oldham than blow it on the likes of a Cruise or Kidman.


35 posted on 11/17/2009 8:29:14 AM PST by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: altura
Bruce Willis never made a bad movie (that I can think of).

Ihearby sentence you to watch 'Hudson Hawk', 'The Bonfire of the Vanities' and 'Color of Night'.
36 posted on 11/17/2009 8:29:36 AM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CrazyIvan
I've always heard that people went to the movies as a substitute for more expensive entertainment, and to forget about poor economy.

Have you been to a movie lately? My wife and I took my daughter to this Hanna Montanna movie a while back. It was not "cheap" entertainment (or less expensive).

I think the three of us shared a popcorn and soda. It was about $50 all-in for a 90 minute show.

37 posted on 11/17/2009 8:29:49 AM PST by Tenacious 1 (Government For the People - an obviously concealed oxymoron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Movies are all special effects these days
Real acting is dead


38 posted on 11/17/2009 8:31:31 AM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: altura

I have heard Bruce sarcastically refer to a couple of his movies as not exactly “academy worthy.” One was Hudson Hawk and I forget the other.


39 posted on 11/17/2009 8:31:38 AM PST by votemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: altura
Bruce Willis never made a bad movie (that I can think of). He’s way underrated as an actor AND he’s a conservative.

One of my favorite movies...


40 posted on 11/17/2009 8:32:40 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-127 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson