World of KJ
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/

Tom Cruise considering a western as his next project
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19429		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Alfred [ Wed May 10, 2006 5:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Tom Cruise considering a western as his next project
Here is the full article: http://www.moviehole.net/news/20060508_ ... going.html
Author:  D-MONEY [ Thu May 11, 2006 8:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
Good there ain't to many westerns out now a days they need to make a come back
Author:  Harry Warden [ Thu May 11, 2006 8:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Bad move considering Westerns are star-driven and his star has dimmed.
Author:  Gulli [ Thu May 11, 2006 8:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'd be interested since he's never done a 100% Western before.
Author:  Dr. Lecter [ Thu May 11, 2006 8:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
Joe wrote:
Bad move considering Westerns are star-driven and his star has dimmed.


Dimmed or not, he's still among the three top draws in Hollywood... Where was all the talking about Hanks' dimmed star after The Terminal?
Author:  Harry Warden [ Thu May 11, 2006 8:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Joe wrote:
Bad move considering Westerns are star-driven and his star has dimmed.


Dimmed or not, he's still among the three top draws in Hollywood... Where was all the talking about Hanks' dimmed star after The Terminal?


Hanks never alienated anyone through wacky/psychotic behavior and thus still remained likeable.
Author:  Dr. Lecter [ Thu May 11, 2006 8:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
Joe wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Joe wrote:
Bad move considering Westerns are star-driven and his star has dimmed.


Dimmed or not, he's still among the three top draws in Hollywood... Where was all the talking about Hanks' dimmed star after The Terminal?


Hanks never alienated anyone through wacky/psychotic behavior and thus still remained likeable.


Likeable or not, The Terminal was supposed to be a hit with Hanks as a star, a light premise and Spielberg directing. Unlikeable or not and nevermind the expectations, M:I-3 will cross $100 million and become Cruise's 14th (!) film to do so.
Author:  jb007 [ Thu May 11, 2006 8:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dr. Lecter wrote:

Likeable or not, The Terminal was supposed to be a hit with Hanks as a star, a light premise and Spielberg directing. Unlikeable or not and nevermind the expectations, M:I-3 will cross $100 million and become Cruise's 14th (!) film to do so.


I agree. Even with all the shit about his antics and other stuff, his last two movies would have grossed close to $1B worldwide. MI:3 may have underwhelmed at the box office. It will still end up being profitable even with the back end deals and a $150M budget.
Author:  Harry Warden [ Thu May 11, 2006 8:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Joe wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Joe wrote:
Bad move considering Westerns are star-driven and his star has dimmed.


Dimmed or not, he's still among the three top draws in Hollywood... Where was all the talking about Hanks' dimmed star after The Terminal?


Hanks never alienated anyone through wacky/psychotic behavior and thus still remained likeable.


Likeable or not, The Terminal was supposed to be a hit with Hanks as a star, a light premise and Spielberg directing. Unlikeable or not and nevermind the expectations, M:I-3 will cross $100 million and become Cruise's 14th (!) film to do so.


The premise for The Terminal doesn't scream blockluster like M:I which would have done decently with someone else in the lead role.
Author:  Dr. Lecter [ Thu May 11, 2006 8:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Joe wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Joe wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Joe wrote:
Bad move considering Westerns are star-driven and his star has dimmed.


Dimmed or not, he's still among the three top draws in Hollywood... Where was all the talking about Hanks' dimmed star after The Terminal?


Hanks never alienated anyone through wacky/psychotic behavior and thus still remained likeable.


Likeable or not, The Terminal was supposed to be a hit with Hanks as a star, a light premise and Spielberg directing. Unlikeable or not and nevermind the expectations, M:I-3 will cross $100 million and become Cruise's 14th (!) film to do so.


The premise for The Terminal doesn't scream blockluster like M:I which would have done decently with someone else in the lead role.


Sorry, but I think you forgot all the predictions for The Terminal. It screamed light romcom with dramatic elemtns. But the point was really Hanks + Spielberg = $$$. Didn't turn out this way. $70 million is respectable for it, mind you, but so are $120+ million for M:I-3, especially considering a worldwide income of $350+ million.
Author:  Dr. Lecter [ Thu May 11, 2006 8:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
jb007 wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:

Likeable or not, The Terminal was supposed to be a hit with Hanks as a star, a light premise and Spielberg directing. Unlikeable or not and nevermind the expectations, M:I-3 will cross $100 million and become Cruise's 14th (!) film to do so.


I agree. Even with all the shit about his antics and other stuff, his last two movies would have grossed close to $1B worldwide. MI:3 may have underwhelmed at the box office. It will still end up being profitable even with the back end deals and a $150M budget.


With the advertising deals it made and a worldwide gross of over $300 million, it will make profit before leaving the theatres.
Author:  Harry Warden [ Thu May 11, 2006 8:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Joe wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Joe wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Joe wrote:
Bad move considering Westerns are star-driven and his star has dimmed.


Dimmed or not, he's still among the three top draws in Hollywood... Where was all the talking about Hanks' dimmed star after The Terminal?


Hanks never alienated anyone through wacky/psychotic behavior and thus still remained likeable.


Likeable or not, The Terminal was supposed to be a hit with Hanks as a star, a light premise and Spielberg directing. Unlikeable or not and nevermind the expectations, M:I-3 will cross $100 million and become Cruise's 14th (!) film to do so.


The premise for The Terminal doesn't scream blockluster like M:I which would have done decently with someone else in the lead role.


Sorry, but I think you forgot all the predictions for The Terminal. It screamed light romcom with dramatic elemtns. But the point was really Hanks + Spielberg = $$$. Didn't turn out this way. $70 million is respectable for it, mind you, but so are $120+ million for M:I-3, especially considering a worldwide income of $350+ million.


Those who predicted so high for The Terminal are insane. It's something that would have been given a limited release had it not had Hanks and Spielberg behind it.
Author:  Dr. Lecter [ Thu May 11, 2006 8:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Um...yeah...right.
Author:  zingy [ Thu May 11, 2006 9:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't recall one person predicting under $100 million total for The Terminal. I was quite low because I had a feeling that it would underperform in comparison to others' expectations, but I was still over.
Author:  Harry Warden [ Thu May 11, 2006 10:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Um...yeah...right.


Yeah because a story of a man who lives in an airport just screams blockbuster. Face it, without Hanks and Spielberg it wouldn't have been anything. M:I has a premise that with or without Cruise is mainstream.
Author:  Rev [ Thu May 11, 2006 10:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Joe wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Um...yeah...right.


Yeah because a story of a man who lives in an airport just screams blockbuster. Face it, without Hanks and Spielberg it wouldn't have been anything. M:I has a premise that with or without Cruise is mainstream.


True
Author:  O [ Thu May 11, 2006 10:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Without the accent, The Terminal would have added AT LEAST $30 m, to top $100 m. The accent on Hanks is just not what moviegoers wanted...even if it was integral to the story...
Author:  Dr. Lecter [ Fri May 12, 2006 5:44 am ]
Post subject: 
Read Zing's post. Everyone expected The Terminal to do better because it had a good cast, romcom elements and Spielberg directing.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/