| Author |
Message |
|
Alfred
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 429
Location: A place, where birds sing a pretty song and there's always music in the air
|
 Tom Cruise considering a western as his next project
|
| Wed May 10, 2006 5:06 pm |
 
|
|
|
D-MONEY
Newbie
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:49 pm
Posts: 6
Location: Chicago
|
Good there ain't to many westerns out now a days they need to make a come back
_________________
D-MONEY FO LIFE
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 8:05 pm |
|
|
|
Harry Warden
Orphan
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 19747
|
Bad move considering Westerns are star-driven and his star has dimmed.
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 8:06 pm |
|
|
|
Gulli
Jordan Mugen-Honda
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 13403
|
I'd be interested since he's never done a 100% Western before.
_________________
Rosberg was reminded of the fuel regulations by his wheel's ceasing to turn. The hollow noise from the fuel tank and needle reading zero had failed to convay this message
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 8:28 pm |
|
|
|
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
|
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? _________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 8:30 pm |
|
|
|
Harry Warden
Orphan
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 19747
|
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.
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 8:33 pm |
|
|
|
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
|
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 greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 8:35 pm |
|
|
|
jb007
Veteran
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:47 pm
Posts: 3917
Location: Las Vegas
|
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.
_________________
Dr. RajKumar 4/24/1929 - 4/12/2006
The Greatest Actor Ever.
Thanks for The Best Cinematic Memories of My Life.
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 8:40 pm |
|
|
|
Harry Warden
Orphan
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 19747
|
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.
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 8:44 pm |
|
|
|
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
|
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. _________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 8:45 pm |
|
|
|
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
|
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. _________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 8:46 pm |
|
|
|
Harry Warden
Orphan
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 19747
|
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.
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 8:49 pm |
|
|
|
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Um...yeah...right.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 8:53 pm |
|
|
|
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm
Posts: 36662
|
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.
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 9:06 pm |
|
|
|
Harry Warden
Orphan
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 19747
|
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.
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 10:27 pm |
|
|
|
Rev
Romosexual!
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:06 am
Posts: 32578
Location: the last free city
|
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
_________________
Is it 2028 yet?
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 10:28 pm |
|
|
|
O
Extraordinary
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:53 pm
Posts: 12193
|
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...
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 10:31 pm |
|
|
|
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Read Zing's post. Everyone expected The Terminal to do better because it had a good cast, romcom elements and Spielberg directing.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
| Fri May 12, 2006 5:44 am |
|
|
