Alrighty then.
Youve CLEARLY "hit a nerve" with all this talk of...Nicole Kidman. Hmm indeed; and its always great to see someone enforcing an already strong argument [Kidman is "box office poison" and "not a star"] by pointing at me and saying "I still haven't seen anything from you, just a lot of whining since I obviously hit a nerve"

I think i know whos getting my vote for Best Debator. :wink:

Giant Douche or Turd Sandwhich?

Come on Tori Amos, you have to do better than that.

I'll try, George Michael.

*curses realising that Michael's received insult-name inadvertantly belongs to a character of the wonderfully hilarious show Arrested Development, and is thus not as bad as being referred to as Tori Amos*

Did i crack your code, Tori?
Did i let the World [of KJ] know that behind all those layers of cynicism there lies a mildly creepy and superfamous singer?

You know what? I bet my opponent doesn't even know the answer to this question. Yeah that's right, I bet he has no clue what this question is about...he'd just stand up here and babble on about absolutely nothing for 30 seconds until being saved by the buzzer - *BUZZER sounds*

Seeing The Interpreter in an hour. Will report back later.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/downloa ... andwich....

Haha, lord knows I'd be really damn happy to get a nomination for that baby, but I haven't done any campaigning for those awards so I doubt it, but ah well. Either way though, it's ok, sometimes we make arguments and just can't back up the facts man. Just admit you're wrong unless you can show me some solid evidence, but until then I consider myself the victor.

Final predictions.

Opening: $19.3 million
Total: $67.6 million

Its not looking to have the greatest reviews. It should be fine though because there isn't much competition, and Kidman is a draw. Pollock too, though he's not a name among teens anymore. Hard to call but I think this might be the lowest #1 this this year to date. On the other hand, I can see three or four movies breaking ten million, and 5 breaking 8, so it won't be that poor a weekend overall, just not a smashing #1 for Interpreter.

17 million
47 total

The reviews are dropping. I feel the WOM won't be that great since a number of reviews mentioned the word "boring". Final predictions:

Opening: $18.7M
Total: $55M

Yeah, feel the same, just recetnly i overheard a review on austrian radio, they gave it a 6 out of 10.

$17m / $51m

Go on and consider yourself "the victor"; for it shows how much we are on two different levels man; you think a debate is a penis measuring competition where people are striving to put to shame the opposition; i think its an amicable, mature exchange of opinons. You've drawn the argument down to such petty nonsense as denying Nicole Kidmans is even a star, which is ridiculous; so i think its not worth me continuing to be party to a debate which is evidently just an argument.
If you honestly care who "the victor" is in a debate over who the bigger star is then....

People on box office websites are obssessed about facts. Newsflash, data dosen't control everything - its only a part of the bigger picture. Im sure if i could be bothered, or had the time, id be able to find box office data which i could spit my own bias all over and present as something else; but i hardly see the point - Nicole Kidman has brung glamour and starpower to many an obscure project. Kate Winslet is an example of a superstar, despite falling into obscurity post-titanic. Why? Who knows? All of her films performed relatively poorly at the box office until Finding Neverland, and shes never chosen high profile roles.

However she does look mighty fine on the red carpet; and the films she chooses are, funnily enough, film buff orgasmfests. Hmm indeed, are you willing to deny that Kate Winslet is a star now? Because the same horrific logic you applied to downing Nicole Kidman should of course apply to every actor and actress in Hollywood these days.

I actually think its word of mouth will be pretty good. As ive said already when people think they are watching a mastercraft in film-making, when they think that the prestiege alone is enough; its going to give some good word of mouth. Many arthouse/obscure films did very well on the same "everyones a critic" logic;

And by the way; where did this movie become boring? I found it thrilling throughout on its political merit.

I didn't which part the critics are referring to, but I'm just afraid that it can become another The Manchurian Candidate, which got good reviews but didn't strike a cord with the audience, resulting a much larger second weekend drop than a film of its caliber normally experiences.

Manchurian candidate had better reviews than this at RT and even that movie was considered lackluster. Currently the rating for the Interpretor is lower than Runaway Jury too. It will open to less than Manchurian Candidate the way I see it

$21 million opening.
62 million close.

Hey, Roid, how's it hangin'? :mrgreen:

Haha, take a chill pill dude, and get off your high horse and acting like your so much better then I am because you didn't stoop to the level of using facts and logic rather then personal bias to prove your point. :razz: Oh sure, you can keep telling me that Kidman is such a big glamorous star, and in the pages of National Enquirer or Us Weekly I'm sure she is. But I wasn't arguing about the tabloid rags loving them and how great they look in there 5 million dollar dresses on the red carpet, we were debating about whether or not they got butts into seats. Kate Winslet is another example of an actress who many people love (though in my personal opinion, deservingly so) but just doesn't have much any audience pull. I'd say that she's more of a star thanks to her small movies consistently getting great reviews (The Life of David Gale being the exception), whereas Nicole Kidman is in way more critical dogs then gems. And unlike Nicole Kidman, she hasn't been in any high profile roles. On the other hand, when Kidman has, the movies NEVER make 100 million, and often times bomb. But once again, I was never debating about who was or wasn't a star, I was debating about which ones brought in the audiences, and Denzel does more then Kidman and Winslet combined, despite my love of all things Kate W.

Im going to end this "debate" with this quote from Boxofficemojo


$22.822m was higher than "Man On Fire"s bow at more theaters. "The Interpreter" has already passed Man On Fire's total in the United Kingdom and has made 1/4th of its total worldwide.

Not a star indeed.

For the record - Denzel's only had two $100m pictures; and one ; The Pelican Brief, rode on the name of a certain female star who had top billing. His box office pull is, looking at the data [of course], hardly as consistent as you make it out to be, and the majority of the hits from his career have been where hes not the lead. "Man On Fire" cost $70m to make and $30m to distribute and advertise in North America alone; it made $118m at the global box office; when you factor in offshores costs you can bet that it didn't cut a profit at the box office; strong DVD performance is what bouyed it. Im not saying Denzel isn't a pull or a star as you so foolishly did with Nicole Kidman; but all im saying is the "facts" seem to be backing up my theory that Miss Kidman can please critics and audiences alike, and evidently from the polling and box office of The Interpreter, she can put bums in seats. Moulin Rouge is widely considered to be a classic musical; and has hit many peoples all time lists; [and check out Kidmans international box office figures; they are massive] Aside from a few mishaps in 2004, it seems that Nicole Kidman's more mainstream effects are working out pretty damn well. Theres no one who can deny her career has really taken off since she split from Cruise; and now shes on the top paid actress band thanks to brave choices and raw talent.

Oh and by the way; can you tell me where in this "debate" you decided we'd be talking over who can put more bums in seats? Because if im not mistaken, it was about who the bigger star is; not who the bigger pull is. Which is why this debate hasn't worked. You've been viewing it as one thing and ive been viewing it as something completely different.