Hollywood continues to rear ugly head and spit in my face.

[on:]

Oh man is it good to be back on hallowed soil, watchout y'all, the bitch is back to kill and kill again... With in reason of course....

But I ain't here to annouce my glorious return, actually I'm here to bitch and moan about something that got stuck in my head the other day, celebrities.

My sister reads all this quasi-celebrities news magazines all the time, y'know the type that don't go all out about every fucking hairstyle the girls have had on 'Friends' this season, just the revoloutionary ones.

She feels it important somehow to inform me Frankie Muniz (Or however you spell the little mutts name) is being paid five million for the sequal for that shit James Bond takeoff he just did with that evil hideous bitch Hillary Duff.

What's more is I actually like the bloke and think he's a good actor, just the roles he's given don't showcase that fantastically but I was at the concurrent remembering a simplier time.

We all know what the greatest horror/humour movie of all time is right? Evil Dead 2, that trilogy is a personal favourite of mine, and it had a budget -AN OVERALL BUDGET- of three million dollars, and I won't deny that it showed but it was a truely great movie, it had plot, it had story, it had a fantastic hero with a chin with it's own governor, it didn't need to pave over with millions of dollars, I'm sure Raimi wouldn't have snubbed at it but he still produced a quality movie on an even three.

So what can lil' Frankie produce for an extra two mill that beats out that movie altogether? What lord what? Then as my rage grew I said "Bah, five million, for the big name stars that's petty cash, they find that much rooting through their sofa cusions, what in Hells name is wrong with us when we're flushing hundreds of millions of dollars, completely disgusting amounts, down the toilet to these debatably talented individuals?

And those damn paparrazi celebrities hunters, parasites! Low scummy forms of life feeding the gigantic idiot proportion of the world population with latest updates of wether Timberlake and Spears were still stuck on third base or what, that bloody Entertainment Tonight, slimeballs that tried for class and don't get me started on those whinging bloody actors who have to whine about what a gruelling job acting is, sweetheart you got your Beverly Hills mansion, you're pulling in a cool hundred million a year, but boo-bloody-hoo you think acting is a gruelling profession, I'm so glad those coalminers, the factory workers, the physical labourers can through the miracle of ET understand how tough your lives are.

Heres the section where I give this rant a reason for being and ask your opinions, can you see the reasoning behind exhaulting these people? Cramming them full of more money than you'll ever see in your life for one movie? Hell one TV show in some cases? I am not a celebrity hater, I am a declared movie buff and stumble about scratching my head if someone asks me who my favourite actor is in genuine moral quandry but why society has become so deprived as to pay Halle Berry one million dollars for a good oggle at her fabulous tits (Wait no, who wouldn't?) Alright how about just the original example, Frankie Muniz getting paid five mill and God knows how much for that satanic bitch Duff for a sequal (in the works before the movie hit the box office, God knows how they picked that) tell me, tell me now!

[Reply #1 on:]

Hmm?

[Reply #2 on:]

Hollywood celebs are just today's version of aristocracy. They live on inflated budgets and can't relate to the common man.

[Reply #3 on:]

 

Originally Posted by Britz:
We all know what the greatest horror/humour movie of all time is right? Evil Dead 2, that trilogy is a personal favourite of mine, and it had a budget -AN OVERALL BUDGET- of three million dollars, and I won't deny that it showed but it was a truely great movie, it had plot, it had story, it had a fantastic hero with a chin with it's own governor, it didn't need to pave over with millions of dollars, I'm sure Raimi wouldn't have snubbed at it but he still produced a quality movie on an even three.

......Inflation

[Reply #4 on:]

The paparrazi have nothing better to do than follow celebrities around and "inform" us on every little detail of their day. And Britz has nothing better to do than whine about it. So, who's making better use of their time?

[Reply #5 on:]

Evil Dead is great... oh wait is that relevant?

[Reply #6 on:]

 

Originally posted by Beamer:
The paparrazi have nothing better to do than follow celebrities around and "inform" us on every little detail of their day. And Britz has nothing better to do than whine about it. So, who's making better use of their time?

I want to know when every celebrity takes a dump.

[Reply #7 on:]

I don't think we should waste our thought on it, let alone an entire topic.

[Reply #8 on:]

 

Originally posted by homerjaysimpson:
 
I want to know when every celebrity takes a dump.

E! News, Entertainment Tonight .. MTV

[Reply #9 on:]

I say we revolt and eat there corpses as a final act of triumph.

[Reply #10 on:]

Their only famous and 'respected' of us. We made them, therefore we have the means to destroy them.

[Reply #11 on:]

That's right.  If everyone just doesn't go and see their movies, then they won't get paid millions of dollars.  The thing is, you're paying their salaries.  The smart thing to do is just don't go see their movies and don't rent or buy their videos and DVD's.  That's the only way to make a difference.

[Reply #12 on:]

as well as putting every director, producer, editor, set designer, script supervisor, agent, camera man, sound mixer, boom operator, vtr operator, 1st ad, 2nd ad, production manager, lab technition, marketer, distributer, and thousand other positions out of work. Creating a wave of unemployment and poverty. Good suggestion Evil Fox Exec. Hats off to you.

[Reply #13 on:]

 

Originally posted by Venus:
as well as putting every director, producer, editor, set designer, script supervisor, agent, camera man, sound mixer, boom operator, vtr operator, 1st ad, 2nd ad, production manager, lab technition, marketer, distributer, and thousand other positions out of work. Creating a wave of unemployment and poverty. Good suggestion Evil Fox Exec. Hats off to you.

Actually that's not too bad an idea. Less shitty movies taking places at theaters that good movies could be taking.

Evil Dead was the shizzim shazzam, and unlike most famous horror movies of the 80's there were only a couple of sequels, and the quality in each sequel got better (in all ways). Maybe an "Ash vs. Jason & Freddy" movie wouldn't be too bad.

[Reply #14 on:]

refusing to see a movie because it sucks is completely different then refusing to see a movie because you think the actor in it was paid to much.

[Reply #15 on:]

 

Originally posted by Venus:
as well as putting every director, producer, editor, set designer, script supervisor, agent, camera man, sound mixer, boom operator, vtr operator, 1st ad, 2nd ad, production manager, lab technition, marketer, distributer, and thousand other positions out of work. Creating a wave of unemployment and poverty. Good suggestion Evil Fox Exec. Hats off to you.

Actually, no. Most of those people you named are on salaries, so it doesn't really matter if the movie they work on is any good. They get paid just the same if it's a success or a bomb. It's only studio execs that make the decent money.

[Reply #16 on:]

but if the studios don't make their money back from ticket sales then the studios can't afford to make as many movies.

[Reply #17 on:]

 

Originally posted by Venus:
but if the studios don't make their money back from ticket sales then the studios can't afford to make as many movies.

Which is good, because most mainstream movies (like the ones that are usually on the weekly top-ten) suck hard. I've seen maybe three new movies this year that I liked.

[Reply #18 on:]

That The Last Samurai look's good though, It's got Billy Conolly in.

[Reply #19 on:]

Evan's right. Usually most of the set workers have their payroll done before the movie is release. See, those stupid liars lied to us. Sales or not, they get paid either way. And they use the same workers to produce multiple movies.

[Reply #20 on:]

but if there's not as many movies being made then there's less work to go around. And as a film school graduate, i'm against that.

[Reply #21 on:]

[John DiMaggio (from the 2ACV01 commentary)]Next week on FOX...[/John DiMaggio (from the 2ACV01 commentary)
"Where Celebrities Wank"

[Reply #22 on:]

 

Originally posted by Evil Fox Exec:
That's right.  If everyone just doesn't go and see their movies, then they won't get paid millions of dollars.  The thing is, you're paying their salaries.  The smart thing to do is just don't go see their movies and don't rent or buy their videos and DVD's.  That's the only way to make a difference.

Hmm, Mr. Evil Fox Exec. You took my post too serious or too sarcastic. It was directed at some Actors who take no time for the fans of theirs' and quite simply are out there for money.


 

Originally posted by Venus:
as well as putting every director, producer, editor, set designer, script supervisor, agent, camera man, sound mixer, boom operator, vtr operator, 1st ad, 2nd ad, production manager, lab technition, marketer, distributer, and thousand other positions out of work. Creating a wave of unemployment and poverty. Good suggestion Evil Fox Exec. Hats off to you.

I agree with you, Venus. There are so many people behind the scenes of Films, Theatre etc, that if we take that advice, we would ruin so many peoples' dreams of making fame with their work. The actors are not just the stars of the production, but all the people who contributed, right down to the unpaid extra.

[Reply #23 on:]

 

Originally posted by Beamer:
The paparrazi have nothing better to do than follow celebrities around and "inform" us on every little detail of their day. And Britz has nothing better to do than whine about it. So, who's making better use of their time?

paparrazi get paid

[Reply #24 on:]

*skims through thread title*

...rear, head, face...

...and that's the average content of any Hollywood "news" item.

[Reply #25 on:]

 

Originally posted by evan:
 Actually, no. Most of those people you named are on salaries, so it doesn't really matter if the movie they work on is any good. They get paid just the same if it's a success or a bomb. It's only studio execs that make the decent money.

Exactly. This is why it pisses me off every time Regal shows that anti-piracy PSA in front of all its movies. I just want to yell at the set bulding guy "HEY! You get paid a salary! If the movie makes less money, you still get paid the same! So stop saying it effects you more than people, like executives, who get their money from royalties!"

[Reply #26 on:]

They still get payed but if their movie doesn't make money (thanks to, say, piracy) then they are less likely to be hired in the future.  If an inventor comes up with a great new invention, but everyone just pirates it and it doesn't sell well, are the companies going to go to him to invent more new inventions?  Most likely no.

Anyways, what people are forgetting is that movies have always sucked.  Sure, we don't hear about many sucky movies from the days of yesteryear because no one bothers to remember them, but there have always been plenty of crap movies.  Its not like they just suddenly got bad recently; the movie business has always been about making money and studios have always found that copying other movies and releasing sequels is a way to make money, and of course it is. 

[Reply #27 on:]

I think the problem comes from how movies are cast nowadays.

Ideally, a role should go to the actor who best fits the part.  Instead, casting directors try to get the star that will have the biggest box office draw; and the producers are willing to offer whatever amount of money it takes to get the star on board.

You can't really blame the celebrities for playing along.  If someone offered you 40 million dollars for a movie role, would you turn them down?  Probably not, even if you were obscenely wealthy already.

[Reply #28 on:]

What people seem to forget is that fifty years ago we had the Hollywood Studio System. If you say today's films are just cheap knock-offs of the same formula then back then things must have been really bad. One studio made one genre of film, used the same cast and crew, the same sets (since they were all built in the studio) and basically churned out tons of these films. While actors/actresses probably weren't paid as much as today they were in more films and were still chosen on their star power, like today. The only thing that has really changed is that today there is more freedom in Hollywood- you don't have to make a 'genre' film, and the studios tend to focus on quality over quantity. Feel lucky that Evil Dead got made, because a decade or two earlier it probably wouldn't have.

Unfortunately, making a film is an expensive business and production companies aren't going to fund a film unless they're certain to get a good return on it. It helps to have a crowd-pulling celebrity so you're more likely to get your money back. It's easy to say 'films shouldn't be made to make money' but if you think you can remake The Matrix:Reloaded with 5 million dollars and get your money back you are kidding yourself. And has already been said, if you don't make your money back it is usually the lowly crew whose careers are put at risk.

 

That's right. If everyone just doesn't go and see their movies, then they won't get paid millions of dollars. The thing is, you're paying their salaries. The smart thing to do is just don't go see their movies and don't rent or buy their videos and DVD's. That's the only way to make a difference.

That's not the case. As well as putting all the crew out of work, that won't get rid of celebrity culture. We created our own monster with celebrities- making an industry where individuals are elevated above everyone else by the paying public. People are still willing to buy Heat, watch chat shows with celebrity guest star, buy newspapers with celebrity news, etc. This is what fuels celebritism- people who will pay to see or read anything about these individuals. The only way things will change if those people realise they're only buying into a human being, not some superhuman icon. And I doubt that will happen any time soon.

In the meantime, I'm going to watch films because I enjoy them. Not because I get to see a 40 million dollar actor in them.

[Reply #29 on:]

Okay, I take back what I said.