Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Forum Thread A note about the site and any replies from other users.
Porn Users Forum » Upcoming Movie Thread
951-1000 of 1198 Posts < Previous Page 1 2 6 10 14 19 Page 20 21 22 23 24 Next Page >
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home

12-13-12  05:22am - 596 days #972
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Forget the Hobbit.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation is coming to your local movie theater this March, 2013.

Featuring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Channing Tatum, and everybody's action hero, Bruce Willis as General Joe Colton.

And best of all, Cobra forces will launch an attack on London, England, blowing up Big Ben and showing the dirty Brits what power is all about. So maybe Cobra isn't entirely evil after all, just misunderstood and wanting to re-shape the world to a cleaner, leaner vision.

Go, Cobra!

(I am getting tired of seeing Los Angeles getting blown up on the big screen. So I applaud when I see New York, or even London, taking the hit.)

12-13-12  03:52pm - 595 days #973
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I was originally quite happy when I first heard that they were making a sequel because even though the first one was cheesy. I really liked it. I was a lot less happy when I saw the first trailer for the sequel and there was not a single GI Joe back from the first one except for Snake Eye and I'm pretty sure that's because they killed them all off in the first few minutes of the sequel. At least that's what is shown in the trailer. I guess I must have been right because the movie was yanked from the release schedule a couple of weeks before it's release this year and they had to film more scenes (I guess to unkill Duke) and they claim to add 3D. I call Bullshit on that story. There's no way you do that to a movie a couple of weks before it's big summer release unless test audience told them they had a giant turd that was about to stink up theaters.

They have since then filmed more scenes with Duke so I guess he will have an actual role in thsi one other than dead comrade. Of course that means nothing to me because I will definetely skip this one. A couple of reshoots are fine with me but to have to start shooting more content means that writers had to be brought back in as well so the story is not going to make as much sense now and I don't think the addition of Bruce Willis was a good idea. I think he is better when he's alone and not when he's in an asemble. Long live the Brown Coats.

12-14-12  11:25am - 594 days #974
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I liked G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra that came out a few years ago. I thought it was a fun movie, with lots of action. And the girls added some nice eye-candy, like Rachel Nichols.

But the best comic book movie that I saw in the last few years was Captain America: The First Avenger, with Chris Evans. I liked the story, the visuals, the super-car, the super-airplane, the super-villain (Hugo Weaving as the Red Skull), etc. I even bought the DVD.

12-14-12  06:39pm - 594 days #975
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Captain America was a great movie. They managed to do one of the best origin stories that I have ever seen. That is usually where most of these types of movies screw up. The producers spend so much time introducing the character and building him up that there is no time left for anything else and you are left with not much action or they pack so too much flash and no actual substance. Long live the Brown Coats.

01-03-13  12:01pm - 574 days #976
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Step aside, Daniel Craig. Hugh Jackman is ready to take over the James Bond character.


=======


'I'm ready': Jackman jokes about becoming Bond

December 7, 2012


Hugh Jackman is ready to don a tux and sip a martini with the Aussie screen star joking that he is willing to wait for his chance to play famous fictitious British spy James Bond.

Jackman, 44, said he was too busy playing Wolverine in the X-Men series in 2006 when he was approached to take on the 007 part.



Instead Briton Daniel Craig, 44, got the gun and has now made three Bond films - Casino Royale (2006), Quantum of Solace (200 and Skyfall (2012).


"At the time it was wrong for me, but when I saw Daniel in the movie I thought maybe I should have been more interested, because it was great," Jackman told British newspaper The Sun.


"But I am great mates with Daniel. When he was in Australia we caught up and, you know, no one could have played Bond better."

But the Sydneysider has not given up on the chance to serve Her Majesty's secret service and took a swipe at his mate's unflattering physique.

"I will just wait," he quipped. "The good thing about Daniel is he's, what, 62 now, isn't he? He's falling apart at the seams. So I just keep telling him, 'I'm ready, whenever you want to let him (Bond) go, I'm ready.'

"The good thing is I have also got a British passport.

01-03-13  06:49pm - 574 days #977
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I don't think Jackman has a chance in hell of getting to play Bond. If Craig wasn't a shoe in for many more years as Bond before Skyfall then now that the movie has grossed more than a billion dollars at the box office. Then you can bet your sweet ass that he is guaranteed that role for at least the next 3 pictures. The only problme that the franchise had was not even related to the Bond brand but a question of finance since MGM went out of business and they owned the Bond Brand. Don't know if they still do. Long live the Brown Coats.

01-03-13  07:44pm - 574 days #978
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
What with all the bankruptcies and financial deals and whatever, you need to be an expert to understand who owns what in producing/distributing deals for James Bond or a lot of other film libraries.

Some deals apparently make little or no sense. I once read that Burt Lancaster owned some rights to Gunfight at the OK Corral (1957, a film he starred in with Kirk Douglas). His rights to the film were sold for $1.00 to someone. I never understood the details of that deal, or how it was allowed to stand legally.

I mean, they are still selling DVDs of the movie, and you can pay to rent it or buy a digital copy of the movie at Amazon or other streaming services.

It's one of my favorite westerns. I saw it originally in a movie theater back in the 1950s, and have seen it several times since.

01-04-13  06:08pm - 573 days #979
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I know that it can get confusing rather quickly and I'm no expert but I do know that MGM owned the rights to Bond until this latest movie. They may still or should I say whoever owns MGM still does. I do know that production of Skyfall was pushed back because MGM was having financial problems and that they were either bought or got financing because Skyfall got made.

Is it possible that Burt sold his rights to the movie to a charitable organisation so that it would always have some money coming in from royalties? That's the only thing that makes sense other wise his family of the executioner of his estate would probably request that the transaction be cancelled.

I've never been a big fan of movies about the OK Corral but I was a huge fan of Burt as an actor. There aren't many actors that do their own stunts but it was obvious in many of his movies that he did many of his own stunts. Long live the Brown Coats.

01-04-13  09:06pm - 573 days #980
PinkPanther (46)
Active User



Posts: 872
Registered: Jan 08, '07
Location: Oakland, CA
I don't know about how much stunt work Burt Lancaster did in "OK Corral", but Tony Curtis talked about himself and Burt Lancaster doing stunt work in "Trapeze":

"In Tony Curtis: The Autobiography, co-written with Barry Paris, the actor recalled that "some of the aerial stunts were so dangerous, even the doubles had doubles. But I did a lot of the ground tumbling, and some of the flying too. Burt and I did everything we could to make it easier in the cutting. I did a good chunk of the early bar work in the film, and that was really Burt and me walking on our hands."

01-05-13  12:05am - 573 days #981
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I forget where I read that Burt Lancaster's rights to Gunfight at the OK Corral were sold for $1.00. But it wasn't to a charity. It was a business deal. The man who sold the rights either worked for, or was a business associate of Lancaster.

I'm pretty certain Lancaster himself was not involved in the sale. He was either sick (he suffered a stroke a few years before his death, and never fully recovered from that stroke) or was actually dead.

I'm pretty certain the article said (in my own words, now) that some family member said the person who sold the rights for $1.00 was not a thief or trying to steal anything. But the article did not give any explanation for why the rights were sold so cheaply.

01-05-13  12:30am - 573 days #983
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I found an article that talks about the sale of Burt Lancaster's rights to certain films.

And this article shows that it wasn't just limited to one film, but the rights of many of Burt Lancaster's films were sold cheaply (or more acurrately, given away).

The Lancaster heirs were screwed.

=========
---------

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/12/...ertainment/ca-burt12

Los Angeles Times (newspaper)


Pursuing a legacy

Movies | SHOWBIZ


Rarely does a star get the rights to his films. So how, the heirs of Burt Lancaster want to know, did his slip away?


June 12, 2005|Robert W. Welkos | Times Staff Writer





CALL it "The Mystery of the Lancaster Copyrights."

The star: Burt Lancaster.

The studio: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

The plot: Why did Lancaster's business manager sign away valuable copyrights to some of the actor's best-known films, including "Elmer Gantry," "Sweet Smell of Success" and "Birdman of Alcatraz," to MGM in the 1990s at a time when the actor either was incapacitated by a stroke or after his 1994 death from a heart attack at age 80.




Seeking answers, Lancaster's three daughters and grown granddaughter have filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that these well-known movies along with nine others were signed away to the studio for as little as $1 each, amounting to what the suit calls a "wholesale plundering" of the actor's estate.

"Something went terribly wrong with my father's estate," his youngest daughter, Sighle Lancaster, 50, of Los Angeles, said in a statement released through her attorney. "At this point, I do not know who exactly is responsible for why it happened, but my goal is to find out as much as I can."

Lancaster's relatives currently earn a portion of home video sales of the late star's movies, but contend that the copyrights could allow them to earn much more. Given today's red-hot market in DVD sales and rentals, the family says that some of Lancaster's movies could potentially generate millions of dollars in the years to come.

The other films at the center of the suit include movies that Lancaster either starred in or co-produced, such as "The Unforgiven," "The Devil's Disciple," "Separate Tables," "The Young Savages," "Cry Tough," "Bachelor Party," "Season of Passion" (also known as "Summer of the Seventeenth Doll"), "Take a Giant Step" and "The Rabbit Trap."

Joining their sister Sighle (pronounced Shee-la) in the lawsuit are Susan Elizabeth Lancaster, 55, and Joanna Mari Lancaster, 53, and the actor's 38-year-old granddaughter, Keigh Lancaster, all of Los Angeles.

According to the lawsuit, the movie rights were transferred in the '90s by the actor's business manager, Jack M. Ostrow, who died in 1998. Lancaster's heirs, who can't fathom why Ostrow would do such a thing, are alleging fraud, negligence, conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty against three people who might know the answers: employees of a banking company, U.S. Trust, which was a co-trustee along with Ostrow.

The suit claims that former employees John Westwater and Andrew Gifford and a current vice president, Mimi Evers, "should have sounded an alarm" when the unusual transfers occurred and also alleges that the employees "failed to undertake any investigation of the suspect conduct."

U.S. Trust declined to discuss the suit, but a spokeswoman issued the following statement: "U.S. Trust and its officers managed the Lancaster Trusts properly and professionally, in the best interests of all of the beneficiaries of the trusts created by Burt Lancaster. We firmly believe the complaint has no merit."

The Lancaster heirs are also suing an attorney who they say missed a crucial deadline to file a claim against MGM. As a result, although MGM -- recently sold to a business consortium led by Sony Corp. -- retains the copyrights in question, it is not a party to the lawsuit, the family's attorney said.


Out-of-the-ordinary pact

IT is rare for stars to have copyright ownership of the films in which they appear. Studios prefer to keep those rights, and instead give a star a percentage of a movie's gross receipts on the back end. However, the copyrights would give the Lancaster heirs the ability to pick out any distributor they want, and put together their own deals, instead of relying upon the studio to do so.

The story of the Lancaster copyrights began in the late 1940s, not long after Lancaster shot to stardom in the 1946 film noir "The Killers" costarring Ava Gardner. Before the decade was out, Lancaster had decided to buck the studio system and formed a production company with Harold Hecht, the man who had spotted him early in his career and told him: "In five years we'll be making our own pictures."

Lancaster and Hecht made film deals with United Artists stipulating that their production company would retain a substantial interest in ownership rights to each of their films, including copyrights, according to the lawsuit. United Artists eventually would be absorbed into MGM, which continued to distribute many of Lancaster's films around the world.

In 1988, the actor set up a trust to oversee his assets and he became a co-trustee along with Ostrow, his business manager. But Lancaster suffered a stroke in 1990 that left him unable to communicate and he was removed as co-trustee.

In 1992, Ostrow transferred the rights to "Elmer Gantry," for which Lancaster won an Oscar as best actor, to MGM. A year later, MGM received the rights to "Sweet Smell of Success." Then in 1997, the rights to 10 other Lancaster films, including "Birdman of Alcatraz," were signed away to MGM.





Since Lancaster's death in 1994, his heirs have received less than $2 million from MGM, and only for three films -- including "Elmer Gantry" -- according to their attorney, Charles G. Smith of Los Angeles.

"Neither I nor any of the other heirs of Burt Lancaster has ever received any money for 'Sweet Smell of Success,' " Sighle Lancaster said through her attorney, referring to what is one of her father's most popular movies. "We have not received anything for TV or video rights.... We have always been told that the movie is in a loss position."


Smith, who filed the suit on behalf of Lancaster's daughters and granddaughter, said he is baffled by Ostrow's moves.

There is no suggestion that Ostrow benefited financially from the transfers, Smith said, and it seems unlikely that he would have betrayed Lancaster, who was a close friend and confidant.

The lawsuit speculates that some of the transfers came at a time when MGM was in corporate turmoil, and Italian financier Giancarlo Parretti borrowed against the MGM-UA film library to fund his short-lived control of the studio.

"We cannot figure out why [Ostrow] transferred these movie rights for what appeared to be no consideration. More to the point, we don't understand why he had to do it.... It doesn't make sense he would do this for financial gain for himself because he was financially stable and he was a longtime associate that Burt depended on."

Added Smith: "That's why these transfers make no sense."



Memorable roles

Some of Burt Lancaster's best-known films are among those whose rights were signed away to MGM and have become the center of a court battle. Following is a snapshot of three that earned him some of his best notices. All, including his Oscar-winning performance in "Elmer Gantry," pictured at far left, are available on DVD.

'SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS': Though it wasn't a financial success when released in 1957, "Sweet Smell" is considered one of the seminal films from the 1950s. Lancaster is cast as J.J. Hunsecker, the most powerful newspaper columnist in New York. Tony Curtis plays sleazy publicist Sidney Falco. Directed by Alexander Mackendrick,

"Sweet Smell" also features a superb jazz score by Elmer Bernstein.

*

'BIRDMAN OF ALCATRAZ': Released in 1962, this film was Lancaster and director John Frankenheimer's triumph as a team. Lancaster received a best actor Oscar nomination for his moving performance as Robert Stroud, a convicted murderer who becomes an expert on birds after saving a baby sparrow. Thelma Ritter, as his mother, and Telly Savalas also received Oscar nominations.

*

'SEPARATE TABLES': One of the most acclaimed films of 1958, "Tables" received numerous Oscar nominations including best picture and actress (Deborah Kerr). It won Oscars for David Niven and Wendy Hiller, above with Lancaster. Lancaster plays an alcoholic residing in an English hotel who is secretly engaged to the woman (Hiller) who runs it. Rita Hayworth plays Lancaster's ex-wife, who arrives for a visit to stir things up.

01-05-13  12:44am - 573 days #984
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
This ToriiBlackk is using the forums to promote a free password site. Spam.

01-05-13  07:16am - 572 days #985
Khan
PornUsers Staff




Posts: 1,579
Registered: Jan 05, '07
Location: USA
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


This ToriiBlackk is using the forums to promote a free password site. Spam.


Yes, and that's why he's been suspended.

FWIW, I'm usually pretty good at catching these. One post (by you) or submitting a report will doubly ensure I don't miss them. There's little reason to post a "notice" after each of the spammer's posts. Senior Administrator
PornUsers.com

"What screws us up most in life is the picture in our head of how it's supposed to be"
Edited on Jan 05, 2013, 07:28am

01-05-13  07:46am - 572 days #986
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I guess I was hoping for extra credit by posting those notices. Oh, well.

01-07-13  09:05am - 570 days #987
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Parker, a new movie coming out this month at theaters, starring Jason Statham. The movie is loosely based on the first book in a series about the Parker character by Richard Stark. Stark (better known as Donald Westlake) died in 2008.

I saw a preview of the movie. Like I said, it's very loosely based on the Parker series of novels. Jason Straham uses the name of Parker, and the Parker character is double-crossed by his parner in committing a robbery and shot. And then Parker goes after his former ex-partner.

But aside from a few references to the original book in the series, it appears that the Parker story has been updated and changed. The original Parker novel came out in 1962, and there were 24 books in the series. Parker was one of the best hard-boiled criminals ever written, and if you like crime stories about hard-boiled criminals, you would probably like reading this series.

You would have a hard time recognizing Parker (2013, the movie) from the trailer I saw, if you are thinking about the Parker character from the first few books about him.

There were at least 2 other film adaptations of the original Parker novel, and both were closer to the original storyline.

Point Blank (1967), starring Lee Marvin.
Payback (1999), starring Mel Gibson.

I usually like Jason Statham movies. But I thought the original The Mechanic with Charles Bronson was better, because the plot made more sense.

I've read all the Parker books, and I think it would be better if I could dis-associate everything I remember about the series, from this movie, because except for a few similarities, this movie Parker is a very different character from the book series. The movie is an "updated version", which means they changed the plot almost completely. And the way the character acts is very different from the way Parker acted in the first few books of the series.

I haven't seen the movie yet, obviously, because it hasn't come out. But in my opinion, if they had followed the original story more closely, without making the changes to the plotline and the characters, it would have been a better movie.

01-16-13  12:58am - 562 days #989
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
http://www.cnbc.com/


Highly Expensive TV Productions

Multi-million-dollar epic productions featuring prestigious actors and costly special effects aren't just for multiplexes any more.

Television now serves as home to programming that rivals anything Peter Jackson — the guru behind "Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit — can put on the screen, with the budgets to prove it.

What drives these huge budgets? According to Shari Anne Brill, president and CEO of Shari Anne Brill Media, it comes down to location, talent and CGI, and that's just for starters.

"The sets and costumes can drive up the price [of] historical dramas," the advertising veteran said in an interview. "Stunts can be expensive." She added that budgets run into deficits when unforeseen problems rear their heads.

"Sometimes you'll go into extra money if the show doesn't test well, or if you have issues with talent and you have to re-shoot entire scenes," she said. "Sometimes there are creative differences, or someone was a prima donna and had to be replaced."

So is it worth spending millions of dollars to create a television show with no guarantee that it will be successful? According to Brill, if the show is a hit, the answer becomes an emphatic 'yes'.

What are some of the most expensive television productions of all time? Read ahead to find out.

By Daniel Bukszpan
Posted 15 Jan. 2013



"Band of Brothers"

"Band of Brothers" was a 10-episode World War II miniseries that aired on HBO in 2001. With Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks serving as executive producers, it brought the show a level of gravitas that compared favorably to "Saving Private Ryan," the 1998 runaway critical and box-office hit. The show also used real World War II veterans as consultants, helping to make the show feel realistic.

According to The New York Times, the price tag for "Band of Brothers" was $110 million. The miniseries went on to win six Emmys and sold $250 million worth of DVDs, according to The Los Angeles Times.



"Boardwalk Empire"

"Boardwalk Empire" is an HBO series that chronicles gangster life in Atlantic City during the 1920s. Few people are as qualified to bring the violent Prohibition era to the screen as "GoodFellas" and "Casino" director Martin Scorsese, who directed the $18 million feature-length pilot. Why, some asked, would HBO go to such expensive lengths for a new show?

Part of it may have been pure return on equity. "After 'The Sopranos' was finished, a lot of people felt like there was no point in keeping HBO, and they cancelled it," Brill said. She speculated that the network may have hoped that a new gangster series could attract new subscribers, or win back those it had lost when "The Sopranos" ended.


"Father of the Pride"

"Father of the Pride" was a short-lived NBC animated sitcom that ran in 2004. It was so short-lived, in fact, that the first season didn't even air in its entirety. The show was about a family of white lions, one of whom appears with Siegfried & Roy in Las Vegas.

It cost $1.6 million per episode to produce, so it needed to be a ratings juggernaut to justify its expense. Unfortunately, it lost nearly half of its highly-coveted 18- to 49-year-old demographic within just a couple of months. The show was quickly euthanized before even completing its scheduled run.

(NOTE: NBC is the parent company of CNBC.)


"Friends"

Thirty-minute sitcoms normally cost very little money, as they're shot on an inexpensive set with a single camera. The NBC mega-hit "Friends" had modest production demands, but the cost of the show was driven up as time went on by the actors.

The stars of the ensemble show -- Jennifer Aniston, Courteney Cox, Lisa Kudrow, Matt LeBlanc, Matthew Perry and David Schwimmer -- grew increasingly popular in their own right. In 2002, however, rather than lobby for higher salaries individually, the actors lobbied as a group to have them bumped up to $1 million each per episode.


"Game of Thrones"

"Game of Thrones" is an HBO fantasy series that has raked in devoted fans since its April 2011 premiere. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the budget for the first season was between $50 million and $60 million. Brill said that it was worth the risk.

"When something hits that well and does well overseas, then that's where all the money is," she said. "Something like HBO is not ad-supported, so there's much more money in back-end stuff like DVDs and overseas sales."



"Lost"

"Lost" was a massively popular ABC TV show that followed the survivors of a plane crash who are stranded on a desert island. It premiered in 2004, and went on to become a cultural phenomenon and ratings juggernaut throughout its six seasons.

The pilot was directed by J. J. Abrams, and The Honolulu Star-Bulletin reported that it cost between $10 million and $14 million. This was the most money ever spent on a pilot episode in ABC history, but the loyal following of millions of "Losties" suggests it was worth it.


"Pan Am"

"Pan Am" was an ABC series about the pilots and stewardesses of the iconic airline, which is now defunct. It took place during the 1960s, earning plaudits for the realism of its sets and costumes.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Sony Pictures Television spent $10 million on the pilot alone. It looked great and received favorable reviews, yet that wasn't enough to keep viewers interested. The series ended in February 2012, a mere five months after it debuted.



"Rome"

"Rome" was originally pitched to HBO as a miniseries, but the network liked the idea so much that they ordered a whole series. According to BBC News, the sprawling tale of the Roman Empire became a joint venture between HBO and BBC that cost close to $100 million.

Still, the show was cancelled after two seasons, primarily because of its huge price tag. HBO Chairman and CEO Chris Albrecht cited the show's cost as a factor behind why the BBC wouldn't commit to more seasons. "This was a big bite for them," he said.



"Terra Nova"

"Terra Nova" was a 2011 Fox series in which a family was transported millions of years into the past to encounter CGI dinosaurs. The creatures were expensive to render, and according to The Washington Post, the pilot alone cost between $10 million and $20 million to produce.

Despite good reviews, Fox didn't pick up the pricey show for a second season. "Probably 'Terra Nova' wasn't supposed to cost as much as it did, but went over budget for CGI, which put it out of the ballpark," Brill said.



"The X Factor"

"The X Factor" is a reality show created by Simon Cowell of Fox's "American Idol" fame. The nearly-identical premise involves the search for new singing talent through public auditions, with a $5 million recording contract as the prize. According to Cowell, the budget of the show is $100 million, a figure which he revealed while discussing the ongoing instability in the judges' chairs.

Celebrity judges such as Britney Spears, Paula Abdul and Demi Lovato had come and gone as the show progressed. At one point, rumors circulated that Cowell had offered megastar Beyonce Knowles the opportunity to be a judge for $100 million. In an interview with the television show "Extra", however, he squashed the rumor immediately. "The budget of the show is $100 million," he said. "No one is going to pay $100 million a year for someone."

01-16-13  05:27pm - 561 days #990
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^The X-Factor cost 100 millions only because these people pay each other such large salaries that it's impossible for it to cost any less. I mean they paid Britney Spears 15 millions dollars for the current season and she was not the rating grabber they hoped for so they asked her to take a pay cut. She refused so she left before they fired her. Simon who owns the show must easily pay himself 40-50 millions and you have Antonio Reid who's probably about 8 millions and finally Demi Lovato who is the one making the least because she makes a little over one million.

You have already spent over 60 millions before the camrera have begun filming but they must still be making money if the networks keep pumping money into these shows.

Terra Nova was produced by Fox so it's demised was already assured before they had filmed a single episode. I'm sure bad ratings, a high budget and badly conceived storylines didn't help things.

If Pan Am had been made by a cable channel than it might still be on air because it would have had nudity, violence and everything else that cable chnnels can put to attract viewers.

The reality for network tv is that they will never be able to compete with cable because network v is limited on what they can show and the budget they are alloted is often a lot less than most cable shows. The ability to show full body nudity, softcore sex scenes, blood & guts, carnage, violence and what not puts cable shows on a level that network shows can ever achieve. That's why I try never compairing anything cable does with a possible network equivalent because it's not fair for the network show. Long live the Brown Coats.

01-16-13  06:20pm - 561 days #991
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,936
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


"Friends"

Thirty-minute sitcoms normally cost very little money, as they're shot on an inexpensive set with a single camera. The NBC mega-hit "Friends" had modest production demands, but the cost of the show was driven up as time went on by the actors.

The stars of the ensemble show -- Jennifer Aniston, Courteney Cox, Lisa Kudrow, Matt LeBlanc, Matthew Perry and David Schwimmer -- grew increasingly popular in their own right. In 2002, however, rather than lobby for higher salaries individually, the actors lobbied as a group to have them bumped up to $1 million each per episode.


Other shows' main cast have done this as well; Fox's The Simpsons eventually got the company to pay the lead voice actors up to around $400,000 per episode in the late 2000s, though it's down to around $300,000 now. I used to love this show--it's now in its 24th season--but every time I've tried to watch a current episode it has always felt like the comedy was so strained and forced, a lot different from what it used to be.

I think Seinfeld had some pretty ridiculous salary raising moments in its time but it supposedly still makes a ton of money in syndication and DVD sales (particularly for Seinfeld himself, since he was a writer/producer/star on almost every episode).


Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


"Pan Am"

"Pan Am" was an ABC series about the pilots and stewardesses of the iconic airline, which is now defunct. It took place during the 1960s, earning plaudits for the realism of its sets and costumes.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Sony Pictures Television spent $10 million on the pilot alone. It looked great and received favorable reviews, yet that wasn't enough to keep viewers interested. The series ended in February 2012, a mere five months after it debuted.


You think people would know better than to base a show around an airline that eventually went bankrupt (not to mention suffer a major terrorist attack to boot). I guess they thought they could capitalize on that Mad Men-style the-60s-were-so-cool vibe. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

01-17-13  08:05am - 560 days #992
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I think that some of these shows that are very expensive are worth the money, because of the quality or popularity with the audiences they draw in.

I enjoy Game of Thrones.

I also enjoyed Rome.

Deadwood was not among this list of expensive shows, but I thought it was a great series.

But paying voice actors $300,000 or $400,000 per episode is ridiculous, in my opinion. Plus, I am sure they also get extra money from residuals, DVD sales, etc.

01-17-13  08:50am - 560 days #993
jberryl69 (12)
Active User



Posts: 969
Registered: Nov 27, '10
Location: neverland
At least the Xfactor exposed to the world the talent of 13 year old Carly Rose - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPAUGh9GHn8

And my affection is only for her voice. If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat!

01-17-13  11:13am - 560 days #994
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I just read that Matt Lauer's salary is $25,000,000 per year. He is co-host of NBC's The Today Show since 1996. The Today Show is a morning news\talk show.

When I said that some voice actors appear to be overpaid, I hadn't realized that TV talk show hosts can make even more money.

$25 million a year, to host a daytime news/talk show?

01-17-13  11:39am - 560 days #995
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Carly Rose Sonenclar might be only 13 years old, but one of the YouTube videos asks if she is an alien.

Do they allow aliens to be appear on TheXFactorUSA?

She has a fantastic voice. And her performances are freaking great.

According to Wikipedia, she made her Broadway debut when she was 6 or 7 years old in Les Miserables.

01-17-13  12:48pm - 560 days #996
jberryl69 (12)
Active User



Posts: 969
Registered: Nov 27, '10
Location: neverland
^ Yes, she didn't just come out of the woodwork with those chops. Still, the best to appear and had it not been for the X-factor how long before the mass public even heard of her? If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat!

01-18-13  04:45am - 560 days #997
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
In theory, the President of the U.S. is not a movie star.
But did you know some of the following facts about the President?
1. His limo is transported by plane wherever he travels.
2. He gets to see first-run and not-released movies free of charge.
3. He does not stop for a red light or a stop sign.
4. He has his own private zip code.

==========
==========
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/just-expl...perks-203926005.html

Just Explain It: Who Pays For Presidential Perks?
By Zelkadis Elvi | Just Explain It – 15 hours ago



Being the President of the United States comes with a tremendous amount of pressure and responsibility. However, the commander in chief does enjoy preferential treatment most of us will never experience.

Some of those perks include: having his limo transported by plane wherever he travels, getting to see first-run and not-released movies free of charge, never stopping for a stop light or sign and his own private zip code.

Which brings us to today’s Just Explain It.

What’s the value of the presidency when you add in all the perks for being Commander-in-Chief?

We may never be able to put a dollar amount on the value of the presidency. That’s because some of the costs associated with the position are buried in many different budgets and scattered between different governmental departments.

Let’s take a look at some of the presidential perks covered by your tax dollars. They not only make the president’s life easier, they’re for security and practical purposes too.

Number one -- the president’s salary is $400,000 a year. The Chief Executive also gets a budget for entertainment, business and travel expenses.

Number two -- Transportation. To get the president from place to place safely, he has Air Force One, Marine One and a limo available at a moment’s notice. A 2012 Congressional Research Service report found that Air Force One costs about $180,000 an hour to operate.

According to the Hawaii Reporter, one round-trip flight to Honolulu by President Obama last month cost about $3.2 million. But the president made two of them because of the fiscal cliff crisis. That doubled the price tag to $6.4 million.

Number three – The White House. For the 2008 fiscal year, Bradley Patterson, a retired Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, estimated the cost of running the White House was almost $1.6 billion. And that amount didn’t include unpublished classified expenses.

The president’s White house staff also comes at a steep price. In 2012, the White House reported its payroll grew from $37 million in 2011 to $37.8 million. The list includes 468 names. 139 of which make more than $100,000 a year.

Number four – Secret Service access. Protecting the President takes a great deal of manpower. The agency’s budget this year is $1.6 billion. A portion of that will go toward protecting president while in office and for life.

And number five – Retirement plan. According to CNBC, President Obama will receive over $191,000 a year for life as soon as he leaves office.

A former president’s net worth can grow substantially in retirement. After two terms in office, The Atlantic magazine reported Bill Clinton’s net worth at around $40 million. The increase was due to numerous speaking engagements and book deals.

01-18-13  02:33pm - 559 days #998
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I just saw Frankenweenie, the Tim Burton animated film that came out on DVD last week.

I thought it was technically superior, a beautifully realized black-and-white animated update of the original Frankenstein movie.

But I didn't really enjoy it all that much.

I enjoyed Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland so much more. Alice in Wonderland has great visuals, fantastic colors (it's a color film), a great mix of characters who are familiar yet re-imagined for this film, a more elaborate plot, etc. etc., just a better overall experience watching this movie unfold.

01-18-13  06:46pm - 559 days #999
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by jberryl69:


^ Yes, she didn't just come out of the woodwork with those chops. Still, the best to appear and had it not been for the X-factor how long before the mass public even heard of her?


I saw a couple of her performances and I thought that she was okay. Not bad but then again not that great. Now I'm sure that I'm in the minority but here's the thing. Do we really need another teen singer? We all know that she will sonner or later wind up just as screwed up as all the others that have preceded her. I mean a singing career can be a nice thing but not unless you are 18 and over. Do we really need for another Britney, Miley, Demi and all of the other teenage singers we have had?. Long live the Brown Coats.

01-20-13  09:01am - 557 days #1000
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I assumed or guessed that big-name stars can wear designer dresses to the Oscars or other big events, for free.

But I didn't realize that they could get paid to wear those dresses or jewelry.

I guess I'm just naive.
========
========

Hefty paychecks can shape Oscars’ star styles
By Kwala Mandel | Yahoo! Movies Oscars Blog – Fri, Jan 18, 2013 6:12 PM EST





Big-name designers spend millions on ad campaigns — but it turns out they can pay an additional price to make sure their styles are seen on A-list celebrities for events like the Oscars and Grammys. The fees for actresses like Jennifer Lawrence and Anne Hathaway to wear a fabulous gown or diamond jewelry can be as high as $750,000. Some call it the industry's "dirty little secret" because it's "really aggressive" and "there are hundreds of thousands of dollars spent." But other top stylists say there is nothing wrong with the practice.



"Of course it happens. I'm an advocate for it," says stylist Jessica Paster, who has worked with award show favorites including Cate Blanchett and Dakota Fanning, and says it is similar to advertising for a company. "If a celebrity wants to endorse a certain line, why shouldn't they? If they love the line, why not?"

Paster says the "dream" celebrities that fashion and jewelry houses pursue (and pay) are the nominees during award season. "It happens more for big award shows," she says. "Or designers ask if celebs can endorse them for a year and go to shows. What they are trying to do is start a relationship with the actor that lasts beyond the Oscars. If designers are enamored with actresses who are high-profile and it makes sense, there is nothing wrong with that. It is seen like an endorsement or an ambassador."

One designer has spent years lending million-dollar jewels to red-carpet stars. The jewels are always lent for free (with the occasional thank-you token for the celebrity, like a diamond necklace or pendant). However, some of the jewelry heavyweights — like Chopard and Tiffany & Co. — began to throw in big figures to lure celebrities. "Chopard was the one who got that going and started giving people checks for wearing their jewelry," says a source, who adds that representatives for celebrities like Kate Winslet and Marion Cotillard often set up the deals for their clients (much like a film or commercial).

"The designers were getting free press, so the agents and managers got involved in negotiating it like an endorsement deal," says the jeweler. "Chopard was paying well into six figures. Agents and managers don't bother if it is only 10 or 20 grand, because they are also getting a cut, so it needs to be worth it."

Jennifer Lawrence, who recently wore Chopard at the Critics' Choice Movie Awards, was said to have been paid $100,000 to wear Chopard earrings at this year's Golden Globe Awards. And that number pales in comparison to what Hathaway reportedly earned during the 2011 Oscars. "When Anne Hathaway hosted the Oscars with James Franco, Tiffany's was rumored to have paid her $750,000 to wear their jewelry," says the jewelry insider, who spoke to Tiffany's about the reported number and says they didn't deny it.

While some stylists vent that being locked into one designer can limit creativity, Paster is not complaining, as long as the gowns and jewels are beautiful. Representatives for Tiffany & Co. and Chopard did not respond to requests for comments.

01-20-13  09:41am - 557 days #1001
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I can honestly say that when it comes to todays celebrity then nothing surprises me. This one makes perfect sense since the award shows these celebrities appear on are watched by millions of people so why not pay a celebrity to wear one of your creation. It makes even more sense to pay the nominees a lot more money because they are sure to get more coverage. The only downside that I can see is that if the outfit is less than appealing and gets talked about on every entertainment show and site then that may not be the kind of publivity the creator wanted. Long live the Brown Coats.

01-23-13  02:10am - 555 days #1002
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,936
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


I assumed or guessed that big-name stars can wear designer dresses to the Oscars or other big events, for free.

But I didn't realize that they could get paid to wear those dresses or jewelry.


Sounds like it sucks for the guys though. I mean what can a designer do with a tux or suit without the wearer looking like a total douchebag? And to be fair, I think suits and tuxes already make a lot of guys look like douchebags to begin with, even without the designer labels (which is pretty much why you would pay so much for them). "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

01-23-13  10:57am - 554 days #1003
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I saw a late night talk show program recently, where Matt Damon appeared as a guest. He said that one of the first awards shows he went to, he wore a designer tux that cost more than all the clothes he had ever worn up to that time, combined.

I assume he was exagerating, to make a good story even better. But I have no doubt that the price of the tux he wore was much more expensive than any clothing he had ever worn before.

The tux was free to wear, but I don't know if he was able to keep the tux, or just wear it for that one occassion.

But this was many years ago, when he was like in his twenties. And I doubt that he got paid to wear it.

And I think that turboshaft is probably right: Male actors don't get paid the big bucks that female actors can get paid for wearing designer dresses and jewelry.

But male actors can make large amounts of money appearing in commercials, or doing voice over work for commercials. Even Brad Pitt does commercials.

01-24-13  03:51pm - 553 days #1004
alaredo (0)
Active User



Posts: 6
Registered: Jan 24, '13
If you are looking for a funny nd VERY cliche' action movie, then you guys might enjoy "The Last Stand." Was interesting watching and old schwarzenegger. It was a riot... Hunting Cougars...

01-24-13  09:27pm - 553 days #1005
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,936
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


I saw a late night talk show program recently, where Matt Damon appeared as a guest. He said that one of the first awards shows he went to, he wore a designer tux that cost more than all the clothes he had ever worn up to that time, combined.

I assume he was exagerating, to make a good story even better. But I have no doubt that the price of the tux he wore was much more expensive than any clothing he had ever worn before.


That probably would have been around the time he was winning nominations/awards for "Good Will Hunting" and he was still pretty young then. And considering that "good" suits can costs thousands of dollars I wouldn't be surprised if it even cost more than any car he had owned up to that point.

I guess I'm not in the right class of privileged elites to comprehend these things, but I've just never understood the mindset behind owning a piece of clothing so hilariously expensive and of such limited utility (I mean, if I can't throw it in the wash with my favorite t-shirt, what's the point?! ).

Yes, there's always that profound bit of advice, "Dude, you'll attract so many women," but men have been successfully attracting and bedding beautiful women (what such dim arguments are ultimately about) for eons without rich, tailored clothing. Plus, I don't think I'd have much interest in some woman so airheaded all she really cared about was the suit/tie/shoes I wore.


Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


And I think that turboshaft is probably right: Male actors don't get paid the big bucks that female actors can get paid for wearing designer dresses and jewelry.

But male actors can make large amounts of money appearing in commercials, or doing voice over work for commercials. Even Brad Pitt does commercials.


I have seen a number of ads in the last few years with James Bond actors promoting expensive watches (Rolex, or something similar) that I'm betting they also wore in the films. At least a watch is a tad more practical that some overpriced suit. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

01-25-13  08:01am - 552 days #1006
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Originally Posted by turboshaft:


I guess I'm not in the right class of privileged elites to comprehend these things, but I've just never understood the mindset behind owning a piece of clothing so hilariously expensive and of such limited utility (I mean, if I can't throw it in the wash with my favorite t-shirt, what's the point?! ).

I have seen a number of ads in the last few years with James Bond actors promoting expensive watches (Rolex, or something similar) that I'm betting they also wore in the films. At least a watch is a tad more practical that some overpriced suit.


I agree with you 150% about being able to throw my clothes into the washer. But a few pieces of clothes that I bought, after I bought them, I noticed it said "dry clean only". So I wore those for years, until they wear out, because it's been over 40 years since I took any clothes to a cleaner.

As far as expensive watches, I've seen some watches on Amazon (Rolex, whatever) that are over 100,000, over 200,000 dollars, and more. I've never paid over $40 for a watch. I think the Casio DW5600E-1V G-Shock Classic Digital Watch is now about $40 on Amazon.

The Casio G-Shock I had before my current one lasted over 15 years: I never replaced the battery. But finally the band was falling apart and I got a new one.

01-25-13  09:54am - 552 days #1007
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
By the way, the list prices on watches can be misleading.

I am looking at a watch on Amazon. The list price is $895.00.

Amazon's regular price for the watch is $149.99.

But today's deal price at Amazon is $99.99.

01-26-13  11:01am - 551 days #1008
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
‘Ant-Man’ and ‘Doctor Strange’ will lead the charge for Marvel’s Phase Three
By Bryan Enk | Movie Talk – 17 hours ago



What are the two best adjectives to describe the third round of Marvel Films? For now, it's "small" and "weird."

It's the little guy who's first out of the gate after "The Avengers 2" bows during the summer of 2015, as Marvel President of Production Kevin Feige has revealed that "Ant-Man" will be the official party-starter for Phase Three of the superhero saga.

"'Ant-Man' is definitely part of Phase Three," Feige said in a recent interview with MTV News. "Like 'Iron Man 3,' it's certainly set in the Marvel Universe, but it's also through the lens of Edgar Wright -- which is the only reason we're making the movie."

Indeed, many Marvel fans feel that the only reason they're excited for an "Ant-Man" movie is because it's being made by the director of "Shaun of the Dead" and "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World." One can only imagine the bizarre energy and imagination he's going to bring to the story of Henry Pym, a brilliant scientist who invents a substance that turns him really, really small.

And what other new characters might be introduced to the expanded Marvel Universe during this third phase?

"'Doctor Strange,' which I've been talking about for years, is definitely one of them," Feige confirmed. "He's a great, original character, and he checks the box off this criteria that I have: he's totally different from anything else we have, just like 'Guardians of the Galaxy.' He's totally different from anything we've done before, as is 'Ant-Man,' which keeps us excited."

Stephen Strange was a neurosurgeon whose career comes to an abrupt end after his hands are damaged in a car accident. After tracking down a Himalayan hermit known as the Ancient One, Strange is taught the mystical arts and reinvents himself as Doctor Strange, the "mightiest magician in the cosmos."

A stand-alone "Doctor Strange" movie is still in the planning stages, and hopefully Marvel will remain "excited" about it enough to actually make it ... which certainly wasn't the case with the "Black Panther" movie, which seems to have been abandoned in favor of "Guardians of the Galaxy."

Anyway, let's not get too ahead of ourselves here. Before we delve into Phase Three, we have the Phase Two films to look forward to, starting with "Iron Man 3" (May 3) and followed by "Thor: The Dark World" (November , "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (April 4, 2014) and "Guardians of the Galaxy" (August 1, 2014). "The Avengers 2" (May 1, 2015) will mark the end of Phase Two, with "Ant-Man" (November 6, 2015) ushering in the next round of Marvel adventures.

02-01-13  09:16am - 545 days #1009
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
yahoo.com


Movie Talk
Tony Stark’s home destroyed in Super Bowl spot, represents millions in damage
By Meriah Doty | Movie Talk – 22 hours ago

Part of taking Iron Man out of the comic books and onto the big screen involved moving his home base from New York to the West Coast. Original "Iron Man" director Jon Favreau decided to put Tony Stark's house atop a Malibu seaside cliff -- where it becomes a target of devastation in "Iron Man 3."

As we ascertained when the first teaser trailer came out in October, Stark (played by Robert Downey Jr.) gets attacked on his home turf. And in the new 30-second teaser trailer airing during this Sunday's Super Bowl game, we see more footage of the annihilation.


We also see terrorist leader The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) and his 10 powerful rings -- leaving us wondering if the rings will somehow transform into the alien artifacts depicted in the original comic. And how on earth is he behind the air attack on Stark's house?

What has us even more curious about the new television spot and subsequent trailer is the ultra-modern home itself and how it would fit into the real world. Stark's multistory house has a vast subterranean workshop where he creates and repairs his suits. The home is jam-packed with cool mechanized features -- including roll-away windows that enable Stark's speedy, suited up takeoffs.

The Razor served as 'Iron Man' inspiration The Razor served as 'Iron Man' inspiration (Photo Courtesy of Hurwitz James Company)Stark's estate was inspired by a real-life house that goes by "The Razor," designed by renowned architect Wallace E. Cunningham. The 11,000-square-foot house in La Jolla, California, took six years to build and was completed in 2008. The futuristic, open estate is made with white polished concrete and nearly defies physics with floor-to-ceiling glass that allows for uninterrupted ocean views. It has been featured in commercials for Calvin Klein and Visa.

The Razor last sold for $14 million. Chump change for Stark - the business head of Stark Industries.

But in the film, Stark lives in Malibu -- where properties are valued even higher than the already pricey properties of La Jolla. If Stark's home was real, and in Malibu, it would go for $40 million, says Shen Schulz of Sotheby's International realty. And Stark's celebrity neighbors, according to Schulz, would be Pink, Kenny G, Barbra Streisand (whose home is said to be worth $12 million), and Owen Wilson.

One irony: The environment depicted that surrounds the house is actually nearby Point Dume -- a state park where no residents are allowed to live. "In the 1950s it was a government site for armory," Schulz says, pointing out that the ground is level there because the government flattened it.

Interior of Tony Stark's house in 'Iron Man 3'Notice how Stark's living area looks similar to The Razor's interior above (Photo: Marvel Studios)Beyond the much more valuable human casualties at stake when Stark's home is attacked, his estimated $40 million home -- not to mention that it's presumably filled with all of his precious, cutting-edge tech toys -- and you have a very hefty price tag on its destruction.

The Mandarin had better pay up!

02-01-13  09:30am - 545 days #1010
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
The article below is mainly just speculation. But if Daniel Craig is actually cut from the sequel to “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo”, it seems to me the new movie will probably lack the impact of the first movie. The two main characters of the series are Mikael Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander. You cut out Mikael Blomkvist, and you have a gaping hole that deviates too much from the novels.

Maybe it's just a marketing ploy, in salary negotiations. But if Daniel Craig doesn't return for the sequel, or his character is written out entirely, the value of the sequel will be seriously damaged, in my opinion.

======
======
yahoo.com


Daniel Craig’s to be cut from ‘The Girl Who Played With Fire’?

By Danny Bowes | Movie Talk – 22 hours ago

Fans of Daniel Craig's performance in 2011's “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” may be in for an unpleasant surprise in the sequel: his character, crusading journalist Mikael Blomkvist may be written out of the film entirely. “The Girl Who Played With Fire,” based as “Dragon Tattoo” on a novel by the late Stieg Larsson, focuses a lot more on “The Girl,” hacker extraordinaire Lisbeth Salander (played by rising star Rooney Mara). But the reason Blomkvist may be cut has more to do with commerce than art.

Sony's disappointment in the box-office returns for “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo,” which grossed $233 million worldwide on a reported budget of $90 million, far short of their hopes, led them to tighten the purse strings for the sequel. Daniel Craig, on the other hand, was just in the phenomenally successful “Skyfall,” which led him to ask for an increase in pay for “The Girl Who Played With Fire.” As this runs contrary to Sony's more fiscally responsible plan, they are reportedly balking.

The tactic of simply writing the character out of the sequel is not without precedent. In William Goldman's 1997 screen adaptation of the novel “Absolute Power,” the novel's protagonist was completely cut, and the thief character played by director Clint Eastwood was elevated to the lead. Even then, “Absolute Power” was a far lower-profile novel and film.

As a cost-cutting measure, cutting Craig's character is at best a counterintuitive one: screenwriter Steven Zaillan's script has already cost Sony quite a bit of money (the Oscar-winning writer's rate is quiet high) and the level of rewrites mandated by cutting one of the two lead characters could potentially cost even more than increasing Craig's salary.

Daniel Craig's representatives have denied the reports that he's seeking a salary increase, saying those negotiations have yet to begin. It could be that this entire notion of cutting him is a preemptive negotiating tactic by the studio. Little has yet been concretely decided with regards to “The Girl Who Played With Fire,” even if director David Fincher is returning.

With none of Fincher's other projects currently presenting a conflict, it's conceivable that if all the salary negotiations end up going smoothly, that the sequel could go into production rather quickly. If that's the case, the multitudes of Millenium Trilogy fans could find the next installment arriving in cinemas sooner rather than later.

02-02-13  10:26am - 544 days #1011
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^Interesting news. Money may be the main reason why the studio is doing this. Aftewall Danial Craig is now a very expensive actor and unless the studio signed a long term contract with him then the incredible success of Skyfall has now made him too expensive for many movies. Especially one's where the profit from the first movie was nowhere near what the studio was hoping for. As much as he was great in the first movie. His presences did not equal great box office profits and I don't think they will for any of the sequels.

There may also be another reason why the studio is looking to write him out or cast another actor. There was a rumor that he had an affair with the main actress Rooney mara during the filming of the movie and that it got a little intense. Now that can make for great chemistry on screen but those things oten come out and studios love publicity but hate bad publicity because the people who should be talking about your movie are only talking about the main actors affair and that leads to divorce which adds bad publicity which the studios equates with small box office profits. Anyore remember last years debacle with Kristen Stewart and the director of Snow White and the Hunstman? The people stopped talking about the movie and started talking about them. Long live the Brown Coats.

02-02-13  03:04pm - 544 days #1013
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
There's no way they are going to write Mikael Blomkvist out of the sequels. He is an integral part of the story. The fans of the written trilogy would take to the barricades. The threat of doing so is just a negotiation tool. Those who think it can be done have never read the books.

02-03-13  09:35am - 543 days #1014
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
The truth comes out: porn stars are not really stars -- they are constructs.

On August 09, 2012 I posted a PU comment on Metart titled: "Is Met-art using robots or clones as models?"

The body of my comment is as follows:

I've been watching the model named Eufrat, also known as Becki, Euphrates, Jana Hall, Jana P., Jana Potysova, Janette, Juliette, Lenka, Marina, Monique, Patty Glower, Ragan, Tricia, Jana Potyov.

She's been modelling at least seven years.

You compare her earliest sets to her more recent ones, and you begin to realize she's not aging like a natural human should.

Are Met-art and other porn sites saving money by using robots or androids, instead of giving us the real deal?

-------

Now, a real life model, or maybe a construct or robot or android or whatever-you-call-them, admits in public what I always suspected: Models are not really stars; instead, they are constructs. And that applies to actors, as well.

Read the following article, and the ugly truth will make you cringe:

The article talks about a model who has made millions of dollars, because she has been exploited and sexually abused and driven to feel insecure.

And not only is she insecure, but shortly after admitting the horrible life she has led, she was forced to participate in a Victoria's Secret fashion show, merely because she could not say no the the fabulous money they offered her.

For shame, Victoria's Secret. Paying these innocent and not-so-innocent models gobs of money to wear your horrible clothes!
===========
===========

shine.yahoo.com


Model Cameron Russell: "Models Are the Most Physically Insecure Women On the Planet"

By Elise Sol�, Shine Staff | Secrets to Your Success � Fri, Feb 1, 2013 1:34 PM EST



Cameron Russell is arguably one of the most beautiful women on the planet. Over the past 10 years, she's graced the cover of Vogue, frolicked in a bikini for numerous fashion ads, and stomped down the runway for Victoria's Secret. But don't assume she has it all. She doesn't�and she's the first one to admit it.

The 25-year-old model recently gave a presentation at the global series TED, on life as a model. She began by saying, �I am standing on this stage because I am a pretty white woman and in my industry we call that a 'sexy girl.' I am going to answer some of the questions people ask me but with an honest twist."

Russell explained that while a model's lifestyle is filled with travel, glamour, and

working with brilliant creatives, that's only a glossy exterior for the corruption and

sometimes manipulative nature of the modeling industry, describing how when she

started out as a model, she had to act sexual at photo shoots having never even had a

boyfriend.

While explaining that she often gets asked how one becomes a model, Russell says,

"....The real way I became a model is I won a genetic lottery and I became the

recipient of a legacy. Saying you want to be a model when you grow up is akin to

saying you want to win the Powerball when you grow up. It's awesome and it's out of

your control and it's not a career path."

While showing photos of her in both fashion spreads juxtaposed against photos of her

in real life, Russell says, "These pictures are not pictures of me, they're

constructions," says Russell. "They're constructions by professionals � hairstylists,

make up artists, photographers stylists and all of their assistants and pre-production

and post-production and they build this. That's not me."

But the most insightful part of her talk is when Russel confesses: "I am insecure.

Because I have to think about what I look like every day. If you ever are wondering,

'If I have thinner thighs and shinier hair will I be happier?' you just need to meet a

group of models because they have the thinnest thighs and the shiniest hair and the

coolest clothes and they're the most physically insecure women on the planet."

It makes sense. When a woman is valued primarily for her physical appearance, it can

be easy for her to believe that her beauty is her only form of currency. If looks are

the focus of a woman's day, they will inevitably occupy most of her thoughts and drive

her fears. No wonder models are so insecure.

Russell's words are indeed powerful, but just weeks after her Ted Talk she walked in

the Victoria's Secret fashion show. Is she being hypocritical by criticizing the

modeling industry while also cashing in on it? "Not at all," says Bethany Marshall,

Ph.D., a psychoanalyst in Beverly Hills, CA. "She sounds grounded in reality. We all

have to use our assets and gifts to advance ourselves in life. If she was a math

genius and refused to go to college, we'd be critical of her. The fact is, she's a

gorgeous woman�why shouldn't she use that to advance her life? Her beauty is a

resource and an instrument. The difference is, we don't envy the math genius. We envy

the model."

This isn't the first time models have let us in on the secrets of the industry. In

2012, Tyra Banks penned an open letter to models praising Vogue for banning images of

anorexia. And in 2010, Victoria's Secret Angel Doutzen Kroes spoke out about her

struggle to attain the ideal figure, saying: "I probably fit the sample size once,

when I was eleven or twelve. It became a problem � I was always told lots of times

that I should lose weight. It was a thing, �You look great, but you should probably

lose a few pounds. That kept going on until I was about 22, and when I was like, �This

is crazy,� because I would look in the mirror and I like the way I look."

02-08-13  06:18am - 538 days #1015
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Does nobody go to the movies any more?

I realize there have been few really good movies lately, but there have been at least some.

The Denzel Washington movie, Flight, just came out on DVD. You can see it for about $1.00 at Redbox.

And there are some interesting series on TV. I like Justified, the crime series with Timothy Oliphant.

Nobody watching TV or the movies? I know it's expenseive going to a movie theater, but DVDs are cheap to rent. Or you can stream a movie from Netflx, Amazon, etc.

Any good movies or TV shows that anyone wants to recommend, or that you thought were worth watching?

02-08-13  06:33am - 538 days #1016
jberryl69 (12)
Active User



Posts: 969
Registered: Nov 27, '10
Location: neverland
Very few theater movies IK2. Since I keep an eye on my entertainment expenditures, a movie has to be Great and has to Viewed on the big screen. So that gives me one or two a year.

I don't even rent movies any more since I got dumped on and dumped Netflix. Too much of a hassle managing the handling of them. So I'm missing a lot of movies. I Love movies ... but for some reason I don't feel like I'm missing anything by not seeing them.

I'd love to see Argo, but I'm wondering if that will ever take place. Oh, well.

- Did you know that Argo is the biggest selling movie on the black market in Iran? If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat!

02-08-13  06:42pm - 538 days #1017
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
I didn't go see many movies last year but that is because I found that most of them weren't worth paying upwards or 10$. Hopefully that will change this year. One of my favorite movies from last year is the New "Judge" Dredd with Karl Urban and Olivia Thirlby. It was amazing. This is probably the best use of 3d that I have ever seen in any movie.

My list of TV shows is getting bigger and that's good news because maybe that means we'll see less reality show crap
in the coming months and years.

IN no particular order.
Justified, Continum, Lost Girl, The Mentalist, Sherlock Homes(US version), Persons of Interest(this one is growing on me), Being Human, Revolution Teen Wolf and I'm probably forgeting one. I really like USA Networks Common Law but the show didn't make it beyond season one so I don't know if it's really worth it for anyone to bother looking at it now. The fate of Common Law is the main reason why I so rarely want to get invested in any tv show today because most of them don't make it beyond one or two seasons and even the ones that do tend to now kill off main characters
and that may make the show more interesting to some but not to me. Long live the Brown Coats.

02-10-13  03:41pm - 536 days #1018
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Thanks, pat362 and jberryl69. I've always loved movies, but going to a movie today is much more expensive than when I was a kid. So I see far less movies at a theater today.

But I don't mind renting a movie at Redbox for $1.31 per movie (including tax). That's a great deal, even if I'm not seeing it on a big screen like at the theater. But then, I don't have to listen to people talking while I'm watching the movie, or finding a parking space, or the other things that can annoy you when going to a movie theater. And the popcorn and drinks are much cheaper at home.

Thanks, pat, for the list of TV shows. I've seen Persons of Interest. I think Justified is a great show. But I liked Deadwood even better. And since Deadwood was on HBO, it didn't have all the commercials that Justified has. Actually, I liked Deadwood enough that I even bought the DVDs when they came out.

02-13-13  08:59am - 533 days #1019
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I saw Flight with Denzel Washington last night, also Taken 2 with Liam Neeson.

I paid about $1 for each DVD at Redbox. Glad I didn't see either one of those movies at a movie theater.

Denzel Washington is a great actor. But Flight was slow for me. Too much moralizing and religion.

Liam Neeson is also a fine actor. I thought he was fantastic in Schindler's List. But that was a fantastic movie, with great characters and story. But Taken 2 was just a repeat of Taken 1, which I thought was somewhat unbelievable. Movies are often not to be taken seriously. But a 60-year-old-man playing James Bond, single-handedly attacking 20-30 criminals and destroying all of them, just seems a bit too much for me to swallow.

I could swallow Superman, or Batman, or Captain Marvel, mabye because I was a child when I first encountered them, and also because they were obviously fantasy figures. But a 60-year-old actor who out performs James Bond doesn't really appeal to me.

02-13-13  10:37am - 533 days #1020
jberryl69 (12)
Active User



Posts: 969
Registered: Nov 27, '10
Location: neverland
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


But I don't mind renting a movie at Redbox for $1.31 per movie (including tax). That's a great deal, even if I'm not seeing it on a big screen like at the theater. But then, I don't have to listen to people talking while I'm watching the movie, or finding a parking space, or the other things that can annoy you when going to a movie theater. And the popcorn and drinks are much cheaper at home.


Just wish I didn't have to drive to get them. Being a troglodyte it is not in my nature to leave the house. Guess it's one of the reasons I'm into porn. If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat!

02-13-13  02:46pm - 533 days #1021
Micha (1)
Active User

Posts: 295
Registered: Jul 04, '10
Location: san jose ca
lk2fireone rote:


I've been watching the model named Eufrat.......She's been modelling at least seven years.
You compare her earliest sets to her more recent ones, and you begin to realize she's not aging like a natural human should.

True that. But at the opposite extreme is Little Caprice (Lola Shut)
When I first noticed her, she was barely pubescent.
Not so any longer.
She has blossomed into an incredible example of womanhood.
Caprice is no longer little. unless life also gives you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck.

02-16-13  06:15am - 531 days #1022
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Jason Momoa has been been tapped to join the "Guardians of the Galaxy," a new Marvel film that might hit theaters on August 1, 2014.

For those of you who missed seeing Jason Momoa in Conan, now you're being given a second chance to see this action-star-in-the-making.

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

‘Game of Thrones’ alum Jason Momoa recruited for Marvel’s ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’
By Bryan Enk | Movie Talk – 16 hours ago

"Game of Thrones" continues its invasion of screen adaptations of Marvel Comics properties as Jason Momoa has been tapped to join the "Guardians of the Galaxy."

"Guardians," the undisputed hard-sell of Marvel's Phase Two films, is follows the adventures of American astronaut Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), the son of an alien father and human mother (read many Greek myths, Marvel writers?) who is reinvented as Star-Lord when he joins up with a team of strange (really strange) superheroes from another dimension: Drax the Destroyer, a slain human resurrected as a green warrior with the sole purpose of killing Thanos (the mystery character in the penultimate scene of "The Avengers"); Groot, a giant walking, talking tree; Rocket Raccoon, a genetically engineered animal with a love for loud weapons; and Gamora, the sole surviving member of the Zen Whoberi (you know, them) whose assassin abilities have earned her the title of The Deadliest Woman in the Universe.

We'll give you one guess as to which of these creatures Jason Momoa will be playing, according to a scoop by Latino Review (hint: it's not the tree or the raccoon or the girl).

Momoa is probably best known for his role as as Dothraki warrior Khal Drogo, who spent a good part of his tenure on "Game of Thrones" scowling and being taught how to have sex whilst actually facing his partner. He also played the title role in director Marcus Nispel's semi-amusing 2011 reboot of "Conan the Barbarian," where he often spiced up his scowling with the occasional smirk.

Momoa is the second "Game of Thrones" star to score a Marvel comic book movie this week, following Peter Dinklage joining the cast of Bryan Singer's "X-Men: Days of Future Past" (Marvel Films probably doesn't like this Fox property being referred to as a "Marvel movie," but you know what we mean). The "Game of Thrones" influence is felt behind the scenes as well, as frequent "GoT" director Alan Taylor is calling the shots on "Thor: The Dark World," which hits theaters on November 8.

"Guardians of the Galaxy" will hit theaters on August 1, 2014 as the final Phase Two Marvel film before "The Avengers" reunite in May 2015.

02-17-13  06:23pm - 529 days #1023
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^You forgot to add his 3 year stint on Stargate Atlantis.

I didn't miss seeing him in the Conan reboot but I really wish I had because that was a huge turd of a movie. Made even worse by the fact that I actually bought it in the hope that it would be moderately good....It wasn't.

Mind you it wasn't his fault the movie was so awfull. Long live the Brown Coats.

02-17-13  06:26pm - 529 days #1024
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
I saw Warm Bodies this afternoon and I truly enjoyed it. Mind you I'm a sucker for unusual love stories and I don't think you can get any more unusual than a retelling of Romeo and Juliet with humans and zombies.

The two main leads are very good and there are cute moments
in the movie. I don't know if I would recommend this as a theater movie per say but it's definetely worth renting once it gets to dvd/Blu-ray. Long live the Brown Coats.

951-1000 of 1198 Posts < Previous Page 1 2 6 10 14 19 Page 20 21 22 23 24 Next Page >
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home


Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

Protecting Minors
We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.

DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.


Loaded in 0.19 seconds.