Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Movies that were made simply for actors/actresses to make $$?

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Movies that were made simply for actors/actresses to make $$?

Old 12-03-05, 11:59 PM
  #26  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Archives, Indiana
Posts: 1,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The_Infidel
I wouldn't call Charlize an A-list actress just because she won an Oscar. If she were to have had top billing in a string of highly successful, blockbuster-type movies, then yes.
I'd call any actress who has a 'best actress' Oscar an A-list actress because there are only, what, seventy-some of them?
Old 12-04-05, 12:00 AM
  #27  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MA
Posts: 17,001
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Mel Ferrer is in 2 low-budget Italian exploitation films that I have on DVD. Nightmare City and Eaten Alive. I can't really imagine him being seriously interested in making these films.
Old 12-04-05, 12:44 AM
  #28  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Charlie Goose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sesame Street (the apt. next to Bob's)
Posts: 20,198
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by nightmaster
I'd call any actress who has a 'best actress' Oscar an A-list actress because there are only, what, seventy-some of them?
Oscars don't make you an A-Lister. Being able to open a movie does, which Theron can't yet do. Marlee Matlin won an Oscar, is she A-List?
Old 12-04-05, 12:47 AM
  #29  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Duluth, GA, USA
Posts: 37,794
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by scott shelton
Premiere also still thinks that Libby Gelman Waxner column is still funny. I wouldn't trust everything they say.
But unfortunately for you, your conjecture that Charlize was offered the role by Paramount after she won the Oscar is wrong. She won the Oscar on February 29th, 2004, but had signed on to do Aeon Flux a few days earlier.

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-m.../27/10.00.film

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000234/bio

Charlize signed on for "Aeon Flux" because she wanted to work with Karyn Kusama, who had previously directed "Girlfight". Charlize signed onto "North Country" because she wanted to work with Niki Caro, who directed the acclaimed "Whale Rider". Now Charlize did sign up for "North Country" in March 2004 after winning her Oscar, but she'd already been considering the role before winning her Oscar.

Last edited by Patman; 12-04-05 at 12:51 AM.
Old 12-04-05, 01:23 AM
  #30  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Posts: 11,586
Received 835 Likes on 611 Posts


After making Malcolm X, Philadelphia and The Pelican Brief, Denzel Washington made Virtuosity because it was his first-ever eight figure payday --$10 million.

How do I know it's true? He said so in a CNN interview when he was promoting the movie. I'll never forget it because it was the only time I've ever heard an actor admit that they just made the movie for the paycheck.
Old 12-04-05, 01:58 AM
  #31  
DVD Talk Hero
 
PopcornTreeCt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 25,913
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by slavetotherave
I think I read somewhere that Morgan Freeman said that the only reason he did Batman Begins was for the dinero.
I'm pretty sure that was the situation for the entire cast aside from Christian Bale.
Old 12-04-05, 02:04 AM
  #32  
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sand Point
Posts: 2,249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jaeufraser
John Malkovich for Con-Air. I remember reading an interview where he openly said "it's for the money".

In another interview, Malkovich was talking about all the movies he made and how few of them he liked. He said Con Air would be one he'd probably like, but he never saw it.
Old 12-04-05, 02:10 AM
  #33  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Cardiac161
Bruce Willis in Hudson Hawk
Arnold Schwarzenegger in Last Action Hero
Jim Carey in The Cable Guy
Sylvester Stallone in Rambo 3

All were big budget flops. And the reason for these actors to make them was to further boost their egos.
I don't think you have any proof to support that claim. Besides, The Cable Guy and Last Action Hero are much smarter comedies than people gave them credit for.
Old 12-04-05, 09:33 AM
  #34  
Inane Thread Master, 2018 TOTY
Thread Starter
 
OldBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Are any of us really anywhere?
Posts: 48,171
Received 745 Likes on 637 Posts
Originally Posted by The_Infidel
I wouldn't call Charlize an A-list actress just because she won an Oscar. If she were to have had top billing in a string of highly successful, blockbuster-type movies, then yes.
she could probably do anything she wants now, coupled with "North Country". i'd say that makes her "A" list.
Old 12-04-05, 11:28 AM
  #35  
DRG
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: ND
Posts: 13,421
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by nightmaster
Exactly. And I'll be damned if I can see or understand why people have a problem with that.

Actors are workers/people who are looking to earn money. I'll be the first person to say that the top of the heap actors are vastly overpaid, but if I could get a job and be vastly overpaid for what I do, I would JUMP on that job regardless of what someone else's opinion is. I fix machines for a living. I don't want to take a huge cut in pay to do that for someplace where some other company needs me more than the one in which I work. If she can take a 'meaningful little film with a deep story' and make $1 million, or take a sci-fi throwaway and make 10 times that, why do people think she's doing something awful for taking $10 million??? She has an Oscar for best actress to her credit, and she's able to use that notoriety to make more money than most of us can ever see in our lifetime. In short she's taking care of herself and her loved ones; that's what most all of us do, for the most money we can make.
While I agree with this for the most part (and would never think an actor was "something awful" for taking a role for money) this doesn't take into consideration the "reputation factor". Each crappy movie breaks the audience trust a bit ("I don't know if I'll go see ****, his last few movies have sucked! He's lost it.") If you start losing audiences, you'll become less of a marketable star, and then paychecks will be smaller, if you get hired at all. I understand actors don't always have a choice, but there IS a longterm benefit to being picky.
Old 12-04-05, 01:11 PM
  #36  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,058
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Do actors get one paycheck for their entire salary for a movie? What about withholding?
Old 12-04-05, 02:15 PM
  #37  
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dont know about doing just for money, but Edward Norton did The Italian Job to finish his Paramount contract. He wasn't just playing pissed off in the film.

And I doubt Gwyneth Paltrow wanted to do View from the Top, I think it was To fulfill her miramax contract.
Old 12-04-05, 02:47 PM
  #38  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Count Dooku


After making Malcolm X, Philadelphia and The Pelican Brief, Denzel Washington made Virtuosity because it was his first-ever eight figure payday --$10 million.

How do I know it's true? He said so in a CNN interview when he was promoting the movie. I'll never forget it because it was the only time I've ever heard an actor admit that they just made the movie for the paycheck.
I've read him say he did that movie because his son told him to he wanted to see him in an action movie. Maybe its both...big paycheck, make son happy.

Either or, the movie sucked. Though his co-star has gotten practically bigger than he is.
Old 12-04-05, 03:14 PM
  #39  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 2,730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Patman
But unfortunately for you, your conjecture that Charlize was offered the role by Paramount after she won the Oscar is wrong. She won the Oscar on February 29th, 2004, but had signed on to do Aeon Flux a few days earlier.
Now did she sign or just commit on that date?
Old 12-04-05, 03:15 PM
  #40  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
UAIOE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: LV-426
Posts: 6,598
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Well, actors have to buy groceries too.

While i dont know how someone can get paid 10 million and need *more* (what the hell do they buy?)...but if someone wants to give me 10 million to find out....
Old 12-04-05, 03:17 PM
  #41  
DRG
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: ND
Posts: 13,421
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Patman
But unfortunately for you, your conjecture that Charlize was offered the role by Paramount after she won the Oscar is wrong. She won the Oscar on February 29th, 2004, but had signed on to do Aeon Flux a few days earlier.
Although at that point she was a virtual lock for the Oscar. Paramount probably figured they could lock her down before the inevitable award came (and perhaps even save a few bucks).
Old 12-04-05, 07:00 PM
  #42  
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sand Point
Posts: 2,249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by lmwong1977
Dont know about doing just for money, but Edward Norton did The Italian Job to finish his Paramount contract. He wasn't just playing pissed off in the film.
Was it that they were forcing him to make Job instead of letting him pick another Paramount movie? Or that he wanted Wahlberg's role instead?
Old 12-04-05, 09:02 PM
  #43  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,193
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
steve harris said that if you work in hollywood almost all the work you do is for a paycheck and is not very artistic. He said if you make the a-list than you will get funding for artsy movies that you want to make for your own personal enjoyment or to expose the audience to something you think is important. Like that movie he did about that artist last year.
Old 12-04-05, 09:25 PM
  #44  
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Legolas
Was it that they were forcing him to make Job instead of letting him pick another Paramount movie? Or that he wanted Wahlberg's role instead?
There was a time limit on his contract and he turned down a bunch of stuff and wasn't cast in several movies he did want to do (Ripley and MI:3). Havent read anything about him wanting the lead Mark got except rumors.

This is from the New York Observer (register to read it in their archives or here :

According to sources familiar with the situation, Mr. Norton has agreed to do the movie only to avoid being sued by Paramount Pictures, the studio that gave him his start.

Mr. Nortonís appearance in Mr. Grayís film marks the culmination of a quiet but corrosive five-year contractual dispute between the actor and Paramount Picturesí Motion Picture Group chairman Sherry Lansing that recalls days when a more powerful studio system held its actors in choke holds.

[...]

Mr. Nortonís relationship with Paramount began in 1995 when the actor made his screen debut in the courtroom drama Primal Fear, which the studio produced. The actorís contract stipulated that he would be obligated to make two future movies for Paramount following the release of Primal Fear. He would be paid $75,000 for the first and approximately $125,000 for the second. Such stipulations are common in the film industry and ensure that a studio taking a chance on unproven talent will have the opportunity to cash in later should the actor connect with movie audiences.

[...]

Though the clock stopped whenever Mr. Norton took on another project, time continued to tick away on the Paramount deal, with neither Mr. Norton nor the studio able to find a mutually satisfactory project on which to collaborate. When Mr. Norton began to negotiate with Fox to appear in David Fincherís Fight Club in early 1997, sources familiar with the situation said that the actor believed his Paramount option had expired.

But Paramount disagreed. According to sources familiar with the negotiations, the studio contended that Mr. Norton was contractually obligated to appear in a project called Twenty Billion that conflicted with the Fight Club production schedule. Those same sources said Paramount also sent a "preemption letter" to Fox explaining the situation. In response, Fox told Mr. Norton that it was unwilling to take on a legal battle with another studio, and that if he did not resolve his differences with Paramount, he would not be cast in Fight Club.

Sources close to Mr. Norton said that co-starring in Fight Club was so important to him that he decided to make peace with Paramount rather than fight the studio. Mr. Norton and his then-agent Ed Limato agreed to a settlement that would extend the terms of Mr. Nortonís contract with Paramount.

Under the new terms of his agreement, Mr. Norton was obligated to do only one future movie for Paramount, for which he would be paid $1 million. After Fight Club wrapped, Mr. Norton and Paramount had 18 months to find a project they both liked. If they couldnít come to an agreement, the studio got another 24 months to assign Mr. Norton a project of their choice.

[...]

In the spring of 2002 Paramount offered Mr. Norton a part in The Italian Job, which is about a group of criminals who create an enormous traffic jam so that they can get away in their Mini Coopers. Mr. Grayís previous features include 1996ís Set It Off and 1998ís The Negotiator. Mr. Norton, who had just completed Red Dragon and was about to begin shooting The 25th Hour, told Paramount no.

But in late April, Mr. Norton received a letter informing him that he didnít have a choice, and that the studio was exercising its option to force him to do a project. Sources close to the situation said that Mr. Norton got on the phone with Ms. Lansing to express his anger at the situation and remind her of her promise. The phone call did not make a difference.
Old 12-05-05, 12:49 AM
  #45  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Posts: 11,586
Received 835 Likes on 611 Posts
And I doubt Gwyneth Paltrow wanted to do View from the Top, I think it was To fulfill her miramax contract
Kate Hudson was supposed to star in View From The Top. She was the first choice of the film's producers, and (though this was after her breakout in Almost Famous) they were going to get her for less than a million dollars.

It was Miramax honcho Harvey Weinstein who stepped in and insisted that they cast Paltrow and pay her $10 million.

Then when the film was completed --and it sucked, it wasn't just a little low budget comedy that Miramax could dump on the market. It was an Oscar-winner Paltrow vehicle that they had to pour more millions into marketing, and the movie just became a money sinkhole.
Old 12-05-05, 01:05 AM
  #46  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: So Cal
Posts: 8,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why would anyone make a movie just so one person could get paid a lot of money?
Old 12-05-05, 09:18 AM
  #47  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,437
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The first movie I thought of was Americas Sweethearts. Not because the actors did it just to make money, but because the studio just wanted to make money. I think that's worse than an actor doing it to make money. There was no artistic integrety to that movie.
Old 12-05-05, 08:52 PM
  #48  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the 26th parallel
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not sure if it is exactly what the OP is looking for, but it's widely recognized that in the first Superman, Marlon Brando appeared as Jor-El strictly and completely to get out of debt.
Old 12-05-05, 10:50 PM
  #49  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 2,730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sernov
Not sure if it is exactly what the OP is looking for, but it's widely recognized that in the first Superman, Marlon Brando appeared as Jor-El strictly and completely to get out of debt.

Brando's taste for paydays would require an entire thread of its own.
Old 12-06-05, 01:19 AM
  #50  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rampaging across DVDTalk.
Posts: 4,046
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by TracerBullet
Do actors get one paycheck for their entire salary for a movie?
Imagine the tax! No, they usually get paid in installments.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.