ShogunRua wrote: He would be losing out on a lot more salary than Murray would by doing smaller, personal projects.
So you're saying the only motivation for doing a movie is money? Meaning or art doesn't figure into it. The point of his being a bigger star is that he can pick and choose easier between movies. Look at the trailer for POTC IV, its embarrassing. Look at the other two A listers I pointed out and I'm sure you can think of others.
Asking a guy to give up tens of millions of dollars to make movies that might be good sounds awfully unreasonable, now doesn't it?
Why he does stuff is his business. But why I respect him, and his shallow measure for self-respect deals with more than money.
So he should turn down $20+ million to make a different film with a moderately higher percentage chance of being good?
"Turn down $20 million"? How about doing something a whole lot better for $18 mil, or better yet become pro-active and create or encourage a movie worth doing for $20 mil +. He is (or was) one of the few people who could do that.
Dude, even legendary directors, who have vastly more control over the quality of the final product, aren't that principled!
Bullshit. Kubrick, his Academy doormat replacement, Nolan, Eastwood, The Coens, and my favorites to show you don't have to be big to be genuine, Walter Hill and Craig Brewer.
Oh, give me a break. The dialogue was average, the premise was a more simplistic rip-off of "Paprika" (which Nolan has admitted to being deeply influenced by), and the thing that made the film great was Nolan's legendary eye for pacing and excitement, and brilliant use of visuals. Ergo, not the script.
How can you criticize a movie I believe you've admitted you don't even care to understand.
Stewball wrote:What, they were so much better in the 70s? All I can say is I massively disagree. "Good pictures nowadays???"
Yes, films were way better in the 70s, but that was not my point. My point was that nowadays, more films rely on the model of being exciting, mass entertainment, a la 70's pictures like "Star Wars" and "Jaws", and not deep, mature pictures like "Network", "The Taxi Driver", etc.
Yes there are more mind numbed blockbusters now but there are also as many more deep, mature pictures now as well. Inception was both, and the only reason you don't think it was a think peace is because you didn't care to think about it. Taxi Driver wasn't that deep at all, for me. But that's the point, most of what's deep and mature are subjective matters of opinion.
Pickpocket wrote:And all can be explained. Pirates 2 and 3 for money, sweeney todd for tim burton, public enemies for michael mann, tourist money. why cant you grasp this very elementary concept
My point exactly. He's spending the celebrity capital he'd built up and for what, amounts of money many here would call obscene, when all I'm saying is why not quality too. He has the talent and the power.
Rufflesack wrote:The answer according to my rankings is 13. That's counting just tiers 10 and 9, and not counting Get Low which I'm not sure is a Hollywood film. Extend it down to tier 7 and the answer is 24 if I don't count Harry Potter and Winter's Bone. So maybe I've become too Hollywood-friendly to even take part in this discussion.
Excellent movies are hard enough to come by, so I'll take them where I can find them, be they from Hollywood or Independents. What's really inexplicable is that the opinions represented here go against the Critiker bias towards art, thought-provoking, mature, deep films.
Why are you blaming an actor for the quality of the film?
I'm not, and Rango isn't totally crappy. I'm questioning his long string of crap, or less than deep, movies he's chosen to do.