Search found 2 matches: Robert Duvall

Stewball wrote:

ShogunRua wrote:[You would think. But how many good Hollywood movies were there in all of 2010? From those I have seen, 4 total? Maybe 7-8 if I'm optimistic about the other ones? Most of those had budgets too small to afford Johnny Depp, and in other cases, the role wouldn't have been offered to him, anyways.

He could have sought the "lesser" roles as a lot of quality actors do. How much do you suppose Bill Murray and Robert Duvall got for Get Low. In fact, Murray is an A-lister who exemplifies what I'm talking about doing movies like The Life Aquatic and Lost in Translation.

Bad examples to use with me, as I haven't seen "Get Low" or "Life Aquatic", and thought "Lost in Translation" was awful, racist, boring garbage, the worst film Murray has ever made in his career.

Also, Depp and Murray are not even remotely in the same category of film star; Depp's asking price to do a picture is at least 2-3 times higher than Murray. He would be losing out on a lot more salary than Murray would by doing smaller, personal projects.

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?

Stewball wrote:Pirates of the Caribbean IV--when II & III were pretty pathetic, due in no small part to his contribution, or lack of it.

So he should turn down $20+ million to make a different film with a moderately higher percentage chance of being good?

Dude, even legendary directors, who have vastly more control over the quality of the final product, aren't that principled!

Stewball wrote:Read the shooting script. Even at that, you can't understand the interrelated intricacies until you understand the plot.

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.

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.

Stewball wrote:[i]Troy,

Troy? That movie was not only garbage, it's a wonderful example of a crappy role Brad Pitt did just for the money! It's the exact opposite of what you're arguing.

Look, even the greatest directors ever (including my personal all-time favorite, Sidney Lumet, and the "ultimate auteur", Orson Welles) have done projects for the money, (tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars) while having tremendous control over the final product.

But you expect ACTORS to forgo tens of millions of dollars while having much less control over the final product?

I don't. It's not the way the world works.

ShogunRua wrote:[You would think. But how many good Hollywood movies were there in all of 2010? From those I have seen, 4 total? Maybe 7-8 if I'm optimistic about the other ones? Most of those had budgets too small to afford Johnny Depp, and in other cases, the role wouldn't have been offered to him, anyways.

He could have sought the "lesser" roles as a lot of quality actors do. How much do you suppose Bill Murray and Robert Duvall got for Get Low. In fact, Murray is an A-lister who exemplifies what I'm talking about doing movies like The Life Aquatic and Lost in Translation.

Furthermore, how is Johnny Boy supposed to figure out whether the movie is going to be any good or not? You think it's so easy?

Pirates of the Caribbean IV--when II & III were pretty pathetic, due in no small part to his contribution, or lack of it.

I thought Inception was an entertainment masterpiece, but the script was completely average.

Read the shooting script. Even at that, you can't understand the interrelated intricacies until you understand the plot.

Ditto for at least half the good pictures nowadays.

What, they were so much better in the 70s? All I can say is I massively disagree. "Good pictures nowadays???"

If you can't tell by the script, what other clues are there?

Precisely.

And there are those who are obviously more discriminating in the roles they take, like Brad Pitt, Leonardo de Caprio and Matt Damon.

A quick glance shows that said trio has starred in a veritable cornucopia of stinkers over the last 6 years, too; "Invictus", "Mr. and Mrs. Smith", "Green Zone", "The Brothers Grimm", "Ocean's Twelve", "Ocean's Thirteen", "Body of Lies", "Blood Diamond".

Yeah, were back to some loser some winners. I think "Invictus", "Mr. and Mrs. Smith", "Body of Lies", "Blood Diamond", were actually pretty good. And then there's Troy, The Assassination of Jessie James, Burn after Reading, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Inglorious Basterds, THE DEPARTED, The Bourne Ultimatum/Supremacy, Hereafter, True Grit, The Adjustment Bureau, Gangs of NY, Catch Me If You Can, The Aviator, Shutter Island....INCEPTION.

Point is, it's hard to tell how a movie is going to turn out until the editing phase, and actors have far less control over the finished product than you think.

I say again, POTC IV ? How can his bad string be this long based only on chance?