|
Why?
Mar 21, 2011 21:15:41 GMT -5
Post by Derrick on Mar 21, 2011 21:15:41 GMT -5
If Jennifer Aniston's movies suck (and most of 'em do) then why have they made over a billion bucks at the box office?
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 21, 2011 21:36:08 GMT -5
Post by tombitd on Mar 21, 2011 21:36:08 GMT -5
If Jennifer Aniston's movies suck (and most of 'em do) then why have they made over a billion bucks at the box office? Because most people don't actually care about quality as much as we do, and just look at the name value without thinking 'Yikes! She's got the career sense of a vegetarian butcher! I'll avoid her movies!'.....
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 22, 2011 6:27:29 GMT -5
Post by Eddie Love on Mar 22, 2011 6:27:29 GMT -5
Because the bulk of the movies that make up that tally are comedy vehicles for other stars -- Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller. (Also, MARLEY, the dog movie she made, was a big hit, but not really a vehicle for her as was the case of the star-studded ensemble HE'S JUST NOT...) Otherwise her mainstream vehicles (the one with Gerard Butler, the one with Jason Bateman (which looks awful, but got some good reviews), the one with Aaron Echardt, the one with Clive Owen, the one with Kevin Costner) all under-performed or flopped. (I'm not judging these movies, as I've not seen any of them...) Her change-of pace indie titles didn't seem to get out of the gate...
I suggest she's still bankable because she has a high "Q Rating", based on people's affection for FRIENDS and the feeling she seems like a nice enough person who was publicly humiliated in her personal life. When asked would you see a movie with her, respondents say "sure." I bet studios also want her titles in their libraries as they are generically profitable on TV and cable in the same way that EVERY Saturday night back in the 00s a Jennifer Lopez movie was playing for the single ladies stuck at home. (My theory...)
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 22, 2011 9:19:00 GMT -5
Post by Derrick on Mar 22, 2011 9:19:00 GMT -5
Because the bulk of the movies that make up that tally are comedy vehicles for other stars -- Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller. (Also, MARLEY, the dog movie she made, was a big hit, but not really a vehicle for her as was the case of the star-studded ensemble HE'S JUST NOT...) Otherwise her mainstream vehicles (the one with Gerard Butler, the one with Jason Bateman (which looks awful, but got some good reviews), the one with Aaron Echardt, the one with Clive Owen, the one with Kevin Costner) all under-performed or flopped. (I'm not judging these movies, as I've not seen any of them...) Her change-of pace indie titles didn't seem to get out of the gate... I suggest she's still bankable because she has a high "Q Rating", based on people's affection for FRIENDS and the feeling she seems like a nice enough person who was publicly humiliated in her personal life. When asked would you see a movie with her, respondents say "sure." I bet studios also want her titles in their libraries as they are generically profitable on TV and cable in the same way that EVERY Saturday night back in the 00s a Jennifer Lopez movie was playing for the single ladies stuck at home. (My theory...) Your theory reminds me of something I read years ago: that the reason why studios continued to put Whoopi Goldberg in movie after movie even though they flopped at the box office was because once the movies went to the video stores they were continually rented out and made truckloads of money. My reason for asking the question in the first place is that I'm always reading/hearing/talking to people about how much they dislike Jennifer Aniston and how terrible her movies are....but shucks, SOMEBODY'S going to see 'em so SOMEBODY'S fulla shit.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 22, 2011 11:52:19 GMT -5
Post by smang12345 on Mar 22, 2011 11:52:19 GMT -5
Maybe I just haven't been paying attention but whenever one of her movies come out you don't hear anything about how much she was paid to be in them. Maybe she doesn't get paid more than 5-8 million to do them so she might be cheap to hire in addition to being a recognizable face. If you can do a rom com for 20-30 million it's almost always gonna be a solid double in terms of monetary returns so you can keep cranking them out forever.
Plus it seems to me at least that Hollywood has so much invested that they can't stop. At this point they have spent 20 years and hundreds of millions of dollars trying to convince the movie public that she is a movie star. And when you've taken that long and spent that much it's hard not to justify making one more movie that will make you a few million and might be a breakout that hits a huge payload.
It's not as if she isn't funny or a decent actress. I've seen her on Saturday Night Live and thought she was funny (I refused to watch Friends as I don't watch any TV show I would be too ugly to be in). In fact, she was offered a place on SNL but turned it down for Friends but she works better as a second banana than the main actress.
She is one of these actors/actresses that work better as part of a group where she comes in, does her little part, and then leaves kind of like Seth Rogan or John Belushi. Take Office Space for example, that is the perfect amount of Aniston.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 22, 2011 19:55:46 GMT -5
Post by Derrick on Mar 22, 2011 19:55:46 GMT -5
She is one of these actors/actresses that work better as part of a group where she comes in, does her little part, and then leaves kind of like Seth Rogan or John Belushi. Take Office Space for example, that is the perfect amount of Aniston. Can't argue with you there. I actually like Aniston in OFFICE SPACE. But then again I like everybody in OFFICE SPACE which is one of the few comedies that keep me laughing from start to finish. She also co-starred in a romcom with Steve Zahn that I thought she was pretty good in. In any case, it was a lot better than I expected.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 22, 2011 22:58:22 GMT -5
Post by Derrick on Mar 22, 2011 22:58:22 GMT -5
Why is this season of HOUSE so not working for me?
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 23, 2011 7:50:55 GMT -5
Post by Erik on Mar 23, 2011 7:50:55 GMT -5
Why is this season of HOUSE so not working for me? I've pretty much given up on HOUSE after the last season. They do several things to redeem the character, push him to change...and he's still the same man, just not dependent on drugs. The formula is getting a little predictable and the medical mystery's are becoming boring. I think I missed about 6 episodes this season and half watched 2 and didn't feel like I missed anything. Fortunately, BONES still works for me. I was afraid for the show but they haven't slipped much in the show. They just NEED to pick an intern and fucking stick with him. I wish they'd stick with Clark. He has history before his became an intern when he was brought in to discredit Zack on evidence in a trial and he just clicks well.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 23, 2011 10:14:27 GMT -5
Post by Derrick on Mar 23, 2011 10:14:27 GMT -5
Why is this season of HOUSE so not working for me? I've pretty much given up on HOUSE after the last season. They do several things to redeem the character, push him to change...and he's still the same man, just not dependent on drugs. The formula is getting a little predictable and the medical mystery's are becoming boring. I think I missed about 6 episodes this season and half watched 2 and didn't feel like I missed anything. I've always maintained that HOUSE should have ended after the fifth season. The last episode of that season with House being so wonked out on drugs and overcome with guilt that his subconscious haunting him with hallucinations of Amber and Kuttner was totally frightening. And the way it ended with the supporting characters being so happy and contented at the wedding of Chase and Cameron while Wilson takes House to the Rubber Room Ramada would have been the perfect series finale.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 23, 2011 14:01:44 GMT -5
Post by Erik on Mar 23, 2011 14:01:44 GMT -5
I've pretty much given up on HOUSE after the last season. They do several things to redeem the character, push him to change...and he's still the same man, just not dependent on drugs. The formula is getting a little predictable and the medical mystery's are becoming boring. I think I missed about 6 episodes this season and half watched 2 and didn't feel like I missed anything. I've always maintained that HOUSE should have ended after the fifth season. The last episode of that season with House being so wonked out on drugs and overcome with guilt that his subconscious haunting him with hallucinations of Amber and Kuttner was totally frightening. And the way it ended with the supporting characters being so happy and contented at the wedding of Chase and Cameron while Wilson takes House to the Rubber Room Ramada would have been the perfect series finale. I'd gotten behind that. I think I would've been very happy with 5yrs of HOUSE. But, with that said the episodes with House playing opposite Andre Braugher in the Rubber Room Ramada were pretty good too. When the show made the transition from focusing less on the disease of the week and went into more character drama the show turn a real turn up...but they seemed to have forgotten about that and went back to more of these freak diseases that I don't frankly give a fuck about anymore. If I took a shot for EVERY TIME somebody went into defib and the docs called for the crash cart I'd need a new liver by episode 6.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 23, 2011 14:40:02 GMT -5
Post by smang12345 on Mar 23, 2011 14:40:02 GMT -5
I liked the first season of House but my problem with the show is the suspension of disbelief they want from me. How many weird-ass inflictions are people going to come into that same hospital with that only House could fix? If the show was about House being the go to guy in the medical world when weird shit happens and he travels from hospital to hospital solving these problems I would like the show better. Hell, how about just half the episodes have him traveling would have made me happy.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 23, 2011 14:57:46 GMT -5
Post by Derrick on Mar 23, 2011 14:57:46 GMT -5
I've always maintained that HOUSE should have ended after the fifth season. The last episode of that season with House being so wonked out on drugs and overcome with guilt that his subconscious haunting him with hallucinations of Amber and Kuttner was totally frightening. And the way it ended with the supporting characters being so happy and contented at the wedding of Chase and Cameron while Wilson takes House to the Rubber Room Ramada would have been the perfect series finale. I'd gotten behind that. I think I would've been very happy with 5yrs of HOUSE. But, with that said the episodes with House playing opposite Andre Braugher in the Rubber Room Ramada were pretty good too. When the show made the transition from focusing less on the disease of the week and went into more character drama the show turn a real turn up...but they seemed to have forgotten about that and went back to more of these freak diseases that I don't frankly give a fuck about anymore. If I took a shot for EVERY TIME somebody went into defib and the docs called for the crash cart I'd need a new liver by episode 6. Agreed. The weird disease of the week doesn't interest me anymore and quite frankly I think it's hilarious that no matter what the symptoms, the first diagnosis that is made is that it must be Lupus. And I keep waiting for somebody to turn to Dr. Masters and say; "You do know the mixed messages you're sending by dressing like a 12-year old girl with fuck-me pumps on, right?" I mean, I know her character is supposed to be incredibly inept socially, but c'mon.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 24, 2011 22:27:38 GMT -5
Post by Derrick on Mar 24, 2011 22:27:38 GMT -5
The movie is mind-boggling in it's sheer WTF-ery. But for some reason, JFK is a compelling movie to watch. Why?
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 25, 2011 6:21:41 GMT -5
Post by Eddie Love on Mar 25, 2011 6:21:41 GMT -5
Because it's superior film-making, a masterwork of production design with a once in a generation cast. It captures Stone at the apex of his career where the tension between pretentious, psychedelics and the trivial, sentimental melodrama that taint the rest of his works, manage to coexist . (My beef with Stone isn't that he's overblown and bombastic, but that he's seldom that interesting when he is.)
|
|
Dino
Full Member
Tai-Pan
Posts: 166
|
Why?
Apr 10, 2011 5:10:13 GMT -5
Post by Dino on Apr 10, 2011 5:10:13 GMT -5
The movie is mind-boggling in it's sheer WTF-ery. But for some reason, JFK is a compelling movie to watch. Why? It's got very little to do with actual history (despite popular misconception), but it's great historical fiction. I've always found conspiracy theories to be really compelling fiction.
|
|