SPEARE'S TIPS - The Films of 11/16

[Wrestler]

* - This is when you play a character in a big franchise and will forever be associated with that character, to the point where audiences won't see you in anything else.

No where in there do you say that the actor can't have done anything else prior to their big iconic role. The whole point of your post was to say that after being in such a huge movie people would only be able to perceive an actor as that character and nothing else. Kristen Stewart(your main example had acted in 16 roles prior to twilight) Bruce Willis had acted in just 5 prior to Die Hard. Lets say for some reason that we do live in an alternate universe where Harrison Ford was never associated with one of the most iconic characters in one of the most popular movies of all time. Mark Hamill has been an immensely sought after voice actor for the last 35 years. I'm sure you will retort saying that voice acting doesn't count but it does and you know it does. Elijah Wood has also moved on to be an immensely popular voice actor as well as having a very respectable television show which when it premiered became the highest ranking debut sitcom on FX. Bradley Cooper did have this one movie called limitless that came out a year ago and performed respectably with no ensemble. I too was kinda suprised you gave me Radcliffe out of all those people and didn't try and throw Tobey Maguire at me but I would have just said Maguire is a terrible actor who didn't deserve the role in the first place and is only decent when being a goof. He was fine playing teenage Parker but doesn't have the acting chops to develop the character which is why he fell apart so bad in 3.

Aaaanny way maybe, just maybe the reason that so many actors can't keep up with the unrealistic goal of putting out huge massive successful movies year after year after year is that being in a hugely popular film that millions of people love puts a stress on the actor. They spend years playing one character that fans put all of their hopes on for them to get juuuust right and who will let them know if they mess it up and your going to get on their case for not jumping into another huge movie? That kind of pressure for so long takes a toll and most of them just want to take a break for a bit. Kristen Stewart went off and did some indie films and refined her acting a small bit before taking on another iconic role. Radcliffe if exploring other genres beside harry potter. Emma Watson went on to do a few indies and is going back to college. Galifianakis and Cooper are still working on the Hangover series and still found time to make mildly successful films in between.

[Buscemi]

Limitless wasn't sold on Cooper. It was sold on Cooper, De Niro and the premise. Have one of the three missing, it's not as big of a hit.

With Elijah Wood, Wilfred was sold more on the bizarre premise than him (Wood isn't even the star, the dog is). Also, Wood taking second banana to a man in a dog suit is a clear sign that the man was desperate for work.

And on Hamill, despite the fact that he is a high-in-demand voice actor (and voices one hell of a Joker), much more was expected from him. After Corvette Summer came out in 1978 and bombed, the hype on Hamill stopped and he realized he would be forever Luke Skywalker.

But anyway, what I'm saying is that after you make this huge movie and hit the mainstream, people will only see you in that role. It doesn't count for Bruce Willis because he had a big TV show in Moonlighting and people already knew who he was when Die Hard was being made (also, he starred in Blind Date the year before and that made money). It counts for Kristen Stewart and Jennifer Lawrence since their biggest roles before then had been in small indies or children's films and now audiences will forever see them as Bella Swan and Katniss Everdeen. Even if they did some big Oscar baity biopic, audiences would still say, "Hey, it's Bella Swan playing Marie Curie" or "Look, Katniss is Molly Pitcher".

[Geezer]

Boosh, I agree with you to a certain extent, but there is a way to break that mold: BE A GOOD ACTOR. If you are good enough at your craft, people will not associate you with the role. One of the things that struck me watching The Perks of Being a Wallflower was how well Emma Watson did at putting Hermione Granger so far in the rear-view mirror. You didn't watch her thinking "Hey, it's Hermione," because her performance in the new role was flawless, you weren't thinking of anything else. Time will tell if Jennifer Lawrence can do that, I believe she can.

Kristen Stewart on the other hand....

[Buscemi]

You have a point but audiences really don't care about that anymore. Either they come to see a character or they come to see a persona (successful examples of actors playing a persona: Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charlie Chaplin, The Marx Brothers, Buster Keaton, Channing Tatum). If you are neither, no one comes. Guys like Stallone (who's rarely had a hit not named Rocky, Rambo or The Expendables) and Burt Reynolds (whose career hit the skids after 1982) learned this the hard way.

[numbersix]

It's nice to come up with generalisations, but I think it's fair to say something is only true until it is broken. And the US box office tends to break records on a monthly basis.

With Lawrence, she was being billed as a prestige actor before The Hunger Games, unlike the likes of Stewart whose roles weren't in the same league. The girl was nominated for an Oscar for Winter's Bone. So how many of the above were Oscar nomianted before their franchises commenced?

The Silver Linings Playbook has all the right elements of a sleeper hit. I'd be surprised if it was as big as The Fighter, but it's far more accessible than Huckabees. Add in the awards so far, its rising Oscar buzz, not to mention the relative popularity of Bradley Cooper (yep, The Words was a disaster but it failed to get any award buzz, and the story looked dull) and de Niro in apparently his best role in a long time, and I think it'll be safe to say this will not be a victim of your francise rule. Perhaps it's because the film isn't trying to sell itself solely on Lawrence. I did also read that tracking isn't great, but to me that just suggests a moderate opening and strong word of mouth.

[numbersix]

Oh, and MTC tracking has Twilight at 150, and Lincoln at 17

[Buscemi]

But of course, how many people actually saw Winter's Bone? My point exactly. Also, the Best Actress category has become a crapshoot in recent years due to the lack of decent roles for women. If you see five good, even merely decent, performances from women in an English language film, they get nominated no matter what.

Also even if people like the film (which audiences outside the big cities won't), it still won't hold. Traditionally, films drop huge after Thanksgiving and have a hard time recovering. And with The Weinstein Company splitting marketing between Silver Linings Playbook and Killing Them Softly (of which I've seen a lot more marketing on), the former will not get much of a push after the other opens.

[numbersix]

My point about Lawrence is that she has already demonstrated ability before a franchise. This bodes well for her surpassing any assumed franchise curse simply on her abilities. Mark Hammill was not a very good actor. Neither is Elijah Wood (he found a good home as a disenfranchised and lost guy in Wilfred), of Kristen Stewart. I do agree that the major public see her as Katniss now, but if she continues to do challenging roles that garner award attention (like this, and possibly Serena) she can potentially beat it.

Can't comment on the marketing (though if true Harvey and Bob are making a huge mistake. If there's one film that won't appeal to the masses it's Killing Them Softly) of Silver Linings so that may be a valid point. Though I'm not sure why you think it will only play well in big cities and why it wouldn't spread.

Also, it's my understanding that the majority of Thanksgiving films, unless critically reviled, actually perform quite well if they open on Thanksgiving. Most have multiples of 3 or above (even the very frontloaded The Muppets achieved this based on its 3-day intake), and the last two Oscar-winning films opened limited on Thanksgiving. Even if Silver Linings were to open wide to a paltry $10m, $30-$40m is a possibility.

[englishozzy]

1. Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2 - $145 million
2. Skyfall - $60 million
3. Wreck-It Ralph - $20 million
4. Lincoln - $15 million
5. Flight - $9 million

[Buscemi]

As I've said Six, the trailers for Silver Linings Playbook give a more I Heart Huckabee's vibe. That was a film that only played well in the big cities. Meanwhile, the bread and butter areas aren't going to see the acclaim but the mismatched pairing of the leads and the obnoxious dialogue (for example, the conversation on Walt Whitman in the trailer feels more at home in a pretentious indie than a mainstream feel-good comedy).

For the Thanksgiving audiences, you've got Twilight for the girls, Rise of the Guardians for the kids, Red Dawn for the guys and Lincoln for the adults. This is a film's that going to have a hard time finding an audience with Twilight and Lincoln occupied.

[numbersix]

And like everyone else has said, the film looks absolutely nothing like I Heart Huckabees. I haven't seen the trailer with a Whitman conversation (the Hemmingway scene doesn't require knowing the book because the point of the scene is to show his lack of social skills), but the two I have seen essentially focus on a man with mental problems overcoming them through a relationship with a recent widow. It plays hard on emotion, whereas Huckabees sold itself as Kaufman-lite. They're so far apart it's almost hilarious. If that's your basis for claiming that Silver Linings won't break out of cities then I remain unconvinced. And again I've yet to hear anyone complain about the dialogue or the age difference (the latter being of some surprise to me, considering the 15 year age gap).

[Buscemi]

Whitman, Hemingway, the two are interchangeable.

Anyway, you're in a big European city (where an age gap wouldn't be a big deal). But in the US, audiences are going to get creeped out. Hell, I'm creeped out (and it takes a lot to do so) since we've got a guy whose most famous role is playing a womanizing jackass paired with a girl whose whole career has consisted of playing teenagers. It just doesn't feel kosher.

[numbersix]

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about perceptions over here, I'm actually surprised that I'm hearing nothing in the US press or on social media sites about how uncomfortable the age difference is. I was expecting it, but you're literally the only one. Perhaps it's due to the truly uncomfortable The Reader, or maybe Manhattan, or perhaps because age difference is not that much of an issue, I'm not sure.

And that's the thing, don't you even consider that this could be yet another example of your own bias clouding your perception of a film's performance? We all told you Wreck It Ralph would perform well and you attempted to explain your reasons which were essentially your own bias being mapped onto the public, and the occasional accusation that we were being biased for the movie. Surely it's time to adjust your thought process?

[Chienfantome]

Lauren Bacall was 20 when Humphrey Bogart was 45 in the first films they played lovers together, I'm pretty sure everyone is a bit biased and accustomed to Hollywood casting 40 or 50 year-old men having affairs with 20 year-old girls, so I'm sure seeing a 22 year-old girl with a 37 year-old man won't shock much...

[Geezer]

And that's the thing, don't you even consider that this could be yet another example of your own bias clouding your perception of a film's performance? We all told you Wreck It Ralph would perform well and you attempted to explain your reasons which were essentially your own bias being mapped onto the public, and the occasional accusation that we were being biased for the movie. Surely it's time to adjust your thought process?

THIS