Print Page | Close Window

STRONG SUCKER FOR 2008

Printed From: Official RAZZIEŽ Forum
Category: FORUMS on NON-NOMINATED 2008 RELEASES w/LYNX!
Forum Name: VALKYRIE
Forum Discription: Tom Cruise as a Live-Action Version of "Fearless Leader" from BULLWINKLE...or is it Col. Klink?!?
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1857
Printed Date: July 31 2014 at 4:42am


Topic: STRONG SUCKER FOR 2008
Posted By: MarleneDietrich
Subject: STRONG SUCKER FOR 2008
Date Posted: April 10 2007 at 4:25am

Crui$e will play Claus von Stauffenberg in "Valkyrie" in 2009, the leader of the plot to assassinate Hitler on July 20th, 1944. Here's some background info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_Schenk_von_Stauffenberg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_Schenk_von_Stauffenberg

Thomas Kretschmann from whom he stole the role says that he believes Crui$e took that role in order to win his Oscar at last. The way I see it, he will finally win his Razzie as Worst Actor. Let's face it: How's this parvenu supposed to play an old, educated nobleman?

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/Cruise -



-------------
"What nourished your hate against the Nazis all those years?"
Marlene Dietrich: "Decency."



Replies:
Posted By: nico
Date Posted: May 24 2007 at 4:16pm
When I read this I was taken aback. This is a casting travesty.
Thank you for posting the link to the petition I will sign it immediately.


Posted By: Queen_of_Toad
Date Posted: November 10 2007 at 8:39am

Here's a http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2247&PN=1&TPN=1 - LINK to join our discussion of the TRAILER for "Valkyrie," (and there's a link to see the trailer there, as well)...

 



-------------
Please, forgive my poor English. It's not my native language.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 13 2007 at 1:42pm
If you actually think Tom Cruise can act "bad", you should get your head checked. Now I have so much hate for you. First a petition on Harry Potter and now this?! What has the world come to?!


Posted By: Queen_of_Toad
Date Posted: November 13 2007 at 8:52pm

This sounds exactly like the fanbots I got used to hear over the years: It's just another one of these comments: "If you don't like [person or movie], then you must think [another opinion irrelevant to the subject]".

For example:  
1) "saying Tom Cruise can't act, is like saying Alicia Keys can't sing....."
2) "Those of you who think Tom's acting sucks probably think Cameron Diaz or Drew Barrymore are talented actresses"

Or how about extension of an opinion to another opinion like:

1) "I suppose you think that Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, Michael Mann, and Martin Scorsese are all terrible worthless directors?"

If you don't like this post, then you probably need more sex.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

If you actually think Tom Cruise can act "bad", you should get your head checked. Now I have so much hate for you. First a petition on Harry Potter and now this?! What has the world come to?!



-------------
Please, forgive my poor English. It's not my native language.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 13 2007 at 10:24pm

Originally posted by Queen_of_Toad

If you don't like this post, then you probably need more sex.

Forgive your English?  Your English is better than most Americans' English, and your expressive logic is better than fine.

 



Posted By: Queen_of_Toad
Date Posted: November 14 2007 at 4:58am
You're too kind where my English is concerned. Unfortunately I know it is not the case.

But I must agree with you about logic. That seems to be a strange territory, a new frontier for too many people...


-------------
Please, forgive my poor English. It's not my native language.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 14 2007 at 9:43am
No, I wouldn't say those things and that means I need to have sex? Excuse me, I'm 15, which makes you set a bad example for teens my age.


Posted By: Queen_of_Toad
Date Posted: November 14 2007 at 10:24am
Who told me that you were 15 and who told you that I had come to set an example for you? And what do you call this?

Originally posted by Queen_of_Toad


For example,
1) "saying Tom Cruise can't act, is like saying Alicia Keys can't sing....."
2) "Those of you who think Tom's acting sucks probably think Cameron Diaz or Drew Barrymore are talented actresses"

Or how about extension of an opinion to another opinion like:

1) "I suppose you think that Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, Michael Mann, and Martin Scorsese are all terrible worthless directors?"



What is your problem, kiddo?


-------------
Please, forgive my poor English. It's not my native language.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 15 2007 at 12:58pm

I don't know if I'm complimenting your English as much as I am stating the fact about our American English over here.  At times, it seems we're less concerned with speaking the language as we are about just throwing words out there.  And somehow we still understand each other. . . .

As for logic, we do have a saying over here: common sense is not so common. . . .

Originally posted by Queen_of_Toad

You're too kind where my English is concerned. Unfortunately I know it is not the case.

But I must agree with you about logic. That seems to be a strange territory, a new frontier for too many people...



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 15 2007 at 1:05pm

MWG, QoT is just making another non sequitur to help you to see the bad logic of your own http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861683725 - non sequitur .  In other words, your saying that if our opinion of Tom Cruise's acting is that it's bad means that we need to get our heads examined is the equivalent as saying if you don't like QoT's post that means you need to have more sex.  Both are non sequiturs.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

No, I wouldn't say those things and that means I need to have sex? Excuse me, I'm 15, which makes you set a bad example for teens my age.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 15 2007 at 1:32pm
It doesn't seem like that to me.


Posted By: Queen_of_Toad
Date Posted: November 15 2007 at 5:42pm
If you can't handle opinions different from your own; if you start whining because somebody disagrees with you; if you cannot come up with ARGUMENTS to defend your own case and stance and instead start complaining and pretend being offended and as a conclusion try to set up rules that do not exist in a forum: Then, maybe an international message board is not the right place for you.
Dr. QoT has spoken.


-------------
Please, forgive my poor English. It's not my native language.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 15 2007 at 7:07pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy

It doesn't seem like that to me.

It's exactly what he's saying.  Perhaps the only reason you can't see it is that you are convinced Tom Cruise is a good actor.  You think that is fact.  And so, by extension, anyone who doesn't agree with that has a mental problem.  They cannot see what you deem a fact.

However, it really concerns values.  Most people value an actor who becomes totally different, convincing and relatable (or repulsive, but in a way where you want to keep on watching) characters over an actor who essentially plays the same role in every movie.  And even considering those who do play the same role over and over, we value those who are actually creating the role more than those who are just being their highly watchable and entertaining selves.

There are exceptions, of course, but by and large, that's what we tend to value.

I don't know Tom Cruise.  Never met the man in my life.  I'd doubt he'd be interested in meeting me, especially with a movie studio to run (and now fund, with one bomb out on the market and another on its way).  But it appears he plays himself or, at the very least, very slight deviations of the same character.

You might think this started when he jumped the shark, er, couch for Katie Holmes, or when he constantly pushed Scientology.  Well, this complaint was present even before all that.   I noticed it going back to LegendCocktail won the Worst Picture Razzie.  People complained about Days of Thunder.  He won the Worst Screen Couple Razzie with Brad Pitt for Interview with a Vampire.  All of that was well before all the recent tabloid fodder.  It has to do with his acting, or, more to the point, the perceived lack of acting.

 



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 17 2007 at 3:17pm

Yes, he acts the same in every movie and that role he plays, in my opinion, is not bad. That's why I don't understand why people call him the worst actor and even bothering to make up petitions about him. If he plays the same role, which some calls good, then how is it bad?



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 17 2007 at 7:08pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

If he plays the same role, which some calls good, then how is it bad?

Go back to what I said earlier.  "However, it really concerns values.  Most people value an actor who becomes totally different, convincing and relatable (or repulsive, but in a way where you want to keep on watching) characters over an actor who essentially plays the same role in every movie."

That is true.  So, if Tom Cruise plays the same role over and over and, even worse, he's not really acting but is just being himself, and if "most people value an actor who becomes. . . different. . . characters" over what Tom Cruise does, then most people don't value Tom Cruise that highly, at best.  I used the words "if", not because this is hypothetical, because it's not.  I'm just laying it out for you.

It doesn't seem that Tom Cruise acts.  He's very watchable, he's very entertaining, people still pay to see Cruise, but it seems what you see on the screen is him.  Sure, those aren't his words, and he would probably never be in those situations, but it seems what you see in the film is who he is.  If you're just being yourself, people don't consider that to be acting.  So, to claim you're an actor, when you're not even acting, makes you a bad actor.

It's nice being paid well for just being yourself, but that's not acting.

Do you see our point of view?  I mean, you can still like Tom Cruise.  I think he did well in Collateral.  But even when I like him, he's still Tom Cruise.



-------------


Posted By: nico
Date Posted: November 18 2007 at 11:12am
Cruise is a one trick pony. I have no doubt in my mind that Valkyrie will be a laughing stock and earn Cruise his next Razzie. I am so looking forward to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 18 2007 at 1:37pm
I'm looking forward to it because I want to hear this story (for a long time, I never knew someone on Hitler's side was trying to kill him). And Bryan Singer is directing it, with Tom Cruise starring in it.

-------------


Posted By: nico
Date Posted: November 19 2007 at 1:22pm

There are much better sources to get your information from than  some American-made Cruise vehicle that is tailor made for Tom. There have been several German versions made, and I would suggest that you seek those out instead.

Response from Head RAZZberry: FYI, here's an IMDb http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0031768/ - LINK , using the character name from VALKYRIE, to a listing of other versions of this same story... 

 



-------------


Posted By: Queen_of_Toad
Date Posted: November 19 2008 at 7:27pm
Originally posted by cvcjr13

That is true.  So, if Tom Cruise plays the same role over and over and, even worse, he's not really acting but is just being himself, (...)

It doesn't seem that Tom Cruise acts.  (...)

It's nice being paid well for just being yourself, but that's not acting.



Isn't that the trouble with Tommy Gurl that he became too good at being himself in the recent years?


-------------
Please, forgive my poor English. It's not my native language.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 20 2008 at 4:11pm
Keep in mind: Bryan Singer also directed "Superman Returns," which bombed big time at the Box Office (especially compared to the recent Spider-Man and Batman movies).

-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 23 2008 at 2:02am
I loved Superman Returns. One of the best superhero movies ever made. It's not bomb. It just didn't make as much money as expected. There's a difference.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 23 2008 at 2:11am

In the eyes of studios, if your movie didn't break even at the Box Office, it bombed. "Superman Returns" didn't break even until after it was on DVD. Although it was a character-driven movie, it seriously lacked action, which is a major thing that comic book fans want to see in their favorite comic book character movies. But I'm just saying this because of what reactions I have gotten from comic book fans, which for the most part is that Singer failed to tell the version of Superman that fans wanted to see.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: November 23 2008 at 1:02pm

I loved Superman Returns as well, the fantastic idea of a hero coming to terms with himself was executed in such a beautiful and extraordinary way was just so fantastic. The fact that this movie is being directed by the same guy that directed Superman is the only faith in this movie. While it made $390 million worldwide when the budget was $270 million, I wouldn't call it a "bomb" -- just a "disappointment"

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I loved Superman Returns. One of the best
superhero movies ever made. It's not bomb. It just didn't make as much money as expected. There's a difference.



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 23 2008 at 3:32pm

Well, Superman Returns had many comic book fans rolling their eyes that he was able to lift -- an entire landmass made up of the one thing in the world that can kill him. I think that scene alone was what killed the movie for most viewers.

Originally posted by movieman

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I loved Superman Returns. One of the best
superhero movies ever made. It's not bomb. It just didn't make as much
money as expected. There's a difference.

I loved Superman as well, the fantastic idea of a hero coming to terms with
himself was executed in such a beautiful and extraordinary way was just so
fantastic. The fact that this movie is being directed by
the same guy that directed Superman is the only faith in this movie. While it
made $390 million worldwide when the budget was $270 million, I wouldn't
call it a "bomb", just a "disappointment"

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: November 24 2008 at 12:29am
Well yeah, that was him using his last bit of strength he had left before he went into a coma. But enough Superman Returns -- Can we  return to discussing this forum's movie again?

-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 24 2008 at 9:21am
It isn't really true that if your movie didn't break even at the Box Office, it bombed. Most movies these days generate about 60% of their total revenues from video rental, DVD sales, cable runs and TV rights. So initial box-office isn't as large a factor as it used to be.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 24 2008 at 4:25pm

True. Matter of fact, it seems that these day, studios are COUNTING on the DVD making more money than the theater release. But that doesn't excuse them for making unholy bad, direct to DVD sequels to sub-par movies.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

It isn't really true that if your movie didn't break even at the Box Office, it bombed. Most movies these days generate about 60% of their total revenues from video rental, DVD sales, cable runs and TV rights. So initial box-office isn't as large a factor as it used to be.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Queen_of_Toad
Date Posted: November 27 2008 at 11:42pm
Now, how much does this turkey need to make in order to break even? It cost something like USD 145 million (promotion included). I know that about half of ticket sales go to movie theatres / distributors. It would then need something over USD 200 million before the studio makes a profit.  Am I wrong here? Please, correct me if I am wrong.


-------------
Please, forgive my poor English. It's not my native language.


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 8:14am

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: It used to be that about 50%-65% of ticket sales ended up going to the studio in the form of "rentals." But these daze, each case is individual -- Terms are negotiated on a title-by-title basis, and sometimes on a nation-by-nation basis.

But a good rule of thumb is that OVER 50% of the grosses on most movies go into the studios' coffers (sometimes more than 70%). So, if your estimated budget figures are accurate, VALKYRIE would need to break $215 million worldwide before it would reach "break-even."  If the advance word on this film is any indication, it'll be lucky to make even half that much...

 



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry


Posted By: Queen_of_Toad
Date Posted: November 29 2008 at 1:30am
OK. From which sum on is a movie considered a profit?
USD 215 mio worldwide doesn't seem that much to me. Or I am being wrong?
I also heard that the US box office was the only one that really counted in the industry. Is this wrong?


-------------
Please, forgive my poor English. It's not my native language.



Print Page | Close Window