|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Apr 2, 2024 21:06:40 GMT
I wasn’t even talking about their looks (but c’mon, they’re both unconventionally attractive at best), just that neither of them have commercial appeal or star power.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 2, 2024 21:09:30 GMT
I wasn’t even talking about their looks (but c’mon, they’re both unconventionally attractive at best), just that neither of them have commercial appeal or star power. Yeah, that was pretty much my main objection to the casting. You kinda need proper movie stars for this.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 2, 2024 21:14:01 GMT
I wasn’t even talking about their looks (but c’mon, they’re both unconventionally attractive at best), just that neither of them have commercial appeal or star power. It's a domestic black comedy, not a $200 million Martin Scorsese epic. And star power? One of them is an Oscar winner for Best Actress coming off the heels of an Emmy-winning foray into a highly successful Netflix series (and who is one of the very best comic actresses of her generation), and the other one is Doctor Strange (and Cumberbatch does have his own strong fanbase). I mean, are they on the levels of Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas in their heyday? Even if that is debatable, do they even need to be?
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Apr 2, 2024 21:14:27 GMT
So let me get this straight...this board considers Colman attractive but Lupita was voted no.
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 4,372
Member is Online
|
Post by Archie on Apr 2, 2024 21:17:27 GMT
So let me get this straight...this board considers Colman attractive but Lupita was voted no. I don't believe we ever had a Lupita attractive vote?
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 2, 2024 21:30:13 GMT
I wasn’t even talking about their looks (but c’mon, they’re both unconventionally attractive at best), just that neither of them have commercial appeal or star power. It's a domestic black comedy, not a $200 million Martin Scorsese epic. And star power? One of them is an Oscar winner for Best Actress coming off the heels of an Emmy-winning foray into a highly successful Netflix series (and who is one of the very best comic actresses of her generation), and the other one is Doctor Strange (and Cumberbatch does have his own strong fanbase). I mean, are they on the levels of Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas in their heyday? Even if that is debatable, do they even need to be? The War Of The Roses made 160 million dollars worldwide. That's in 1989 money. Adjusted for inflation, that's about 400 million dollars in 2024 money. That's an insane level of money made at the box office for any movie, let alone a domestic black comedy. It was basically a blockbuster hit And you'd have to say the sheer starpower of Douglas & Turner ( and to a lesser extent Danny Devito in his supporting role) drove those numbers. Hollywood is supposed to be a business. I would think any smart buisness would look at how much money the original film made, and try to do everything possible to get a similar or bigger box office gross. Casting is key to that. The potential is there to make insane amounts of loot like the original, because it's already been done, but you need stars who were at least on or close to the level of Douglas and Turner in 1989 ( which is why I suggested Bradley Cooper and Charlize Theron). I don't see Cumberbatch as having the starpower to do that as the lead outside the Marvel sandbox, and I don't see Colman having it either. No one disputes that they are acclaimed/award winning & well known actors. I guess if the producers have scaled down their commercial expectations, and don't expect do anywhere near the business of the original, then you can cast whomever you want. But that's an awful lot of money left on the table.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 2, 2024 21:39:23 GMT
It's a domestic black comedy, not a $200 million Martin Scorsese epic. And star power? One of them is an Oscar winner for Best Actress coming off the heels of an Emmy-winning foray into a highly successful Netflix series (and who is one of the very best comic actresses of her generation), and the other one is Doctor Strange (and Cumberbatch does have his own strong fanbase). I mean, are they on the levels of Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas in their heyday? Even if that is debatable, do they even need to be? The War Of The Roses made 160 million dollars worldwide. That's in 1989 money. Adjusted for inflation, that's about 400 million dollars in 2024 money. That's an insane level of money made at the box office for any movie, let alone a domestic black comedy. It was basically a blockbuster hit And you'd have to say the sheer starpower of Douglas & Turner ( and to a lesser extent Danny Devito in his supporting role) drove those numbers. Hollywood is supposed to be a business. I would think any smart buisness would look at how much money the original film made, and try to do everything possible to get a similar or bigger box office gross. Casting is key to that. The potential is there to make insane amounts of loot like the original, because it's already been done, but you need stars who were at least on the level of Douglas and Turner in 1989. I don't see Cumberbatch as having the starpower to do that as the lead outside the Marvel sandbox, and I don't see Colman having it either. I guess if the producers have scaled down their commercial expectations, and don't expect do anywhere near the business of the original, then you can cast whomever you want. But that's an awful lot of money left on the table. The cinematic landscape in 2024 is far different than it was in 1989. Part of the decline of the "movie star" is tied to the death of the mid-budget movie. You can make a movie like The War of the Roses for less than $20 million (Jay Roach made Trumbo for half that, and that was a period piece with a sizable cast), and I imagine that unless they utterly mishandle the release or if the reviews utterly bomb, this movie will likely make its money back and then some. It should be noted that this is Tony McNamara who wrote the script. He probably wrote it specifically for Colman. And Colman and Cumberbatch are listed as producers, so this is likely a project that one or both of them bought the rights to, specifically to work with the other.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Apr 2, 2024 23:07:09 GMT
So let me get this straight...this board considers Colman attractive but Lupita was voted no. I don't believe we ever had a Lupita attractive vote? We did have hot or not polls one time and I had to point out that black people were damn near never voted hot.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 2, 2024 23:28:37 GMT
Tbh this thread got weird - we had a thread about Jeff Wells being a racist (he's not afaik) and him making fun of Beanie Feldstein's looks and I got it, and to me it was mean but .....oh well.........I mean these people are in public.........goes with the territory to me Is it mean? Yes Do I call Austin Butler Bucky Fellini? Yes....yes I do
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 2, 2024 23:59:02 GMT
What people don't get is that War of The Roses was a black comedy, yes, but It was also a very sexy and horny movie.
Olivia Colman has ZERO sex appeal, replace her with Charlize Theron or Kate Hudson.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Apr 3, 2024 0:20:50 GMT
My guess is if Charlize Theron or Penélope Cruz or Jessica Chastain or whoever wanted to make this movie, they would've gotten the opportunity. Hell, if Sandra Bullock and Channing Tatum wanted to follow their proxy-Romancing the Stone remake with this, they could've.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Apr 3, 2024 0:44:22 GMT
What people don't get is that War of The Roses was a black comedy, yes, but It was also a very sexy and horny movie. Olivia Colman has ZERO sex appeal, replace her with Charlize Theron or Kate Hudson. I agree. Kate Hudson and Ed Norton would have been good.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 3, 2024 13:58:53 GMT
I don't believe we ever had a Lupita attractive vote? We did have hot or not polls one time and I had to point out that black people were damn near never voted hot. And.............So what? Maybe it was the people in the specific hot or not polls and not their skin color? Who people of any skin color want to fuck is only that........I would not read that much into it........... Also we have many PoC on this board not just African Americans .......Just sayin'.......
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Apr 3, 2024 15:52:37 GMT
they gotta get Devito in there somehow. Even just a cameo
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Apr 3, 2024 16:01:58 GMT
What people don't get is that War of The Roses was a black comedy, yes, but It was also a very sexy and horny movie. Yes, but what is the point of a remake if is going to be the exact same movie. A film needs a new take otherwise the remake is pointless. Perhaps this version is about two deeply repressed people who come to blows in their marriage, rather than the openly sexual pair we got in 89. This would allow the film to explore different ideas within the same overall plot, aka a reason to exist.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Apr 3, 2024 16:59:22 GMT
Here's the thing about Glenn....she is not a conventional beauty but she did have sex appeal back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Apr 3, 2024 17:15:54 GMT
We did have hot or not polls one time and I had to point out that black people were damn near never voted hot. And.............So what? Maybe it was the people in the specific hot or not polls and not their skin color? Who people of any skin color want to fuck is only that........I would not read that much into it........... Also we have many PoC on this board not just African Americans .......Just sayin'....... I said what I said ...
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 3, 2024 21:09:27 GMT
And.............So what? Maybe it was the people in the specific hot or not polls and not their skin color? Who people of any skin color want to fuck is only that........I would not read that much into it........... Also we have many PoC on this board not just African Americans .......Just sayin'....... I said what I said ...
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,706
Likes: 2,129
|
Post by cherry68 on Apr 3, 2024 21:23:47 GMT
If you want a talented mid aged couple, get Pfeiffer and Oldman.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 3, 2024 21:25:10 GMT
If you want a talented mid aged couple, get Pfeiffer and Oldman. Not sure how to break this to you, but Pfeiffer and Oldman are senior citizens.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,706
Likes: 2,129
|
Post by cherry68 on Apr 3, 2024 21:43:19 GMT
If you want a talented mid aged couple, get Pfeiffer and Oldman. Not sure how to break this to you, but Pfeiffer and Oldman are senior citizens. Mid 60s is senior in the US? People in Europe still work at that age. Not to mention Pfeiffer looks the same age as Colman.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 3, 2024 22:12:15 GMT
Not sure how to break this to you, but Pfeiffer and Oldman are senior citizens. Mid 60s is senior in the US? People in Europe still work at that age. Not to mention Pfeiffer looks the same age as Colman. People can still work into their sixties and beyond, but that doesn't mean anything. It just means that people can't afford to retire nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Apr 3, 2024 22:16:02 GMT
Not sure how to break this to you, but Pfeiffer and Oldman are senior citizens. Mid 60s is senior in the US? People in Europe still work at that age. Not to mention Pfeiffer looks the same age as Colman. Michelle is 65, Olivia is 50. But yeah, Michelle just looks younger.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,706
Likes: 2,129
|
Post by cherry68 on Apr 3, 2024 22:16:09 GMT
Mid 60s is senior in the US? People in Europe still work at that age. Not to mention Pfeiffer looks the same age as Colman. People can still work into their sixties and beyond, but that doesn't mean anything. It just means that people can't afford to retire nowadays. No, it doesn't work this way in Europe. People are obliged to work til a certain age; usually 67.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 3, 2024 22:21:03 GMT
People can still work into their sixties and beyond, but that doesn't mean anything. It just means that people can't afford to retire nowadays. No, it doesn't work this way in Europe. People are obliged to work til a certain age; usually 67. And in America, retirement age is usually 65 (again, not that many people can afford to retire). Social security kicks in at 62. But more to the point, the average human life expectancy is 73 years as of 2024. So yeah, Oldman and Pfeiffer may be in good health but they are well past a reasonable definition of "middle age.
|
|