Are they worth their price-tag?

[Roba Fett]

Rumer has it they will. Badum tish!

[MikeyRix]

Originally Posted by Jonesy

Forbes has published this year's top ten Hollywood earners:

1. Johnny Depp - $50 million
2. Ben Stiller - $38 million
3. Tom Hanks - $30 million
4. Adam Sandler $26.6 million
5. Leonardo DiCaprio $18 million
6. Daniel Radcliffe $16 million
7. Robert Downey Jnr $14.6 million
8. Tom Cruise $14.6 million
9. Brad Pitt $13 million
10.George Clooney $12.6 million

No to all, especially Radcliffe and Cruise.

[thedude]

Originally Posted by MikeyRix

No to all, especially Radcliffe and Cruise.

May I ask who you think, if anybody, does?

Radcliffe may not be the best actor in the world, but as the very established face of a multi billion dollar franchise is he not entitled to a large pay day?
Sure, he is there by fortune, he recently said himself that he knows he, as well as Grint and Watson, they were only chosen because they looked the part.
If it was you, wouldnt you feel hard done by if something you were a very important part of was making a insane amount of money, and you weren't getting a reasonable pay cheque?

[morris]

I can't be bothered to start a new thread, and I don't think it/he deserves it, so I'm putting my rant about the 3D release of Titanic here.

I mean, come fucking ON - how much money does James money-bags Cameron need? First he adds a few minutes to Avatar and re-releases that... now he's re-releasing Titanic so it can be seen in 3D - and obviously line his overstuffed bank account even more.

How much is enough?? Does anyone really need to see that bloody film again? It's one of the worst films ever made, in terms of dialogue and characters. It gives an overall feeling of horse shit, tbh Jim.

If that's not enough to get you talking, what do you think of the double dip: studios habit of releasing Theatrical versions of big movies like LOTR, followed later by inevitable Extended versions. It's blatant greed which we consumers should avoid supporting.

[MikeyRix]

Originally Posted by thedude

Radcliffe may not be the best actor in the world, but as the very established face of a multi billion dollar franchise is he not entitled to a large pay day?
Sure, he is there by fortune, he recently said himself that he knows he, as well as Grint and Watson, they were only chosen because they looked the part.
If it was you, wouldnt you feel hard done by if something you were a very important part of was making a insane amount of money, and you weren't getting a reasonable pay cheque?

Mm, in the face of the juggernaut that is the "Potter" franchise, I suppose so. I guess it is my personal feelings getting in the way. Just...I don't tend to care about how much actors get paid (so I can't specifically name actors as you asked for at the start of the post, apologies for the cop-out), but when I read the figures sometimes, I do feel some are on the same level of footballers in terms of them being overpaid.

In this sense, the word "reasonable" becomes subjective. Clearly, my impressions of it are quite low.

Originally Posted by morris

I can't be bothered to start a new thread, and I don't think it/he deserves it, so I'm putting my rant about the 3D release of Titanic here.

I mean, come fucking ON - how much money does James money-bags Cameron need? First he adds a few minutes to Avatar and re-releases that... now he's re-releasing Titanic so it can be seen in 3D - and obviously line his overstuffed bank account even more.

How much is enough?? Does anyone really need to see that bloody film again? It's one of the worst films ever made, in terms of dialogue and characters. It gives an overall feeling of horse shit, tbh Jim.

If that's not enough to get you talking, what do you think of the double dip: studios habit of releasing Theatrical versions of big movies like LOTR, followed later by inevitable Extended versions. It's blatant greed which we consumers should avoid supporting.

This. Just...this.

[Jeffbiscuits]

Don't forget the multiple formats studios can release their films on these days. DVDs are still going, Blu, digital versions and now 3D nonsense. I don't have a bluray player at the moment and I grudge shelling out twenty odd quid for a film that's only released as a bloody triple-play when I'll only use the DVD.

[Zippykins1]

I think some kind of Titanic re-release was inevitable to coincide with the centenary of the sinking (I assume its coming out then...? If not, wtf).

[MikeyRix]

The trailer for the 3D redo got released today (pointless really, it looks like the same thing as 13 years back), so I shouldn't image it'd be too long.

Originally Posted by Jeffbiscuits

Don't forget the multiple formats studios can release their films on these days. DVDs are still going, Blu, digital versions and now 3D nonsense. I don't have a bluray player at the moment and I grudge shelling out twenty odd quid for a film that's only released as a bloody triple-play when I'll only use the DVD.

Tell me about it! My boyfriend has a PS3 which he uses as a BD player, but I still buy DVD formats for him. Helps that I'm a tight b*tch (in financial terms) and have inherited my mother's reluctance to "move with the times"; the "I will use it until it dismantles in my hands" kind of attitude

[parochial1]

Don't get the Adam Sandler earning that much. he's been making the same film over and over for the last 15 years! You'd hope the top ten earners would be the top ten in quality too. I suppose that you know what you're going to get with each of the names on the list. That's why they're bankable. If wealth and earnings were based on merit, in any walk of life, would any name survive in the top ten rich list?