Apparently Ryan Reynolds isn't a Movie STAR!

Discuss the columns here!

Re: Apparently Ryan Reynolds isn't a Movie STAR!

Postby Vandermint » 30 Jun 2011, 21:59

This is how far I got when I decided to click over here:

Everyone is complaining about the quality of this summer's movies (probably the worst ever), this year's Oscar race (potentially the most ghastly in years) and a general lack of imagination by the studios (it honestly feels like they gave up),


1. People always complain about the quality of summer movies. Also, airline food is bad.

2. I don't know anyone complaining about this year's Oscar race. Then again, I don't live in Los Angeles. Also, it's the summer, and all the movies that will contend for those awards will be coming out in about five months.

3. People always complain about the lack of imagination by the movie studios. And have you had airplane food lately?!
Vandermint
PrettyWhorey
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 16 Apr 2008, 09:19

Re: Apparently Ryan Reynolds isn't a Movie STAR!

Postby McNutty » 30 Jun 2011, 22:56

Dthefritz wrote:Both of you guys make valid points. My breakdown:
Hugh Grant - was a movie star.
Colin Firth - Jane Moviegoer loooooooves this guy and can blackmail Joe Moviegoer via non-commission of oral sex into 2 tickets. He's in.
Ricky Gervais - Didn't his show fucking tank? Hilarious, but not a movie star.
Hopkins/Day-Lewis: Yes. They're only movie stars once every five years, but even people who live in the fictive small-town paradise of Lou Dobbs' imagination see their movies.
Neeson - Taken did pretty well. That and his high profile in turns in other big movies qualify him in my book.
Daniel Craig - Borderline. Needs to own one more non-Bond blockbuster to establish his bonafides. That and the bonus points for being the least convincing movie Joo since Warren Beatty.
Ewan MacGregor - Maybe for a brief moment, but even if so, the moment's most definitely passed.
Jude Law - Yes.
Ben Kingsley - Sexy Beast, House of Sand and Fog, and You Kill Me were solid, underrated movies, but didn't have broad enough appeal.
Ralph Fiennes - My heart says yes but my head says no. Toughest omission.
Depardeiu - You could make the case that he's in on the grounds of being the one foreign actor who basically guarantees US distribution for movies in his home country without ever having sustained success in American movies. But not by Simmons' definition.

Also, how did you run a list of foreign "movie stars" this long without mentioning Javier Bardem?


Couldn't remember his name. Also, probably a one-shot wonder for the Coen brothers. Could probably add Del Toro in his place. Speaking of one-shot wonders for the Coens . . . No Nicholas Cage? (joke, no, really, a joke.)
User avatar
McNutty
n00b
 
Posts: 63
Joined: 26 Apr 2011, 19:34

Re: Apparently Ryan Reynolds isn't a Movie STAR!

Postby McNutty » 30 Jun 2011, 23:02

Vandermint wrote:This is how far I got when I decided to click over here:

Everyone is complaining about the quality of this summer's movies (probably the worst ever), this year's Oscar race (potentially the most ghastly in years) and a general lack of imagination by the studios (it honestly feels like they gave up),


1. People always complain about the quality of summer movies. Also, airline food is bad.

2. I don't know anyone complaining about this year's Oscar race. Then again, I don't live in Los Angeles. Also, it's the summer, and all the movies that will contend for those awards will be coming out in about five months.

3. People always complain about the lack of imagination by the movie studios. And have you had airplane food lately?!


Actually, I haven't. I fly Southwest almost exclusively these days and they've just recently re-introduced their little bags of peanuts. I can't remember the last time I had a meal on an airplane. I remember flying first-class quite a bit back before deregulation. On long flights you could have some pretty good meals. And you could smoke your brains out and guzzle complimentary booze for hours. Ah, the good old days.
User avatar
McNutty
n00b
 
Posts: 63
Joined: 26 Apr 2011, 19:34

Re: Apparently Ryan Reynolds isn't a Movie STAR!

Postby The Long Dick of the Law » 30 Jun 2011, 23:11

First off, let me be the 50th to cosign that Waiting is hilarious.

Now, mini-breakdown

and a general lack of imagination by the studios


Dude there's a movie coming out called Cowboys and Aliens, imagination brought! /peter king

When Green Lantern badly underperformed last weekend, it shouldn't have been surprising, because Reynolds isn't a movie star ... We just spent the past 10 years compiling evidence that said, emphatically, "Ryan Reynolds can't carry a bad movie." Or, really, any movie.


It underperformed because according to everyone, the movie sucks because the script sucked not because of Ryan Reynolds, kinda like both Fantastic Fours sucking because the scripts sucked, not because the actors sucked. But according to Simba, inability to carry a bad movie means you are not a movie star, everyone remember this.

Van Wilder, Waiting, Definitely, Maybe, plus the best part of the Wolverine movie, he can carry if given anything decent.

he dated and married Scarlett Johanssen at the peak of her buxom powers (getting a nice Us Weekly career boost out of it);

...

reignited the whole "Ryan Reynolds is a movie star" storyline,9 because if he's appearing in Us Weekly every other week, then dammit, that means he's a star.


:gay: :gay: :gay: I think the photographers of US Weekly going on strike would crush simba more than the NBA lockout.

Anyway, his STARS!

Smith and Leo; Depp and Cruise; Clooney, Damon and Pitt; Downey and Bale; Hanks and Denzel; Stiller and Sandler; Crowe and Bridges; Carell, Rogen, Ferrell and Galafianakis; Wahlberg and Affleck; Gyllenhall (it kills me to put him on here, but there's just no way to avoid it); Justin Timberlake (who became a movie star simply by being so famous that he brainwashed us); and amazingly, Kevin James


3 of Tom Cruise's last 4 movies:
Knight and Day: $117 mil budget, $20 mil opening weekend and $76 mil domestic gross, boy he carried that shit show
Valkryie which was well reviewed and underperformed: $75 mil budget, $20 mil opening weekend $83 mil dom gross: STAR!
Lions for Lambs with Simba's wet dream Meryl Streep and Robert Redford: $35 mil budget, $15 mil dom gross

His one other movie? Tropic Thunder where he was like the 17th guy, but he danced in a fat suit at the end so yeah, STAR

That took up a lot of space so I'll just say Johnny Depp had The Tourist, Rango, Public Enemies, and The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus all out in the past couple years and none made their budget back in the US. Sweeney Todd barely surpassed it.

George Clooney may be banging any chick he wants but outside of the Ocean's movies (ensemble!) he isn't making bank: Fantastic Mr Fox ($20 mil, 1/2 of budget), The American ($35 mil on $20 mil bud), Men Who Stare at Goats w/fellow STAR Jeff Bridges ($32 mil), Burn After Reading w/fellow STAR Pitt ($60 mil), Leatherheads ($31 mil, $58 mil budget), Syriana ($50.8 mil on 50 mil bud), hell Intolerable Cruelty ($35 mil on $60 mil bud).

Bah, i'm tired of that, Simba's retarded, but the other two biggies that flash "My name i Phil Simpson and I have no idea what I'm talking about" Steve Carrell is a STAR but Paul Rudd isn't... come again???? (Steve Carrell STARS in Evan Almighty, $100 mil on $175 budget) And Zach Galigfdsfdsaf is a STAR? For being in The Hangovers and Due Date? (Youth in Revolt $15 mil on $18 mil bud; G-Force [ :shock: ] $119 mil on $150 bud).

This is as retarded as his list of NBA players who would have made the cut Dennis Johnson made when Bird stole the ball.

What Simba SHOULD have done was directors instead of actors. if JJ Abrams makes a movie, it's gonna make $$$. Same with Christopher Nolan, Martin Scorcese, James Cameron, to a lesser extent Michael Bay, Steven Spielberg, the Coen Bros., Apatow and his gang , Roland Emmerich etc. Why does Leo Dicaprio make $$ with his movies? He sticks with guys like Scorcese. De Niro needs to go back to him. Hanks did a long stretch with Spielberg. Ferrell, Carrell, Rogen, Rudd stuck with Apatow.

And what the hell,
In 2002, he landed his first starring role in National Lampoon's Van Wilder. The good news: It made money, earned decent Rotten Tomatoes audience reviews (78 percent!)7 and spawned an eventual sequel that nobody saw.

Maybe no one saw the sequel because he wasn't in it? And is that somehow his fault? Ahnuld and Predator spawned some stupid sequel with Danny Glover, no one saw that (and yes, I saw the Van Wilder sequel, i liked it, hot English ta tas certainly helped).
mister bacon love watching soccer. baseball is about as exciting as scratching my balls.
MisterTambourineMan you're not scratching your balls right, then.
User avatar
The Long Dick of the Law
TRU Patriot
 
Posts: 12125
Joined: 22 Oct 2007, 13:09
Location: Virginia

Re: Apparently Ryan Reynolds isn't a Movie STAR!

Postby pattern recognition » 30 Jun 2011, 23:33

first post, hello everyone. i've gotten joy from reading this board for some time now, i'm honored to participate.

i'm not sure if i should lay into simmons right away, but oh well. my biggest problem with him these days is his apparent laziness.

If you fund a Will Smith movie, you're guaranteed a $150 million worldwide gross … minimum. It's impossible NOT to make money from Will Smith. He's a sure thing. He's foolproof.


he makes these grand, absolute statements that he seemingly doesn't take the two seconds to research to see whether they're true. what about "the legend of bagger vance" ($39m worldwide gross) and "ali" ($87m)? nitpicking? maybe, but it happens so often, i'm starting to think he's not aware the rest of the world can google.

Not even Leo DiCaprio can say that: Back in 2008, Leo released Body of Lies, a decently reviewed action movie with Russell Crowe that tanked at the box office ($70 million budget, $39 million U.S. gross). That was his next movie after The Departed and Blood Diamond, two critical and commercial hits that had seemingly vaulted him to Smith's level of bankability. Nope. If you swapped Will Smith for Leo in Body of Lies, the movie would have made at least $150 million worldwide.


why does he use the domestic gross for "body of lies", but doesn't mention it grossed $115m worldwide? in dicaprio's last 11 movies, only 4 didn't hit $150m worldwide, and two of those he was just the narrator. "shutter island" was huge, and "inception" was a monster. they're closer than simmons thinks.
User avatar
pattern recognition
PrettyWhorey
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 30 Jun 2011, 23:02

Re: Apparently Ryan Reynolds isn't a Movie STAR!

Postby mister bacon » 01 Jul 2011, 00:04

The Long Dick of the Law wrote:
and a general lack of imagination by the studios


Dude there's a movie coming out called Cowboys and Aliens, imagination brought! /peter king


that movie is based on a comic book, so it's not really all that imaginative.
2006 SOTSG ESPN March Madness Tourney Challenge Champion
2010 SOTSG NFL Pick 'Em Champion

mj3528 wrote: I hate panhandlers with dogs. I feel so bad for the dog.

ctz31 - Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:30 pm: I'm gonna win a chip w romo. I'm done w blacks. No offense
User avatar
mister bacon
Black on Both Sides
 
Posts: 26109
Joined: 10 Dec 2004, 17:06
Location: "The Real Racist" - Greg's Kite

Re: Apparently Ryan Reynolds isn't a Movie STAR!

Postby The Long Dick of the Law » 01 Jul 2011, 00:16

mister bacon wrote:
The Long Dick of the Law wrote:
and a general lack of imagination by the studios


Dude there's a movie coming out called Cowboys and Aliens, imagination brought! /peter king


that movie is based on a comic book, so it's not really imaginative.

I was being facetious, but who cares how imaginative studios are being? If they take an interesting/imaginative book/TV show/comic/graphic novel/real life event and make it a good/great movie then who cares some studio writer didn't create it?
mister bacon love watching soccer. baseball is about as exciting as scratching my balls.
MisterTambourineMan you're not scratching your balls right, then.
User avatar
The Long Dick of the Law
TRU Patriot
 
Posts: 12125
Joined: 22 Oct 2007, 13:09
Location: Virginia

Re: Apparently Ryan Reynolds isn't a Movie STAR!

Postby nova » 01 Jul 2011, 05:30

The Long Dick of the Law wrote:I was being facetious, but who cares how imaginative studios are being? If they take an interesting/imaginative book/TV show/comic/graphic novel/real life event and make it a good/great movie then who cares some studio writer didn't create it?


As a consumer, I am. I don't want to have the same stories retold and rehashed just because it looks good on the big screen. Fuck "based on a true story" and this retarded trend of making films that gives America's dorks wood.
Jew Jitsu: It's like you guys are incompatible with each other but have to make due cause you can't pull out.
User avatar
nova
Thrifty Negro
 
Posts: 25463
Joined: 04 Aug 2005, 16:04
Location: King's Tower | Los Angeles, CA

Re: Apparently Ryan Reynolds isn't a Movie STAR!

Postby bosux » 01 Jul 2011, 08:21

Dthefritz wrote:Both of you guys make valid points. My breakdown:
Ben Kingsley - Sexy Beast, House of Sand and Fog, and You Kill Me were solid, underrated movies, but didn't have broad enough appeal.


wasn't ben kingsley 'gandhi'? NBD

eta: he was also smart enough to turn down christopher and little carmine for the role in cleaver
by bosux » 02 Mar 2016, 13:34
if the democratic power machine is so tone deaf as to foist $hrillary upon the electorate they will lose to Trump...bet on it
User avatar
bosux
Dr. Poop
 
Posts: 17326
Joined: 08 Jun 2005, 10:31
Location: river ave garage, top deck

Re: Apparently Ryan Reynolds isn't a Movie STAR!

Postby ButchTooCoolVargas » 01 Jul 2011, 12:57

So Simmons essentially points out why his sports and movie comparisons tend to make whatever tortured argument he's trying to make even more confusing:

Here's where sports and Hollywood diverge: In sports, we're constantly assessing everything from both a small-picture and big-picture standpoint.4 Success is measured through wins and losses, playoff games, conventional statistics and advanced metrics that become more complicated every month... In Hollywood, success is defined by awards shows, box office grosses, word of mouth and the fee for your next movie. That's it. You can't assess Reynolds by saying, "Wow, look at his OPS, it's a shit show!" or "Do you realize that Reynolds has been in the league for 12 years and he's NEVER made the playoffs?" Those measures aren't in place. We only have IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, yet there's no real impetus to visit those sites unless you're a movie junkie or you're figuring out who just got naked in True Blood.


Exactly. The standard for success in sports is narrow and relatively clear and the standard for success in any artform, even one as commercial as Hollywood film making and film acting, is various and often vague. Simmons then follows this breathtaking insight by walking in circles for several thousands words with Ryan Reynolds and the NBA All-Star game on his back searching for a point. Nice.

But what really interested me about this was something far more petty (because I'm a hateful, shallow person). Here's movie junkie and Rotten Tomatoes Picasso Bill Simmons in one of those tired sidenotes:

Why Rotten Tomatoes scares me as a metric for evaluating Hollywood: Van Wilder has a 78 percent approval rating, but Adventureland has a 56 percent approval rating. The lesson, as always: People are idiots. Their "top critics" rating is much more useful I think.


A few months back Simmons did a podcast with Adam Carolla about Fast Five. At one point, Carolla asked Simmons to look up a Rotten Tomatoes rating and, when Bill responded with something that seemed like an audience rating or general critics rating, Carolla told him, no, go look at the Top Critics rating. Simmons clearly had no idea that this section existed, and Carolla had to basically guide his mouse up to the top of the page for him. The lesson, as always, Simmons is poser.

Actually, one of the joys of Simmons podcast is calling him out on his tragic need to know everything already. It leads to these great moments where he's clearly out of his depth yet still claims to have known something or "sneakliy forgotten it." No, you didn't.

As I said, this kind of thing seems petty. Except that I do think it's symptomatic of Simmons' basic flaw as a thinker: he's not smart enough to recognize the enormity of what he doesn't know.

A good example of this occurs every time he tries to recommend a stat to Aaron Schatz or some baseball nerd, and they have to explain that it already exists and in a much more effective form. Maybe a more telling example happened when he wondered aloud to Chris Connelly a few years ago why there was no book of Bruce Springsteen lyrics. And, darn it, why is it always up to him to come up with these things for the world?

Of course that shit already existed. In several different forms, and anyone passingly aware of what the world is like would know that a book of Bruce's lyrics must be out there, even if they'd never actually seen it. But this bizarre, self-centered view of world infects his work and makes him write some insanely naive shit.
User avatar
ButchTooCoolVargas
Doug Christie
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 19 Jun 2011, 07:01

Re: Apparently Ryan Reynolds isn't a Movie STAR!

Postby 700 Level » 01 Jul 2011, 14:43

ButchTooCoolVargas wrote: But this bizarre, self-centered view of world infects his work and makes him write some insanely naive shit.


He's an upper class, only child from a divorced household. Frankly, I'm surprised he's not worse.
"It's insane, this guy's taint!"
User avatar
700 Level
Another dude worth meeting
 
Posts: 623
Joined: 09 Aug 2005, 12:19
Location: Scramblin'

Re: Apparently Ryan Reynolds isn't a Movie STAR!

Postby Dthefritz » 01 Jul 2011, 19:40

bosux wrote:
Dthefritz wrote:Both of you guys make valid points. My breakdown:
Ben Kingsley - Sexy Beast, House of Sand and Fog, and You Kill Me were solid, underrated movies, but didn't have broad enough appeal.


wasn't ben kingsley 'gandhi'? NBD

eta: he was also smart enough to turn down christopher and little carmine for the role in cleaver

Gandhi came out 29 years ago. Obviously he's a legendary and iconic actor, and could still be a "movie star" if he so chose but that doesn't seem to be the case the last decade or so.
User avatar
Dthefritz
tl;dr
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: 30 Nov 2006, 01:35
Location: In the green, never in between

Re: Apparently Ryan Reynolds isn't a Movie STAR!

Postby Gregs Kite » 01 Jul 2011, 19:51

I've been doing some serious thinking via Bud Larries, and decided to play word association with this list. What immediately comes to mind when I think of Ben Kingsley? "Sopranos". Not a movie star. Aging actor or yesteryear that I'm supposed to recognize for past accomplishments. Much like calling Bix "NOW".
Apr 22, 2015 3:49 pm Clayton Bigsby i enjoy sports

Magnum - Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:36 pm: perhaps my reaction was built up greg hatred finally coming through. fuck that guy.

Frank the Tank wrote:If I die I leave my red font to Kite.
User avatar
Gregs Kite
Friend of Friends
 
Posts: 23112
Joined: 20 Jan 2007, 15:59
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Apparently Ryan Reynolds isn't a Movie STAR!

Postby Theny » 01 Jul 2011, 20:50

the biggest movie star of the past 5-7 years is seth rogen. which is unbelievable.
User avatar
Theny
Anchor Baby Daddy
 
Posts: 30414
Joined: 10 Jun 2005, 10:55

Re: Apparently Ryan Reynolds isn't a Movie STAR!

Postby SDGuy » 02 Jul 2011, 01:51

ButchTooCoolVargas wrote:So Simmons essentially points out why his sports and movie comparisons tend to make whatever tortured argument he's trying to make even more confusing:

Here's where sports and Hollywood diverge: In sports, we're constantly assessing everything from both a small-picture and big-picture standpoint.4 Success is measured through wins and losses, playoff games, conventional statistics and advanced metrics that become more complicated every month... In Hollywood, success is defined by awards shows, box office grosses, word of mouth and the fee for your next movie. That's it. You can't assess Reynolds by saying, "Wow, look at his OPS, it's a shit show!" or "Do you realize that Reynolds has been in the league for 12 years and he's NEVER made the playoffs?" Those measures aren't in place. We only have IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, yet there's no real impetus to visit those sites unless you're a movie junkie or you're figuring out who just got naked in True Blood.


Exactly. The standard for success in sports is narrow and relatively clear and the standard for success in any artform, even one as commercial as Hollywood film making and film acting, is various and often vague. Simmons then follows this breathtaking insight by walking in circles for several thousands words with Ryan Reynolds and the NBA All-Star game on his back searching for a point. Nice.

But what really interested me about this was something far more petty (because I'm a hateful, shallow person). Here's movie junkie and Rotten Tomatoes Picasso Bill Simmons in one of those tired sidenotes:



Why Rotten Tomatoes scares me as a metric for evaluating Hollywood: Van Wilder has a 78 percent approval rating, but Adventureland has a 56 percent approval rating. The lesson, as always: People are idiots. Their "top critics" rating is much more useful I think.


A few months back Simmons did a podcast with Adam Carolla about Fast Five. At one point, Carolla asked Simmons to look up a Rotten Tomatoes rating and, when Bill responded with something that seemed like an audience rating or general critics rating, Carolla told him, no, go look at the Top Critics rating. Simmons clearly had no idea that this section existed, and Carolla had to basically guide his mouse up to the top of the page for him. The lesson, as always, Simmons is poser.

Actually, one of the joys of Simmons podcast is calling him out on his tragic need to know everything already. It leads to these great moments where he's clearly out of his depth yet still claims to have known something or "sneakliy forgotten it." No, you didn't.

As I said, this kind of thing seems petty. Except that I do think it's symptomatic of Simmons' basic flaw as a thinker: he's not smart enough to recognize the enormity of what he doesn't know.

A good example of this occurs every time he tries to recommend a stat to Aaron Schatz or some baseball nerd, and they have to explain that it already exists and in a much more effective form. Maybe a more telling example happened when he wondered aloud to Chris Connelly a few years ago why there was no book of Bruce Springsteen lyrics. And, darn it, why is it always up to him to come up with these things for the world?

Of course that shit already existed. In several different forms, and anyone passingly aware of what the world is like would know that a book of Bruce's lyrics must be out there, even if they'd never actually seen it. But this bizarre, self-centered view of world infects his work and makes him write some insanely naive shit.


:/
Montecore's Revenge wrote:Protip: When you slit your wrists make sure you go north-south and not east-west. It will be harder for them to save you and it won't send out as much of a "just a cry for help, not a serious attempt" vibe
User avatar
SDGuy
Basketball Jesus
 
Posts: 4197
Joined: 03 Jan 2007, 22:48
Location: Not the 'SB'

PreviousNext

Return to Stop Clicking Refresh

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest