Rusell Cowe is getting $20,000,000 and $20% of the gross on the movie he just signed on to do. The movie is called "Nottingham". Penned by "Sleeper Cell" creators Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris, the story is a revisionist version of the "Robin Hood" story. In this version Robin Hood was less virtuous and the sheriff more noble than previously depicted.
This is a stupid move. The last movie Russell Crowe made was "A Good Year". The movie was made by FOX and that movie cost $35,000,000. It took in only $38,000,00. By the time you add up the advertising cost the studio lost <$10,000,000>. You would think they would learn.
Now the same studio is making this stupid deal with Russell Crowe. Is he worth it! Hell no. Russell is a great actor however the only movies he has done that took in over $100,00,000 is
"Gladiator" & "A Beautiful Mind". He has more bombs than hits. "Cinderella Man", "The Insider", & "Proof of Life" were all major box office disappointment's.
Why is he getting $20,000,000 for starring in this movie or ANY movie? To me he should get $2,000,000 and 10% of the gross but his max payout of $10,000,000. This is fare.
If the studio's really want to control cost this is the way to do it. If movies cost less maybe the studios would make more movies and take chances. When they OVERPAY the talent then we get stupid movie ideas like this. Well I guess its not a remake or a sequel however we have all seen some type of "Robin Hood" movie.
This is a stupid move. The last movie Russell Crowe made was "A Good Year". The movie was made by FOX and that movie cost $35,000,000. It took in only $38,000,00. By the time you add up the advertising cost the studio lost <$10,000,000>. You would think they would learn.
Now the same studio is making this stupid deal with Russell Crowe. Is he worth it! Hell no. Russell is a great actor however the only movies he has done that took in over $100,00,000 is
"Gladiator" & "A Beautiful Mind". He has more bombs than hits. "Cinderella Man", "The Insider", & "Proof of Life" were all major box office disappointment's.
Why is he getting $20,000,000 for starring in this movie or ANY movie? To me he should get $2,000,000 and 10% of the gross but his max payout of $10,000,000. This is fare.
If the studio's really want to control cost this is the way to do it. If movies cost less maybe the studios would make more movies and take chances. When they OVERPAY the talent then we get stupid movie ideas like this. Well I guess its not a remake or a sequel however we have all seen some type of "Robin Hood" movie.
I know it sounds like I am picking on Russell Crowe! However the studios need to rethink on how they pay the A-List talent. The Talent doesn't risk anything. If "Nottingham" bombs Russell Crowe still get $20M. FOX loses big time! I am sure the movie will cost over $110m to make. This is just suicide.
Let me run a studio.
No comments:
Post a Comment