That's the Johnny Depp/Gore Verbinski/Jerry Bruckheimer/Dinsey venture that grossed an embarrassing $25 million dollars at the domestic box office against a $250 million budget plus probably another $100-$150 million in advertising on the biggest box office weekend of the year. Ouch
Depp, Verbinski and Bruckheimer will, of course, bounce back. Star Armie Hammer however, is probably just about fucked.
Instead I watched The Empire Strikes Back, which, shame on me, I had never seen before in it's entirety. In case the geeks are wondering, it was the letterboxed original theatrical cut of the film that comes as a bonus feature with purchase of any modern version that has been skull fucked to death by this man:
Something cosmic is going on here says Kevin Bacon:
1) George Lucas makes Star Wars, killing the auteur driven film movement of the 70s, ushering in (alongside Jaws) the new era of the Hollywood blockbuster.
2) In the summer of 2012, Disney's big live action tentpole John Carter didn't even manage to gross $100 million domestic against a $250 million budget plus overhead.
3) In an act that should probably signal the need for some Anti-Trust Law reviews, Disney buys Lucasfilm Ltd in 2013 for four billion and change. They also purchase Marvel, ushering in their new business model of expensive franchise movies designed to rake in the cash. A powerful message to Hollywood is sent by the Mouse House:
4) Disney announces that they will be making a brand new Star Wars trilogy alongside two more stand alone features.
5) The Lone Ranger is destroyed Memorial Day weekend 2013 at the box office.
6) My contribution to it bombing: I stayed home to watch The Empire Strikes Back instead.
This calls for some action.
Dear Disney,
Love what you're doing with the place. Buying up both Marvel and Lucasfilm. You now own the market share of comic book flicks, toys, t-shirts, DVDs, posters, and whatever other useless shit that will populate basements, attics and summer yard sales in ten years? You also have ever geek on the continent by the short and curlies. Brilliant. Let Spielberg rewrite American history, you've going to pick the pocket of the nation at least, if I had to take a wild guess, seven separate times in probably as many years. And this doesn't even include what you'll make off Pixar!
But come on, footing a $250 million bill in hopes of launching a franchise based a a Western character that used to be on the radio?
Especially after the same fucking thing happened last year.
Let's throw some numbers around shall we? Star Wars, a film based on an original concept, cost $11 million is 1979. It grossed $461 million. The Empire Strikes Back, the sequel, cost somewhere between $25 and $35 million in 1980. It grossed around the same. Star Wars grossed $775 worldwide (a billion and a quarter with inflation). Assuming, just for laughs, that Star Wars doubled it's budget in advertising, pushing the break even point up to $25 million, the profit is still over a billion with inflation.
No wonder George Lucas now has so many chins
He's eating fucking well.
Fast forward to 2013. With a budget of $250 million, a movie in this day and age needs to gross over half a billion just to hit the break even point before profit starts. Out of the 50 highest grossing American films of all time, forty three of them have been from the past 15 years, with the 50th grossing almost $750 million. Of those forty three, Inception, Finding Nemo and 2012 were not adaptations or sequels. In other words, not many films achieve these numbers, let alone ones that don't have test driven content propelling them.
Maybe The Lone Ranger needed a talking fish?
Moral of the story: Tighten the fucking purse strings.
Your friend and pal,
The Taxi Driver
But costumes rarely ever equal acting and sometimes stars seem to forget that. There's a thin line between imitation and performance when it comes to actors being cloaked in disguises to the point where they cease to be recognizable. A costume also invites an actor to be lazy. In the case of Hoffman, who is a great actor no doubt and managed to create a brilliant character under a disguise in Tootsie, he spends too much time acting with his fake teeth and his hook, making sure we see how horrible they are at all times, showing how vile a villain he is. However, outside of the hook and the teeth, which always seem to be playing against Hoffman within the frame, there isn't much of a character there and Hoffman approaches playing him like a high school drama student playing dress-up. The whole performance announces itself as performance: "Look at me," Hoffman seems to be saying, "I'm acting." Depp did the same thing as Willy Wonka in Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
One actress who comes to mind who knows how to act with of make-up, not under it, is Emma Thompson. Look her in Nanny McPhee, not a great movie to be sure, but Thompson does exactly what it takes to bring a costume to life: she builds the character from the ground up. The make-up can speak for itself; it's Thompson who let's us know just what Nanny McPhee as a character is really about.
The examples go on and on of great character actors who seem to be perfect for zany roles (usually as villains) who are overcome by their costumes. Look at Jack Nicholson in Tim Burton's Batman (there seems to be a pattern developing here, no?). The Joker is one of the most iconic villains in all of comic book history, but Nicholson does virtually nothing with the character except smirk his way to a huge paycheck. Even when Nicholson is all dolled up in the infamous face paint, he can't escape himself as a persona and the character falls to the wayside.
Heath Ledger on the other hand completely disappears inside the same character in The Dark Knight and in doing so, provides one of the most memorable villains in all of film history. Ledger, like Thompson, builds the character from the inside out. We aren't seeing Heath Ledger acting evil, we are seeing the Joker brought to life outswide the pages of a comic book. Not only is Ledger deviously entertaining, he also manages to embody the character's ideas and philosophies. That's the sign of an actor giving a character everything they've got.
On the other hand, when watching Hoffman in Hook or Depp in Charlie or Tommy Lee Jones in Batman Forever, or any other innumerable instances of this happening, the joy of acting is sucked out of the performances as we are made physically award of an actor playing dress-up. There's no joy in that. Acting is the art of assessing a character and providing them with exactly what they need. It's about making choices and committing to them to the fullest extent. Performances like the ones mentioned don't make choices, they don't get to know the characters, they don't strive for anything but second rate imitation. That's unfortunate as there are few things more disheartening than seeing a great actor phoning it in in a role that, on paper, they seem destined to play.