'Gods of Egypt' becomes year's first big-budget bomb at the box office
Looks like the God of Darkness fell upon the opening-day box office for "Gods of Egypt."
Lionsgate's hopes for a mythical franchise set in ancient Egypt were dashed heading into the Oscars weekend on Friday, as the swords-and-sandals epic starring Gerard Butler as Set, the God of Darkness, bombed with an estimated premiere haul of $4.76 million, for a less-than-godlike $1,527 per-screen average.
That likely will translate into a three-day gross of $14 million in domestic box office — a puny figure for a movie estimated to have totaled $140 million in production costs. Thankfully for Lionsgate, tax credits from Australia, where shooting took place, plus foreign pre-sales will reduce the studio's exposure to losses.
Long before its release, "Gods of Egypt" attracted scorn from many quarters for using mostly white actors to play Egyptian characters. Reviewers also refused to bow down to the film; "Gods" earned a scathing score of 23 out of 100 on the critics' aggregation site Metacritic. Moviegoers on Cinemascore, usually lenient graders, gave the film an unimpressive "B minus" rating.
"Gods of Egypt" had to settle for a No. 2 bow on Friday, behind Fox's smash-hit "Deadpool," which piled on $8.95 million starting its third week of release for a cume of $263 million.
Two other major premieres also saw underwhelming box office numbers.
"Triple 9," the thriller from Open Road Films, jockeyed for third place with just $2.14 million, for a subpar $970 per-screen average.
Having seen the trailers, I chose a long time ago to give it a wide berth. Very pretty movie to be sure, but it looked poorly acted and very poorly written.
i'll be seeing it on Monday or Tuesday...
i only go to the theatre for the amazing visual effects stuff that i must see on the big screen...
this definitely looks to be one of those, based on the trailers that i saw before Star Wars and Spectre...
it looks incredible for a Tomb Kings vibe, and should give me a lot of painting inspiration...
The trailers that I saw didn't really appeal to me that much, and I can only imagine the gak storm coming in regards to having yet another film (loosely) based around ancient Egypt that features a majority of the primary cast who are of European descent.
Relapse wrote: I figure it's going to be another "Clash of the Titans", so plan on avoiding it.
Funny, that is what I thought after seeing the trailers. Clash of the Titans in Egypt! Still planning on seeing it for the visual effects if nothing else, as I did enjoy Clash of the Titans.
I saw it today, it's mostly what everyone predicted. The story was as simple as it gets, but the acting was half decent. The visuals were quite fun to watch and they didn't hold back aesthetically. The city of the gods was oversized, dwarfing the regular buildings and sun is pulled across the sky by a chariot over a flat world. They definitely didn't bother staying in reality, which I thought gave the movie some interest.
I don't know if its worth going to the theaters, but I would rent it at least.
Many reviews I'm seeing are likening Gods of Egypt to the Star Wars prequels in that they are both so packed full of CGI that nothing has any weight or impact.
I don't know the story but Ancient Egypt has huge cultural resonance and the possibility to do awesome production design so I don't see why it should not pick up a good amount of cash to make it from those angles.
The trailer looks awesome. I have to assume the screenplay is rubbish in some way.
I saw the movie today, and I thoroughly enjoyed it! I go to movies to be entertained, not to nitpick and point out how unrealistic everything is or how stupid the plot is. I was entertained, and the story was not so bad as to make the movie unenjoyable. Visually, the movie is absolutely amazing! I can wholeheartedly recommend this to everyone!
That was from a few days ago. And I just checked and it says $38.2 million.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZergSmasher wrote: I saw the movie today, and I thoroughly enjoyed it! I go to movies to be entertained, not to nitpick and point out how unrealistic everything is or how stupid the plot is. I was entertained, and the story was not so bad as to make the movie unenjoyable. Visually, the movie is absolutely amazing! I can wholeheartedly recommend this to everyone!
Glad you liked it.
I will make this clear to everyone: I don't go to movie theaters because I think they are loud.
The problem I am finding is that some of these films aren't being shown at many cinemas.
There are four multi-screen cinemas I can get to easily without going into London. None of them have shown Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, or are listing Gods of Egypt.
I think this must be a factor in low box office receipts.
I truly can't understand why anyone would pay good money to see such a movie in the theater after seeing that trailer. You're asking why it did poorly in the theater, and I think it's pretty self-evident: It looks incredibly bad in my opinion.
In 2016, I think Gerard Butler might be a solid bad movie coal mine canary.
Trailers make it look terrible and the fact that it's full of white people even breaks from mythology. Sure, at one point Northern Egypt was settled by people of Greek extraction but that didn't mean brown and black people didn't exist at all.
It's sad that they even released a statement when people started panning the movie:
“We recognize that it is our responsibility to help ensure that casting decisions reflect the diversity and culture of the time periods portrayed. In this instance we failed to live up to our own standards of sensitivity and diversity, for which we sincerely apologize. Lionsgate is deeply committed to making films that reflect the diversity of our audiences. We have, can and will continue to do better.”
Let's see:
The way the Egyptians pictured the god, Set:
Kilkrazy wrote: The problem I am finding is that some of these films aren't being shown at many cinemas.
There are four multi-screen cinemas I can get to easily without going into London. None of them have shown Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, or are listing Gods of Egypt.
I think this must be a factor in low box office receipts.
Could it also...POSSIBLY...be that it is just a plain bad movie? Not sure why you were looking for so many other explanations that don't point it out as a bad film.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: That apology is bull s***.. You don't accidentally miscast an entire movie in the wrong ethnicity. They knew what they were doing.
Agreed. Had this movie been called Gods of the North with Nordic mythology explored instead of Egyptian the casting would have been lovely. It is pretty ridiculous that in 2014 (or whenever this movie first went to casting) that people had the idea not to use actors appropriate for the setting and instead just went for big names to drive up the possible box office returns. As the popularity of #Oscarsowhite shows people are sick of the dated and backwards thinking that permeates a lot of Hollywood's decisions.
Remember when Arnold Schwarzenegger was dubbed over in Hercules in New York because producers didn't think American audiences would want to hear his Austrian accent? I guess we haven't advanced that much in the 40+ years since that turd of a movie came out.
It gets better. Apparently the director felt the need to rant on Facebook about the poor reviews...
…You see, my dear fellow FBookers, I have rarely gotten great reviews… on any of my movies, apart from those by reviewers who think for themselves and make up their own opinions. Sadly those type of reviewers are nearly all dead. Good reviews often come many years after the movie has opened. I guess I have the knack of rubbing reviewers the wrong way - always have. This time of course they have bigger axes to grind - they can rip into my movie while trying to make their mainly pale asses look so politically correct by screaming "white-wash!!!" like the deranged idiots they all are…
I don't think it was a deliberately racist decision to make a fim based on Egyptian mythology and cast white actors. The real ancient Egytians were Hamites, I believe, descended from Caucasian, so they would presumably have looked relatively 'white' though no doubt ruddier of skin than people from the most northern climes.
Egyptian pictorial art shows them with terracotta colour skin, but this is thought to be partly artistic convention, to demonstrate rude health.
Naturally there were black skinned people from the south, the Nubians, who founded some of the pharaonic dynasties.
It's impossible to know quite how white, red or black the general population or the noble population might have looked after all this mixing.
The long and short of it is that Egyptian gods usually had animal heads anyway, and maybe Hollywood should have found enough Arabic looking or black actors to play everyone, then used the CG to put the gods' heads on to them. They could have done it to the white actors, and maybe people wouldn't have noticed the pale arms and legs so much.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think it was a deliberately racist decision to make a fim based on Egyptian mythology and cast white actors. The real ancient Egytians were Hamites, I believe, descended from Caucasian, so they would presumably have looked relatively 'white' though no doubt ruddier of skin than people from the most northern climes.
Egyptian pictorial art shows them with terracotta colour skin, but this is thought to be partly artistic convention, to demonstrate rude health.
Naturally there were black skinned people from the south, the Nubians, who founded some of the pharaonic dynasties.
It's impossible to know quite how white, red or black the general population or the noble population might have looked after all this mixing.
The long and short of it is that Egyptian gods usually had animal heads anyway, and maybe Hollywood should have found enough Arabic looking or black actors to play everyone, then used the CG to put the gods' heads on to them. They could have done it to the white actors, and maybe people wouldn't have noticed the pale arms and legs so much.
I agree it was likely, as someone mentioned earlier, a decision to pack as many big names into the film as possible and hope for instant success rather than an evil plot to "whitewash" history.
Depending upon the period, the noble class in Egyptian society ran from black Nubian to olive skinned Arabic to white Greek. The Ptolemaic dynasty in particular were Greeks and Cleopatra in particular, being the last Ptolemaic Pharaoh, would have been fairly "white" but not the white of the anglo-saxon peoples that you see in the film. In any of the dynasties, there is no evidence that Egypt was ever homogenous to the extent where you would see exceptionally dark or exceptionally light-skinned people throughout the nation.
I get that it's a high-fantasy, adventure film but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have tapped actors who would have fit the bill more. Heck, even the extras are mostly caucasian.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think it was a deliberately racist decision to make a fim based on Egyptian mythology and cast white actors.
Deliberate? I think that is arguable. Do I think the producers had a meeting and said "no darkies in our film!" and made their casting decisions that way? No, absolutely not. However, if the producers turned down a darker-skinned actor for say, Gerad Buttler because Buttler typically brings in $50 million worth of viewers (random numbers pulled out of my back side) versus what a lesser known actor could bring to the box office, then the casting was a business decision--with racist undertones. The belief that American audiences don't want to see certain groups of people in certain roles, the fracturing of the genres of movies ("that's a black movie, that's a gay/lesbian movie" and therefore neither of those are "mainstream" movies) certainly suggests that there are racial elements involved in these decisions.
Heck, in the porn industry there are different rates involved for shooting inter-racial scenes and actresses can be stigmatized for shooting those scenes. I think the porn industry is an extreme, but I think it also gives an insight into the biases prevalent throughout the entertainment industry.
Kilkrazy wrote: The real ancient Egytians were Hamites, I believe, descended from Caucasian, so they would presumably have looked relatively 'white' though no doubt ruddier of skin than people from the most northern climes.
I'd wager a good 90% of the potential movie-going audience isn't aware of these historical facts, and so they are irrelevant. Most people think Egypt and they think black or brown people, not white people unless they are thinking of Charleston Heston playing Moses.
Kilkrazy wrote: The long and short of it is that Egyptian gods usually had animal heads anyway, and maybe Hollywood should have found enough Arabic looking or black actors to play everyone, then used the CG to put the gods' heads on to them.
I'd watch the heck out of that movie. My favorite scenes from Star Gate involved the Anubis guards. Give me a setting similar to Wargods of Aegyptus or even the Age of Mythology games and my butt would be planted in a theater seat so fast it would make the popcorn vendor's head spin.
agnosto wrote: Trailers make it look terrible and the fact that it's full of white people even breaks from mythology. Sure, at one point Northern Egypt was settled by people of Greek extraction but that didn't mean brown and black people didn't exist at all.
It's sad that they even released a statement when people started panning the movie:
“We recognize that it is our responsibility to help ensure that casting decisions reflect the diversity and culture of the time periods portrayed. In this instance we failed to live up to our own standards of sensitivity and diversity, for which we sincerely apologize. Lionsgate is deeply committed to making films that reflect the diversity of our audiences. We have, can and will continue to do better.”
Let's see:
The way the Egyptians pictured the god, Set:
The way Hollywood pictured it:
Sad, really.
I'm pretty sure that's Anubis.
Also, how come the Anubis in the film doesn't have a Jackal's head? That's not right at all.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think it was a deliberately racist decision to make a fim based on Egyptian mythology and cast white actors. The real ancient Egytians were Hamites, I believe, descended from Caucasian, so they would presumably have looked relatively 'white' though no doubt ruddier of skin than people from the most northern climes.
Egyptian pictorial art shows them with terracotta colour skin, but this is thought to be partly artistic convention, to demonstrate rude health.
Naturally there were black skinned people from the south, the Nubians, who founded some of the pharaonic dynasties.
It's impossible to know quite how white, red or black the general population or the noble population might have looked after all this mixing.
The long and short of it is that Egyptian gods usually had animal heads anyway, and maybe Hollywood should have found enough Arabic looking or black actors to play everyone, then used the CG to put the gods' heads on to them. They could have done it to the white actors, and maybe people wouldn't have noticed the pale arms and legs so much.
Indeed. Egypt was at the center of ancient crossroads and trade routes, and was conquered countless times by invaders. They were a real melting pot, and we really can't make any claims one way or another, so really any claims that its racist or bad casting are stretching it.
Plus, as was mentioned, Egypt has been conquered countless times by various people groups. Egyptians today are not the same as they were even 2,000 years ago, let alone 6,000+ years ago. So really worst case scenario is this movie misrepresents a people and culture that have long since become extinct. You are not allowed to become offended in place of extinct cultures and people groups.
agnosto wrote: Trailers make it look terrible and the fact that it's full of white people even breaks from mythology. Sure, at one point Northern Egypt was settled by people of Greek extraction but that didn't mean brown and black people didn't exist at all.
It's sad that they even released a statement when people started panning the movie:
“We recognize that it is our responsibility to help ensure that casting decisions reflect the diversity and culture of the time periods portrayed. In this instance we failed to live up to our own standards of sensitivity and diversity, for which we sincerely apologize. Lionsgate is deeply committed to making films that reflect the diversity of our audiences. We have, can and will continue to do better.”
Let's see:
The way the Egyptians pictured the god, Set:
The way Hollywood pictured it:
Sad, really.
I'm pretty sure that's Anubis.
Also, how come the Anubis in the film doesn't have a Jackal's head? That's not right at all.
So it is, my bad, and I think he does have a jackal head at some points. From the previews it looks like the people can change back and forth from person to god....
LordofHats wrote: I'm curious how anyone managed to justify to anyone else a $140 million budget for this movie. It looks so bad from the get go.
Yeah, the first I saw was a billboard on the side of bus, and I knew this movie would tank. It didn’t matter if the movie was actually good or not. Big flashy effects films built around mythology… that was a marginal concept a few years ago, and whatever appeal it had was killed by the very mediocre Titans movies.
Exactly like you I’m left wondering how this got greenlit. Apparently it was a dream project for Proyas, but it’s not like that guy has delivered huge hits, so I don’t think the studio was willing to take him on name alone. And there’s no real stars in the film – the idea of a Gerard Butler star vehicle is kind of hilarious. So did someone actually think that just putting a bunch of CGI gods up on the big screen would recover $140 million? Incredible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: You are not allowed to become offended in place of extinct cultures and people groups.
While I’m sure some people are feigning offense on behalf of an extinct culture, that isn’t the only reason to be so bored by packing this movie with white people.
They make a load of movies in India. Just imagine if some of the Bollywood guys decided to make a film that drew on Egyptian mythology. And then packed that film with Indians pretending to be Egyptian gods, and ordinary peasants who were also played by Indians. It shouldn’t be too hard to figure out how ridiculous that would look to most audiences. And it shouldn't be that hard to figure out how boring it would get when that kind of nonsense kept happening to film after film.
Indeed. Egypt was at the center of ancient crossroads and trade routes, and was conquered countless times by invaders. They were a real melting pot, and we really can't make any claims one way or another, so really any claims that its racist or bad casting are stretching it.
Oh, please. The claims of bad casting are not a stretch at all. It was bad casting.
The movie is supposed to be about the Gods of Egypt. The implication that the deities of that region were all pasty Caucasians is ridiculous. It was lazy casting that likely had racial undertones behind it because Hollywood does have some pretty ingrained racism built into its framework.
We have members on here who still worship Norse gods. To borrow sebster's fine example of Bollywood, if a Bollywood production made a move about the Norse gods and cast all the roles with Indians I am sure there would be some eye rolling and likely some outrage from folks who still worship those deities.
Another exmample, some people in the US freak out when Jesus isn't portrayed as white despite most historians agreeing that if Jesus existed he would be a quite a bit more brown than most Western art depicts him.
White Egyptian gods are a stupid idea, its boring as sebster said, and that sort of miscasting has a long history in Hollywood that should have been abandoned decades ago.
Grey Templar wrote: How many people of appropriate skin color do you think would be qualified for this part?
Really I think most of the reason for Hollywood having lots of white people is because, well, lots of white people live in America.
Um, right. Sure.
Maybe lots of white actors in Hollywood, but even then, it's not like it's 9:1. I can think of several non-white actors who could've been in this. I don't think it was racism that motivated the casting, I think it was laziness and a rush to squeeze some big names in.
Grey Templar wrote: How many people of appropriate skin color do you think would be qualified for this part?
Really I think most of the reason for Hollywood having lots of white people is because, well, lots of white people live in America.
"Hollywood" pulls in actors from all over the world, so I don't think the casting was due to a lack of available actors. Butler is Scottish, and he made the cut.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think it was a deliberately racist decision to make a fim based on Egyptian mythology and cast white actors. The real ancient Egytians were Hamites, I believe, descended from Caucasian, so they would presumably have looked relatively 'white' though no doubt ruddier of skin than people from the most northern climes.
This is hopelessly outdated theory. Modern scholarship points strongly to African origin of the ancient Egyptians. They had tropically adapted African bone structure.
Indeed. Egypt was at the center of ancient crossroads and trade routes, and was conquered countless times by invaders. They were a real melting pot, and we really can't make any claims one way or another, so really any claims that its racist or bad casting are stretching it.
Even if we might not know exactly how ancient Egyptians looked, it is pretty damn sure that they didn't look like northern Europeans!
Plus, as was mentioned, Egypt has been conquered countless times by various people groups. Egyptians today are not the same as they were even 2,000 years ago, let alone 6,000+ years ago.
Yes, which is exactly why modern northern Egyptians look much paler than their ancestors. Ancient Egyptians were much darker, and that phenotype is still clearly visible in the modern southern Egyptians.
So really worst case scenario is this movie misrepresents a people and culture that have long since become extinct. You are not allowed to become offended in place of extinct cultures and people groups.
First, they're not extinct, their descendants still exist, second this is really about Hollywood discriminating against non-white actors (who also are real people who exist.)
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think it was a deliberately racist decision to make a fim based on Egyptian mythology and cast white actors. The real ancient Egytians were Hamites, I believe, descended from Caucasian, so they would presumably have looked relatively 'white' though no doubt ruddier of skin than people from the most northern climes.
This is hopelessly outdated theory. Modern scholarship points strongly to African origin of the ancient Egyptians. They had tropically adapted African bone structure.
Indeed. Egypt was at the center of ancient crossroads and trade routes, and was conquered countless times by invaders. They were a real melting pot, and we really can't make any claims one way or another, so really any claims that its racist or bad casting are stretching it.
Even if we might not know exactly how ancient Egyptians looked, it is pretty damn sure that they didn't look like northern Europeans!
Plus, as was mentioned, Egypt has been conquered countless times by various people groups. Egyptians today are not the same as they were even 2,000 years ago, let alone 6,000+ years ago.
Yes, which is exactly why modern northern Egyptians look much paler than their ancestors. Ancient Egyptians were much darker, and that phenotype is still clearly visible in the modern southern Egyptians.
So really worst case scenario is this movie misrepresents a people and culture that have long since become extinct. You are not allowed to become offended in place of extinct cultures and people groups.
First, they're not extinct, their descendants still exist, second this is really about Hollywood discriminating against non-white actors (who also are real people who exist.)
If being white was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for everyone else!
LordofHats wrote: I'm curious how anyone managed to justify to anyone else a $140 million budget for this movie. It looks so bad from the get go.
Yeah, the first I saw was a billboard on the side of bus, and I knew this movie would tank. It didn’t matter if the movie was actually good or not. Big flashy effects films built around mythology… that was a marginal concept a few years ago, and whatever appeal it had was killed by the very mediocre Titans movies.
Exactly like you I’m left wondering how this got greenlit. Apparently it was a dream project for Proyas, but it’s not like that guy has delivered huge hits, so I don’t think the studio was willing to take him on name alone. And there’s no real stars in the film – the idea of a Gerard Butler star vehicle is kind of hilarious.
OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN did fairly well though (And Eckhart was in OLYMPUS too!).
It has a sequel launching...Friday?
And 300 did well too.
So, not *too* crazy to think that someone thought that they'd be...attractive stars, helping boost box office?
When was he an A-list actor? I know he was pretty popular after 300, but that was because of 300. I don't recall him leading and carrying any big, star-vehicle movies.
When was he an A-list actor? I know he was pretty popular after 300, but that was because of 300. I don't recall him leading and carrying any big, star-vehicle movies.
Because Butler does more indie/small budget movies than he does big, flashy Hollywood blockbusters. Some of his best roles are from low budget stand-outs such as Rockn' Rolla, Machine Gun Preacher, Phantom of the Opera, Olympus, Dear Frankie, etc...
I'm just over the moon that he's no longer wasting his time & talent on chick flick BS crap!
Same with Eckhart, who's biggest 'blockbuster' role has been The Dark Knight.
Edit: The only reason I'm not going to see Gods in theaters, is because I can't go to many movies anymore due to all the concussions I've suffered over the years. Instead of Gods, I'm going to see London has Fallen this weekend.
If Gods had maintained it's original release date of early April, I'd have probably been able to see both.
Yeah, given who was behind the movie and the flimsy MYTHOLOGY! (ish) premise, I can't imagine what kind of idiots bankrolled this. I guess they looked at the 300-400 million takes of Clash and Wrath of the Titans and said, "Hey, we can also do a terrible CGI myth butchery!"
I have to admit, the casting bugged me. Not so much on color (though it seems a particularly poor marketing choice in the current climate), but the accents. A Scottish Egyptian god? British? Really? At least Zane in the Mummy wasn't rocking a ridiculous southern drawl....
My point is that none of the movie blockbusters are good for egyptian mythology.
Never said they were. We're talking about entertaining films with an Egyptian mythology theme, not educational experiences. Your comment was a non sequitur.
Somebody who wants to watch an entertaining film with a particular theme like Rome, Egypt or Greece is not going to go out and buy a textbook. Automatically Appended Next Post:
When was he an A-list actor? I know he was pretty popular after 300, but that was because of 300. I don't recall him leading and carrying any big, star-vehicle movies.
just got back from the movie...
for a $5 matinee, it was a fun flick...
i think this is as close as we will get to seeing aspect of Tomb Kings and Wargods of Aegyptus on the bid screen for quite a long time, so i enjoyed it...
seeing the Gods transform, and their different themes was really cool...
there are mortals and gods of every color in the film, so it wasn't like everything was whitewashed...
i don't think there was a single frame in the whole film that wasn't enhanced, so i can see where the budget went...
the production design was amazing!!!
so many cool things to look at...
it has really fired me up to paint...
Grey Templar wrote: Really I think most of the reason for Hollywood having lots of white people is because, well, lots of white people live in America.
You're actually kind of right. It's because lots of white people live in the US, and Hollywood gets really worried that the white audience will think a film with a non-white cast ‘isn’t for them’.
Which is very stupid. But you know, its Hollywood, they do lots of stupid things.
Alpharius wrote: OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN did fairly well though (And Eckhart was in OLYMPUS too!).
It has a sequel launching...Friday?
And 300 did well too.
So, not *too* crazy to think that someone thought that they'd be...attractive stars, helping boost box office?
Fair point on Olympus has Fallen. I had no idea that film managed to reach $160m gross. I saw there was a sequel so should have assumed it did better than I thought, but still $160m gross on $70m budget is still pretty iffy. Enough to get a sequel though, these days.
Anyhow, I’m not saying you shouldn’t put Gerard Butler in a movie. I’m saying that putting him in a movie and expecting his star power to create enough interest to carry a $140m was not the plan. He’s fine at what he does, but he’s not 1996 Tom Cruise. He’s not even 2016 Tom Cruise.
My point was really that the studio wouldn’t have been thinking ‘Gerard Butler film’ first and foremost. They would have expected the concept to carry most of the appeal of the movie. And I’m more than a bit amazed that reworking a mythology in to another standard action movie was something they thought could justify $140m. The Titans movies proved that was a pretty slender bet in the first place, and the woeful quality of those movies would have only reduced the concept’s appeal.
Depends how people define a-list. He's certainly a-list in the sense that he's known by almost everyone and well respected for the films he's done. But he's not at such a level that he's able to carry a big budget movie just by having his name on the poster. There's an argument that no-one has that kind of star power anymore, that Hollywood works differently now. That people go to see an Iron Man movie, they don't go to see a Robert Downey Jr movie.
That may be true, it may not. But whether there is still a list of elite, big name actors or not, Gerard Butler isn't on it.
That's a a thing lots of people do, adding up total box office receipts for movies someone was in, and assume that means that people spent a billion dollars just to see that person. By that logic, Sam Worthington has made $1.2 billion. But that would mean assuming people went to see Avatar, Terminator Salvation and the Titans movies because he was in them. Which is pretty silly.
That's a a thing lots of people do, adding up total box office receipts for movies someone was in, and assume that means that people spent a billion dollars just to see that person. By that logic, Sam Worthington has made $1.2 billion. But that would mean assuming people went to see Avatar, Terminator Salvation and the Titans movies because he was in them. Which is pretty silly.
When arguing that Gerard Butler isn't an A-list celebrity I think it is fair to point to the dozens of movies he has starred in which also generated over a billion dollars. Butler isn't some character actor that people can't name or lacks star power.
You even admit he is A-list in terms of recognition, and Hollywood translates that to butts in seats. Hollywood studios have metrics for each actor on what sort of draw they bring to a movie, so yes, Gerard Butler was chosen over a no-name actor to star in this film. He is an A-list actor, that chooses some questionable roles.
That's not what A-list means. If he were an A-list celebrity, every ad and poster for GoE would feature him front and center. What you've pointed out makes him...a celebrity. It's not like there are only two camps, A-list and nobodies. An A-list celebrity would be able to command top dollar and have some control over a project. Gerard Butler is, at best, an Indie Darling.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ps: there are extras who've been in enough movies to be worth 2 or 3 billion by your reckoning. if just showing up to be on camera in any capacity counted, my parents and I would be stars worth hundreds of millions.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: That's not what A-list means. If he were an A-list celebrity, every ad and poster for GoE would feature him front and center. What you've pointed out makes him...a celebrity. It's not like there are only two camps, A-list and nobodies. An A-list celebrity would be able to command top dollar and have some control over a project. Gerard Butler is, at best, an Indie Darling.
There are actually many camps. A-list, C-list, etc. Most actors are not globally known. I haven't done the research on what Butler makes for his movies, but I am sure it is not what most indie film stars make. He can command a high dollar amount because he has star power and Hollywood studios consider that star power when casting.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Ps: there are extras who've been in enough movies to be worth 2 or 3 billion by your reckoning. if just showing up to be on camera in any capacity counted, my parents and I would be stars worth hundreds of millions.
that wasn't the point I was making and you know it. The list I provided shows the movies he has been in, most after 300 he starred in. My point, as I explained above was that Butler isn't a no-name actor. He is A-list. He is a star. He beat out other actors to get this role in Gods of Egypt because of his box office draw.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: That's not what A-list means. If he were an A-list celebrity, every ad and poster for GoE would feature him front and center. What you've pointed out makes him...a celebrity. It's not like there are only two camps, A-list and nobodies. An A-list celebrity would be able to command top dollar and have some control over a project. Gerard Butler is, at best, an Indie Darling.
There are actually many camps. A-list, C-list, etc. Most actors are not globally known. I haven't done the research on what Butler makes for his movies, but I am sure it is not what most indie film stars make. He can command a high dollar amount because he has star power and Hollywood studios consider that star power when casting.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Ps: there are extras who've been in enough movies to be worth 2 or 3 billion by your reckoning. if just showing up to be on camera in any capacity counted, my parents and I would be stars worth hundreds of millions.
that wasn't the point I was making and you know it. The list I provided shows the movies he has been in, most after 300 he starred in. My point, as I explained above was that Butler isn't a no-name actor. He is A-list. He is a star. He beat out other actors to get this role in Gods of Egypt because of his box office draw.
Edited by RiTides - Language, please
Are you working from some special definition of A-list? None of what you said is wrong about his name being known, but it doesn't make him A-list. John Goodman is a household name who can command a lot of cash, but I wouldn't call him A-list, either. There is a wide, wide gulf between no name actor and A-list celebrity.
Same with Eckhart, who's biggest 'blockbuster' role has been The Dark Knight.
-Thank you for smoking
-Battle LA
Both of those were much smaller budgets though than The Dark Knight, which was funded, filmed & billed as a first rate blockbuster. (and while it's not what one would consider an Oscar type film, it most certainly did live up to expectations!)
Still, Thank-you for Smoking is hands down the best film I've seen from Eckhart - funny as fething hell!
Battle LA was amazing in the sense that is was literally 'not Guard' vs. 'not Tau', and did a solid job as an enjoyable popcorn war movie.
Other really good Eckhart films I've seen & would recommend include 'Suspect Zero', 'The Black Dahlia' & 'Erased.'
I've got to say myself, even as a Scotsman, I wouldn't call Butler an A-list actor. A solid, dependable B-list actor would be fine though.
Offhand, I'm not really sure how many 'A-list' actors there are nowadays. - Tom Cruise, definitely. Downey Junior. Ryan Gosling. Maybe Chris Hemsworth. Bragelina, naturally.
It seems to me that the special effects were to sell this film, rather than a particular actor.
Compel wrote: It seems to me that the special effects were to sell this film, rather than a particular actor.
While likely true, it doesn't change the fact that Butler's casting was done as a means to drive up the box office receipts. That is how casting works. That is how Hollywood works.
The claims that he wasn't cast as a means to increase the audience viewership are ridiculous, whether you consider him A-list or not. I am not saying you are making that claim,. Compel, but others have.
Butler was chosen over other actors because of what he could bring to the project's bottom line, what his star power could do to fill seats with butts. Now, perhaps he was the best that could be obtained for this project, but it doesn't change the fact that it was a poor casting decision driven by money which resulted in a Scotsman playing the Egyptian god Set.
Yeah, I mean, there's no doubt he was cast to pull in the "300" audience. I was just more commenting on any thoughts that he would be a primary factor for the film.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: When arguing that Gerard Butler isn't an A-list celebrity I think it is fair to point to the dozens of movies he has starred in which also generated over a billion dollars. Butler isn't some character actor that people can't name or lacks star power.
You even admit he is A-list in terms of recognition, and Hollywood translates that to butts in seats. Hollywood studios have metrics for each actor on what sort of draw they bring to a movie, so yes, Gerard Butler was chosen over a no-name actor to star in this film. He is an A-list actor, that chooses some questionable roles.
I have no idea what you're trying to argue or why. I said that Gods of Egypt wouldn't have been made as a star vehicle for Gerard Butler. That is obvious.
You then came in to argue that Butler is a star and has box office draw. I don't know why you've wanted to argue that, because no-one ever said otherwise.
Compel wrote: Offhand, I'm not really sure how many 'A-list' actors there are nowadays. - Tom Cruise, definitely. Downey Junior. Ryan Gosling. Maybe Chris Hemsworth. Bragelina, naturally.
There's some others. DiCaprio, Clooney and Jennifer Lawrence, off the top of my head. But it's interesting to note that none of them are that reliable outside of their star making franchises. I mean, sure, they're more reliable than any film that doesn't include major talent, but there's nothing like the reliability that you'd get from the a-list of times gone by. It used to be that even a mediocre and fairly pointless film from Harrison Ford or Mel Gibson could still be counted on to make a real impact at the box office. Not so any more.
It seems to me that the special effects were to sell this film, rather than a particular actor.
Yep. And that seems a pretty crappy business model. Amazing production is taken for granted these days, it's expected. You need something else to cut through.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: While likely true, it doesn't change the fact that Butler's casting was done as a means to drive up the box office receipts. That is how casting works. That is how Hollywood works.
Of course there was an expectation that he'd help at the box office. You're confusing minor appeal with no appeal at all.
Once again, this film wasn't made as a star vehicle for Butler. That's comical. It was made for other unknown, possibly unknowable reasons, and once the ball was in motion they cast out for some credentialed actors to deliver decent performances and some box office appeal. Butler was part of that process, sure.
But it wasn't a case of wanting to make a Butler movie, then picking Gods of Egypt. Because he is nowhere near the star needed to carry a $140m movie.
[The claims that he wasn't cast as a means to increase the audience viewership are ridiculous, whether you consider him A-list or not.
Good thing no-one said that. This is really very ridiculous.
Relapse wrote: I figure it's going to be another "Clash of the Titans", so plan on avoiding it.
And not the 80s one (the good version, Harryhausen's last).
The trailers did everything BUT make me want to go see it.
Just like the batman v superman thing, Deadpool, and pretty much many of the movies coming out this year.
I don't think I've ever thought of Gerard Butler as a "big draw". He has some really awful films and some decent ones, but nothing that makes me think or feel like I have to go to a movie just because of him. His performances are just to hit or miss. Seems like a nice enough guy though.
Yeah, Butler isn't on my list of people I'll go see a random movie with them in it. Honestly that list isn't very long. There are very few men and women who if they sign up for a movie I'm 90% sure I'll enjoy it.
That said I've heard good things about Butler's other movie that came out this week. So at least he was 1 for 2.
Hulksmash wrote: Yeah, Butler isn't on my list of people I'll go see a random movie with them in it. Honestly that list isn't very long. There are very few men and women who if they sign up for a movie I'm 90% sure I'll enjoy it.
That said I've heard good things about Butler's other movie that came out this week. So at least he was 1 for 2.
London has Fallen was indeed an awesome popcorn adult action flick. I enjoyed it every bit as much as I enjoyed watching Olympus for what it was.
I wouldn't call London better or worse - it was simply different.
For example, Olympus was a more serious tone, while London really brings back the good memories of Die Hard 3 and all those witty one-liners between the two mains.
I will say though,
Spoiler:
The firefight down the alleyway at the end was spectacular! It really seemed like something that would've come right out a serious '24' movie!
As a Brit, I'm kinda wary of "London has Fallen" - just how often are my eyes going to end up rolling through it, due to a... shall I say, 'team America' outlook on the UK?
Compel wrote: As a Brit, I'm kinda wary of "London has Fallen" - just how often are my eyes going to end up rolling through it, due to a... shall I say, 'team America' outlook on the UK?
Yeah. The film is set in London, and yet theres no British Deuteragonist? Not even a sidekick? I had a look through the wikipedia article for the film and it seems like theres only one major British character. And he turns out to be a fething traitor anyway.
Alpharius wrote: I was wondering how quickly the Anti-America Team could assemble!
Odd that it is in this thread but...OK!
Wanting a film set in Britain to actually have some prominent British characters is anti-American? If a James Bond film set in Washington DC and featuring the assassination of the American President and a series of terror attacks had no prominent American characters, wouldn't you be a little irritated?
Its not anti-American, its irritation that the film is anti-British.
Walking Dead features an insane percentage of non-American actors vs American actors. And it's a show set initially in the deep south and what is still considered the south now. I don't hear people complaining about it....
Hulksmash wrote: Walking Dead features an insane percentage of non-American actors vs American actors. And it's a show set initially in the deep south and what is still considered the south now. I don't hear people complaining about it....
Because actors are not characters?
Rick Grimes may be played by a Brit but the character is still American.
Hulksmash wrote: Walking Dead features an insane percentage of non-American actors vs American actors. And it's a show set initially in the deep south and what is still considered the south now. I don't hear people complaining about it....
Because actors are not characters?
Rick Grimes may be played by a Brit but the character is still American.
Why would there need to be a British sidekick or main character when the main characters are the American President and his American Bodyguard? Genuinely curious how that is anti-British.
British prime ministers are not accorded a state funeral except in very special cases (e.g. Churchill) and most of them don't get a ceremonial funeral, so it's highly unlikely many world leaders would attend.
More realistically, there's no way the Prime Minister would die of an operation because with today's NHS he would still be waiting.
British prime ministers are not accorded a state funeral except in very special cases (e.g. Churchill) and most of them don't get a ceremonial funeral, so it's highly unlikely many world leaders would attend.
More realistically, there's no way the Prime Minister would die of an operation because with today's NHS he would still be waiting.
Spoiler:
The Prime Minister didn't die of complications from surgery, he was poisoned by his own doctor (who it's assumed was being threatened by Barkawi's agents), while recovering from said surgery.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that if a sitting PM were to suddenly & unexpectedly expire while in office, that numerous allied world leaders would attend his/her funeral - full state funeral honours or not.
As for the "no Brits in a movie set in freaking London" arguments...
There's plenty of British support;
Spoiler:
1. Colin Salmon plays one of the top heads of Scotland Yard, who are instrumental in helping to clear London streets of civies & first responders, while also providing up-to-date intel
2. There's the MI6 agents who help Banning/Asher at the safe house and getting out of there when things go squirrely.
3. An entire SAS strike team is responsible for helping Banning get into the terrorists HQ & rescuing Asher... (Actually, the only bits you really make out of the Delta team the US sends in to join the assault, are when they get gunned down! )
It's not really "USA saves the day again!!" at all... If not for the British support, we'd have had a dead Banning/Asher within about a half hour of the action heating up.
Alpharius wrote: I was wondering how quickly the Anti-America Team could assemble!
Odd that it is in this thread but...OK!
This is kinda inappropriate, especially coming from a mod, isn't it? Especially since all I did was ask a question.
In any case, I had a tiny, quick look at Experiment 626's spoilered post and it sounds like it'll be alright to watch once it comes on tv.
Using Team America as a reference makes ANYTHING that follows appropriate.
I would love to see Team America 2. It's just such a shame that Kung Fury and Danger 5 did such a great job mining the comedic premise of time traveling to battle Hitler. We may never see puppet Hitler beaten up by Americans riding Time Eagles.
Gitzbitah wrote: Using Team America as a reference makes ANYTHING that follows appropriate.
I would love to see Team America 2. It's just such a shame that Kung Fury and Danger 5 did such a great job mining the comedic premise of time traveling to battle Hitler. We may never see puppet Hitler beaten up by Americans riding Time Eagles.
It's a modern take on the action movie genre that arguably peaked in the late 80s with films like Commando (1985), Die Hard (1988) and Point Break (1991). This genre was supposed to have gone into a decline in recent years, but perhaps with modern light weight cameras and CGI it is making a comeback, due to being cheaper to make.
The plot is a bit silly and there are many obvious holes, but you hopefully ignore these and enjoy the fast roller-coaster ride as the US president is shunted from one dangerous situation to the next, while all the time his bodyguard is piling up an impressive body count of bad guys, usually with a witty quip.
In the brief calm interludes, the characters trade snippets of bonding chit-chat.
It's the right length at 99 minutes running time.
I liked Morgan Freeman as the vice-president. He's got a lovely rich voice.
I give the film three stars out of five.
There is definitely a problem with film distribution in the UK. I would have liked to see Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and also Gods of Egypt, but neither of these films has been shown at the 30+ screens of four different chains that are easily available for me to visit.
The poor ticket sales are a self-fulfilling prophecy if people are not even allowed to go and see these supposedly bad films.
I think the cinema industry in the UK has gone into meltdown a bit recently - there's something really screwy that's been going on since around the time of that Hateful 8 argument, I think.
It's sorta crazy, I think and kinda smacks of someone biting their nose off to spite their face.
A statement from Entertainment Film said: "Due to the special facilities required for the unique 70mm Ultra Panavision presentation we needed the largest theatre and screen possible in the West End and the Odeon Leicester Square was the natural choice.
"The technical elements and costs involved with this special presentation meant that this would need to be the exclusive West End venue."
Cineworld objected to the fact it could not be shown at one of its West End venues, according to Entertainment Film.
I don't really understand the story in full, but it appears that the film was still available at at least two major chains.
I thought of going to see Hateful 8 but it kind of seemed like hard work, so I gave it a miss, and it's no longer showing anywhere.
I have easy access to Cineworld (plus Picturehouse,) Empire, Vue and Odeon cinemas, which between them have 30 or more screens. None of them seem to have screened Gods Of Egypt or Pride and Zombies.
It's hard to avoid a film being "straight to DVD" if it never gets exhibited cinematically.
Yeah, I mentioned it more as a case of something weird has been going on with the cinemas recently, especially to have something like that blow up big enough that the BBC are reporting on it.
It's a modern take on the action movie genre that arguably peaked in the late 80s with films like Commando (1985), Die Hard (1988) and Point Break (1991). This genre was supposed to have gone into a decline in recent years, but perhaps with modern light weight cameras and CGI it is making a comeback, due to being cheaper to make.
The plot is a bit silly and there are many obvious holes, but you hopefully ignore these and enjoy the fast roller-coaster ride as the US president is shunted from one dangerous situation to the next, while all the time his bodyguard is piling up an impressive body count of bad guys, usually with a witty quip.
In the brief calm interludes, the characters trade snippets of bonding chit-chat.
It's the right length at 99 minutes running time.
I liked Morgan Freeman as the vice-president. He's got a lovely rich voice.
I give the film three stars out of five.
There is definitely a problem with film distribution in the UK. I would have liked to see Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and also Gods of Egypt, but neither of these films has been shown at the 30+ screens of four different chains that are easily available for me to visit.
The poor ticket sales are a self-fulfilling prophecy if people are not even allowed to go and see these supposedly bad films.
As some of the cast interviews have pointed out, the whole premise of both films was based more or less on, "what happens when all the security protocols fail!?"
While completely in the realms of 'total BS/would never happen', both movies are super fun from a hypothetical 'what IF someone really could pull off the unthinkable?!'
The character of Mike Banning in both films managed to rack up a Jack Bauer level body count! And of course, we also got a bit of Jack Bauer style torture moments when Banning interrogates a couple baddies in each film.
Both films for me, came off as an awesome mix of Die Hard meets Air Force One meets 24.
Apparently London opened up domestically with about $21.5 mil, which isn't that bad at all for an adult action popcorn flick. If it can take in another 18-20 domestically this weekend, it'll be a good sign, and hopefully along with the success of Deadpool, it'll finally prove to Hollywood that there's a good market for R-rated actioners.
IMHO, what's really led to 99% of modern action flicks being complete gak fests, is how studios keep dumbing everything down to PG13 levels so that kids can see them... That may be fine for the Marvel/DC stuff and old school cartoon-based stuff like Transformers/TMNT, but for 's sake, there has to be proper adult stuff as well for the 20-50's+ crow to enjoy!!
Hollywood wants to know why the likes of HBO are kings right now?! Maybe it's because they don't treat everything with kid gloves.
...
Um, right. Sure.
)
's sake, there has to be proper adult stuff as well for the 20-50's+ crow to enjoy!!
