Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Yeah, since when isn't Gerard Butler an A-list actor?

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
You are forgetting Beowulf, as well. He was the star of that. His movies have also grossed 1.3 Billion dollars, so to act like he is some C-list celebrity is a bit disingenuous.

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.

 sebster wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
You are forgetting Beowulf, as well. He was the star of that. His movies have also grossed 1.3 Billion dollars, so to act like he is some C-list celebrity is a bit disingenuous.

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.

Edited by RiTides - Language, please

Same with Eckhart, who's biggest 'blockbuster' role has been The Dark Knight.

-Thank you for smoking

-Battle LA

 Frazzled wrote:

Same with Eckhart, who's biggest 'blockbuster' role has been The Dark Knight.

-Thank you for smoking

-Battle LA

I wished they did more alien flicks like Battle LA... awesome flick.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

Obviously anyone who expected Gerard Butler's name to fill seats was wrong.

 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.

Sebster, why do you hate Gerard Butler? Bro's just trying to pay off his student loans.

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,

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.

I was wondering how quickly the Anti-America Team could assemble!

Odd that it is in this thread but...OK!

 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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 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.

The flag on the poster is wrong.

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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The flag on the poster is wrong.

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.

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;


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.

Thanks for getting my hopes up for nothing