Interesting interview with Sean and Nicole at the link. Kidman says she didn't find Rock's comments about Jude Law to be funny either.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 24,00.html

Sydney Pollack dosent exactly dispel his reputation for being a snob in that interview. That dig against used car salesmen was a bit...iffy. Boy Sean Penn is opinonated, and Kidman always seems like a deer in the headlights during interviews.

Having consistently opposite opinions can be very useful - we know that if the other person raves about a movie, that we should then start driving as fast and as far away as we can from the movie theatre it's playing in...

:down:

I'm surprised by some of the low predictions here. I mean to say that if people were predicting that the Ashton romcom would win the weekend then I'd understand these predictions better. But I doubt Interpreter winning and it only getting 16 or so is likely.

Haha, now who isn't reading the other persons posts? Nicole Kidman has only ever had one movie hit 100 million, and that had absolutely nothing to do with her (Batman Forever). And tabloids may have say in who is viewed as a star, but it's the box office that has the final say. Jennifer Garner has been on the cover of wayyy more covers then most stars, as has Angelina Jolie. However, both are box office poison. I think that the same is true, albeit to a lesser extent, to Halle Berry, Brad Pitt, Renee Zelwegger, Jude Law, and Nicole Kidman. And when has Kidman ever had a bit "on her own back"? The Others featured an amazing twist (and thus good WOM), great reviews, no competition and very well done trailers. However, it opened to only 14 million. It only got close to 100 million (never reached the mark) because of the WOM afterwards. That had nothing to do with Kidman brining audiences in. Every single movie ridden entirely on her and nothing else has bombed (Birth, The Human Stain, Birthday Girl, The Stepford Wives). The only hits she's had featured far more then just her face. Cold Mountain, Moulin Rouge, The Hours, Batman, and Days of Thunder (and The Interpreter) either had bigger/more stars, huge ad campaigns, tons of Oscar coverage or interesting plots/ideas. I'd much sooner list Julianne Moore, Queen Latifah, Meryl Streep, or even Jennifer Lopez as a box office pull then Kidman. It's not simply that Washington is one of the most consistently good box office draws, I've never thought Kidman was a star. There's no one film where she has ever proven her wattage, as all attempts were huge misfires.

Oh, and let's look at Washington's film resume, and tell me afterwards that he only sticks to action thrillers. I'll bold any that would apply as an action thriller and nothing more:

7/30/04 The Manchurian Candidate Par. $65,955,630 2,867 $20,018,620 2,867
4/21/04 Man on Fire Fox $77,911,774 2,986 $22,751,490 2,980
10/3/03 Out of Time MGM $41,088,845 3,076 $16,185,316 3,076
12/19/02 Antwone Fisher FoxS $21,078,145 1,021 $210,013 15
2/15/02 John Q. NL $71,756,802 2,505 $20,275,194 2,466
10/5/01 Training Day WB $76,631,907 2,712 $22,550,788 2,712
9/29/00 Remember the Titans BV $115,654,751 2,803 $20,905,831 1,865
12/31/99 The Hurricane Uni. $50,699,241 2,148 $384,640 11
11/5/99 The Bone Collector Uni. $66,518,655 2,623 $16,712,020 2,587
11/6/98 The Siege Fox $40,981,289 2,582 $13,931,285 2,541
5/1/98 He Got Game BV $21,567,853 1,414 $7,610,663 1,319
1/16/98 Fallen WB $25,232,289 2,448 $10,401,586 2,448
12/13/96 The Preacher's Wife BV $48,102,795 2,008 $7,649,752 1,783
7/12/96 Courage Under Fire Fox $59,031,057 2,001 $12,501,586 1,986
9/29/95 Devil in a Blue Dress Sony $16,140,822 1,432 $5,422,385 1,432
8/4/95 Virtuosity Par. $24,047,675 2,012 $8,309,869 2,012
5/12/95 Crimson Tide BV $91,387,195 2,514 $18,612,190 2,382
12/24/93 Philadelphia TriS $77,446,440 1,604 $143,433 4
12/17/93 The Pelican Brief WB $100,768,056 2,022 $16,864,404 1,993
5/7/93 Much Ado About Nothing Gold. $22,549,338 204 $108,617 3
11/20/92 Malcolm X WB $48,169,910 1,249 $9,871,125 1,124
2/5/92 Mississippi Masala Gold. $7,308,786 335 $45,831 2
10/4/91 Ricochet WB $21,756,163 1,560 $4,831,181 1,560
8/3/90 Mo' Better Blues Uni. $16,153,593 572 $4,387,360 544
2/2/90 Heart Condition NL $4,134,992 885 $2,149,786 885
12/14/89 Glory TriS $26,828,365 811 $63,661 3

I still have yet to see any proof from you that Kidman is such a big star, whereas I've offered numerous forms of data suggesting that Washington is a much bigger star then Kidman, despite your accusations that I'm being sexist.

Though you are right about Washington making more in absolute dollars, Kidman often carries much smaller movies to higher than expected grosses...

(...and as we know, there is definitely a gender/sexist component to both the type of movies lead actresses can sell and their correspondingly lower salary.)

i think this might be a really good movie, and possibly produce nimbers like Cold Mountain

18/95

when i look at this movie i just think Idenity, dont ask me why but I do...so thus I am saying ...

16.5 opening, no idea about what kinda legs it wil have

Im thinking more of Runaway Jury. Critically acclaimed but trailer not that spectacular

You´ll be surprised. He is actually very subdued in this one - to the point that he actually comes across as cold and lifeless...

Like what? Birth? Dogville? The Human Stain? All of those were expected to get her an Oscar nom, but with a combined cost of 60 million they were all completly snubbed and even combined couldn't get past 12 million

Exactly and theres no point in arguing with Michael since he base a person's drawing power on how many tabloid pages a person gets.

The people arguing for Kidman never took into account the consistent box office hits that Denzel had where its Crimson Tide or Remember the Titans

Surely, your not comparing those arthouse movies to Denzel Washington's mainstream releases!?!

Without Kidman, Birth & Dogville (both outstanding movies btw), would have made much less than they did. As I said before: Kidman often carries much smaller movies to higher than expected grosses...

If the roles are small, that would usually mean that she's not responsible for the gross...

And, for the record, Birth is garbage.

The best comparison, IMO, is still The Manchurian Candidate, a political thriller with great cast and excellent reviews. If that can only open to $20M then (a lot of us overpredicted TMC), I don't see The Interpreter getting to $20M in the slow month of April. I'd put its range at 17-18M, depending on the final theater count.

No, of course I'm not comparing them to , but you said (and I quote)" Kidman often carries much smaller movies to higher than expected grosses..." and I was just showing how that is a common misconception. And why wouldn't they have made as much if another smaller actress was in them? Or for that matter, how COULD they have made any less. But either way, good lord, it's kind of shocking how many people use this incredibly flawed logic with no proof or reasoning, it's like they're not even trying to defend and just KNOW that Kidman ain't a star, or someone who is much at all of a draw.

I'd actually use The Manchurian Candidate as well, but in the opposite sense.

The summer is for big blockbuster movies, mainly, and movies targeted at teens. The Manchurian Candidate didn't do so well, and even its legs showed it. It just wasn't the right time, because it was well recieved (critics and viewers), so the legs should have been good. But, they weren't. I think April is the perfect time to release The Interpreter. An opening close to $20M makes sense.

Sorry if this is off-topic and does not mention Denzel Washington, but The Interpreter will make around $19m this weekend imo.

I totally agree with you, so dont you think the same could be said about Tom Cruise? Like Collateral and Last Samurai both opened to mid 20's and reached 100m because of great wom, not because of Cruise. Not trying to say he isnt a draw, but he really isnt the biggest draw. I remember having this discussion with people when Collateral came out.

Oh the only thing I disagree with you about is saying Lopez, Latifah, and Streep are bigger BO Pulls, dont think thats right.

Well I think both of those had a lot of other things going against them. The Last Samurai had terrible marketing that made it look like Cruise WAS a samurai, and it got rather squashed in the box office poison weekend after Thanksgiving. In a similar situation, Collateral had to deal with the digital camera cinematography which while great in the final product, did not look that great in the trailers. It's a dark hitman movie and the trailers were rather devoid of the action expected from that sort of film. And it had to deal with other adult films "Machurian Canidate" and "The Village". I think that both would've underperformed with almost anyone else, but I do agree that he is not the draw he used to be. Right now, I'd say that Will Smith is unquestionably the best at drawing in audiences, with Adam Sandler as #2 (as long as it's a comedy).

Really though, the only movies with Cruise to even indicate him as a big draw is the Mission Impossible movies. Other then that and Interview With The Vampire, he really didnt have a big movie opening just because he's in it ( Minority Report had alot to do with Spielberg aswelll as Cruise )

BTW Jim Carrey is a bigger draw then Sandler i'd say

So I would put them

1. Will Smith
2. Jim Carrey
3. Adam Sandler

There are so, so many things wrong with that post i can only try to list some of them.
Please direct me to the place where i called you sexist? Wait wasn't that just another conclusion you jumped to?


No more drugs for you friend! Your taking arguments that could easily be applied to every star and stressing them on Nicole Kidman. Angelina Jolie is box office posion? So is Jennifer Garner? And Brad Pitt? Puh-leeze. I could apply the same argument you used for The Others' success to pratically every denzel washington film out; hell id even go as obscure as saying Dakota Fanning was a draw considering your doing pretty much the same thing with Kidman - The Others word of mouth sourced totally from the film itself eh? Nothing to do with Nicole Kidman at all considering she was the lead actress, the film was marketed on her back and it relied pretty much soley to her reactions?



I really dont know what your motives are to be honest; but its clear that youve stripped down from being fairly enthusiastic towards Nicole Kidman to calling her all out box office poison; and suggesting shes not a star.. I don't see any point in continuing our debate because your skewing it in a direction that is going to waste my time and i doubt i can maintain my nearly-polite conduct any further because its just getting little frustrating.

I honestly don't know why i waste my time debating anything here.

Is your role in debates always the same? You step into a debate where youve never been a party to; dismiss whoever you disagree with then leave again? - you seem to do it a lot, especially when Im involved. I am openly not giving a shit what people think about me here so i just thought id ask. Maybe if your joining a debate contributing something would be, you know, nice.
Of course i know Denzel Washington is a box office draw; jesus ive already said hes a star; and im already aware that he can put bums in seats - but the implication that hes a much bigger star than Nicole Kidman is one which i feel is inaccurate. Furthermore, you guys dismiss tabloids because they are tabloids? Tabloids are the most followed kinds of news publications in the world - they have massive impact into public perception and if Nicole Kidmans all over a tabloid, shes what people are talking about. Denzel picks projects that he knows are going to be hits. Kidmans more daring and exprimental with her own choices and thats why shes not got 100000 actioners that have all done well at the box office to her name. Washington is consistent at what he does, Kidman is interesting at what she does. This is not a competition; so lets all stop being so nauseatingly anal about everything eh?

My motives are to prove to you that Kidman isn't, and has yet to be, a proven commodity by any means. She's a decent, but not great actress. However, she can not get much any of an audience, she's only percieved to through tabloids that love snapping pictures of her. Show me any proof that she is a bigger star then Denzel. I still haven't seen anything from you, just a lot of whining since I obviously hit a nerve. I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time either since you are whining a whole lot more then you're making any good points.