The comic submits to the cluelessness of Zach Galifinakis
Five Celebs Whose High Salary Quotes May Be In Trouble
Actually four, plus Leonardo DiCaprio. But he's here for a reason.
Related
Keywords
Slideshow
Taylor Lautner rode the gifts that God and a few thousand hours at the gym gave him to a $7.5 million payday. Here's a look at the "New Moon" star's greatest shirtless hits.
With some recent flops behind them, these actors are probably a little worried about their perch atop the salary heap.
Everyone's going to work for millions, so nobody's sad for them. But with the movie studios restructuring their economic models in the face of a global recession, nobody's a slam dunk anymore...especially for their usual asking price.
Will Ferrell
“Old School,” “Elf,” and “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” catapulted Ferrell to stardom and made him a comedy must-have. Movies such as “Starsky & Hutch” and ”Wedding Crashers” were cameos, hoping for a boost just from his appearance on screen.
After a few forays into more serious material, Ferrell further entrenched himself at the top of the comedy world with “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby” and “Blades of Glory,” both of which earned upwards of $100 million domestically.
However, as reviewers have begun to sour on his routine, audiences are also giving him reason to worry. 2008’s “Step Brothers” topped the $100 million mark, but it was book-ended by the dud “Semi Pro” and this summer’s “Land of the Lost.” “Semi Pro” earned just $33 million domestically and even Universal acknowledges that “Land of the Lost” is a bust.
With audiences shifting to newer, raunchier movies like “The Hangover” or “Pineapple Express,” Ferrell has lost some of his comedic appeal. His inability to establish himself as commercially viable beyond comedy only makes matters worse, and may make studios reluctant to fork over the sums that they used to pay off of his one-line pitches.
Eddie Murphy
Murphy made enough hit movies by the end of the 1980s to retire, and his shift to family comedies in the late 1990s earned him box office success with franchises like “The Nutty Professor” and “Dr. Doolittle.”
Murphy entered the first real slump of his career with three back-to-back flops — “Showtime,” “The Adventures of Pluto Nash” and “I Spy” -- all of which grossed less than $40 million. After rebounding with films like “Daddy Day Care” and “Norbit,” Murphy bottomed out with last summer’s “Meet Dave,” his worst box-office showing since “Pluto Nash.”
His next film, “Imagine That,” opened this weekend and tanked at $5.6 million. Though Murphy’s movies have been routinely panned by critics for the past several years, their earnings have kept him working and well-paid. If “Imagine That” replicates “Meet Dave,” Murphy could find himself mired in another slump.
Russell Crowe
Scott’s 2000 smash “Gladiator” not only gave Crowe his highest grossing film but an Academy Award. A year later, “A Beautiful Mind” nearly topped “Gladiator,” as Crowe went on to record a string of box office successes.
However, the Aussie is no longer a guaranteed crowd-pleaser.
In 2006, “A Good Year” was a disappointment, netting just $7.5 million, and Crowe’s last two films have both failed to meet expectations.
“Body of Lies,” which reunited Crowe with Scott and also starred Leonardo DiCaprio, grossed just $39 million domestically while this year’s “State of Play” has also failed to top $40 million.
With both critics and crowds losing interest in his movies simultaneously, Crowe may not be able to lean on his past glory to net premium salaries or roles.
Comments
mack10 Says
Greenhouse gases
Main articles: Greenhouse gas and Greenhouse effect
Greenhouse effect schematic showing energy flows between space, the atmosphere, and earth's surface. Energy exchanges are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2).
Recent atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) increases. Monthly CO2 measurements display seasonal oscillations in overall yearly uptrend; each year's maximum occurs during the Northern Hemisphere's late spring, and declines during its growing season as plants remove some atmospheric CO2.The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. It was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[19] Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed, even by those who do not agree that the recent temperature increase is attributable to human activity. The question is instead how the strength of the greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F).[20][C] The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent[not in citation given]; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7 percent.[21][22] Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so are considered separately from water vapor and other gases.
Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s.[23] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[24] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values this high were last seen about 20 million years ago.[25] Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, particularly deforestation.[26]
CO2 concentrations are continuing to rise due to burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The future rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. Accordingly, the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100.[27] Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.[28]
The destruction of stratospheric ozone by chlorofluorocarbons is sometimes mentioned in relation to global warming. mp3 indir usdown.net watchfootballlive.org watchnflfootballlive.net watchfootballlive.org nflfootballonline.org nflfootballonline.net nflfootballlive.net Although there are a few areas of linkage, the relationship between the two is not strong. Reduction of stratospheric ozone has a cooling influence, but substantial ozone depletion did not occur until the late 1970s.[29] Tropospheric ozone contributes to surface warming
Vera Says
Just an observation, but, almost all the comments are about Russell Crowe, and mostly in his defense. What does that tell you about his future ? :)
Vera Says
Just an observation, but, almost all the comments are about Russell Crowe, and mostly in his defense. What does that tell you about his future ? :)
Vera Says
Russell is doing rather well. No worries mates . People have to write about something don't they...(-) His films are doing just fine. And he is enjoying a broader range of roles. You don't need a crystal ball to see a prosperous future here.
Brian Says
Russell Crowe is a fine actor, but he's not necessarily meant to last as a bankable leading man. I would prefer he follow the Robert Duvall/Gene Hackman/Nick Nolte model and take on more character roles or even villain roles. When a suitable lead role comes along, take it. But do supporting roles when they're good ones.
Aaron L. Says
I think Russell Crowe's PR team and fan clubs have been busy here. Unfortunately he is still digging his way out of a hole he created for himself. His movies have not been pulling in enough to justify big paydays for him. He is lucky Universal found themselves in another self created bind and had to pay him more than they wanted. He is also indeed lucky Ridley was willing to keep working with him.
American Gangster had a HUGE budget and 2 big names [ Crowe & Denzel ]who ate up a big chunk of that budget. It was not a big money maker for the studio. Robin Hood also has a huge budget and I can't believe that this movie will draw in enough interest worldwide to justify its cost. Except for Gladiator Crowe has never been a big draw world wide. He's just not a big moneymaker.
I remember Crowe from the old days of Sum of Us, Romper Stomper - a very good actor no doubt but at times overrated and very, very concerned with his image, fame and money. Image rehab by publicists hasn't changed his essential character.
numera12 Says
I agree with the observation about Will Ferrell, Eddie Murphy and Mike Myers.. At some point you really don't want to see a man past 40 acting like a 17 year old. They all had a great formula that is past it's time. As far as Russel Crowe is concerned to he is one of the best. State of Play was not his best.. and Brad Pitt did not "drop out at the last minute". I just did not buy his friendship with Ben A.. Leo to me is an OK draw.. I don't think MEN rush to see him in the movies. And the women who were obsessed with Titantic have grown up.. So I like him, but he does not get me to the theater.. The ROM COM is being taken over by the men.. I would love to see an article on how the Women are being pushed out of the genra.. There are 8 or so female "comedy" actresses playing the same roles.. Which for me have gotten so boring. We have seen all of the stories about women.. now to me the reason the MALE ROM COM is so successful the stories are NEW because they were never told before. The 40 year Old Virgin showed us that MEN stories can be funny, touching and romantic.. Times are a changing..
becks Says
and a little remake in 2007 of '3:10 to yuma' that took in $70,000,000, not including dvd sales and rentals. not too shabby.
RossiJames Says
This article seems to have a very short memory about Russell Crowe's boxoffice power. It forgotten completely a little film called American Gangster from a couple years ago. Domestically it did around $120 million. Get the story straight please if you going to write about it.
ginzie chancey Says
I think it is just human nature to tire of the same person after a period of time.
If an actor gives an exceptional performance as Russell Crowe has done
on numerous occasions, he raises the bar and people expect more each
time, but sadly, exceptional material is not always available. The audience
then begins to look for someone else to feed their appetites. I don't think it's anyone's fault, it is just the
way the culture is at the moment.
I have noticed many actors get trapped in the Hollywood machine and begin
to "play it safe". Whether from the advice of others or their own fear, it does
seem to happen.
The way our culture has developed with limited attention spans gives an
actor about 10-15 years (not unlike an athlete). That is one reason I do not
object to their extraordinary salaries. They get the salaries as long as they
fill the movie seats and as your article suggests, when audiences begin
to decline for whatever reason, people look for the new flavor of the month.
It is also human nature to look @ beautiful flowers &turn away as it fades.
Joyce Says
"With both critics and crowds losing interest in his movies simultaneously, Crowe may not be able to lean on his past glory to net premium salaries or roles."
I agree that Crowe and other stars need to get their agents greed under control and stop asking way more than their presence in a film can sustain. In fact, Crowe's rep negotiated even more than Crowe's normal fee for "State of Play" because Brad Pitt pulled out at the last minute and Universal was in a real bind.
Having said that, Lucas Shaw needs to check his facts: Critics are not "losing interest in his movies." Crowe's latest, "State of Play," scored exceptionally high with the critics. It's real easy to check that out, Lucas. Just go to metacritics.com or rottentomatoes.com. They're both just a click away.
Stranger Says
Why oh why must Crowe fans jump on every post anywhere where a decent writer simply asks some legit questions? Crowe's movies have NOT done well recently.
JDalton Says
Good grief...it looks like yet another slow news day and some hack "journalist" is cutting and pasting information from other various "entertainment" blogs to meet their daily quota of crap. THIS is the problem with journalism nowadays - Pulitizer Prize Winner pipe dream wannabes who lack insight, intelligence and the understanding of journalistic integrity to produce something ORIGINAL and thought provoking while displaying writing skills that rise above an elementary school level. Crap journalist think, "Oh goodie - I'll change a few words around from this blog or that blog, sign my byline and it'll promoted on Yahoo's OMG, or better yet ... in US or People magazine!"
Simply pathetic "reporting."
Miles Maker Says
A GREAT article--I respect and appreciate your perspectives and opinions, and must add that unless audiences are willing to accept Actors outside of their typecast image, their familiar roles will continue to disinterest movie-goers over time in a very fast-paced ever-changing cinematic environment of edgy indies and risky niche fare.
www.milesmaker.com
Lou Charlton Says
I agree 100% with "Becks" comments about Russell Crowe. He is by far the finest actor of our times, chooses his roles carefully and goes for those that say something important - whether he is the main star or not. No doubt, "Gladiator" was the best picture I have ever seen. Also, just think of Crowe's performances in "The Insider", "Cinderella Man", "A Beautiful Mind", and "Master and Commander"which were all absolutely outstanding. He is an amazing actor, a great philanthropist (like contributing to the Canadian Synagogue that had a fire that burned all its books), etc., etc. Russell Crowe is just a great human being as well as a great actor/father/husband.
becks Says
i'd pay $10 to watch russell crowe breathe for two hours. he's never been in a slump since he started his film career in the early 90's, and he will be a powerhouse actor as long as he chooses to work. he doesn't care about his paycheck - he cares about his craft, his art. and when he decides it's time to talk away from films, he can go back on the road with his band!
Cribbster Says
I wonder how large a role celebrity over-exposure in the media plays in all of this. If you think about previous star "golden eras," you went to the movie theater if you wanted to see stars. Now, you have innumerable TV shows, magazines and Web sites to help you keep track 24-7.