Jump to content
Gerard Butler GALS
framolamdu

Chauffers, Cigars and Clauses

Recommended Posts

An interesting little mention towards the ends on Coriolanus.

http://www.guardian....ls-in-hollywood

In Hollywood, the deal is king. Deals are how scripts get optioned, how stars and directors get signed up, how films make it to production. A good one can mean financial security and a name above the title. A bad one can be as dispiriting, gruelling and financially ruinous as building your dream house on unmarked floodland. The bad news is sometimes it's worse than that, and in the current financial climate it's getting tougher to make the right deal.

In these straitened times, George Clooney is allegedly settling for upfront fees of a paltry $2m, while Megan Fox has walked away from Transformers 3 because her salary demands "cannot be met". The most dramatic illustration of the difficulties Hollywood faces, though, comes in the plight of MGM – reportedly $3.7bn in debt – which has postponed production of the 23rd Bond film, despite it being part of the second most successful franchise of all time, after Harry Potter. MGM's much-anticipated co-production (with New Line) of The Hobbit is in similar disarray, with director Guillermo del Toro leaving the project last month, because his contract had only been for three years and he didn't fancy stretching it to infinity.

It isn't all doom and gloom for big-time dealmakers, though: the Potter films come to an end later this year, after generating fortunes for all concerned. (Prominent UK entertainment lawyer Reno Antoniades explains: "If you're doing Potter, there are no issues – the head of Warner Bros presses the green light and off you go.") And it's probable that the likes of James Cameron and Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan – who was handed $170m to enjoy relative artistic control on the forthcoming Leonardo DiCaprio blockbuster Inception – aren't feeling the chill wind either.

The trickiest deals for producers to hammer out are generally in the so-called "mid-price" market – lower-end Hollywood movies and aspirational indies seeking finance and distribution agreements. Ricky Gervais, who became his own producer with 2009's The Invention of Lying, says: "The more you need to court different people to get their money, the more they try to interfere." The story behind Mike Figgis's 1993 movie Mr Jones remains a salutary tale for aspirant dealmakers. Figgis still seethes at his treatment by producer Ray Stark: he says he was banned from the editing room and discovered people he thought were allies were also working for Stark."Finally I read my contract myself and discovered that what Ray Stark had told me – that he had the final cut – was not true," he says. When, in a meeting, he accused Stark ("fook you, Ray, you don't have final cut!"), it transpired that the head of the studio, who did have the rights, had delegated them – to Stark.

Andrew Eaton, the producer behind A Mighty Heart and 24 Hour Party People, says the most exasperating element of deal-making in Hollywood is the prevailing culture of obstruction. "A lot of people in business affairs think the last bit of power they have is to stop something happening. They take up time going over these ridiculous what-ifs: what if the ceiling collapses, what if there's a flood? It's just willy-waving. Similarly, agents don't like it if you speak directly to talent. I remember a producer friend of mine had an agent come up to him and say, 'You've shat in my mouth.' He meant the producer had talked to the client before he talked to the agent." He adds, darkly: "There are people in the business who consider the green-lighting of any project a failure."

Certainly, there are numerous stories of agents punishing producers for leaving the marked path. Stephen Woolley says he pitched the storyline of his 1986 thriller, Mona Lisa, to Sean Connery as they descended 28 floors in a lift. Connery loved the idea and told Woolley he wanted to do it. "So I called his agent, CAA, one of the biggest agencies in the world, and the assistant said: 'What do you mean Sean's read it? You mean you didn't come through us?' The agent himself refused to take my calls. That was it – doomed."

Even if you do get the star you want, reaching agreements on their dizzying array of demands can be wearisome. Apart from negotiating "back end" top-ups on stars' fees (anything from gross profit participation and image rights payments to awards bonuses), studios and producers have promised all sort of things to "quirky" actors, such as unlimited Montecristo cigars (Roger Moore), round-the-clock chauffeurs (Eddie Murphy), and a mysterious clause that Eaton was forced to offer – a guarantee to one actor that "no orifices" would be shown on screen.

Eaton admits the sheer slog of trying to close a deal in LA has occasionally broken down his defences to an embarrassing degree. "We did bad deals on The Claim with Pathe and MGM/UA. They kept asking for changes which meant all our fees were eaten up. I remember at the very last minute, 10 o'clock at night on Friday, when we thought the deal was finally done, someone from business affairs came into the room and said, 'No, actually, we want you to defer another chunk of your fees.' I can't remember the exact words I said but I know the last one was 'c**t'. Then I stormed out and burst into tears."

Of course, no matter who you are, a deal can go wrong, as John Travolta found out when he took half his usual $20m fee for 2000's Battlefield Earth, in favour of a $15m bonus if it took over $55m. It didn't. But if you're a wannabe producer whose hope has not entirely deserted, there are a few pointers that might come in handy.

One, tell the studio your script is "life-affirming". Apparently DreamWorks supremo Jeffrey Katzenberg begins pitch meetings by asking, "How is this movie life-affirming?" (Meaning, Basic Instinct writer Joe Eszterhas has said, "How will this movie make $100m?"). Two, don't fall out with a powerful lawyer (some say it's equally crucial not to upset any powerful Scientologists). Three, don't leave a deal before it's finished. According toWoolley, whose $63m-grossing The Crying Game aided Miramax's ascent to super-indie powerhouse status in the 90s: "It's all about timing, knowing the point when you've gone as far as you can with a distributor, where they are still in the contract zone and you can close the deal. You don't want them to sleep on it. My ex-partner Nik Powell would go to people's hotels and sleep outside their rooms until they came out for breakfast. That's how you close a deal."

For Gervais, the secret is simply to care more about your film than the money. When he was preparing The Invention of Lying, he says: "I went into every meeting with one great strength: I was always ready to walk away. I don't care if they say no and that makes me bulletproof. They don't know what to say when I say I don't care about the money. The room literally goes quiet. I don't think they think, 'Wow, what a man of integrity.' I think they're thinking, 'Wow, what a fooking idiot.'" Nevertheless, he says, the secret of good film-making is not worrying about the bottom line: "If you want to make a good film – try to make your film for £40."

It's all worked rather well so far for Gervais, who secured final edit on The Invention of Lying and had the film in the black before it was released, having kept the budget down and sold 50% of the film's equity (retaining the other half for himself) to a studio for more than it cost to make. But the new climate of film-making is hugely challenging for the mid-range film-maker working with a budget between $5m and $50m. Pre-sales – the industry practice of selling distribution rights before a film is actually made – are drying up, and the studios, fearful of the democratising properties of digital media, are pouring their energies into 3D, a process still beyond the financial realities of most non-studio film-makers.

According to Colin Vaines, a former executive vice-president in the European arm of Miramax and now a producer, it's increasingly important for a mid-budget film looking for finance to have an X Factor: a newsworthy headline-generator putting your film above the movie-fan parapet. For Vaines, currently producing Ralph Fiennes's directorial debut, Coriolanus, this comes in the shape of gossip-magnet Gerard Butler. For Eaton, it's Liam Gallagher, with whom he is working on the Beatles biopic The Longest Cocktail Party. Vaines's next project? A time-spliced love story, directed by Madonna. Harvey Weinstein sure taught him a few things.

The first "morality" clause was implemented in 1921 when actor Fatty Arbuckle (below), was arrested for the manslaughter of a young actress. Arbuckle was found not guilty but a good behaviour clause is still common in Hollywood today.

In 1949, Jimmy Stewart became the first actor to be awarded profit participation. Universal-International, concerned about the upfront costs of Anthony Mann's ambitious western Winchester '73, struck a deal with Stewart's legendary agent, Lew Wasserman, to give Stewart half the profits instead of a large fee. In 1980, Paramount gave birth to the modern super-producer, when it granted George Lucas retained ownership of 50% of Raiders of the Lost Ark and control of every aspect of expenditure on the project, while assuming all risk and sacrificing a hefty share of revenues before recouping costs. The film needed to gross $42m before Paramount turned a profit. It grossed $242m.

Johnny Depp is set to become Hollywood's highest paid actor of all time, when he picks up his "guaranteed minimum" cheque for $35m for appearing in Pirates of the Caribbean 4. All in all, the Pirates movie franchise will net him at least $80m. Screenwriter Joe Eszterhas broke the record for a script fee, when he received $3m for his work on Basic Instinct (above, starring Sharon Stone and Michael Douglas), in 1990. The amount led to a meeting of studio heads to discuss ways of keeping script prices down. Eszterhas claims it took 13 days from idea to the script auction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting little mention towards the ends on Coriolanus.

http://www.guardian....ls-in-hollywood

In Hollywood, the deal is king. Deals are how scripts get optioned, how stars and directors get signed up, how films make it to production. A good one can mean financial security and a name above the title. A bad one can be as dispiriting, gruelling and financially ruinous as building your dream house on unmarked floodland. The bad news is sometimes it's worse than that, and in the current financial climate it's getting tougher to make the right deal.

In these straitened times, George Clooney is allegedly settling for upfront fees of a paltry $2m, while Megan Fox has walked away from Transformers 3 because her salary demands "cannot be met". The most dramatic illustration of the difficulties Hollywood faces, though, comes in the plight of MGM – reportedly $3.7bn in debt – which has postponed production of the 23rd Bond film, despite it being part of the second most successful franchise of all time, after Harry Potter. MGM's much-anticipated co-production (with New Line) of The Hobbit is in similar disarray, with director Guillermo del Toro leaving the project last month, because his contract had only been for three years and he didn't fancy stretching it to infinity.

It isn't all doom and gloom for big-time dealmakers, though: the Potter films come to an end later this year, after generating fortunes for all concerned. (Prominent UK entertainment lawyer Reno Antoniades explains: "If you're doing Potter, there are no issues – the head of Warner Bros presses the green light and off you go.") And it's probable that the likes of James Cameron and Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan – who was handed $170m to enjoy relative artistic control on the forthcoming Leonardo DiCaprio blockbuster Inception – aren't feeling the chill wind either.

The trickiest deals for producers to hammer out are generally in the so-called "mid-price" market – lower-end Hollywood movies and aspirational indies seeking finance and distribution agreements. Ricky Gervais, who became his own producer with 2009's The Invention of Lying, says: "The more you need to court different people to get their money, the more they try to interfere." The story behind Mike Figgis's 1993 movie Mr Jones remains a salutary tale for aspirant dealmakers. Figgis still seethes at his treatment by producer Ray Stark: he says he was banned from the editing room and discovered people he thought were allies were also working for Stark."Finally I read my contract myself and discovered that what Ray Stark had told me – that he had the final cut – was not true," he says. When, in a meeting, he accused Stark ("fook you, Ray, you don't have final cut!"), it transpired that the head of the studio, who did have the rights, had delegated them – to Stark.

Andrew Eaton, the producer behind A Mighty Heart and 24 Hour Party People, says the most exasperating element of deal-making in Hollywood is the prevailing culture of obstruction. "A lot of people in business affairs think the last bit of power they have is to stop something happening. They take up time going over these ridiculous what-ifs: what if the ceiling collapses, what if there's a flood? It's just willy-waving. Similarly, agents don't like it if you speak directly to talent. I remember a producer friend of mine had an agent come up to him and say, 'You've shat in my mouth.' He meant the producer had talked to the client before he talked to the agent." He adds, darkly: "There are people in the business who consider the green-lighting of any project a failure."

Certainly, there are numerous stories of agents punishing producers for leaving the marked path. Stephen Woolley says he pitched the storyline of his 1986 thriller, Mona Lisa, to Sean Connery as they descended 28 floors in a lift. Connery loved the idea and told Woolley he wanted to do it. "So I called his agent, CAA, one of the biggest agencies in the world, and the assistant said: 'What do you mean Sean's read it? You mean you didn't come through us?' The agent himself refused to take my calls. That was it – doomed."

Even if you do get the star you want, reaching agreements on their dizzying array of demands can be wearisome. Apart from negotiating "back end" top-ups on stars' fees (anything from gross profit participation and image rights payments to awards bonuses), studios and producers have promised all sort of things to "quirky" actors, such as unlimited Montecristo cigars (Roger Moore), round-the-clock chauffeurs (Eddie Murphy), and a mysterious clause that Eaton was forced to offer – a guarantee to one actor that "no orifices" would be shown on screen.

Eaton admits the sheer slog of trying to close a deal in LA has occasionally broken down his defences to an embarrassing degree. "We did bad deals on The Claim with Pathe and MGM/UA. They kept asking for changes which meant all our fees were eaten up. I remember at the very last minute, 10 o'clock at night on Friday, when we thought the deal was finally done, someone from business affairs came into the room and said, 'No, actually, we want you to defer another chunk of your fees.' I can't remember the exact words I said but I know the last one was 'c**t'. Then I stormed out and burst into tears."

Of course, no matter who you are, a deal can go wrong, as John Travolta found out when he took half his usual $20m fee for 2000's Battlefield Earth, in favour of a $15m bonus if it took over $55m. It didn't. But if you're a wannabe producer whose hope has not entirely deserted, there are a few pointers that might come in handy.

One, tell the studio your script is "life-affirming". Apparently DreamWorks supremo Jeffrey Katzenberg begins pitch meetings by asking, "How is this movie life-affirming?" (Meaning, Basic Instinct writer Joe Eszterhas has said, "How will this movie make $100m?"). Two, don't fall out with a powerful lawyer (some say it's equally crucial not to upset any powerful Scientologists). Three, don't leave a deal before it's finished. According toWoolley, whose $63m-grossing The Crying Game aided Miramax's ascent to super-indie powerhouse status in the 90s: "It's all about timing, knowing the point when you've gone as far as you can with a distributor, where they are still in the contract zone and you can close the deal. You don't want them to sleep on it. My ex-partner Nik Powell would go to people's hotels and sleep outside their rooms until they came out for breakfast. That's how you close a deal."

For Gervais, the secret is simply to care more about your film than the money. When he was preparing The Invention of Lying, he says: "I went into every meeting with one great strength: I was always ready to walk away. I don't care if they say no and that makes me bulletproof. They don't know what to say when I say I don't care about the money. The room literally goes quiet. I don't think they think, 'Wow, what a man of integrity.' I think they're thinking, 'Wow, what a fooking idiot.'" Nevertheless, he says, the secret of good film-making is not worrying about the bottom line: "If you want to make a good film – try to make your film for £40."

It's all worked rather well so far for Gervais, who secured final edit on The Invention of Lying and had the film in the black before it was released, having kept the budget down and sold 50% of the film's equity (retaining the other half for himself) to a studio for more than it cost to make. But the new climate of film-making is hugely challenging for the mid-range film-maker working with a budget between $5m and $50m. Pre-sales – the industry practice of selling distribution rights before a film is actually made – are drying up, and the studios, fearful of the democratising properties of digital media, are pouring their energies into 3D, a process still beyond the financial realities of most non-studio film-makers.

According to Colin Vaines, a former executive vice-president in the European arm of Miramax and now a producer, it's increasingly important for a mid-budget film looking for finance to have an X Factor: a newsworthy headline-generator putting your film above the movie-fan parapet. For Vaines, currently producing Ralph Fiennes's directorial debut, Coriolanus, this comes in the shape of gossip-magnet Gerard Butler. For Eaton, it's Liam Gallagher, with whom he is working on the Beatles biopic The Longest Cocktail Party. Vaines's next project? A time-spliced love story, directed by Madonna. Harvey Weinstein sure taught him a few things.

The first "morality" clause was implemented in 1921 when actor Fatty Arbuckle (below), was arrested for the manslaughter of a young actress. Arbuckle was found not guilty but a good behaviour clause is still common in Hollywood today.

In 1949, Jimmy Stewart became the first actor to be awarded profit participation. Universal-International, concerned about the upfront costs of Anthony Mann's ambitious western Winchester '73, struck a deal with Stewart's legendary agent, Lew Wasserman, to give Stewart half the profits instead of a large fee. In 1980, Paramount gave birth to the modern super-producer, when it granted George Lucas retained ownership of 50% of Raiders of the Lost Ark and control of every aspect of expenditure on the project, while assuming all risk and sacrificing a hefty share of revenues before recouping costs. The film needed to gross $42m before Paramount turned a profit. It grossed $242m.

Johnny Depp is set to become Hollywood's highest paid actor of all time, when he picks up his "guaranteed minimum" cheque for $35m for appearing in Pirates of the Caribbean 4. All in all, the Pirates movie franchise will net him at least $80m. Screenwriter Joe Eszterhas broke the record for a script fee, when he received $3m for his work on Basic Instinct (above, starring Sharon Stone and Michael Douglas), in 1990. The amount led to a meeting of studio heads to discuss ways of keeping script prices down. Eszterhas claims it took 13 days from idea to the script auction.

Thank you, Moira, for the very interesting article. The movie business is for risk takers.......not for the faint hearted!

Good comment about Coriolanus!

:wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the way I read this....it's going to take "Gossip magnet Gerard Butler" to get this movie financed! :unsure: I'm sorry...I just don't understand any of that article...just color me STOOPID!

:doh: Frannie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the way I read this....it's going to take "Gossip magnet Gerard Butler" to get this movie financed! :unsure: I'm sorry...I just don't understand any of that article...just color me STOOPID!

:doh: Frannie

You're not stupid, Frannie. There are a lot of things about Hollyweird that I don't understand also, and I'm not stupid. LOL

This isn't the first time I've heard/read the fact that it took getting Gerry on board with Coriolanus to get it financed. I think it's a good thing (minus the phrase attached to him in this article). It meant that it was hard to get the final financing for Coriolanus to get done UNLESS and UNTIL Gerry signed on. At least that's MY interpretation of what happened.

The more I learn, the less I like. I'll stick to education. :lol:

Thanks for the article, Moira!!!

Lisa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lisa, you interpretation is correct!

Basically this article is saying that there are few 'sure deals' in Hollywood these days and even 'big names' deliver box office bombs. In the end, Gerry has been doing well playing this game...in these dire times, he has done VERY well in brining in big numbers. His name associated with a project not only gets backup financing, but in most cases, the film will make well over the studio's total budget.

Good Stuff! Gerry really has come a long way! Amazing his career didn't start until his later days. He has an American Dream Story.

Edited by sav8821

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely! We know Gerry's name sells movies...even ones the critics don't like. That's why all those 'stinkers' have done so well! (Don't like the gossip magnet moniker however.)

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Sav8821. Not only did his name probably secure financing, but for good or ill, if he's "a gossip magnet" then their promotion budget gets stretched as well. Not only will the talk shows be clamoring for him, but whenever his name appears in the tabloids, it will be with the words "star of the upcoming Ralph Fiennes adaptation of Coriolanus" next to it.

My :2cents: (Personally I cannot WAIT for that movie!)

Edited by Hobbes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this comes in the shape of gossip-magnet Gerard Butler

This is not the best way to get job offers. I would have preferred hearing the words, "enormous acting skills" or even "woman magnet" then "gossip magnet". Makes it sound like cheap, tab rag banter is the thing that makes him famous. I hope it's not getting to that point, however. I'm sure Gerry would prefer it differently, at least I hope he would.

Hollywood doesn't seem to care that much about talent and good story telling anymore except in the animations for some reason. It's about money, bottom line.

Delene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moira, a long and fascinating article. The movie business is definintely not for the faint of heart! It's amazing and sad that the really creative and talented in the business have to go through so many hoops to get financing to make a good movie and half the time they have to give up part or all control on the creative process.

Not at all surprising to hear about the financing for Coriolanus before and after Gerry signed on.

But WOW for us, Gerry, Ralph and Shakespeare; I want to see this movie . . . more than once. Tullus Aufidius!!!

Thanks for the post, Moira

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so "gossip magnet" is not good publicity - still, it's publicity, right? I would have preferred him described as the fine actor that he is, but I'm sure there are other good movies in production and they didn't get as much as a word in the article. Gerry and Coriolanus being mentioned warmed my heart (as indeed any Gerry-related piece of news does Posted Image ). And if I can paraphrase Samantha's words "first come the gays, then the girls and then the industry" (well, I don't know if they are her words, but "Sex and the city" is where I first heard them), I may say that "first comes the gossip, then the more detailed media attention and then the big parts". I'm sure the future has good things in store for our Gerry and a number of great roles in which he will give the true measure of his talent (for those who are still to be convinced)!

Thanks for the post, Moira! And I'm very impressed how you keep spotting the tiniest bit of Gerry info (is it all technology, btw?). Posted Image

Posted Image

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris alot of stuff comes from google alerts and looking at sites where he is often spoken about. Are you signed up for google alerts on Gerard Butler. If not it's worth signing up for as most articles on the web mentioning Gerry's name gets sent to you as they are posted.

Moira

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Gossip Magnet" that makes my blood boil at that "phrase"! :( They should have described him as a " dedicated and mostly, motivated individual that is a PROFESSIONAL" :pointy: When this movie comes out, i am so going to seeing it, then buy it on DVD.. :)

Amanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first became a fan, Gerry was not in any way shape or form known as a gossip magnet. In fact, he was pretty much still unknown. It was only after 300 that his name started showing up in the tabloids and on entertainment sites, and that is only because 300 gave him visibility and name recognition. I HATE that he is now singled out for his off screen behavior, and I refuse to believe that the ONLY reason he was cast in Coriolanus was because of his gossip magnet status. I think his talent and charisma had a lot more to do with that casting decision.

Sometimes I viscerally DESPISE Hollyweird.

Swannie

Edited by Swansong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly the way I feel Swannie! Had they said because of Gerard Butlers Box office appeal or because of the new Hollywood mega star Gerard Butler... anything but gossip magnet! Also, I wonder how RF feels about that. I mean he is supposed to be a great actor in his own right! I just knew this was going to be a hard sell but I certainly didn't want to see this! :lalala: Hollyweird is right!!

JMO, Frannie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a "gossip magnet" there really isn't much gossip unless they are making it up. He doesn't get drunk, he doesn't get in bar fights, no arrests (except that one a while back - and he was in the right - damn paparazzi)...just because he's a good kisser and he shares... RF is a great actor in his own right. The two should make a dynamite team in this movie. Hollywood sucks!

Linda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What gossip does is sale magazines (see Jennifer Aniston-Gerard Butler magazine thread), and keep web sites like Just Jared, Gawker and Radar in business. What ever effect it has on Box Office profits is pretty minimal IMHO. Gerry is now bankable and that is the only reason he was cast in Coriolanus. I don't think Gerry's off screen behavior is any more colorful then yesterday's stars like Warren Beatty or Steve McQueen, in fact Gerry might be rather tame compared to those two. But his does have the challenge of trying to promote himself and his career in the midst of the digital age, the 24 hour media that never stops. That's something Beatty and McQueen never had to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gerry is NOT a gossip magnet! To me, he's a regular guy with a not-so-regular job that uses his money to help out the less fortunate. He doesn't want the attention except to his movies(not his personal life). I normally don't care for actors because most of them fall into the Hollyweird trap and spend all their time partying, driving while drunk, assaulting people, etc. When I became interested in Gerry back in March, I researched him and quickly realized he was not a typical celebrity at all. I've yet to read stories of him being a "diva" on movie sets(in fact, quite the opposite). His mom raised him right....I love Gerry just as he is and a proud fan. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this comes in the shape of gossip-magnet Gerard Butler

This is not the best way to get job offers. I would have preferred hearing the words, "enormous acting skills" or even "woman magnet" then "gossip magnet". Makes it sound like cheap, tab rag banter is the thing that makes him famous. I hope it's not getting to that point, however. I'm sure Gerry would prefer it differently, at least I hope he would.

Hollywood doesn't seem to care that much about talent and good story telling anymore except in the animations for some reason. It's about money, bottom line.

Delene

It has always been about money. Hollywood has NEVER changed. And gossip magnet

isn't a bad title for an actor, either. All of Hollywood's greatest actors have always

BEEN gossip magnets. That is the only way to get anywhere in Hollywood. The

more gossip, the more interest. It isn't bad gossip, it's ALL gossip in Hollywood

that makes the career. If you're not in the tabloids, it's because your career

is nowhere in tinsel town. Every GREAT actor in Hollywood has always been the

top gossip mag lead page of their career.

I'm always glad to see Gerry in the gossip columns. Hedda Hopper made and

broke stars in her column. It's all about publicity in Hollywood. People read

the gossip column and mags, and people go the movies or theaters to see the

actors in those columns and mags. That is even true with Broadway. Believe

me, I was in that business for a while and you are on top of the world when

you are the top story on any entertainment column or mag, you know you

have made it when you are the top "gossip magnet."

Face it, we all read every word written about Gerry. We may not like what

is written, and we may know it is false info, but we still eat it up, and we

are proud that the world wants to know about Gerry. We have all wanted

the world to know him and to know about his talent and charisma since the

very first time we saw him. We are all proud of him and his achievements and

we are all thrilled to see him recognized by the rest of the world. That is what

"gossip magnet" means. He is hot gossip. I love it.

Go Gerry. The world wants every picture and every tidbit of gossip about you.

You have made it.

Love him absolutely,

Sandy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy, I do think that some celebrities seem to thrive on the negative publicity which seems to make them more famous(Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan and the Kardashian sisters). Why can't someone create a magazine focusing on the good side of celebrities? I'd love to read about celebrities donating money and time to various causes instead of who has gained a pound or went out to a party without their underwear. There needs to be a change in Hollywood where more attention is focused on the good instead of the crap.

I love reading about our Gerry but I prefer it be truthful stories in real magazines instead of bs that is just that....

Just my two cents.... :2cents::gah:

Edited by Christine ONeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:whoa:

As a veteran of the public relations and marketing world I leave you with probably the oldest phrase as far as "getting there" goes...

"There is no such thing as bad publicity."

If they're talking about you, your name is out there.

And, really, the line about Gerry is only one line of a very long article. It's good that his name was mentioned. None of the other "hot" tickets, save Johnny Depp, were mentioned. The more his name is out there, the more recognition he's getting.

And really, if we think about it, how many times have you ever heard truly talented actors mentioned as "multi-faceted, talented" actors rather than hotties. Gerry's not being singled out, he's being recognized. Good for him.

His star continues to rise...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:wave:

Christine...you aren't being singled out, sweetie!

We all are especially sensitive to how "our man" gets treated out there in the big, bad world.

We want Gerry to get the respect WE know he deserves. Realistically, that doesn't happen much.

But still we hope!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I wasn't being singled out but upon reading my post, it did sound rather harsh. It's all good... :wave:

I love your siggie! :D

Edited by Christine ONeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you copied my post, Sandy, I'll respond to you and I have to disagree with some of what you said. I don't believe being considered a hot item for being a gossip magnet is a good way to get notoriety. It may open some doors, but it will close others. Sure, it brings attention to you for a while but maybe not in a good way and not the kind that sustains. Some of Gerry's latest movies have been considered flops by industry standards. That means he's being cast or offered roles because of all the wrong reasons.

Looks fade and sex appeal wanes. Talent sustains and if you're not noticed for you talent first and only noticed for your sex appeal, you're going to stop getting the good roles. I don't think Gerry wants to be considered just a sex symbol and heartthrob only. If he doesn't care, that would say something about his character, wouldn't it? That's why I think Gerry has tried to keep from getting type cast and done such a wide variety of things.

I'm not saying he's not a good actor, quite the contrary. I'm just saying that when you want to be taken seriously in your profession, you want to be good at it, maybe even one of the best, you also have to be serious. That gets you the good stuff. I don't belief for one minute RF cast Gerry because of his sex appeal. Perhaps if he wants to attract the female audience to a most likely violent and war ravaged movie, maybe that was his thinking. Coriolanus, albeit Shakepeare, sounds like more of a "guy" movie to me.

Bad publicity it just that, bad. Bad publicity can hurt you too. Remember the reaction to Tom Cruise's couch jumping session? People still haven't seemed to get past that, although I think what he did was nothing but just a silly exhibition, nothing more. His "publicity" more bad then good, with regards to his religious beliefs has seemed to do him more harm then anything else. He was dropped by a major studio. But I think Tom is a great actor, so he'll survive.

With bad publicity and gossip, you might stay in the limelight for a while because you've become a "curiosity" a "novelty" but eventually, people will tire of the antics and the gossip and move on. You've got to be recognized for your talents above all else.

I've heard many "bankable" actors being called "multi faceted and talented", even the one's considered hot. Meryl Streep is one that has been called that without being considered particularly hot. She's still working up in to her sixties. Dustin Hoffman was never a "hottie" but was very multi faceted as well as talented. Beatty and McQueen were mentioned as similar to Gerry's standard as far as reputation off screen. When was the last time Beatty did a movie? He was a hot ticket up until he married and settled down. What happened? McQueen was very talented and I don't remember much about his off screen life because I was young. If he were alive, he'd still be getting serious roles. In fact, Gerry reminds me a lot of Steve McQueen in many ways.

The problem comes when an actor's reputation enters a room before he does. And when I say "reputation" I mean not only the one he may create for himself, albeit inadvertently, but also the one that is built by the media and press usually because of it. If that is what Hollywood considers "bankable" then they don't know the movie going public as well as they think they do. There may be many of us who will go see Gerry in a movie, any movie and many times even if it's a stinker, just to see him, but he needs to build a fan base of both sexes and age groups based on his ability to enthrall people and bring them to the movies.

I feel that it is always better to be wanted and desired on your merit and skill as an actor rather than your tabloid reputation, real or supposed sexcapades and hotness factor.

I'm hoping Gerry has proven himself as a great dramatic actor with Coriolanus, like he has done before as in 300 and several of his other movies. I look forward to seeing it.

Delene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember before Coriolanus even started filming Variety or the Hollywood Reporter wrote about the project and that final financing didn't fall into place until Gerry signed on. When watching how Beowulf was filmed and the troubles finding money to pay salaries it is terrific that Gerry now has the clout to get projects filmed. I also enjoy the interview with him as he is changing clothes, after filming of Beowulf is over, where he implores the camera that he is now an out of work actor and would someone please hire him. How things have changed.

Edited by Lady Ski Bum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...