|
Post by rob49 on Apr 2, 2019 17:32:03 GMT -5
Most people would feel sorry for you, a bitter old woman, with nothing better to do in her life for the last 8 years but spend everyday attacking a young child from the time she was 10 years old. I don't feel sorry for you, because I KNOW what you are. Obviously, you don't. But I do understand that, from time to time, you seem to get some sort of strange, orgiastic pleasure out of flooding the screen with bile. It must relieve some sort of pressure that appears to build up over time. THAT coming from a bitter old hateful woman who has, for more than 8 years, spent hours everyday, posting nasty, mean spirited comments on numerous sites, attacking not only the child Jackie, but also her young siblings, her parents, and her fans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 18:16:37 GMT -5
Didn't he say that several young girls had previously interviewed for the part, but he didn't feel that they fit the role? Yes. It was because he said he didn't want a professional kid actor. So when he saw Jackie on AGT, at someone's recommendation, apparently, she had the persona he was looking for, so he asked them to shoot a screen test for him. Both Jackie and her mother said she was awful, but I guess Redford thought he could work with her. PLUS, never forget, although he was getting her at scale, AGT had given Jackie a burst of publicity and I suppose he thought that she would be a cut rate help in getting people in the theater seats. Julia, you started this discussion under "Mistakes", but I've seen no point to it. Just an attempt to diminish Jackie's credibility as a 12 year old 7 years later. It was fortunate for Jackie having been discovered by R. Redford to play a role in his movie. That may be insignificant, and too much having been made of it in your view. But, that was one of many credits to Jackie's history of achievements at that age, which of course she will never forget, nor many of us who felt proud for her. Is there a purpose to belaboring your less than proud perspective?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 18:40:24 GMT -5
Yes. It was because he said he didn't want a professional kid actor. So when he saw Jackie on AGT, at someone's recommendation, apparently, she had the persona he was looking for, so he asked them to shoot a screen test for him. Both Jackie and her mother said she was awful, but I guess Redford thought he could work with her. PLUS, never forget, although he was getting her at scale, AGT had given Jackie a burst of publicity and I suppose he thought that she would be a cut rate help in getting people in the theater seats. Julia, you started this discussion under "Mistakes", but I've seen no point to it. Just an attempt to diminish Jackie's credibility as a 12 year old 7 years later. It was fortunate for Jackie having been discovered by R. Redford to play a role in his movie. That may be insignificant, and too much having been made of it in your view. But, that was one of many credits to Jackie's history of achievements at that age, which of course she will never forget, nor many of us who felt proud for her. Is there a purpose to belaboring your less than proud perspective? Unfortunately, at least for now when it comes to movie making, Hollywood was one and done with Jackie. Seeing that some in here have no issues posting all of those pictures and videos from JE's early days, anything seems to be fair game now. "The Company You Keep" definitely falls into those early career days for Jackie. By all means Julia, please carry on...
|
|
|
Post by geb on Apr 2, 2019 18:41:36 GMT -5
As can be expected, people do not know what a box office "bomb" really is. Box office receipts are only a piece of the revenue streams of a movie. It is a pretty rare movie that will get to breakeven from box office receipts alone. In very simplistic terms, the general rule is that the value of a film property is about 3 to 4 times the box office receipts. So that places the value of "The Company You Keep" at roughly $58.9 to $78.5 million. So what costs need to be paid from this pot? 1. Pre-production 2. Production 3. Post-production 4. Promotional costs which typically include film festivals for Independent films 5. Prints and ads 6. Domestic theater fees 7. Domestic and foreign distribution fees 8. Rights selling fees for TV 9. Rights selling fees for video 10. Rights selling fees for ancillary What does this all mean? A movie can still make some money even though it may "bomb" at the box office. The term "bomb" is a relative term. Does a movie really "bomb" if when all the smoke has cleared it either financially broke even or possibly made a few million dollars? Many Independent filmmakers would be ecstatic to have one of their films do $19.6 million in worldwide box office receipts. That is because they know that they would make a decent income plus be able to get follow-on money for their next film project. Roughly 2% to 4% of films released are "hits" where the majors dominate in that regard. A much smaller percentage of Independently made films are "hits". It is quite rare that an Independent film like the 2017 film "Get Out" that had a production budget of $4.5 million will even do 5% of the $255,407,663 worldwide box office this film did. www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=blumhouse2.htmA major studio film could be considered a "bomb" such as Disney's "John Carter" even though it had $284,139,100 worldwide revenues which is almost $30 million more than what the "hit" Independent film "Get Out" did. Why? Well Disney's film cost $250 million to make while "Get Out" cost less than $5 million. www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=johncarterofmars.htmIt is all relative to the overall financials and not necessarily what the box office is. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Side Note: In this time of Easter, the number one Independent film of all time is "The Passion of the Christ" which was made for $30 million and had worldwide box office revenues of $611,899,420. This film is still the number one R-rated film of all time for US box office. www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=passionofthechrist.htmAll major studios refused to distribute the film. So Mel Gibson cut a deal to essentially self-distribute. My friend working with Mel came up with the concept of using guerilla marketing tactics involving an early form of social media utilizing short video promos targeted to religious groups. This resulted in big pre-sales. That film is worth roughly $1.5 to $2 billion and Mel owned a good chunk of it. The film became a good chunk of Mel's reported $425 million worth. A film like "The Passion of the Christ" or "Get Out" are the Holy Grails of Independent filmmakers. Look at Woody Allen. His number one box office film was "Midnight in Paris" which only did $56,817,045 in US box office. The 44 films he directed only averaged $13,440,927 in US box office and $19,868,182 in worldwide box office (not inflation adjusted). Notice that Woody Allen's worldwide average is almost the same that "The Company You Keep" did. And what is Woody Allen's reported worth? Try $80 million. www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=woodallen.htmSo, as noted earlier, a "bomb" or a "hit" film is relative.
|
|
|
Post by msims on Apr 2, 2019 19:08:43 GMT -5
So, WME somewhat gets to pick and choose who they bring on board!? So, throwing a ton of $$$$$$$$$$$$$ at them isn't always enough to hire them!? LOL. Talent in Hollywood would do anything (and probably have) to get taken on by WME or any of their 2 or 3 peers. The only reason they took Jackie in the first place is because Columbia was backing her for her first three records after her debut and they hoped that celebrity would sell her for other things. But when her minor part in the Redford and friends movie apparently, didn't impress movie producers enough to get her other offers, they dropped her. You created this story. Redford does not do numerous takes and said so. There was no budget.
|
|
|
Post by msims on Apr 2, 2019 19:13:18 GMT -5
LOL Right Julia. I heard they needed to do THREE DOZEN or more takes for every one of Jackie's scenes. LOL No you didn't, nor did I. OTOH, neither was she one-take Jackie. Jackie or Lisa said, later, that Redford took extra time with her, explaining what he wanted before he shot and then re-doing the scene until he got it. He was only paying "scale" so he could afford the extra time. Nope.
|
|
|
Post by msims on Apr 2, 2019 19:17:29 GMT -5
Julia, you started this discussion under "Mistakes", but I've seen no point to it. Just an attempt to diminish Jackie's credibility as a 12 year old 7 years later. It was fortunate for Jackie having been discovered by R. Redford to play a role in his movie. That may be insignificant, and too much having been made of it in your view. But, that was one of many credits to Jackie's history of achievements at that age, which of course she will never forget, nor many of us who felt proud for her. Is there a purpose to belaboring your less than proud perspective? Unfortunately, at least for now when it comes to movie making, Hollywood was one and done with Jackie. Seeing that some in here have no issues posting all of those pictures and videos from JE's early days, anything seems to be fair game now. "The Company You Keep" definitely falls into those early career days for Jackie. By all means Julia, please carry on... [Julia is just doing what she’s done for numerous years, create soap operas. No evidence that Hollywood was done with her (she didn’t pursue it) and it makes no sense why you joined a fan forum and fb group. Move on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 20:23:19 GMT -5
Obviously, you don't. But I do understand that, from time to time, you seem to get some sort of strange, orgiastic pleasure out of flooding the screen with bile. It must relieve some sort of pressure that appears to build up over time. THAT coming from a bitter old hateful woman who has, for more than 8 years, spent hours everyday, posting nasty, mean spirited comments on numerous sites, attacking not only the child Jackie, but also her young siblings, her parents, and her fans. I have not always agreed with Julia's posts and how some have been a bit harsh concerning Jackie / family / et-el but the attack on her post that is currently being targeted is not really justified. I believe that her post concerning Jackie, Robert R. and the movie were quite factual and fairly coincides with my recollections of interviews and comments made in the past. I also gained an understanding of how things work in the industry that were either unknown to me or not clearly understood.
Labelling Julia as a troll is one thing but some of the other rude & crude descriptions were simply not warranted; especially when her post did not poke anyone here personally in the eye.
|
|
|
Post by rob49 on Apr 2, 2019 20:35:51 GMT -5
THAT coming from a bitter old hateful woman who has, for more than 8 years, spent hours everyday, posting nasty, mean spirited comments on numerous sites, attacking not only the child Jackie, but also her young siblings, her parents, and her fans. I have not always agreed with Julia's posts and how some have been a bit harsh concerning Jackie / family / et-el but the attack on her post that is currently being targeted is not really justified. I believe that her post concerning Jackie, Robert R. and the movie were quite factual and fairly coincides with my recollections of interviews and comments made in the past. I also gained an understanding of how things work in the industry that were either unknown to me or not clearly understood.
Labelling Julia as a troll is one thing but some of the other rude & crude descriptions were simply not warranted; especially when her post did not poke anyone here personally in the eye.
The average troll is an OTT fan, compared to Julia.
|
|
|
Post by msims on Apr 2, 2019 22:52:08 GMT -5
THAT coming from a bitter old hateful woman who has, for more than 8 years, spent hours everyday, posting nasty, mean spirited comments on numerous sites, attacking not only the child Jackie, but also her young siblings, her parents, and her fans. I have not always agreed with Julia's posts and how some have been a bit harsh concerning Jackie / family / et-el but the attack on her post that is currently being targeted is not really justified. I believe that her post concerning Jackie, Robert R. and the movie were quite factual and fairly coincides with my recollections of interviews and comments made in the past. I also gained an understanding of how things work in the industry that were either unknown to me or not clearly understood.
Labelling Julia as a troll is one thing but some of the other rude & crude descriptions were simply not warranted; especially when her post did not poke anyone here personally in the eye.
Gordy, Your recollection is just not good as she’s not accurate and has always had trouble with the truth. Trolling is negativity. It’s giving people an inaccurate impression that isn’t there for example her career is failing which five years ago she believed that. Women are a lot more passive aggressive. She happens to be a fan of another artist who competes with Jackie as well which drives her agenda.
|
|
|
Post by rob49 on Apr 3, 2019 6:57:22 GMT -5
You are a liar, and worse.
|
|
|
Post by Willyiam on Apr 3, 2019 9:04:00 GMT -5
You are a liar, and worse. You are a lying OTT. Will Admin please take care of this!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 3, 2019 9:14:07 GMT -5
Will Admin please take care of this! I have about had it with the name calling. Rob49 and Cer you know who you are. If you keep it up you will be gone.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Apr 3, 2019 10:17:11 GMT -5
Will Admin please take care of this! I have about had it with the name calling. Rob49 and Cer you know who you are. If you keep it up you will be gone. Cer is not the problem here Rick, it's Rob49 who is with his constant attack and name calling of posters who have all the rights to post their own opinions, not the party line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2019 10:24:30 GMT -5
Great point JB. My mistake is I allow Rob to get under my skin, so I respond in kind. I'm done with him. :-)
|
|