Actress on esurance commercial

Quetzalli_Bulnes

2021.11.19 14:21 igotthehookup1 Quetzalli_Bulnes

Mexican actress and model known for her role as Alicia Requejo on the show Señora Acero. She's done commercial modeling for brands like Ibizious. No leaks
[link]


2021.05.28 14:00 Marathonracer JanhviKapoorFc

Janhvi Kapoor, a rising star in Bollywood, is known for her captivating performances and charismatic presence. Born on March 6, 1997, in Mumbai, she is the daughter of the legendary actress Sridevi. Janhvi made her film debut in 2018 with the critically acclaimed "Dhadak." Her ability to portray a range of emotions with depth has quickly made her a fan favorite. Janhvi continues to charm audiences, showcasing her talent in both commercial and experimental cinema.
[link]


2020.02.18 17:40 Ishihara_Satomi SatomiIshihara

Satomi Ishihara (石原 さとみ, Ishihara Satomi), is a Japanese actress from Tokyo. Satomi Ishihara was born in 1986 on December 24. Her agency is HoriPro. Popular among Japanese fans, she gained recognition for her acting talent. She started taking parts acting in television dramas in 2003. Satomi Ishihara appeared in various commercial events also known as public relations. Printed materials such as photobooks, DVD photo collections and calendars are available.
[link]


2024.05.21 06:34 Rough_Presence_6514 feedback on my first english acting reel! :)

https://reddit.com/link/1cwzjph/video/l6rzl7tckp1d1/player
I'm a bilingual newbie actress, and lately i've been working more on my english acting rather than my spanish one, which i've worked on most 2022/2023. So far I've only done theater, some minor roles in student short films and the odd commercial, so I'm trying to move a lot into film/TV acting.
All opinions/feedbacks are accepted!!!
submitted by Rough_Presence_6514 to acting [link] [comments]


2024.05.20 21:45 enoumen A Daily chronicle of AI Innovations May 20 2024:🫠 🎤OpenAI pauses Scarlett Johansson-like voice for ChatGPT 💸 Snapchat focuses on AI with $1.5 billion yearly investment 🍏Apple and OpenAI plan major announcement at WWDC 🤖OpenAI’s “superalignment team,” focused on the AI risks, is no more

A Daily chronicle of AI Innovations May 20th 2024:

🫠 Google's AI panic looks like Google+ fiasco
🎤 OpenAI pauses Scarlett Johansson-like voice for ChatGPT 💸 Snapchat focuses on AI with $1.5 billion yearly investment
🍏 Apple and OpenAI plan major announcement at WWDC
🤖 OpenAI's "superalignment team," focused on the AI risks, is no more
🚫 Sony Music warns over 700 AI companies not to steal its content 🦎 Meta's Chameleon AI sets a new bar in mixed-modal reasoning

Enjoying these daily updates, listen to our AI Unraveled Podcast at https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/ai-unraveled-latest-ai-news-trends-gpt-gemini-generative/id1684415169

🫠 Google's AI panic looks like Google+ fiasco

Scott Jenson, a former Google employee, criticizes the company's AI projects as poorly motivated and driven by panic, comparing the situation to the Google+ fiasco. According to Jenson, Google aims to create a Jarvis-like assistant to keep users within its ecosystem, driven by fear that competitors might get there first, similar to Apple’s strategy with Siri and OpenAI. Many of Google's AI projects revealed at I/O 2024 are still experimental or limited in availability, with uncertain value, and features like "AI Overviews" in Google Search have received criticism for potential copyright issues and misinformation.
Source: https://the-decoder.com/ex-googler-says-companys-ai-panic-is-like-google-fiasco-all-over-again/

🎤 OpenAI pauses Scarlett Johansson-like voice for ChatGPT

OpenAI is pulling the ChatGPT voice known as Sky, which sounds similar to Scarlett Johansson, due to concerns about mimicking celebrities' voices. The company asserts that Sky's voice is the natural voice of a different professional actress and not an intentional imitation of Johansson. The decision to pause Sky's use follows recent enhancements to ChatGPT's voice mode, part of the new GPT-4o model, which aims to make the assistant more expressive and capable of reading facial expressions and translating spoken language in real-time.
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/20/24160621/openai-chatgpt-gpt4o-sky-scarlett-johansson-voice-assistant-her

💸 Snapchat focuses on AI with $1.5 billion yearly investment

Snap's CEO, Evan Spiegel, announced a major investment of $1.5 billion annually in AI and machine learning to improve Snapchat's features and competitiveness. After successfully revamping Snapchat's advertising model, the company will now focus on collaborating with tech giants like Amazon and Google for cloud partnerships to enhance AI product innovations. With growing ad revenue and new successful ad campaigns, Snapchat plans to expand content offerings and augmented reality experiences, enhancing user engagement and competing with platforms like TikTok.
Source: https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/science/snapchat-ceo-announces-shift-toward-ai-investment/story

🍏 Apple and OpenAI plan major announcement at WWDC

Apple and OpenAI plan major announcement at WWDC Apple and OpenAI plan major announcement at WWDC[/caption] Apple and OpenAI are planning a major joint announcement at WWDC, focusing on integrating OpenAI's technology into iOS 18, according to Mark Gurman from Bloomberg. Apple aims to improve its AI capabilities with this integration, including enhancements to Siri and features like automatic summaries of notifications and transcription of voice memos. While Apple acknowledges it is behind in AI and lacks a chatbot like ChatGPT or Google Gemini, the company believes the collaboration with OpenAI is a sufficient, though temporary, solution. Source OpenAI's "superalignment team," focused on the AI risks, is no more
The team's co-leads, Ilya Sutskever and Jan Leike, have resigned from OpenAI. Several other researchers from the team and those working on AI policy and governance have also left the company. Leike cited disagreements with OpenAI's leadership about the company's priorities and resource allocation as reasons for his departure. Source:
The team's work will be absorbed into OpenAI's other research efforts, with John Schulman leading research on risks associated with more powerful models.
Why does this matter?
The "superalignment" team was for ensuring the artificial general intelligence (AGI) that OpenAI claims to be working on doesn't turn on humankind. This dismantling raises questions on the company's commitment to AI safety and ethical standards.
Source: https://the-decoder.com/apple-and-openai-plan-major-announcement-at-wwdc/

Sony Music warns over 700 AI companies not to steal its content

Sony Music, home to superstars like Billy Joel and Doja Cat, sent letters to over 700 AI companies and streaming platforms, warning them against using its content without permission. The label called out the "training, development, or commercialization of AI systems" that use copyrighted material, including music, art, and lyrics.
SMG recognizes AI's potential but stresses the need to respect songwriters' and artists' rights. The letter asks companies to confirm they haven't used SMG content without permission or provide details if they have.
Why does this matter?
The battle over music copyright and AI has intensified across various platforms, from YouTube's strict rules for AI-generated music to the recent standoff between Universal Music Group and TikTok. As AI voice clones and music generation tools become more sophisticated, artists question control, compensation, and actions against copyright infringement.
Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/sony-music-group-warns-700-companies-using-content-train-ai-rcna152689

Meta's Chameleon AI sets a new bar in mixed-modal reasoning

Meta AI introduces Chameleon, a family of early-fusion token-based mixed-modal models that understands and generates images and text in any order. Unlike recent foundation models that process text and images separately, Chameleon unified token space allows it to process interleaved image and text sequences.This approach allows seamless reasoning and generation across modalities.
Meta's Chameleon AI sets a new bar in mixed-modal reasoning Meta's Chameleon AI sets a new bar in mixed-modal reasoning[/caption] Meta researchers introduced architectural enhancements and training techniques to tackle the optimization challenges posed by this early fusion approach, including a novel image tokenizer, QK-Norm, dropout, and z-loss regularization. Remarkably, Chameleon achieves competitive or superior performance across various tasks, outperforming larger models like Flamingo-80B and IDEFICS-80B in image captioning and visual question answering despite its smaller model size.
Why does this matter?
Chameleon opens up new possibilities for more natural and intuitive human-machine interactions, similar to how we effortlessly communicate using both modalities in the real world.
Source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.09818

Trending AI Tools May 20th 2024:

✍️ Paperpal - AI writing assistant offering grammar checks, paraphrasing, predictive text, and plagiarism detection. Use code RUN30 for 30% off* https://paperpal.com/
🗣️ ElevenLabs Audio Native - Add human-like narration to your blog or news site https://supertools.therundown.ai/content/eleven-labs
💻 Framer - Generate a responsive website with no code
🚀 Glitter - Turn any process into a step-by-step guide https://supertools.therundown.ai/content/glitter-a
⚡TestSprite Beta - Automate end-to-end software testing with AI https://supertools.therundown.ai/content/testsprite-beta
🤖 Buffup - AI assistant that learns your intent, powered by GPT-4o https://supertools.therundown.ai/content/buffup

New AI Job Opportunities on May 20th 2024:

🧱 Databricks - Director, Field Engineering https://jobs.therundown.ai/jobs/60342628-director-field-engineering
🖥️ Palantir - Web Application Developer https://jobs.therundown.ai/jobs/60275738-web-application-developer-defense
♾️ Meta - GenAI Program Manager https://jobs.therundown.ai/jobs/60281023-genai-program-manager
🏋️ Weights & Biases - Software Engineer, Engineering Productivity https://jobs.therundown.ai/jobs/60198936-software-engineer-engineering-productivity-remote

What Else Is Happening in AI on May 20th 2024❗

🤖 Google launched open-source Model Explore to visualize and debug complex AI models
It uses advanced graphics rendering techniques from the gaming industry to handle massive models. The tool offers a graphical user interface and a Python API for integration into machine learning workflows. Model Explorer lets developers identify and resolve issues quickly, especially for AI deployed on edge devices. (Link: https://venturebeat.com/ai/google-launches-model-explorer-an-open-source-tool-for-seamless-ai-model-visualization-and-debugging )
🇬🇧 The UK's AI Safety Institute is opening an office in San Francisco
The institute aims to be closer to the epicenter of AI development, companies like OpenAI and Google as they are building foundational models. This new office would open this summer, giving the UK access to Silicon Valley's tech talent and strengthening ties with the US. (Link: https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/19/uk-opens-office-in-san-francisco-to-tackle-ai-risk )
📂 The EU demands Microsoft to provide internal documents on Bing's gen AI risks
The Commission suspects Bing may have breached the Digital Services Act (DSA) due to risks like AI "hallucinations," deep fakes, and potential voter manipulation. Microsoft has until May 27 to comply with the legally binding request for information. Failure to do so could result in fines of up to 1% of Microsoft's total annual income or worldwide turnover. (Link: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscornedetail/en/mex_24_2681 )
📸 Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel focuses on AI and ML for better UX and personalization
As its ad revenue increases, Snap plans to expand content offerings, improve recommendation algorithms, and integrate Stories with Spotlight. The company is also investing in augmented reality and sees it as a way to bring people together in shared physical environments. (Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-19/snap-ceo-evan-spiegel-focused-on-ai-machine-learning-push )
😏 Researchers in the Netherlands have developed an AI sarcasm detector
The AI was trained on text, audio, and emotional content from US sitcoms, including Friends and The Big Bang Theory. The AI could detect sarcasm in unlabeled exchanges nearly 75% of the time. Further improvements could come from adding visual cues to the AI's training data. (Link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/16/researchers-build-ai-driven-sarcasm-detector )
Enjoying these updates, check out our Apple Podcast at https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/ai-unraveled-latest-ai-news-trends-gpt-gemini-generative/id1684415169
submitted by enoumen to u/enoumen [link] [comments]


2024.05.20 14:15 neurotic95 Reflections on leaving the industry

Like many of you, I had wanted to be a performer since I was a toddler. While my parents were struggling to support us, TV raised my brother and me. Stories got me through bullying, s*xual abuse, and witnessing my dad’s cancer journey. I went to school for journalism to appease my parents but wanted to major in either film or acting like some of my friends did. I always told myself I’d become an actor later.
It wasn’t until I received an award for one of my short screenplays in college that I thought I was ready. A big producer who was an alumni from my college called me and said he couldn’t put my script down as he was on his way to set. That year I also performed in a stage play. Everything felt like it was falling into place.
I worked corporate but paid for evening acting classes wherever I could. I devoured everything: voice, movement, scene study, techniques, on-camera, improv, etc. from reputable studios and conservatories in NYC. I moved to NYC! I was meeting industry people! I was invigorated! My friends back home were all rooting for me on social media.
Pounding the pavement was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done. Suddenly I understood why my parents told me not to pursue this dream, why people said “if you can see yourself do anything else, do that.”
My focus shifted from acting after I lost one of my corporate jobs. An actor friend told me I should be a server, as he didn’t understand how I could work a 9-5 and call myself an actor.
I worked grueling hours in restaurants and in catering, living for the moments I got to serve celebrities. Unfortunately, I was never a great server and found that line of work wholly unsustainable for me. I eventually worked for a celebrity chef and performed decently enough to get consistent shifts. But I was too exhausted to audition and to be on top of my craft. The auditions I did turn in were rushed and uninspired. I got called in for a reading thanks to a friend who was connected with one of the directors and botched it because I didn’t memorize my lines.
A more insidious thing transpired the longer I pursued this path, though. I became consumed with the idea of “catching up” to my peers. I had to be prettier, skinnier, funnier, more talented. My instagram needed more engagement so casting directors could find me. I compared myself to an old friend who was ten years ahead of me and fell down the rabbit hole of crash dieting and trying to be an influencer just like she did because she found some commercial success. I tried modeling, partaking in risqué photoshoots and semi-pornographic music videos just to get seen. I stopped going to the improv group I was a part of, a place that gave me opportunities to perform live, instead spending my time with scumbags who would promise me opportunities that never came.
As a mixed race Asian actress, I didn’t believe there would be enough opportunities for me. So I became transfixed on “networking” and improving my appearance. That same actor friend who told me to become a server would get invited to exclusive parties with industry folks; I wanted to be one of them. He asked if I’d sleep with him, and I did — also hoping he would connect me with his friends. He didn’t.
I slept with a directoactor who courted me, again promising me screenwriting, directing, and acting opportunities. He wanted to produce one of my scripts! I thought I loved him, but really I just loved what he was offering me. And of course, nothing came of this relationship.
I was living paycheck to paycheck, barely affording rent. The more industry people I met, the more obsessed I became with maintaining a place in this world. If only I made the right partnerships, then I could make up for all the lost time I spent not being an actor. I was spinning my wheels, embroiled in drama, and my relationship with my loved ones was fracturing as I became someone they didn’t even recognize. I lived for my petty little Instagram presence, where I amassed a following and nurtured parasocial relationships. Directors and photographers I wanted to work with would follow me back. As long as they did, I believed this “method” was working. Meanwhile, I barely participated in acting school and was constantly missing class. One of my teachers became so worried about me and my mental health that she’d text me everyday.
I worked a part-time admin job that was actually a great opportunity for me to pickup some skills, yet I was completely ungrateful. I lied to my boss constantly, slacked off, and dropped the ball many times. The work ethic I was once so proud of was nonexistent. I became a glorified party girl parading as an actress. I told myself I lived for a higher purpose, for art, but in truth I lost all scruples and was looking for shortcuts to success.
Things got worse and I’ve already rambled enough. But eventually I moved back home with my parents because my dad’s cancer returned. He underwent a major surgery that resulted in him developing a rare condition, requiring around the clock care from my brother, mom and me. I don’t regret going home to care for him, but leaving the whirlwind of a life I had behind was hard to accept.
Months into caregiving, a friend I had worked with asked me if I’d like to audition as the lead for a short film she was producing. Some actors I recognized would be in it. How exciting! Well, the part was given to someone who had way more experience (and followers) than me. I felt the same intrusive thoughts creep in, “is it because she’s prettier, white, skinnier?” But I put those aside. They asked me to be a part of the ensemble instead and I was happy for that.
I flew to NYC for a week and shooting was magnificent. Getting into hair & makeup and costume was thrilling. I loved working with the other actors. And meeting an actor I had watched since I was a child left me in shock. I couldn’t help but be starstruck.
The director gave great feedback on my performance and I felt proud of myself. But then people started asking me why I left NYC, when I’d come back, what my next moves were. I found myself spiraling in my grandfather’s apartment, because I just could not keep up. I was flying back to California, but it wasn’t LA. At home I would not be near any film industries. And at home my life would not be content worthy. The paper-thin brand I cultivated on social media could not be maintained. My trip was cut short because my dad relapsed and it was back to reality.
In the months that followed, I did some real soul searching and it was one of the most painful chapters I’ve endured. As I began to pick up the pieces of my life, I realized that my relationship with acting was untenable and extremely damaging to me. I was using it as a means to escape feelings of inferiority. What started out as a genuine love and appreciation for the art warped into a vain attempt at fame and recognition, at feeling loved.
Most of my industry connections have since atrophied and I deactivated my Instagram over six months ago as it became too painful to see everyone move on to accomplish things I never could. One friend from NYC, a model and writer, encourages me to keep trying but I don’t believe professional acting is for this lifetime. I’m almost 30 and quite frankly I’m prioritizing my family and my stability. I never expected my wants to change, but they did. But who knows, maybe someday…
I say all this, at the expense of incurring internet scrutiny and judgment, as a cautionary tale. I believe most of you are serious about acting and understand the sacrifices required. But for those of you who suffer from any sort of dysmorphia or unhealed trauma, be sure you have strong support networks in place while you pursue this endeavor. It’s a highly volatile career path and you truly have to be addicted to the process in order to succeed. Upon further reflection, I realized I was not one of those people.
If any of you have left the industry, I’d love to hear from you. It’s been hard reconciling the last 6+ years and a broken dream. But I will always love acting and movies. I read the posts in this thread and am rooting for all of you.
submitted by neurotic95 to acting [link] [comments]


2024.05.20 13:15 MirkWorks Excerpts from Beautiful Fighting Girls by Saito Tamaki (Chapter 6 The Emergence of the Phallic Girls) II

High Context
Expression takes many forms. In this book I have interpreted the word media in a broad sense and treated each form of expression that I have discussed as an independent medium. What, then, is the reason for the existence of multiple media like manga, anime, and film? Are these simply multiple forms for mediating the same reality? Not at all. Multiple media exist in order to support multiple fictions. We clearly perceive the form of a particular expression at the same time as we take in its content. The various media function as a kind of context, or a transparent and continuous totality that attaches meaning to content. In this instance the media themselves attain their own unique contextuality. For example, we are not in the least confused if a heroine who breaks down in tears in a television drama suddenly appears smiling in a commercial during the break. This is because it is very easy for us to shift instantaneously between the context of the drama and the commercial.
In an earlier work I referred to this idea of the unique contextuality of each medium as the “representation context,” in order to use it in a more limited sense. This is because it is possible to use the media form itself as a form of representation. As I explained in chapter 1, my use of the term context is based chiefly on a combination of the ideas of G. Bateson and E. T. Hall, which I Have also explained in greater detail elsewhere. For our purposes here, it is possible to understand the contexts contributing to expression as existing in hierarchical strata. In the case of manga, the first context level is that of the narrative that gives meaning to the characters’ actions. Above that is the genre of the narrative - the expressive context that determines whether it is to be taken seriously or as a gag. The representational context is one level above this. Or, if we order them from top down, the process by which we understand the content of a manga can be understood as a hierarchical series of stages beginning with the work’s representational context (manga), proceeding to its expressive context (genre), on to the narrative context, and finally to the comprehension of the content. Of course, in actual fact we have to admit that this sort of hierarchy is ultimately not valid. It goes without saying that content and context exist in a relationship based on simultaneous and mutual corroboration. Therefore I should emphasize that the notion of representation context serves only for convenience of description and is not in any sense an isolatable object.
It is possible, for example, to think of visual media in the order of their dependence on representational contextuality. Contextuality in this case refers to the degree to which the form of expression itself determines the context expressed. In order of descending contextuality, then, we have anime, manga, television, film, and photographs. The statement “I saw a photograph,” for example, conveys no meaning on its own. But the statement “I saw an anime” evokes a relatively concrete image in the listener’s mind. This is because the anime form restricts the range of content much more than does the photograph. In other words, anime has the highest level of contextuality and photography the lowest. Here I follow Hall in calling this the “high context” nature of anime. In general, we can say that more popular forms of expression tend to be higher context (as in the difference between classical and popular music). In visual media, the less information conveyed on the screen, the higher the context (this being the difference between television and film). Thus “cool” media (with low levels of detail) tend toward higher context.
Let us think more concretely about the high-context nature of anime and manga. We have already established that form and content are intricately connected in both. In the case of these expressive forms, we can easily makes guesses about the content and authorship even of works that we know nothing about. Even a single frame of the work will be enough to tell us the genre, the orientation of the content, and sometimes even the identity of the author. Moreover, the instantaneous switching between the “gag” and “serious” modes that would be unthinkable in film but forms part of the grammar of anime (its so-called yakusoku [conventions]) can be explained only on the basis of this high-context nature.
I think of high context as the sensibility that emerges when there is no sense of distance between the producer and the consumer of a given media form . Once we immerse ourselves in this high-context space, the meaning of all stimuli is grasped instantaneously. Inevitably, emotional codes are more easily transmitted here than verbal ones. This high-density transmissibility enables extremely high levels of concentration and absorption.
Intersubjective Mediation, or Media Theory
Based on what I have said above, we can identify the difference between film and anime or manga first in terms of contextuality.
Is this the place for us to move to a discussion of media theory? Is the desire for the beautiful fighting girls a sign of an internal transformation, an “implosion” and extension brought on by our contemporary media environment? In some senses this may be true, but in others it is certainly not.
The development of the media environment has in fact partly transformed the structure of our society. The development of the mass media industry itself is one manifestation of this transformation. Its influence on the economy and on education has, of course, been enormous. But to what extent does this transformation penetrate our inner worlds?
In clinical terms there has not been the slightest structural transformation. The structure of our neurotic subjectivity remains intact, just as Freud discovered it a century ago. If asked to prove this, most analysts would say that it is not their role to offer general proofs of anything. This, too, has not changed in a hundred years. Analysts can speak about the truth. But, or perhaps therefore, they cannot prove what is true. But, or perhaps therefore, they cannot prove what is true. To say that the structure of the subject is intact is to say that the structure of desire has been maintained. What needs to be emphasized here is that, in order for the structure of desire to be maintained, the object of desire must constantly change. If the object of our desire looks different than it did a hundred years ago, this is only a change in appearance that results from the continual maintenance that we as subjects have performed on the structure of that desire. Yes, the development of media has brought about an outward change, a superficial change in the objects of our desire.
From this we can derive at least two psychoanalytic hypotheses. If we use Lacan’s divisions, the stability of the subject denotes primarily the stability of the relationality between the Symbolic and the Real. Moreover, the internal transformation that Marshall McLuhan referred to as “implosion” can be considered mainly as having emerged as a change on the level of form in the Imaginary. Herein lies one of the thorniest difficulties of media theory. If voice and writing are themselves already forms of media, what exactly have modern media been able to add to the equation? The transformation of the subject in the Imaginary can always make it seem as if nothing has happened. As long as this is the case, the appearance of media theory will remain in the always-awaited future, and its conclusions will only continue to be deferred.
But perhaps there is something to be gained nonetheless by taking a detour here and considering the mutual operations of the media environment and the Imaginary. The development of media is clearly most striking in the visual realm. Already we are able in principle to see any sort of image whatsoever. If we so desire, we can also keep large numbers of images in our possession on a computer hard drive. There is no little significance in the fact that, as is so apparent in the case of the ever-increasing functionality of the personal computer, it has become very easy for us not just to preserve but to reproduce, manipulate, and transmit visual information about all sorts of experiences. Our imaginary has been dramatically expanded and accelerated by the media, or extended through “implosion.”
The diversification of methods of mediation has had a number of effects. One of these is the potential impoverishment of content and form. As was clear in the case of the beautiful fighting girls, the narratives in a diversified media environment are surprisingly similar to each other. As I pointed out in chapter 5, there are hundreds of examples of the beautiful fighting girl genre, but only thirteen story lines. From the 1990s on, no new story lines emerged, and new works were simply rearrangements of old ones. In this case at least, we can say that, while the diversification of media may contribute to the outward diversification of the works, we need to be aware of the possibility that it encourages the involution of the genre as a whole.
The more information is exchanged, the more redundancies there are and the more monotonous it becomes . For example, now that communication by personal computer has become the norm, people read and perhaps write enormous amounts of text every day . As a result, we see developing a common “computer style” of writing that is excellent for transmitting information but extremely limited in its capacity for description and definition. The impoverishment of visual information is most evident in the spread of anime-style images.
So what is this about? Increasing the level of detail or rendering movement more subtly in anime would take exponentially more money and time. But of course these luxuries are not always possible. On the other hand, too much abbreviation reduces the images to mere signs and makes for a very dreary representation (like the Saturday morning cartoons in the United States, where the only facial movements are blinking eyes and opening and closing mouths). The solution to the problem in Japan was, I believe, the introduction of the “big eyes and small mouth” that has become the tradition in Japanese anime.
The only parts of a manga that cannot be drawn by assistants are the face, and particularly the eyes, of the main characters. The author’s style appears in its most concentrated form in the facial expression and the eyes. The shortcut technique that resulted from this was to divide up the drawing of the background among assistants and make the characters like simple signs. This made possible the division of labor. Then, to avoid making the characters too much like mere signs, the facial expression, particularly the eyes, and the hands are drawn with great care. Among all the human organs, these occupy the position closest to the grammatical subject. Drawing the eyes and hands with special care has the same value as inserting text. Or, to put it the other way around, as long as the eyes and hands are carefully drawn, the rest can be abbreviated. Then one can add more facial expressions and make them more complex with manpu. This procedure enables the streamlining of the production process while also effectively communicating a wide variety of subtle emotional codes, making it easy for the viewer to identify emotionally. This is likely the origin of the too-large eyes and tiny mouth that Westerners so often point out in Japanese manga and anime. The anime image is the result of a sophisticated technique that enables a maximum of communication with a minimum of lines.
One noticeable trend in recent years, which may have to do mostly with keeping costs down, is that even as the images are drawn with greater and greater sophistication of design and coloration, they tend to move much less. The appearance of movement is skillfully produced by blurring the image, using flashes of lights, and bank sequences [19*. Bank sequences, or Bankukatto, are sequences of animation that can be used repeatedly, such as when a heroine is transforming or assuming a decisive pose.], but on closer inspection there is actually very little movement. The impact of “anime images” results from drawings so refined that this sort of thing no longer appears unnatural. Moreover, because there is no need for the drawings to be particularly intricate, they can be easily digitized, which makes it possible to transfer them into a computer game without altering them. This style of drawing, which is devoid of texture and consists only of fine lines and surfaces, helps smooth the flow of the so-called media mix as the images are transplanted from comics to anime to film, games, figurines, and toys.
The space of manga and anime has introduced easily shareable code systems into our Imaginary. This shareability, in turn, introduces elements of polymorphous perversion into that space. As a result, in the 1980s we first became aware of a very important fact, namely, that even the objects of our sexuality were shareable through the mediation of manga and anime. This realization led to the explosive growth of sexualized images in this space. Of course, the wholesome notion that manga and anime are basically for children exists even now. But even this constraint was converted into a useful technique. Depicting sex in a context that is for children almost inevitably produces undifferentiated, which to say polymorphously perverse, effects. <also, and a much darker scene between the protagonist Utena and the antagonist Akio in the episode The Prince Who Runs Through the Night, a friend pointed this out to me, in terms of what it’s depicting and how True it is. The disassociation and ambivalence that suffuses a traumatic event…>.
To create an autonomous object of desire within the fictional space of manga and anime: was this not the ultimate dream of the otaku? They sought to create fiction not as a stand-in for the “real” sexual object, but fiction that had no need to be secured by reality. For this to work, not even the most elaborately constructed fictional worlds would suffice. In order for fiction to attain its own autonomous reality, it would have to be desired for its own sake. Only then would reality bow down to fiction.
“Fiction” versus “Reality”
Earlier I referred rather casually to the contrast between “fiction” and “reality.” Of course, I do not accept this contrast naively. In fact, it is my belief that everyday reality is itself nothing more than a fiction (or fantasy) and that it is fundamentally impossible to draw a strict distinction between them. One reason that I raise the distinction nonetheless is in order to think once more about “Japan.” The art critic Sawaragi Noi has argued that Japan functions as what he calls a “bad place” and that any act of expression that attempts to escape from that place can only end up by making it worse and getting caught in a vicious circle. If such a place can be hypothesized, it is entirely possible that it could also subsume the place of manga and anime that I have been discussing here. For now I call that space “Japanese space” and contrast it with another unique representational space, which I call “Western space.”
As I pointed out earlier, in Japanese space the distinction between fiction and reality is not completely in effect. The distinction itself is in fact based on a Western idea . **In his theory of ideals Plato begins with a three-part distinction between the ideal, reality, and art, and places art at the bottom of the hierarchy because it is only an imitation of reality. In Plato’s system there is only a series of copies, with the copy of the ideal being reality and the copy of reality being art. Art must content itself with the lowly position of being a copy of a copy, an imitation of an imitation. Added to this is the influence of Judeo-Christian culture, which rejects idolatry. In “Western space,” even today “reality” is made to conform strictly to this ranking. In this context the notion of the “Reality of fiction” is already attenuated by being subjected to all sorts of constraints.
<"But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" Matthew 5:28.>
For example, in American popular culture the most privileged fiction form is film. To be made into a film is the ultimate proof of the success of any narrative, whether it originates as a novel or a play. Of course, there are any number of reasons for this, but one is surely the belief that live-action film is the most accurate imitation or reproduction of reality. The impact of live-action film is supported by the belief that what it portrays is a faithful reproduction of reality. In my opinion there is absolutely no difference between the fictionality of live-action film and animated ones; it is just that anime is considered more fictional because it is under the constraint of having to be drawn by someone. For this reason animated films have almost no chance of winning the Academy Award for Best Picture and will always remain a genre inferior to film.
Thinking about censorship practices makes this even clearer. Censors in Japanese space seem for the most part uninterested in the symbolic value of what they are censoring. As long as the genitals are not portrayed explicitly, they will allow even the most depraved images to be shown. In Western space, however, images are censored according to their symbolic value. The censors are not interested in the trivial question of whether or not the genitals are visible, but reserve their strictest scrutiny for obscenity and perverse content. A recent example is the cover for Marilyn Manson’s CD Mechanical Animals. In the composite photograph, Manson appears nude as he glares at the viewer, but with the smooth groin and small breasts of a young girl. This level of perversion does not cause the least problem in Japan. But in the United States it create quite a scandal, with several large music stores refusing the carry the album. One could list any number of similar examples of this difference in the way Japanese and Americans judge an image obscene. Of course, even in Japan this sort of taboo on images still lingers when it comes to the Imperial family, but even that is losing the force it once had. In fact, that taboo has become so weak that it would shock even Okuzaki Kenzo. We are now living in an age when it is possible to publish a manga depicting a bomb thrown at Princess Masako during a parade, and the romance between Princess Kiko and Prince Akishino has been made into an anime. In other words, we still do not have the slightest idea what it is that defines depravity.
One conclusion that we can draw from this comparison is that visual expression in Western space is symbolically castrated, while Japanese space there is only imaginary castration, at most. For example, in Western space any image that symbolizes the penis is censored, while in Japanese space as long as you do not portray the penis itself anything goes. In this ironic sense I would suggest that Japanese media enjoy the great freedom of expression. The problem arises with this freedom itself.
In Japanese space, fiction itself is recognized as having its own autonomous reality. As I mentioned earlier, in Western space reality is always in the superior position, and the fictional space is not allowed to encroach on it. Various prohibitions are introduced to establish and maintain this superiority. It is not permitted for example, to produce images depicting sexual perversion. This is because fiction must not be more real (riaru) than reality. Fiction must be carefully castrated so that it does not become too appealing. This is what I mean by symbolic castration.
It is often remarked that the heroines of Western comics and anime are for the most part not very cute. They often include beautiful women and naked bodies, but rarely do they directly represent characters as sexually attractive. This cannot be explained simply as a result of a discrepancy in technical skill or differing notions of beauty. In the case of an actual Hollywood actress, Japanese and American fans are likely to speak in similar ways about her sexual attractiveness. But the situation is very different when it comes to heroines who appear as drawn images. Betty Boop, for example, may be drawn in a sexy outfit (with a garter belt!), but she is more like a parody of a sexy actress. Her fans are not immediately captivated by Betty’s sexual charms.
To continue with our discussion of Western space, we might remember that 1957 saw the creation of the so-called Comics Code Authority that formulated self-regulatory codes for comics in the United States and effectively spelled the end of the golden age of American comics. At the time juvenile delinquency had become a hot-button issue, and comics were singled out as a contributing factor. Among comic fans the formation of the CCA is referred to as the “Total Disaster.” The list of restrictions is as absurdly detailed as the rules at a Japanese high school. A few items that stand out on the list are
  • “Divorce shall not be treated humorously nor represented as desirable.”
  • “If crime is depicted it shall be as a sordid and unpleasant activity.”
  • “In every instance good shall triumph over evil and the criminal punished [sic] for his misdeeds.”
  • “Policemen, judges, government officials and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority.”
Under the category of “Marriage and Sex” the code states that “Nudity in any form is prohibited,” “Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities,” “Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed,” “Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested,” and “Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden.” Japanese manga as harmless as Sazae-san and Doraemon might run afoul of these rules. If regulations this strict were in force in Japan, virtually every manga magazine in print would have to be shut down.
It is thus quite possible to analyze the differences between Japan and the United States from the perspective of regulations. But what I want to stress here is that these rules show all the symptoms of an excessive defense reaction. No matter how popular comics had become by the 1950s, they could hardly compete with film. Nevertheless, they were much more severely regulated, to the point of destroying an entire genre of expression. Would it be too much to see in this an echo of what we might call the West’s iconographic taboo? The highly detailed and concrete restrictions on the depictions of sexuality are particularly remarkable. In these restrictions we can clearly see operating the obsessive idea that images themselves must not be sexually attractive.
Pornography must be considered as part of this discussion of the visual expression of sexuality. Pornography, needless to say, prizes images that are realistic and highly practical. In the decline of roman poruno and the rise of adult video, for example, one can see the pursuit of convenience and practicality. Pornographic images trend toward being more suitable for private consumption, reproduction and distribution gets easier, and pornographic expression gets more and more explicit. But in the Japanese space this leads to another contradiction: namely, the existence of “porno comics.” I want to stress once again that I am speaking of pornography in general here, not of “erotic expression.” It is perhaps only in Japan that pornography has taken the form of comic books and attained a certain popularity in doing so. Of course, there are porno comics that are meant to be used as masturbation aids in the West as well, but on a scale that does not even being to compare with that of Japan.
It seems absurd that such an enormous market would emerge for pornographic comics in a country where “hair nudes” are everywhere and people are somewhat bored even of adult videos. As I pointed out earlier, anime-style drawing has been hugely influential in this genre as well. In terms of their correspondence to everyday reality, there is no less realistic style of drawing. Despite this, however, these kinds of representation have been widely preferred as a medium for pornography. This would be entirely unimaginable in Europe or the United States, and the contrast points to a significant cultural difference.
Of course, there is a historical background to this as well. According to Timon Screech of the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, the so-called shunga that were produced in such huge quantities in the Edo period were used by the masses as masturbation aids.
If that is in fact the case, we should also be able to find the roots of manga and anime in the Edo period, in a culture in which sexual desire was both stimulated and satisfied by drawn images. The issue here, needless to say, has something to do with anything like the symbolic expression of eros. The problem that we have arrived at instead is that of the immediacy of the drawn image.
As I have already pointed out, there are many fans of anime and manga in the West. But they are virtually unanimous in their hatred for so-called tentacle porn. They believe that sexuality does not belong in animation. What do Japanese otaku think about this? If they were shown this sort of pornographic work they would either give a wry smile or launch into a lengthy discussion of the history of adult anime using works like Cream Lemon (Kuriimu remon) and Legend of the Overfiend (Urotsukidoji) as examples. I cannot help but see in this difference another huge contrast between Japanese and Western otaku.
Leaving aside the question of whether it is possible to read in this the traces of taboos and repression, for now let us reiterate the minimal facts of which we can be certain. In the Western space of popular culture, it is exceedingly rare to find drawn iconic images of cute little girls and erotic nudes. In that space there is an unconscious censorship of drawn images, and their reality is kept within certain limits. The type of caricatures so conspicuous in Disney’s animations can even be considered as a technique of exaggeration for the purpose of repression. Constant and meticulous efforts are made in this space to prevent drawn images from attaining their own autonomous reality. In other words, drawn images are always kept in the position of being substitutes for objects that exist in reality.
In Japanese space, on the other hand, it is permissible for all sorts of sites to have their own autonomous reality (riariti). In other words, real (riaru ) fictions do not necessarily require the security of reality (genjitsu). There is absolutely no need in this space for fiction to imitate reality. Fiction is able to clear a space around itself for its own reality (riariti ku kan). The appeal of drawn images of little girls, for example, is a crucial element in the production of this reality (riariti). Here, fiction must establish a logic of sexuality all its own. This is because, in Japanese space, sexuality is the most important factor upholding reality (riariti). Of course, this is not true only of anime. Why else, for example, did the artistic traditions of the past put so much emphasis on the depiction of women? Why do rakugo raconteurs spend so much time extolling the pleasures of womanizing? And why do manga instruction courses always begin with how to draw a boy-girl couple? All of these things, which are particular to Japan, suggest that in this space it is sexuality that upholds the reality of fiction (kyoko no riariti).
So let us accept the autonomy of fiction and put forward the thesis that this autonomy is a necessary precondition for the beautiful fighting girl to emerge. If this is the case, we cannot in any sense see in them the reflection of “everyday reality.” It would not be permissible, for example, to infer from the popularity of beautiful fighting girls that girls are being empowered in the real world. It is the stubborn habit of seeing fiction as an imitation of reality, which is hard even for the Japanese to resist, that is at the root of this misunderstanding. The misunderstanding may be logically consistent, but that same logical consistency is also precisely what renders it invalid.
Getting back to our discussion of the image in Japanese space, I repeat that representations in this space do not undergo symbolic castration. There are some gestures toward imaginary castration with regard to sexual codes, but these are barely functional, and in the end they actually come closer to initiating a drive toward the disavowal of castration. The disavowal of castration is of course the initial condition for sexual perversion, which is why this space exhibits such an affinity for perverted objects. All sorts of images come to occupy various positions within this ecosystem of autonomous reality, and the space begins to overflow with meanings rendered through sexual and other codes. In this place, so highly charged with meaning because of this sheer verbosity of codes, context is privileged over any single disarticulated code. Meaning is transmitted instantaneously here, but its provenance can never be traced back to a single code.
This sort of high-context representational space can sometimes lose some of its reality effect if it is circulated too widely and understood too easily. How might it resist this attenuation of reality? One way is, of course, through sexuality. As I have argued several times already, sex is a necessary component for a narrative to seem real. The various struggles and manipulations surrounding sexuality (i.e., “romance”) are what introduce a core of reality into a narrative.
The widespread transgression of sexual limits in Japanese representational culture can also be interpreted in light of the high-context nature of Japanese space. High-context expressive space is, by nature, incapable of making full use of the effects of structural and formal reality. Instead it is the intensities that emerge at moments of shifting and switching from one context to another that are used to create reality effects. In the highest context spaces of anime and manga, most important are those gestures capable of transcending the context of heterosexual desire. The various characteristics of the beautiful fighting girls, which include hermaphorditism, transformation (i.e., accelerated maturation), and the strange mixture of proactivity (i.e., fighting ability) and passivity (i.e., cuteness), all help facilitate the emergence of this transcendental reality. That all manner of perversions should be evoked in their presence is only natural.
[To be continued... The Phallic Girl as a Form of Hysteria]
submitted by MirkWorks to u/MirkWorks [link] [comments]


2024.05.20 08:25 Boring-Rutabaga5319 Dimple Hayathi: Rising Star of Indian Cinema

Dimple Hayathi is a name that has been creating a buzz in the Indian film industry over the past few years. With her striking looks, impressive acting skills, and a captivating screen presence, she has quickly become one of the most promising young talents in cinema today. This article delves into the journey of Dimple Hayathi, highlighting her early life, career achievements, and future prospects.

Early Life and Background

Born on August 21, 1998, in Hyderabad, Telangana, Dimple Hayathi was always inclined towards the arts. From a young age, she showed a keen interest in dance and acting, which eventually led her to pursue a career in the entertainment industry. Dimple's early life was marked by rigorous training and a dedication to honing her craft, qualities that would later become evident in her performances on screen.

Entry into the Film Industry

Dimple Hayathi made her debut in the Telugu film industry with the movie "Gulf" in 2017. Although the film did not achieve massive commercial success, it provided her with a platform to showcase her talent. Her performance was noted for its authenticity and energy, earning her early recognition in the industry.
Her breakthrough role came with the 2020 film "Khiladi," where she starred opposite Ravi Teja. The movie was a commercial hit, and Dimple's performance was widely appreciated. She managed to hold her own alongside seasoned actors, proving her mettle as a capable and versatile actress.
submitted by Boring-Rutabaga5319 to primetimesnow [link] [comments]


2024.05.20 05:51 MoviesismyLife Is there an equivalent of Alia Bhatt in Hollywood with a unique blend of critical acclaim, audience adoration, and box office prowess ?

Call her an industry plant or whatever, but Alia Bhatt's filmography is unparalleled and unlikely to be replicated in the years to come. While it's true that Karan Johar has significantly contributed to her success by offering her top-notch projects and guidance throughout her career, Alia Bhatt is destined to be hailed as the most successful actress in Indian cinema.
My question to those familiar with the Hollywood box office is: Is there anyone in Hollywood who matches Alia Bhatt's box office stature? Recently, someone on this sub commented that Hollywood does not have bankable female actresses. The highly touted Zendaya, for instance, experienced a flop with her solo female-led film, Challengers. Even the talented Emma Stone hasn't set the box office ablaze since La La Land; her recent film, Poor Things, underperformed with a mere $35 million in the US. Actresses like Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh are exceptional character artists, but they lack mainstream commercial appeal.
In contrast, Alia Bhatt boasts a massive ground level following, evident in her successful solo female-led films and her massive social media reach. Her movies typically receive both critical acclaim and audience adoration. Her upcoming solo-led film, Jigra, is also expected to be a huge success. Given that no Hollywood actress has Alia's level of audience loyalty and consistent box office success without an attached IP, is it fair to say that she currently has no female equivalent in Hollywood?
submitted by MoviesismyLife to BollyBlindsNGossip [link] [comments]


2024.05.20 02:07 SanderSo47 Directors at the Box Office: Clint Eastwood (Part 2)

Directors at the Box Office: Clint Eastwood (Part 2)
https://preview.redd.it/va70nf0l3h1d1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=021d936ee0a724ca428d8559f5823592404d1822

As Reddit doesn't allow posts to exceed 40,000 characters, Eastwood's edition had to be split into two parts because his whole career cannot be ignored. The first part was posted yesterday.

Million Dollar Baby (2004)¨

"Beyond his silence, there is a past. Beyond her dreams, there is a feeling. Beyond hope, there is a memory. Beyond their journey, there is a love."
His 25th film. Based on stories from the 2000 collection Rope Burns: Stories from the Corner by F.X. Toole, it stars Eastwood, Hilary Swank and Morgan Freeman. The film follows Margaret "Maggie" Fitzgerald, an underdog amateur boxer who is helped by an underappreciated boxing trainer to achieve her dream of becoming a professional.
Paul Haggis wrote the script on spec, and it took four years to sell it. The film was stuck in development hell for years before it was shot. Several studios rejected the project even when Eastwood signed on as actor and director. Even Warner Bros., Eastwood's longtime home base, would not agree to a $30 million budget. Eastwood persuaded Lakeshore Entertainment's Tom Rosenberg to put up half the budget (as well as handle foreign distribution), with Warner Bros. contributing the rest.
The film had an incredible run in limited release, breaking many records for Eastwood's career. It eventually earned a fantastic $216 million worldwide, becoming his highest grossing film ever. It received critical acclaim, and it was named as one of his greatest films. It won four Oscars: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress (for Swank), and Best Supporting Actor (for Freeman). Eastwood became one of the very few directors to make two films to win both Best Picture and Best Director.
  • Budget: $30,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $100,492,203. ($166.8 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $216,763,646.

Flags of Our Fathers (2006)

"A single shot can end the war."
His 26th film. Based on the book written by James Bradley and Ron Powers, it stars Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford, Adam Beach, John Benjamin Hickey, John Slattery, Paul Walker, Jamie Bell, Barry Pepper, Robert Patrick and Neal McDonough. The film follows the 1945 Battle of Iwo Jima, the five Marines and one Navy corpsman who were involved in raising the flag on Iwo Jima, and the after effects of that event on their lives.
The film received positive reviews, but it bombed at the box office with just $65 million against its huge $90 million budget.
  • Budget: $90,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $33,602,376. ($52.2 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $65,900,249.

Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)

"The completion of the Iwo Jima saga."
His 27th film. Based on Picture Letters from Commander in Chief by Tadamichi Kuribayashi, it stars Ken Watanabe, Kazunari Ninomiya, Tsuyoshi Ihara, Ryō Kase and Shidō Nakamura. It's a companion film to Flags of Our Fathers, and portrays the Battle of Iwo Jima from the perspective of the Japanese soldiers.
In the process of reading about the Japanese perspective of the war for Flags of Our Fathers, in particular General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, Eastwood decided to film a companion piece with this film, which was shot entirely in Japanese. The film was shot back-to-back, starting filming just one month after Flags of Our Fathers wrapped filming.
Despite being seen as the least accessible of both films, this film was much more successful at the box office than the previous film (including a colossal $42 million in Japan alone). It also received critical acclaim, particularly for how it handed the depiction of good and evil from both sides. It received 4 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director.
  • Budget: $19,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $13,756,082. ($21.3 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $68,673,228.

Changeling (2008)

"To find her son, she did what no one else dared."
His 28th film. It stars Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich, and is based on real-life events, specifically the 1928 Wineville Chicken Coop murders in Mira Loma, California. It follows a woman united with a boy who she realizes is not her missing son. When she tries to demonstrate that to the police and city authorities, she is vilified as delusional, labeled as an unfit mother and confined to a psychiatric ward.
The film earned $113 million worldwide, barely breaking even at the box office. The film received mixed reviews, but Jolie received praise for her performance. She was nominated for the Oscar for Best Actress.
  • Budget: $55,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $35,739,802. ($52 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $113,398,237.

Gran Torino (2008)

"Ever come across somebody you shouldn't have messed with?"
His 29th film. It stars Eastwood, and follows Walt Kowalski, a recently widowed Korean War veteran alienated from his family and angry at the world, whose young neighbor, Thao Vang Lor, is pressured by his cousin into stealing Walt's prized Ford Torino for his initiation into a gang. Walt thwarts the theft and subsequently develops a relationship with the boy and his family.
The film received great reviews, as well as praise from the Hmong community. It ended up becoming a sleeper hit, and it earned $270 million worldwide, becoming his highest grossing film.
  • Budget: $25,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $148,095,302. ($215.6 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $269,958,228.

Invictus (2009)

"His people needed a leader. He gave them a champion."
His 30th film. It stars Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon. Following the aftermath of the apartheid, President Nelson Mandela decides to unite his people by supporting a rugby team in their bid to win the 1995 Rugby World Cup.
The film earned $122 million worldwide, barely breaking even. It received positive reviews, and Freeman and Damon received Oscar nominations for their performances.
  • Budget: $50,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $37,491,364. ($54.7 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $122,426,792.

Hereafter (2010)

"Touched by death. Changed by life."
His 31st film. It stars Matt Damon, Cécile de France, Bryce Dallas Howard, Lyndsey Marshal, Jay Mohr and Thierry Neuvic. An American with a special connection to the afterlife, a woman with a near-death experience and a young English boy, who lost his loved ones, cross paths in an effort to find closure in their lives.
Despite mixed reviews, it managed to earn $107 million, turning a small profit.
  • Budget: $50,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $32,746,941. ($47 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $106,956,330.

J. Edgar (2011)

"The most powerful man in the world."
His 32nd film. The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts, Josh Lucas, and Judi Dench, and follows the career of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, focusing on Hoover's life from the 1919 Palmer Raids onward.
The film received mixed reviews; while DiCaprio received praise, the technical aspects of the film were criticized. It earned $84 million, making it a box office success, but far below what DiCaprio usually makes at the box office.
  • Budget: $35,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $37,306,030. ($52 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $84,920,539.

Jersey Boys (2014)

"Everybody remembers it how they need to."
His 33rd film. Base on the 2004 jukebox musical, it stars John Lloyd Young, Erich Bergen, Michael Lomenda, Vincent Piazza and Christopher Walken, and tells the story of the musical group The Four Seasons.
It received mixed reviews, with praise for the musical numbers but criticism for the narrative and runtime, and failed at the box office.
  • Budget: $40,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $47,047,013. ($62.3 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $67,647,013.

American Sniper (2014)

"The most lethal sniper in U.S. history."
His 34th film. It is based on the memoir by Chris Kyle, Scott McEwen and Jim DeFelice, and stars Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller. The film follows the life of Kyle, who became the deadliest marksman in U.S. military history with 255 kills from four tours in the Iraq War, 160 of which were officially confirmed by the Department of Defense. While Kyle was celebrated for his military successes, his tours of duty took a heavy toll on his personal and family life.
In 2012, Cooper and Warner Bros. bought the rights to the memoir. Cooper wanted Chris Pratt to star as Kyle, but WB told him they would only greenlight the film if he stars in it. After Kyle's murder in 2013, Steven Spielberg signed to direct. Spielberg had read Kyle's book, though he desired to have a more psychological conflict present in the screenplay so an "enemy sniper" character could serve as the insurgent sharpshooter who was trying to track down and kill Kyle. Spielberg's ideas contributed to the development of a lengthy screenplay approaching 160 pages. Due to Warner Bros.' budget constraints, Spielberg felt he could not bring his vision of the story to the screen. So Eastwood was brought in to direct.
The film attained a solid, but not extraordinary response from critics. It also attracted some controversy over its portrayal of both the Iraq War and Kyle himself.
The box office though?
To say that the film had a fantastic run would be selling it short.
It opened on Christmas Day in 4 theaters, and it earned a huge $633,456 ($158,364 PTA). But the following weekend, it actually increased despite playing at the same amount of theaters, adding $676,909. That translated to a $169,227 PTA, becoming the highest second weekend PTA in history for a live-action film. And on its third weekend, it earned $579,518 ($144,879 PTA), becoming the first film to have three weekends above $100,000 PTA. In the 22 days it played in just 4 theaters, it earned $3,424,778.
On its first wide weekend, the film shook the industry by opening with a colossal $89 million. That was almost as much as the other 2014 blockbusters, and given that the film didn't have 3D pricing, it's very likely it sold far more tickets than them. It broke the January opening weekend record by twice as much, and the second biggest for an R-rated title. With insane word of mouth ("A+" on CinemaScore), this film had the legs. In less than one week, it became Eastwood's highest grossing film domestically. On its second weekend, it dropped just 28% and made $64 million, which was the biggest second weekend for an R-rated film (a record it still maintains) and crossed $200 million domestically. And by March, the film overtook The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 ($334 million) as the highest grossing 2014 film in North America.
After an insane run in theaters, it closed with a gigantic $350 million domestically, which made it the second highest grossing R-rated film in North America. Overseas, it was also very strong, and it made a huge $547 million worldwide. It was easily Eastwood's highest grossing film, even adjusted for inflation. One of the greatest box office runs in recent memory. It received six Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Actor for Cooper, ultimately winning one for Best Sound Editing.
The biggest surprise of the 2010s? Perhaps. Cause let's face it, when 2014, did any of you had this as the top film of the year? Or even in the Top 20? Please.
  • Budget: $59,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $350,159,020. ($463.7 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $547,659,020.

Sully (2016)

"The untold story behind the miracle on the Hudson."
His 35th film. Based on the autobiography Highest Duty by Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger and Jeffrey Skiles, it stars Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart, Laura Linney, Anna Gunn, Autumn Reeser, Holt McCallany, and Jamey Sheridan. The film follows Sullenberger's 2009 emergency landing of US Airways Flight 1549 on the Hudson River, in which all 155 passengers and crew survived and the subsequent publicity and investigation.
The film received strong reviews, and earned over $240 million worldwide, becoming one of his highest grossing films.
  • Budget: $60,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $125,070,033. ($163.3 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $243,870,033.

The 15:17 to Paris (2018)

"The real heroes."
His 36th film. Based on the autobiography by Jeffrey E. Stern, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler, and Alek Skarlatos, it stars Stone, Sadler, and Skarlatos as themselves and follows the trio through life leading up to and including their stopping of the 2015 Thalys train attack.
Despite choosing Kyle Gallner, Jeremie Harris and Alexander Ludwig as the leads, Eastwood decided to cast the heroes to play themselves, which was met with confusion as they lacked acting experience. And that was reflected on the final film; it received negative reviews for its acting, and it bombed at the box office.
  • Budget: $30,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $36,276,286. ($45.2 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $57,176,286.

The Mule (2018)

"Nobody runs forever."
His 37th film. Based on the 2014 The New York Times article The Sinaloa Cartel's 90-Year-Old Drug Mule by Sam Dolnick, it stars Eastwood, Bradley Cooper, Laurence Fishburne, Michael Peña, Dianne Wiest, and Andy García. Due to financial issues, horticulturist Earl Stone becomes a courier for a drug cartel. Slowly, he grows closer to his estranged family, but his illegal activities threaten much more than his life.
It received good reviews (although some questioned its story and tone), and earned over $173 million worldwide.
  • Budget: $50,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $103,804,407. ($129.6 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $174,804,407.

Richard Jewell (2019)

"The world will know his name and the truth."
His 38th film. The film stars Paul Walter Hauser, Sam Rockwell, Kathy Bates, Jon Hamm, and Olivia Wilde. The film depicts the July 27 Centennial Olympic Park bombing and its aftermath, as security guard Richard Jewell finds a bomb during the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, and alerts authorities to evacuate, only to later be wrongly accused of having placed the device himself.
The film received positive reviews, but several journalists criticized the critical portrayal of the reporter that first accused Jewell: Kathy Scruggs (specifically for trading sex for stories). The film marked another commercial failure for Eastwood.
  • Budget: $45,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $22,345,542. ($27.4 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $44,645,542.

Cry Macho (2021)

"A story of being lost and found."
His 39th film. Based on the novel by N. Richard Nash, it stars Eastwood and Dwight Yoakam. Set in 1979, it follows a former rodeo star hired to reunite a young boy in Mexico with his father in the United States.
Nash tried to get this film made all the way since 1970s, but no studio was willing to pick it up. He restructured his films as a novel, was successful and studios were now interested. There were a few candidates for the leading role; Robert Mitchum, Roy Scheider, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Eastwood himself. Arnie was willing to star in the film back in 2003, but put it on hold when he was elected Governor. He was set to star after leaving office, but the project was scrapped after his affair scandal was made known. In 2020, Eastwood signed to return.
The film received mixed reviews, particularly for its writing and acting. It was also a huge flop at the box office, and marked Eastwood's least attended film as leading man. David Zaslav criticized the studio's decision to finance the film. Warner executives allegedly said that although they knew the film was unlikely to turn a profit, they felt indebted to Eastwood for his decades-long relationship with the studio and his consistent ability to deliver films under budget and on time.
  • Budget: $33,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $10,310,734. ($11.9 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $16,510,734.

The Future

He recently wrapped post-production on his 40th film, Juror No. 2. It stars Nicholas Hoult, Toni Collette, Zoey Deutch, Leslie Bibb, Chris Messina, J. K. Simmons and Kiefer Sutherland, and follows a juror serving on a murder trial who realizes he may be at fault for the victim's death.

MOVIES (FROM HIGHEST GROSSING TO LEAST GROSSING)

No. Movie Year Studio Domestic Total Overseas Total Worldwide Total Budget
1 American Sniper 2014 Warner Bros. $350,159,020 $197,500,000 $547,659,020 $59M
2 Gran Torino 2008 Warner Bros. $148,095,302 $121,862,926 $269,958,228 $25M
3 Sully 2016 Warner Bros. $125,070,033 $118,800,000 $243,870,033 $60M
4 Million Dollar Baby 2004 Warner Bros. $100,492,203 $116,271,443 $216,763,646 $30M
5 The Bridges of Madison County 1995 Warner Bros. $71,516,617 $110,500,000 $182,016,617 $22M
6 The Mule 2018 Warner Bros. $103,804,407 $71,000,000 $174,804,407 $50M
7 Unforgiven 1992 Warner Bros. $101,167,799 $58,000,000 $159,167,799 $14.4M
8 Mystic River 2003 Warner Bros. $90,135,191 $66,460,000 $156,595,191 $25M
9 Sudden Impact 1983 Warner Bros. $67,642,693 $83,000,000 $150,642,693 $22M
10 A Perfect World 1993 Warner Bros. $31,130,999 $104,000,000 $135,130,999 $30M
11 Space Cowboys 2000 Warner Bros. $90,464,773 $38,419,359 $128,884,132 $60M
12 Invictus 2009 Warner Bros. $37,491,364 $84,935,428 $122,426,792 $55M
13 Heartbreak Ridge 1986 Warner Bros. $42,724,017 $78,975,983 $121,700,000 $15M
14 Changeling 2008 Universal $35,739,802 $77,658,435 $113,398,237 $55M
15 Hereafter 2010 Warner Bros. $32,746,941 $74,209,389 $106,956,330 $50M
16 Absolute Power 1997 Sony $50,068,310 $42,700,000 $92,768,310 $50M
17 J. Edgar 2011 Warner Bros. $37,306,030 $47,614,509 $84,920,539 $35M
18 Letters from Iwo Jima 2006 Warner Bros. $13,756,082 $54,917,146 $68,673,228 $19M
19 Jersey Boys 2014 Warner Bros. $47,047,013 $20,600,000 $67,647,013 $40M
20 Flags of Our Fathers 2006 Warner Bros. $33,602,376 $32,297,873 $65,900,249 $90M
21 The 15:17 to Paris 2018 Warner Bros. $36,276,286 $20,900,000 $57,176,286 $30M
22 Firefox 1982 Warner Bros. $46,708,276 $0 $46,708,276 $21M
23 Richard Jewell 2019 Warner Bros. $22,345,542 $22,300,000 $44,645,542 $45M
24 Pale Rider 1985 Warner Bros. $41,410,568 $0 $41,410,568 $6.9M
25 The Gauntlet 1977 Warner Bros. $35,400,000 $0 $35,400,000 $5.5M
26 The Outlaw Josey Wales 1976 Warner Bros. $31,800,000 $0 $31,800,000 $3.7M
27 Blood Work 2002 Warner Bros. $26,235,081 $5,559,637 $31,794,718 $50M
28 Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil 1997 Warner Bros. $25,105,255 $0 $25,105,255 $30M
29 Bronco Billy 1980 Warner Bros. $24,265,659 $0 $24,265,659 $6.5M
30 The Rookie 1990 Warner Bros. $21,633,874 $0 $21,633,874 $30M
31 True Crime 1999 Warner Bros. $16,649,768 $0 $16,649,768 $55M
32 Cry Macho 2021 Warner Bros. $10,310,734 $6,200,000 $16,510,734 $33M
33 High Plains Drifter 1973 Universal $15,700,000 $0 $15,700,000 $5.5M
34 The Eiger Sanction 1975 Universal $14,200,000 $0 $14,200,000 $9M
35 Play Misty for Me 1971 Universal $10,600,000 $0 $10,600,000 $950K
36 Honkytonk Man 1982 Warner Bros. $4,484,991 $0 $4,484,991 $2M
37 White Hunter Black Heart 1990 Warner Bros. $2,319,124 $0 $2,319,124 $24M
38 Bird 1988 Warner Bros. $2,181,286 $0 $2,181,286 $14M
39 Breezy 1973 Universal $200,000 $17,753 $217,753 $750K
Across those 39 films, he has made $3,536,687,297 worldwide. That's $90,684,289 per film.

The Verdict

Insanely profitable.
Even the bombs do not taint this kind of reputation. Eastwood has made all these films under budget and never past its deadline. That's something that has to be treasured for studios, no wonder he's been staying with Warner Bros. since 1976. His ability to get films ready in short notice is impressive; Richard Jewell started filming in June and it was on theaters in December. One of the most impressive actors who transitioned into directors. You can tell that Sergio Leone and Don Siegel taught him well.
Now of course, his method of directing can also have its setbacks: he's often known for not asking for multiple takes and he skips rehearsals. So that means the performances of his actors aren't always the best they could've done. Which is why, despite making some masterpieces or fantastic films, he's also made a few films with weak technical aspects: poor lighting (J. Edgar), questionable logic (Cry Macho), obvious props (the fake baby in American Sniper), and some bad acting (Gran Torino and The 15:17 to Paris). At the same time, it's clear he can also get extraordinary performances through these methods; Gene Hackman, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Hilary Swank and Morgan Freeman won Oscars for starring in his films.
He also proved old age doesn't prevent you from continuing to work. He's turning 94 in a few weeks, and he's still directing films. Manoel de Oliveira directed films until he was 104, so perhaps we still have a few more years with Eastwood behind the camera.
P.S. Ever since I started this series, there's been suggestions that I should do "Actors at the Box Office" multiple times. While the idea is intriguing, that doesn't seem feasible for me. I'd have to categorize whether the actor is leading, supporting, original IP, adaptation, remakes, etc. Besides, with the continuing decline of star power, it's tough to decide what actor is truly moving the needle at the box office. That's why I'm making solely "Directors at the Box Office", because the director is responsible for the production. If the film succeeds, the director will get credit. And if the film flops, the director will be blamed. So this is the closest you'll get to "Actors at the Box Office".
Hope you liked this edition. You can find this and more in the wiki for this section.
The next director will be Robert Zemeckis. One of the biggest falls from grace.
I asked you to choose who else should be in the run and the comment with the most upvotes would be chosen. It had to be a controversial filmmaker. Well, we'll later talk about... Zack Snyder. Oh, BoxOffice chose fuego 🔥
This is the schedule for the following four:
Week Director Reasoning
May 20-26 Robert Zemeckis Can we get old Zemeckis back?
May 27-June 2 Richard Donner An influential figure of the 70s and 80s.
June 3-9 Ang Lee What happened to Lee?
June 10-16 Zack Snyder RIP Inbox.
Who should be next after Snyder? That's up to you.
submitted by SanderSo47 to boxoffice [link] [comments]


2024.05.19 20:31 Ok_Secretary_8243 I’m going to buy the pet food that Mary Jo Catlett was on a commercial for; the actress Miss Reyes had to keep doing a scene where her hands had to make contact with a fast baseball.

Purina Cat Chow; poor Rina - catch! ow!
submitted by Ok_Secretary_8243 to WordAvalanches [link] [comments]


2024.05.18 21:15 SanderSo47 Directors at the Box Office: Clint Eastwood (Part 1)

Directors at the Box Office: Clint Eastwood (Part 1)
https://preview.redd.it/m07tmkxgi81d1.jpg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a069dd209bca819edad29814e0bbd2b76eaa50db

As Reddit doesn't allow posts to exceed 40,000 characters, Eastwood's edition had to be split into two parts because his whole career cannot be ignored. The second part will be posted tomorrow.

Here's a new edition of "Directors at the Box Office", which seeks to explore the directors' trajectory at the box office and analyze their hits and bombs. I already talked about a few, and as I promised, it's Clint Eastwood's turn.
Eastwood was a troublemaker at school, and he had a bunch of odd jobs such as lifeguard, paper carrier, grocery clerk, forest firefighter, and golf caddy. In 1951, he was drafted into the United States Army during the Korean War and was discharged two years later. Through this, he got into contact with a Hollywood representative, who got him into acting classes and started his acting career. He got his start by starring in the hit show Rawhide, but he said he was exhausted by the experience. This caught the attention of some film producers and he decided to act in films directed by the then-unknown Sergio Leone. His career was on the rise, and then he got the chance to make his directorial debut.
From a box office perspective, how reliable was he to deliver a box office hit?
That's the point of this post. To analyze his career.

It should be noted that as he started his career in the 1970s, some of the domestic grosses here will be adjusted by inflation. The table with his highest grossing films, however, will be left in its unadjusted form, as the worldwide grosses are more difficult to adjust.

Play Misty for Me (1971)

"The scream you hear may be your own!"
His directorial debut. It stars Eastwood, Jessica Walter and Donna Mills, and follows a radio disc jockey being stalked by an obsessed female fan.
Before his colleague Irving Leonard died, he and Eastwood had discussed the idea of producing a film that was to give Eastwood the artistic control he desired, and his debut as a director. Eastwood said he was ready, "I stored away all the mistakes I made and saved up all the good things I learned, and now I know enough to control my own projects and get what I want out of actors."
The film was a huge success for Eastwood, and it also received positive reviews. So far, his directorial career was off to a great start.
  • Budget: $950,000.
  • Domestic gross: $10,600,000. ($81.7 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $10,600,000.

High Plains Drifter (1973)

"They'd never forget the day he drifted into town."
His second film. The film stars Eastwood, Verna Bloom and Mariana Hill, and follows a mysterious stranger who metes out justice in a corrupt frontier mining town.
Eastwood reportedly liked the offbeat quality of the film's original nine-page proposal and approached Universal with the idea of directing it, which would make it his first directed Western. The screenplay was inspired by the real-life murder of Kitty Genovese in Queens in 1964, which eyewitnesses reportedly stood by and watched. Holes in the plot were filled in with black humor and allegory, influenced by Sergio Leone.
It was well received, and the film even surpassed Play Misty for Me at the box office. Eastwood was just going up.
  • Budget: $5,500,000.
  • Domestic gross: $15,700,000. ($110.4 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $15,700,000.

Breezy (1973)

"Her name is Breezy."
His third film. It stars William Holden and Kay Lenz, and follows the relationship between a middle-aged real estate agent and a young hitchhiker.
This was his first directed film without starring on it. And his lack of presence certainly hurt the film; it received mixed reviews and flopped at the box office.
  • Budget: $750,000.
  • Domestic gross: $200,000. ($1.4 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $217,753.

The Eiger Sanction (1975)

"His lifeline, held by the assassin he hunted."
His fourth film. Based on the novel by Trevanian, the film stars Eastwood, George Kennedy, Vonetta McGee, and Jack Cassidy. It follows Jonathan Hemlock, an art history professor, mountain climber, and former assassin once employed by a secret government agency, who is blackmailed into returning to his deadly profession for one last mission.
The film received mixed reactions for its writing, and it wasn't a box office success either.
  • Budget: $9,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $14,200,000. ($82.4 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $14,200,000.

The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

"An army of one."
His fifth film. Based on the novel Gone to Texas by Forrest Carter, it stars Eastwood, Chief Dan George, Sondra Locke, Bill McKinney and John Vernon. The film tells the story of Josey Wales, a Missouri farmer whose family is murdered by Union militia during the Civil War. Driven to revenge, Wales joins a Confederate guerrilla band and makes a name for himself as a feared gunfighter. After the war, all the fighters in Wales' group except for him surrender to Union soldiers, but the Confederates end up being massacred. Wales becomes an outlaw and is pursued by bounty hunters and Union soldiers as he tries to make a new life for himself.
Eastwood was fascinated by the novel and he bought the film rights, hoping to star on the film. He got Philip Kaufman involved as screenwriter and possible director, but left after disagreeing with Eastwood in the material adapted to the screen. Kaufman insisted on filming with a meticulous attention to detail, which caused disagreements with Eastwood, not to mention the attraction the two shared towards Locke and apparent jealousy on Kaufman's part in regard to their emerging relationship. This caused Eastwood to take over as the director. Kaufman's firing angered the DGA, as he did most of the pre-production, and sanctioning a $60,000 fine. This resulted in the Director's Guild passing a new rule, known as "the Eastwood Rule", which prohibits an actor or producer from firing the director and then personally taking on the director's role.
The film received critical acclaim, and in subsequent years, is ranked among Eastwood's greatest films. It was also a huge success at the box office, doubling his previous highest grossing film. It was also one of the few Western films to receive critical and commercial success in the 1970s at a time when the Western was thought to be dying as a major genre in Hollywood.
  • Budget: $3,700,000.
  • Domestic gross: $31,800,000. ($174.5 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $31,800,000.

The Gauntlet (1977)

"The man in the middle of..."
His sixth film. It stars Eastwood, Sondra Locke, Pat Hingle, William Prince, Bill McKinney, and Mara Corday. It follows a down-and-out cop who falls in love with a prostitute, to whom he is assigned to escort from Las Vegas to Phoenix for her to testify against the mob.
While it received mixed reviews, it became another box office success for Eastwood, becoming his now highest grossing film.
  • Budget: $5,500,000.
  • Domestic gross: $35,400,000. ($182.4 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $35,400,000.

Bronco Billy (1980)

"The most outrageous of 'em all."
His seventh film. The film stars Eastwood and Sondra Locke, and focuses on the financially-struggling owner of a traditional Wild West show and his new assistant.
It became another critical and commercial success for Eastwood, who referred to the film as one of his most affable shoots of his career.
  • Budget: $6,500,000.
  • Domestic gross: $24,265,659. ($91.9 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $24,265,659.

Firefox (1982)

"The most devastating killing machine ever built... his job... steal it!"
His eighth film. Based on the novel by Craig Thomas, it stars Eastwood, Freddie Jones and David Huffman. The Soviets have developed a revolutionary new jet fighter, called "Firefox". Naturally, the British are worried that the jet will be used as a first-strike weapon, as rumors say that the jet is undetectable on radar. They send ex-Vietnam War pilot Mitchell Gant on a covert mission into the Soviet Union to steal the Firefox.
The film received mixed reviews, but it earned almost $47 million, becoming Eastwood's highest grossing title as director.
  • Budget: $21,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $46,708,276. ($151.1 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $46,708,276.

Honkytonk Man (1982)

"The boy is on his way to becoming a man. The man is on his way to becoming a legend."
His ninth film. It's based on the novel by Clancy Carlile, and it stars Eastwood and his son Kyle. It follows Red Stovall, a country music singer and composer. With his nephew Whit by his side, he travels to Nashville to perform at the Grand Ole Opry in the backdrop of the Great Depression.
While the film received acclaim, it earned just $4.4 million, becoming his second worst performer.
  • Budget: $2,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $4,484,991. ($14.5 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $4,484,991.

Sudden Impact (1983)

"Dirty Harry is at it again."
His tenth film. The fourth installment in the Dirty Harry series, directed, it stars Eastwood and Sondra Locke. The film tells the story of a gang rape victim who decides to seek revenge on her rapists 10 years after the attack by killing them one by one. Inspector Harry Callahan, famous for his unconventional and often brutal crime-fighting tactics, is tasked with tracking down the serial killer.
The film received mixed reviews from critics, but it earned over $150 million worldwide, Eastwood's first film to pass that milestone. It's also very popular for including the iconic catchphrase, "Go ahead, make my day."
  • Budget: $22,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $67,642,693. ($212.1 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $150,642,693.

Pale Rider (1985)

"...And Hell followed with him."
His 11th film. It stars Eastwood, Michael Moriarty and Carrie Snodgress. A couple and their daughter, along with a few others, are driven out of Lahood, California, by goons working for a mining baron. However, a stranger enters their life to assist them in their fight.
There was no stopping Eastwood: another critical and commercial success.
  • Budget: $6,900,000.
  • Domestic gross: $41,410,568. ($120.2 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $41,410,568.

Heartbreak Ridge (1986)

"The scars run deep."
His 12th film. It stars Eastwood, Marsha Mason, Everett McGill, and Mario Van Peebles. The story centers on a U.S. Marine nearing retirement who gets a platoon of undisciplined Marines into shape and leads them during the American invasion of Grenada in 1983.
The film was inspired by an account of American paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division using a pay telephone and a credit card to call in fire support during the invasion of Grenada, and fashioned a script of a Korean War veteran career Army non-commissioned officer passing on his values to a new generation of soldiers. Eastwood was interested in the script and asked his producer, Fritz Manes, to contact the US Army with a view of filming the movie at Fort Bragg. However, the Army read the script and refused to participate, due to Highway being portrayed as a hard drinker, divorced from his wife, and using unapproved motivational methods to his troops, an image the Army did not want.
It received mixed reviews, with some deeming the film as "imperialist propaganda". But it was still another box office success.
  • Budget: $15,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $42,724,017. ($121.7 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $121,700,000.

Bird (1988)

"There are no second acts in American lives."
His 13th film. The film stars Forest Whitaker and Diane Venora. It is constructed as a montage of scenes from saxophonist Charlie Parker's life, from his childhood in Kansas City, through his early death at the age of 34.
Eastwood, a lifelong fan of jazz, had been fascinated by Parker ever since seeing him perform live in Oakland in 1946. He approached Chan Parker, Bird's common-law wife on whose memoirs the script was based, for input, and she lent Eastwood and arranger Lennie Niehaus a collection of recordings from her private collection Before Eastwood was involved, Richard Pryor was originally cast as Parker.
Despitive positive reviews, it performed poorly, earning just $2.2 million in North America.
  • Budget: $14,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $2,181,286. ($5.7 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $2,181,286.

White Hunter Black Heart (1990)

"An adventure in obsession."
His 14th film. Based on the novel by Peter Viertel, it stars Eastwood, Jeff Fahey, George Dzundza, Alun Armstrong and Marisa Berenson. It follows a famous movie director, John Wilson, who goes to Africa to make his next movie. He is an obstinate, contrary director who'd rather hunt elephants than take care of his crew or movie. He has become obsessed with one particular elephant and cares for nothing else.
Despite positive reviews, it made just $2.3 million domestically, not even 10% of the budget.
  • Budget: $24,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $2,319,124. ($5.5 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $2,319,124.

The Rookie (1990)

His 15th film. The film stars Eastwood, Charlie Sheen, Raul Julia, Sônia Braga, Lara Flynn Boyle, and Tom Skerritt. It follows a veteran police officer teamed up with a younger detective, whose intent is to take down a German crime lord in downtown Los Angeles, following months of investigation into an exotic car theft ring.
It received negative reviews for its acting and story, and it became another flop for Eastwood. That's three bombs in a row. Ouch.
  • Budget: $30,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $21,633,874. ($51.6 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $21,633,874.

Unforgiven (1992)

"Some legends will never be forgotten. Some wrongs can never be forgiven."
His 16th film. It stars Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Richard Harris and Morgan Freeman. It follows William Munny, a widower with two young kids, who was once a very vicious gunfighter who gave up everything after marriage. Now, a man named Schofield Kid brings him an offer that he cannot refuse, forcing him to come out of retirement for one last job.
David Webb Peoples wrote the script all the way back to 1976, and it was optioned by Francis Ford Coppola, but he lacked the funds needed to helm it. By Eastwood's own recollection, he was given the script in the "early 80s" although he did not immediately pursue it, because, according to him, "I thought I should do some other things first". Eastwood has long asserted that the film would be his last traditional Western, concerned that any future projects would simply rehash previous plotlines or imitate someone else's work. He dedicated the film to his close friends and mentors Sergio Leone and Don Siegel. Hackman initially refused to participate as his daughters were upset that he was starring in too many violent films, but he became fascinated by the script that he agreed.
It opened with $15 million and it legged all the way to $100 million after playing for almost one year, closing with $159 million worldwide, his now highest grossing film. The film received Eastwood's best reviews of his career, with many considering the film as his magnum opus as director. It received 9 Oscar nominations, and won four: Best Picture and Best Director for Eastwood, Best Supporting Actor for Hackman, and Best Film Editing. So Eastwood, on top of being a reliable box office draw, was now a 2-time Oscar winner.
  • Budget: $14,400,000.
  • Domestic gross: $101,167,799. ($225.2 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $159,167,799.

A Perfect World (1993)

His 17th film. Kevin Costner, Eastwood and Laura Dern, and follows an escaped convict who takes a young boy hostage and attempts to escape on the road with the child, while being pursued by a Texas Ranger.
The film received critical acclaim, and has appeared as one of Eastwood's best films. The film disappointed in North America, but it earned up to $100 million overseas (Eastwood's first film to gross that much) and ended with $135 million worldwide.
  • Budget: $30,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $31,130,999. ($67.2 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $135,130,999.

The Bridges of Madison County (1995)

"The human heart has a way of making itself large again even after it's been broken into a million pieces."
His 18th film. Based on the novel by Robert James Waller, it stars Eastwood and Meryl Streep. The film is set in 1965, following a war bride, Francesca Johnson, who lives with her husband and two children on their Iowa farm. That year she meets National Geographic photojournalist, Robert Kincaid, who comes to Madison County, Iowa to photograph its historic covered bridges. With Francesca's family away for a short trip, the couple have an intense, four-day love affair.
It received more critical acclaim, and made over $180 million worldwide, becoming his highest grossing film. For her performance, Streep was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress.
  • Budget: $22,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $71,516,617. ($146.5 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $182,016,617.

Absolute Power (1997)

His 19th film. Based on the novel by David Baldacci, it stars Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Ed Harris, Laura Linney, Judy Davis, Scott Glenn, Dennis Haysbert, and Richard Jenkins. It follows a master jewel thief who witnesses the killing of a woman by Secret Service agents.
It received mixed reviews, and disappointed at the box office.
  • Budget: $50,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $50,068,310. ($97.4 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $92,768,310.

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997)

"Welcome to Savannah, Georgia. A Ccty of hot nights and cold blooded murder."
His 20th film. Based on the book by John Berendt, it stars John Cusack and Kevin Spacey. It follows the story of antiques dealer Jim Williams, on trial for the killing of a male prostitute who was his lover. The multiple trials depicted in Berendt's book are combined into one trial for the film.
It received mediocre reviews, and flopped at the box office.
  • Budget: $30,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $25,105,255. ($48.8 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $25,105,255.

True Crime (1999)

His 21st film. Based on the novel by Andrew Klavan, it stars Eastwood, Isaiah Washington, Denis Leary, LisaGay Hamilton and James Woods. It follows a journalist covering the execution of a death row inmate, only to discover that the convict may actually be innocent.
This was another project that received mediocre reviews and flopped at the box office.
  • Budget: $55,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $16,649,768. ($31.2 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $16,649,768.

Space Cowboys (2000)

"Boys will be boys."
His 22nd film. It stars Eastwood, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, and James Garner as four aging former test pilots who are sent into space to repair an old Soviet satellite.
It received very positive reviews, and earned over $128 million worldwide.
  • Budget: $60,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $90,464,773. ($164 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $128,884,132.

Blood Work (2002)

"He's a heartbeat away from catching the killer."
His 23rd film. Based on the novel by Michael Connelly, it stars Eastwood, Jeff Daniels, Wanda De Jesús, and Anjelica Huston. It follows a retired FBI agent who recently had a heart transplant but still takes up the job to nab a killer.
It was another film with mediocre reviews and flop status.
  • Budget: $50,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $26,235,081. ($45.5 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $31,794,718.

Mystic River (2003)

"We bury our sins, we wash them clean."
His 24th film. Based on the novel by Dennis Lehane, it stars Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Kevin Bacon, Laurence Fishburne, Marcia Gay Harden, and Laura Linney. It follows three childhood friends who are reunited 25 years later when one of them suffers a family tragedy.
Michael Keaton was originally cast in the role of Det. Sean Devine, and did several script readings with the cast, as well as his own research into the practices of the Massachusetts Police Department. However, creative differences between Keaton and Eastwood led to Keaton leaving the production. He was replaced by Kevin Bacon. This was the first film in which Eastwood would be credited as composer.
The film had a slow roll-out, but it was aided by strong word of mouth, closing with a wonderful $156 million worldwide. It also received acclaim, and was named as one of Eastwood's greatest films. Sean Penn received universal acclaim for his performance, with some naming it among the best acting of the century, particularly for one scene (if you watched it, you definitely know which scene). It received 6 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director for Eastwood. It won two: Best Actor for Penn and Best Supporting Actor for Robbins.
  • Budget: $25,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $90,135,191. ($153 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $156,595,191.

Come back tomorrow for Part 2

Don't suggest directors for the next edition here. Save it for tomorrow.

submitted by SanderSo47 to boxoffice [link] [comments]


2024.05.18 18:04 Saim3655 My Lion Park Commercial, Looking for Feedbacks

My Lion Park Commercial, Looking for Feedbacks
Hi guys! I recently finished off the post production of my Lion Park commercial which was a parody of the Apple Vision Pro (as you can see the cheap ski mask hahah) and wanted to get any feedback about it (shots, color grading, etc.), thanks! 😊
As the camera this was shot on, I only used Sony FX6 and G-Master 24-70mm 2.8 II Lens. There was no lighting other than natural sun light, except on the final shot where I held a reflector from the right side of the actress.
I went for shooting handheld because I wanted to give that natural and warm feeling, and I generally don’t like too much static gimbal shots if it’s not necessary.
The voiceover (me) says “Hey you! You don't need virtual worlds to come face to face with wild cats. Come on, they are waiting for you in Lion Park. Are you ready for the adventure?”
P.S.: I know the hype is over but I was sick for about 2 months unfortunately and made the whole production by myself (shooting, editing, color grading, VFX, voiceover)
submitted by Saim3655 to cinematography [link] [comments]


2024.05.18 17:36 Saim3655 My Lion Park Commercial, Looking for Feedbacks

My Lion Park Commercial, Looking for Feedbacks
Hi guys! I recently finished off the post production of my Lion Park commercial which was a parody of the Apple Vision Pro (as you can see the cheap ski mask hahah) and wanted to get any feedback about it (shots, color grading, etc.), thanks! 😊
As the camera this was shot on, I only used Sony FX6 and G-Master 24-70mm 2.8 II Lens. There was no lighting other than natural sun light, except on the final shot where I held a reflector from the right side of the actress.
The voiceover (me) says “Hey you! You don't need virtual worlds to come face to face with wild cats. Come on, they are waiting for you in Lion Park. Are you ready for the adventure?”
P.S.: I know the hype is over but I was sick for about 2 months unfortunately and made the whole production by myself (shooting, editing, color grading, VFX, voiceover)
submitted by Saim3655 to videography [link] [comments]


2024.05.18 16:56 ThrowRA_careful From Childhood to Now: The Devastating Impact of Porn Addiction on My Life

First, I want to say I am happy to have found this supportive group. I don’t have anyone to talk to about this specific issue, so please bear with me it is a lengthy post.
I was probably about 7 years old. This was the early 2000s, so me and my sister would steal my dad’s flip phone we thought it was the coolest thing. Then we would find messages with his friends that would say things like “it’s get you a new gf day” along with a nude photo of a woman probably too young. there had been multiple nude photos that we had found. Even one time a video played with a loud pornographic sound. My parents are still married so even back then my sister and I felt badly for my mother. He had also mentioned to my mom in front of us all (me about 13) how he had been to a local specific topless bar a “long time ago” when my sister and I were toddlers. Again, I just felt horrible for my mom as the sinking feeling made itself a home in my gut to this day.
When I was 14 I started dating my first bf we dated for four years. I would feel sick and just worthless because of the movies we would watch. They would have nudity and he would make comments on the actresses. Even comparing me to some. His entire family would. He mentioned this to his mom and she told him I was young and insecure. I was pressured into sending him nudes or else he would watch porn and then blame me for it. I remember the rush of emotions, that sinking feeling when I would find even “innocent” photos of girls at school in his phone or porn in his search history. When we would go to the movies I was always on edge. I would search on those sites that go through the parent’s guide of nudity so I could prepare myself or convince to watch something else.
I dated another guy at 19. When were first together he told me he had never had an orgasm through sex and frequently struggled getting it up. It eventually went away but our sex life wasn’t healthy and we ended things. However, when I was about 20 I started dating a guy let’s call him David. David was the sweetest man. I felt so safe with him. We had an amazing sex life. I never had to worry about anything relating to porn or women around him at all. When I was about 22 I made a new friend let’s call him Jack. Jack and I were good friends nothing more. Until, two years into our friendship I fell “in love” with Jack. This caused me to end things with David. For the first year (we were separated for about 7 months) we never had penetrative sex. During the first couple of months, he told me he didn’t want his ED to negatively affect me. I thought because my ex was having issues and I understood it had nothing to do with me I would be fine. I went through our relationship believing it was ED. which turned out to be half the truth. I also believed his alcohol addiction and unhealthy lifestyle had something to do with it.
The part that sickens me the most is that we were friends first for two years, he told me he loved me and then destroyed me with his addiction. While we were friends shifting into a romantic relationship I would be grossed out by his prior use of strip clubs once spending thousands of dollars. Especially because in our relationship he would complain about spending money on me. He would always check out other women when we were together. It made me feel like I just wasn’t enough. One time on YouTube it was a video of this couple, the woman was doing her thirst trap thing with her butt and he said “We know why he’s with her” “She worked for that… you turn” I was so upset because I had already been insecure about my butt and into fitness for almost a decade, and dealing with body dysmorphia. Another time me, him and his friend were at a grocery store (this is the time of our budding romance) they pointed out how good this girl's butt was and followed her for a couple of isles claiming she wanted it to be seen.
I feel so stupid and ashamed typing this, the thought of getting into a relationship with a guy displaying this behavior WITH ME BY HIS SIDE. fast forward to six months later, 1.5 years into a relationship, 3 years of friendship. I’m now 25, he is 28. Still no sex. He told me he thinks his hormones are balanced and I honestly felt bad for him and encouraged him to talk to his doctor. He started taking the blue pills they kinda worked, but not really. I would talk about how I felt with my male therapist. I also felt very isolated almost because the honeymoon phase was ending he didn’t even want to cuddle.
We lived together at this point. My therapist told me he may have a PA, he may be lying to you about it. I thought no way because I had been looking through his phone frequently from a general lack of trust. I did ask him multiple times he would of course deny it. He would always be looking at thirst trap comments on Snapchat and YouTube. Even commented on one of my friends once “It was a joke”. I would tell him multiple times I did not like our sex life and it can’t continue like this.
I swear your PA may lie, but the algorithm doesn’t. I remember I got this TikTok on my FYP. The guy who in his videos starts by saying “Oh you want to know another disgusting secret about men” he talked about lying PA. I knew at that moment that’s what it was.
On the commercials for my favorite show, WWE commercials would come on. Women with makeup, hair and lingerie and I noticed he would always stare. I thought I was just making this in my head until once he made the comment that “he used to find them attractive when he was younger and that they are hot.” A couple of months ago we went on a trip. He would be sitting next to me just scrolling through YT reels of thirst content thinking I am blind. The first time we had sex he would buy my lingerie and I would go put it and makeup on while he was in the other room I noticed when I came out he had been on his phone. He was ALWAYS on his phone. I knew in my heart it was from watching porn bc he was hard. He claimed it was bc he was thinking of me. This happened a couple of times. I knew the truth but I ignored it because I craved intimacy.
The scrolling on Yt shorts happened again one night, his algorithm was just thirst trap after thirst trap including WWE clips. I was so stressed I knew I was not going to sleep the night. I planned to wake up and go through his phone while he was asleep. When I did, I found him on Reddit pages with porn of WWE women. Emails saying he signed into adult websites the date and times right before we would have sex. Even an article on the best VR sets for porn. I thought wow he’s really thinking of investing this amount of money when he can’t even invest in our relationship. My heart shattered into the glass, glad that continued to cut me. I never felt so disrespected or taken for granted, like I was never good enough before. I cannot believe someone who says they love me more than ever would gaslight me so hard.
The next day we were out at a restaurant he asked what was on my mind since I had been acting differently. Me: “ I’m going to ask you a question I’ve asked you before but this time you’re going to tell me the truth” Jack: immediately “no” I asked him to think again before you answer, why are you lying to me he kept denying it until I said why are you so comfortable lying to me. He said I’m not. Maybe I used it too much before in the past. I said I don’t trust you and I have no mental peace with you this thing between us cannot continue.
…Y’all this is all while he was trying to get me to move across the country with him!! The next morning we talked about it and I told him how he crushed me and how I went through his phone and after I said that, he then started feeling very bad, even shedding tears. Looking back it’s as if he knew that I knew I wasn’t crazy.
It sucks because I feel I will always love him and leaving was the hardest thing I had to do. I still go back and forth about my love for him it’s always love and pure hate. Half of the time I want to call him and tell him exactly how much he destroyed my mental health. I still always scan my surroundings, and the media around me. I still compare myself to every woman because I am used to him checking out everyone. He would say it takes nothing from me but it does. I’m tired of people saying that it’s insecurity if you want your man to only have eyes for you and make excuses.
I know this was not the case when I was with David it was never like this. I felt empowered and loved. Now I have begun to get back together with David but I feel like I am carrying all this baggage from Jack's pa. David is against this type of behavior and even talks about how it is disturbing how porn is so prevalent everywhere ( he doesn’t know about the pa with Jack or my past). I feel like I am soo disgruntled towards men (Dad included) even though David is innocent and probably the best man I’ve ever had in my life. My mental health decline from not trusting my gut is painful.
Thank you for reading and your support. I wish you all love and light.
submitted by ThrowRA_careful to loveafterporn [link] [comments]


2024.05.17 13:55 Zodiacpair 15 Taurus Celebrities Born on May 17th

15 Taurus Celebrities Born on May 17th
When the cosmos aligns on May 17th, it ushers in a wave of Taurus energy, infusing the world with the distinctive traits of this earth sign. Taurus individuals born on this day are destined for greatness, and their celestial journey is illuminated by the same stars that govern their sun sign. In this exploration of 15 Taurus celebrities born on May 17th, we delve into the intricacies of Taurus traits that shape their personalities and fuel their success.

Understanding Taurus Traits

Taurus, the second sign of the zodiac, is ruled by Venus, the planet of love and beauty. Those born under this sign are known for their unwavering determination, practicality, and an innate appreciation for the finer things in life. Like the sturdy bull that symbolizes Taurus, individuals born on May 17th exhibit a tenacious and reliable nature, often becoming the bedrock of stability in their social and professional circles.
Taurus individuals are renowned for their strong work ethic, a trait that plays a pivotal role in the success of the celebrities born on May 17th. The influence of Taurus in their lives can be seen in their commitment to their craft, be it acting, music, or sports. This earth sign imparts a sense of discipline that propels these individuals to overcome challenges and achieve their goals.

Here Are 15 Taurus Celebrities Born on May 17th

1. Sasha Alexander

Sasha Alexander (born May 17, 1973) is an American actress known for her roles in TV shows like “NCIS” and “Rizzoli & Isles.” She has also appeared in films such as “Yes Man” and “He’s Just Not That Into You.”

2. Nikki Reed

Nikki Reed
Nikki Reed (born May 17, 1988) is an American actress, screenwriter, and singer-songwriter. She gained fame for her role as Rosalie Hale in the “Twilight” saga and has also appeared in films like “Thirteen” and “Lords of Dogtown.”

3. Tahj Mowry

Tahj Mowry (born May 17, 1986) is an American actor and singer. He is known for his roles in TV shows such as “Smart Guy” and “Baby Daddy,” as well as voicing Wade Load in the animated series “Kim Possible.”

4. Trent Reznor

Trent Reznor (born May 17, 1965) is an American musician, singer, songwriter, and record producer. He is the founder and primary creative force behind the industrial rock band Nine Inch Nails and has won multiple awards for his work in music and film scoring.

5. Hill Harper

Hill Harper (born May 17, 1966) is an American actor and author known for his role as Dr. Sheldon Hawkes in the TV series “CSI: NY.” He has also appeared in films like “He Got Game” and “The Skulls.”

6. Ginger Gonzaga

Ginger Gonzaga
Ginger Gonzaga (born May 17, 1984) is an American actress and comedian. She is known for her roles in TV shows like “Kidding” and “Mixology,” as well as appearances in films such as “Ted” and “The Disaster Artist.”

7. David Eigenberg

David Eigenberg (born May 17, 1964) is an American actor known for his portrayal of Steve Brady in the television series “Sex and the City.” He has also appeared in films like “The Mothman Prophecies” and “See You in September.”

8. Josh Homme

Josh Homme (born May 17, 1973) is an American musician, singer, songwriter, and record producer. He is best known as the founder and frontman of the rock band Queens of the Stone Age, as well as for his work with bands like Kyuss and Eagles of Death Metal.

9. Kree Harrison

Kree Harrison (born May 17, 1990) is an American singer-songwriter who gained fame as the runner-up on the twelfth season of “American Idol.” She has since released music independently and has been praised for her soulful voice and country music style.

10. Page McConnell

Page McConnell (born May 17, 1963) is an American musician and songwriter best known as the keyboardist and a founding member of the rock band Phish. He has also pursued solo projects and collaborations with other artists throughout his career.

11. Enya

Enya (born May 17, 1961) is an Irish singer, songwriter, and musician known for her ethereal vocal style and New Age music. She has achieved worldwide success with albums such as “Watermark” and “Shepherd Moons” and is considered one of the best-selling female artists of all time.

12. Jordan Knight

Jordan Knight (born May 17, 1970) is an American singer-songwriter and member of the boy band New Kids on the Block. He has also pursued a solo career, releasing albums and singles that have garnered commercial success and critical acclaim.

13. Leven Rambin

Leven Rambin
Leven Rambin (born May 17, 1990) is an American actress known for her roles in TV shows like “All My Children” and “True Detective,” as well as films such as “The Hunger Games” and “Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters.” She has also appeared in various stage productions.

14. Rochelle Aytes

Rochelle Aytes (born May 17, 1976) is an American actress known for her roles in TV shows like “Mistresses” and “The Forgotten,” as well as films such as “Tyler Perry’s Madea’s Family Reunion” and “Trick ‘r Treat.” She has also worked as a model and appeared in various commercials.

15. Sendhil Ramamurthy

Sendhil Ramamurthy (born May 17, 1974) is an American actor of Indian descent known for his roles in TV shows like “Heroes” and “Covert Affairs,” as well as films such as “The Slammin’ Salmon” and “Shor in the City.” He has also appeared in numerous stage productions and voice acting roles.

Conclusion

As we unravel the celestial tapestry that connects these 15 Taurus celebrities born on May 17th, we witness the intricate interplay of Taurus traits shaping their destinies. From determination to sensuality, loyalty to practicality, these individuals embody the essence of their earth sign, creating a harmonious symphony of success in their lives.
submitted by Zodiacpair to u/Zodiacpair [link] [comments]


2024.05.17 07:19 Beginning_Mark_6167 I think my life is over.

Edit; I didn’t mean for 200 comments to happen I was just sharing my thoughts because I was up late and wanted to talk to someone but most of the “advice” just annoys me, no I am not staying alive for a possible future husband and kids. I am 24 and have never been on a date lmfao. The thought of having kids makes me wanna die more
So I’m 24F, just turned 24 a few weeks ago. I’m seriously considering ending my life this summer but it’s not completely in a depression type of way. I don’t know how to explain but I genuinely just feel like it’s time for my life to end, there’s nothing left for me
First of all, I won’t be hurting anyone. My family will get over it pretty quickly (not going into details but you’ll just have to trust it)
I have no close friends, no boyfriend, no pets. Truly only leaving being a crappy bachelor apartment that I rent, and my crappy car that I own lol.
I have completed my bucket list, and there’s nothing else within reason that I want.
My dream growing up was too be an actress, last year I shot a movie, a commercial and a tv show. All lower budget productions, but enough I got the experience of being an actress. The next level would be booking something bigger, but I’ve accepted that that will more then likely not happen so I’m taking what I can get. Regardless I can check being on set off the bucket list.
Then I had Beverly Hills and Hollywood. I saw Hollywood and Beverly Hills. Loved it
I wanted to have my first kiss, had it last summer shooting a horror movie. I watched myself on the big screen at a film festival.
I have nothing at all left that I need to do or see. Although I had a few more things on the list like being in a big movie I know that it won’t happen now sadly (I’ve been working on this career since I was 12)
My mom passed when I was 14, all I really want to do is go be with her. No more anxiety, no more being sad, no more obsessing over my career, no more money stress. Just my mom and peace.
And the two family members I leave behind benefit greatly from me being gone. I already have a plan, and I can not think of a single reason to stay alive to be honest. I’ve tried to find reasons to stick around and there truly isn’t one, so as of right now I’m genuinely planning on ending it in June. Unless a miracle happens lol, which I highly doubt.
submitted by Beginning_Mark_6167 to findapath [link] [comments]


2024.05.15 01:16 Haunting-Band-2763 Hazbin Hotel - Episode 1, Season 1: Overture - (Genderswap)

(An animation shows black and white clouds parting)
Charles: (Off-screen) Once upon a time, there was a glowing city protected by golden gates known as Heaven. It was ruled by beings of pure light. Angels that worshipped good and shielded all from evil. Lucy was one of these angels. She was a dreamer with fantastical ideas for all of creation. But she was seen as a troublemaker by the elders of Heaven. For they felt her way of thinking was dangerous to the perder of their world. So she watched as the angels began to expand the universe in their ways. From the dust of Earth, they created Eve (I couldn't think of a female name that looked like Adam) and Lilian. Equals as the first of mankind, but despite this, Eve demanded control and Lilian refused to submit to her will. He fled the garden. Drawn in by his fierce independence, Lucy found him and the two rebellious dreamers fell deeply in love. Together, they wished to share the magic of free will with humanity, offering the fruit of knowledge to Eve's new groom, Adam, who gladly accepted. But this gift came with a curse. For the single act of disobedience, evil finally found its way into Earth. With it, a new realm of darkness and sin. And the order Heaven had worked to maintain was shattered. As punishment for their reckless act, Heaven cast Lucy and her love into the dark pit she had created, never allowing her to see the good that came from humanity, only the cruel and the wicked. Ashamed, Lucy lost her will to dream. But Lilian thrived, empowering demon-kind with his voice and his songs. And as the numbers of Hell grew, so did its power. Threatened by this, Heaven made a truly heartless decision. That every year, they would send down an army, an extermination to ensure Hell and its sinners could never rise against them. But Lilian's hope remained. And his dream was passed down to their precious son, the Prince of Hell. (The prince shuts the "Story Of Hell" book) (On-screen) Don't worry, Dad. I'll make you proud. (He holds a key)
Vagner: Charles?
Charles: Augh! (The key turns into a cat) Oh, shit. Did you hear all that?
Vagner: Uh... Yeah, I was right there.
Charles: Sorry. I get worked up after an extermination happens. This story helps.
Vagner: (chuckles) I know. Don't worry. I enjoy your theatrics. Are you okay?
Charles: I'm fine, just...Thinking, ya know, family stuff.
Vagner: Did you hear from your dad yet?
(Charles shakes his head saying no)
Vagner: Oof. How long has it been now?
Charles: Not that long, only...Seven...Years...Off something important, I'm sure. But this kingdom was something he really cared about. Something I care about.
Vagner: Well, at least you aren't alone.
Charles: I just hope what I'm trying to do here will work.
Vagner: It will. I have faith in you.
(The cat hopes on Charles)
Vagner: All right. Come on. Alice says she has something to show us.
(Vagner heads to the door and Charles look out of the window and see Hell on fire and goes)
(A commercial plays)
Alice: Well, hello there you wayward sinner. Do you like blood, violence and depravity of a sexual nature? Of course you do. That's why you're in Hell! But what would you say there was a place to stay that had none of that? Welcome to the Hazbin Hotel, a misguided path to redemption! Founded five days ago by Lucy's delusional son Charleson Morningstar! Come place your fate in his inexperienced hands as he tries to work through his mommy issues by fixing you! Here, we offer fun thing! Such as somewhat functional staff! And 24 hour Pest Control! Custom rooms, and just look at this tacky parlor! Enjoy riveting conversation with our singular resident. Wow! All this and more at the Hazbin Hotel! You last desperate attempt at salvation starts here.
(The tv suits off)
Alice: So, what'd ya' think?
Vagner: I'm sorry, what the fuck was that?!
Charles: Uh, yeah, one note...Alice, I mean...First off, thank you so much for making this, seriously, amazing, but um...Maybe the tone is a bit...Off? We want people to want to come here, this makes it look...Ummm...
Vagner: Bad. The word you're looking for is "bad".
Alice: Funny, I was going for hilarious!
Vagner: It didn't explain anything about how we're trying to save demons from extermination, which is the whole fucking point.
Charles: Vagner is right, Alice. The commercial was to let sinners know we are trying to help them.
Alice: Well, my dear, I haven't been active in Hell for some time, and everyone remembers me from my radio show! The proper medium to express oneself! But YOU insisted on this noisy picture box adversiment! So I had a little fun with it.
Vagner: Oh, fun? You had a little fun with it? (Stand on the sofa) Well, this is not what we want to represent us. When you showed up here a week ago, you told us you would help run the hotel! Instead, you're mocking us. Nobody's going to want to come to a place that a powerful overlord like you thinks is a waste of time!
(A demon on a sofa raises her hand)
Vagner: What?
Angela: If'n ya filmin' a commercial, can I suggest you take better advantage of the talented celebrity you have right here?
Vagner: Angela, you're a porn star.
Angela: A famous porn star. I'll have the horniest sinners knockin' these walls down to get in.
Vagner: We are not filming a porn as a commercial.
Angela: Why not? Sex sells, don't it? I swear if you film me goin' at it with mistress fancy-talk-creepy-voice here, you'd rollin' in participants willin' to stay at this tacky hotel.
Alice: Haha! Never going to happen!
Charles: Angela, I appreciate you wanting to use you special skills to, um, attract folks to the hotel, but...I really don't want to exploit you, in that way!
Angela: Oh, please, baby. This body was made to be exploited. I got the arms, I got the stamina, I got the legs. I got the lung capacity-- Oh-oh I got the legs! The gag reflex, the holes...
(Charles laughs uncomfortably and his phone rings with his mom calling)
Angela: The small tits that make everyone think I'm a man...
Charles: Uhhh, hold that thought. I'll be right back! (Walks away)
Angela: I could keep goin' all night, baby.
(Charles breathes and answers the phone)
Charles: Hello? Mom?
Angela: Hey, I have a question. If freaky face over there is so powerful, then why can't she just make people stay here?
Alice: Oh, trust me, (ominously) I can!
Hisky: Why the hell do you think I'm here?
(The camera goes to Hisky at the bar)
Hisky: You actually think I'd be cleaning bottles and listening to you fuck's bitches moan all the time if she wasn't forcin' me?
Niffter: I like being forced!
Hisky: Keep that to yourself, Niff.
Angela: What, you don't like being here with me, Whiskers?
Hisky: Call me "Whiskers" again and I'll that bottle down your throat.
Angela: Kinky. But I like pussies. But keep talkin' dirty.
Vagner: Ugh, Angela, let Hisky do her job. And no, we can't force sinners to stay here. They need to choose to.
Angela: I'm choosing to be here, and I think is all stupid. We're in Hell, toots. It's kind of the end of the road, ain't it?
Vagner: Well, maybe it doesn't have to be. Just because nobody has made it before doesn't mean is not possible. (Angela pust her arm in his shoulder)
Angela: Hey, whatever means I can keep crashin' here rent free. Crack is expensive.
Charles: (excitedly) Yeah, I can! Totally. Yeah, I'll head over there right away...Okay. (Turns off the phone) Hah! YES! YES!! Hahahaha!! Vagner! Holy shit!
Vagner: Ahh! What?!
Charles: (through closed mouth) Get over here!
(Vagner sighs and goes to where Charles is)
Vagner: What's going on?
Charles: (Inhales) My mom just called. She said that the leader of the Angel Army wants to meet. She asked if I could go instead. (Breathes deeply)
Vagner: But... But...But the extermination just happened. What would they want this soon after...
Charles: (Singing) I can do this. Somehow, I know it I'll get Heaven behind my plan!
Vagner: Charles, hold on.
Charles: There's just no way I could blow it. Not this once a lifetime change!
Vagner: It's just a meeting.
Charles: To change their minds. And touch their hearts. Or whatever angels have.
Vagner: This could be bad.
Charles: Cheer up, Vagner. This could be swell. Something tells that today will be a happy day in Hell!
Vagner: Okay, but just don't... sing to them.
Angela: That motherfucker is halfway down the street.
Vagner: Is he...
Angela: Oh, he's dancin'.
Vagner: Ugh, no.
Charles: There's a warm fuzzy feeling that wafts through the air! Every street so revealing it's hard not to stare. It's a realm so appealing it beats anywhere! If you don't mind the smell! It's a happy day in Hell! Hi, miss!
Demon: Go fuck yourself!
Dead Sinner #1: There's a endless trash fire that's burnig my soul!
Charles: Hello!
Imp: There's a lot of barbed wire to shove in her holes!
Charles: Uh, excuse me...
Executioner: Doing what is required we all have a role!
Dead Sinner #2: I'm not doing well!
Ensemble: Another shitty day in Hell!
Charles: If I can show them the dream I've dreamed, that any soul can change!
Vagner: Those angels minds are hard to change!
Charles: Then they know that everyone can be redeemed from the evil to the strange!
Vagner: They're bloodthirsty and deranged!
Charles: I can hear all their stories, the lost and the displaced! And I know that they're of an acquired taste! But if I open the door and give them a place at my Hazbin Hotel it'll be a happy day in Hell! (Jumps in the back of a truck) From the porn studio where the cinephiles go to watch award winning demon bukkake shows to the Cannibal Town where they don't wear a frown 'cause...Holy shit, ew, my gosh, why?! And I don't give a crow that her brains got in my eye! Cause I know I can spare them from Heaven's genocide! I can do this...
Dead Sinner #1: There's an endless trash fire...
Charles: I just know it! Dead Sinner #1: That's burning my soul!
Chorus: Ahhhhhhhhhh!
Charles: I'll get Heaven behind my plans! There's just no way I could blow it!
Demon Sinner #3: I kinda like the barbed wire that's shoved in my hole!
Charles: Not this once in a lifetime chance! To change their minds!
Trenchcoat Demon: And touch my parts!
Charles: Oh...No, thank you. I'm just gonna...Fullfill my destiny!
Trenchcoat Demon: Your loss fucker!
Charles: I can already tell! Today is gonna be a fucking happy day in Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell! (Charles enters at the lobby) Hello? (echoes) Hello? Creepy...(He goes to the reception, rings the bell in the table and a paper and a feather pen appear in front of him) Oh, okay! Also creepy. (Signs the paper)
(Elevator doors open, Charles goes to them and enters in a dark room)
Charles: Hello? Is anyone here?
(The lights turn on)
Eve: 'Sup?
Charles: Holy shit! (Falls in the floor and gets up) Hi, I'm Charles. My mom asked if I could meet you.
Eve: Yeah, I know.
Charles: Okay, well, it's nice to meet you. (Stands his hand)
Eve: Totally. Nice to meet you, too. (Stands her hand)
(Charles hand passes through Eve's hand)
Charles: Ahh!
Eve: Ha! I fucking got you! Did you fuckin' see that?
(Luther shaves his head in yes)
Eve: Good shit!
Charles: Uh, so wait, you aren't here?
Eve: No, you think I'd come down there? (Laughs) No. I mean, I love the vibe, totally, I love your tunes. Pretty fuckin' hardcore, don't get me wrong. But, it's such a bummer, man. Everything down there's just so "eugh" ya know? (Chuckles) Ew.
Charles: Right. So I'm happy we got this opportunity to meet. There's a project I've been working on that I really want to talk to you about...(Eve puts her finger in his mouth)
Eve: Hey, hey, hey, slow down. We got time. How about we get to know each other, mm? How about some lunch? You hungry? I got you! (Shows a plate with ribs) Here's my personal favourite. You'll love it.
Charles: Uh, thanks! (His arms passes through the plate of ribs)
Eve: (Laughing) I got you again, fucker! Haha fuckin' hilarious! Haha!
(Back at the Hazbin Hotel, everyone is at the lobby)
Vagner: Okay, so Charles is dealing with something very important, so while he's gone, we are making a new commercial. One that representants his vision and what we're doing here. So we need a camera. Alice?
(Alice snaps her fingers and an old camera appears in Vagner's hand)
Vagner: A video camera.
Alice: Hmmm. (Snaps her fingers)
(A video camera appears in Vagner's hand)
Vagner: All right, let's do this!
(Vagner films Angela sitting at the bar)
Vagner: And...Action!
Hisky: "Welcome to the Hazbin Hotel, can I help you with anything?"
Angela: "I've been a bad girl. And I need a big strong mommy to put me in my place...On the path to redemption!"
Hisky: Ugh! "Well, you come..."
Angela: "Oh yes!"
Hisky: (boredly) "To the right place!"
Vagner: Cut! Okay, Angela, I need you to be less horny, if possible. And Hisky, can you maybe not have a script in front of your face?
Hisky: (Angrily) I ain't no actress, I can't memorize this shit!
Angela: Well, we could improve this shit, baby cakes! (Purrs seductively and Hisky push her out of the counter) Ahh!
Hisky: Whoops. (Drink a bottle)
Vagner: Hisky, come on!
(Meanwhile, Charles is bored)
Eve: So I was playing this gig, and for some fucking reason this virtue boy was digging on the drummer, and it's like, do you know who I am? I'm fucking Eve. I'm the original pussy! All pussies descend from me. You think you like a drummer pussy? No way, I'm the Pussy-fucking master! (Eats sloppily) So anyway, then we fucked, and it was awesome. What'd you do this weekend?
Charles: Wait, your name is Eve? Like the first woman? That means you...Ohhh...(Enlightened) That explains so much.
Eve: I know. I fucking rock.
Charles: Well, Eve, ma'am. Mrs. Eve, ma'am.
Eve: Call me Pussymaster.
Charles: Eve, you seem like a smart...well, stand up girl.
Eve: (With the finger in her teeth) Uh-huh.
Charles: And I know you are the leader of the angels. And you are a bigger revolutionary, a...A genius!
Eve: I maen, your words, babe.
Charles: Who would really her name on something.
Eve: Fucking love putting my name on shit! Shit's the best!
Charles: It's a solution to our biggest problem!
Eve: Oh, herpes. Yeah, that's a bitch.
Charles: No! Our other biggest problem.
Eve: Oh, uh...Ugly people? (Looks at the camera) Math? Global warming? Nah, wait that's Earth's problem. Umm...
(At the hotel, a bug walks in the floor and a needle tries to stab it saverel times)
Niffter: Hehehe. Stab. Stab. Stab.
Vagner: Alright Niffter. Niffter? Niffter! (Stops him) Your line is "We have the cleanest rooms". Okay?
Niffter: Got it. I'm ready.
Vagner: (Turns on the camera) Action!
(Niffter looks at the camera with his pupil constricted and Angela and Vagner look at him confused and he keeps staring weirdly)
Vagner: Uhh...Cut. (Turns off the camera)
(Niffter smiles again)
Niffter: (Giggles) How was that?
Vagner: Well, Niffter, you actually have to say the line. So let's roll again.
Niffter: Okay!
Vagner: Action. (Turns on the camera)
(Niffter stares deeply at the camera)
Angela: You're doing great, Vagina!
Vagner: Cut! Alright, um, maybe wr can try to fix it in the post.
Angela: Do you even know what that means?
Vagner: (Angrily) I'll figure it out!
(In the lobby, Vagner is watching the video with the camera connected to the tv)
Hisky: (On TV) Welcome to the Hazbin Hotel.
(Vagner groans, covers his eyes and Alice appears in his side)
Alice: Seems like you're having a bit of trouble there, hm?
Vagner: Ugh, esta pendeja...Why are you even here?
Alice: For the entertainment! I came here because I love seeing wasteful souls struggle to accomplish something meaningful and fail spectacularly. Like you are doing now! Good job!
Vagner: (Turns on the camera) And here is Alice, the egocentric piece of shit that...
(Alice gets static on the camera and it starts to spark and Vagner screams and knocks the camera down)
Alice: I wouldn't try that, my darling. (Sinisterly) This face was made for radio.
Vagner: (Gets angry) That's it! I don't care who or what you are! If you are staying here you are going to make this work! Beause it won't be so "entertaining" to watch an empty hotel will it, shit ass?! (Turns around and walks away)
Alice: Fair enough. I'll tell you what. Let's make a deal.
Vagner: Pft! You think I'm that stupid? Making a deal with a demon like you.
Alice: Not for your soul, just a simple deal. I do this for you, and you never ask me to engage with this frivolous television technology ever again. Or...Charles can come back to absolutely nothing! Your choice.
Vagner: (Sighs) Fine. (Gets the video camera and raises in Alice's hand and green ghosted skulls fly around it)
Alice: Now then! (Makes the camera disappear and snaps her fingers)
(Angela, Hisky and Niffter, a lot of filming materials and a ghost recording team appear in the lobby and everyone gets tailor clothes)
Vagner: Alright, everyone! Let's make a fucking commercial.
(Meanwhile)
Eve:...When you take him out for the fifth time and he still expects you to pay the check, but you're like, (In deep voice) "Hey I thought you wanted equality"!
Charles: (Frustrated) No! Our shared problem of overpopulation in Hell!
Eve: (Normal) Oh! Well, that's not a problem! We got that covered! Luther, how many demons did you kill this year?
Luther: Got a good 275 this year, ma'am.
Eve: 275? Whoa, badass! Awesome job, danger dick! Pound it. (Punch fists with Luther)
Charles: Uh, no, not awesome. Those are my people, you know that, right?
Eve: Ohhh, yeah...That must suck for you. Pft...Hahahaha! Charles: But these are souls. Human souls, just the same as the ones you have in Heaven.
Luther: They're not the same. They had their chance and they earned damnation.
Charles: You're wrong. Sinners made mistakes, sure, but everyone makes mistakes.
Luther: Angels don't make mistakes.
Charles: You really think that?
Luther: I know that.
Eve: Yeah, I've never made a mistake in my fucking life.
Luther: The only reason you're still here is because Mommy gave you and your Hellborn-kind a pardon from an exorcist blade. How does that feel? To know how little you matter.
(Charles shrinks back)
Eve: Oops, almost out of time. Guess we should get into it...
Charles: Oh! Fuck!...(Get up from the chair) Okay. I've a lot to get through and not a lot of time and I feel like you weren't really hearing before, so here goes. (Clears throat) (Singing) I know Hell's population is out of control. It's a bad situation, it's taking a toll. If we rehabe these sinners and cleanse all their souls at my Hazbin Hotel! (Normal) Wait I'm getting ahead of myself! Right! Extermination! (Singing) I know you guys fly down just to kill once a year. And it must be annoying to schlep all the way here. If they join you in Heaven that trip disappears! You can wave that chore farewell! (Deep breath) It'll be a happy day in...
Eve: (Singing) Let me stop you right there, save us all precious time!
Charles: (Normal) Okay?
Eve: If what you're suggesting is letting them climb! Up the ladder. Oh they rather cross the Pearly Gates? Sorry, sweetie, but there's no defying in their fates! 'Cause Hell is forever wheter you like it or not! Had their chance to behave better now they boil in a pot! 'Cause the rules are black and white there's no use in trying to fight it! They're burning for their lives until we kill them again!
Charles: Okay, but...
Eve: Just try to chillax, babe, you're wasting your breath!
Charles: (Nervously) Hehe...
Eve: Did I hear you imply that they deserve death? Are they winners? Are they sinners? 'Cause it's cut and dry!
Charles: Actually, if you take a look...
Eve: Fair is fair, an eye for an eye! And when all's said and done! (Said and done) There's the question of fun! (Fun) And for those of us with divine ordainment, extermination is entertainment! (Imitates guitar) Guitar solo, fuck yeah! (Imitates guitar) Hell is forever whether you like or not! Had their chance to behave better now they boil in a pot!
Charles: Where all these people come from?
Eve: 'Cause the rules are black and white, there's no use in trying to fight it! They're burning for their lives until we kill them again! (materializes a guitar and play it) Fucking Hell is forever and it's meant to suck a lot! So give up your dumb endeavor 'cause you don't have a shot!
(Charles groans, his paper gets on fire and his hair moves in the air and horns appear in his head)
Eve: Long as I've got your attention, I guess In should probably mention that we made a determination (Shows a contract) To move up the next extermination!
Charles: What?!
Eve: Can't wait a whole year to slaughter those little cunts! (Holds Charles' wrist) I know is just been a week, but we'll be back in six months! (Spins Charles out of the room and plays her guitar)
Charles: Um, wait, didn't you...(Goes at the door, but it closes) Awh, shit! (Punches the door)
(Charles returns sad to the Hazbin Hotel)
Vagner: Charles! (Hugs him) How did it go? Did they listen?
Charles: Oh, uh...They sure did...hear it! But, um...
Vagner: Oh! Come here. We have something exciting to show you! (Holds Charles to the living room) Alice pulled some strings, and it's about to air.
Alice: I pulled a few limbs too! Hahaha!
Charles: Wait? The commercial? You all made a new one?
Angela: Yeah, one of my better performances, if I do can say so myself.
Charles: That's...That's amazing.
Angela: Shh! It's starting!
Vagner: (On TV) Welcome to the Hazbin Hot...
(The TV changes to the 666 News channel and everyone complains)
Kallie: (On TV) Breaking news in Hell today! We have just received word from the Heaven Embassy that the next extermination is happening sooner than ever before! Do you know what that means, Tomita?
Tomita: No. What does that means, Kallie?
Kallie: It means we are all royally fucked!
(The clock in an hourglass changes to 176 with everyone screaming)
Angela: Wait...What? Why?!
(A drone laser scans a headless body of an angel laying in Hell and Eve and Luther see then from the ship)
Luther: We found the body, ma'am. They've never managed to kill one of us before. We should just go down there now and destroy them!
Eve: No, no. We can't risk them catching on. But don't worry, when we come back, there won't be a demon left to pull a stunt like this again. (Breaks the projector and her eyes and mouth glow in the dark)
(The end credits start playing)
submitted by Haunting-Band-2763 to hazbin [link] [comments]


2024.05.14 15:08 YourlocalTitanicguy Odd Titanica: Hollywood sleaze

In this edition of “Odd Titanica”, we are going to dive into the sleazy, opportunistic world of show business. A world that comedian Fred Allen said of, “you can take all the sincerity in Hollywood, place it in the navel of a fruit fly, and still have room for three caraway seeds and a producer’s heart”. Hyperbolic? Let’s take a look at Hollywood’s response to the Titanic disaster to see that there really is no business like show business.
Dorothy Gibson and the lost, first, film are well worn trivia by now. The traumatized actress rushed into production, her inability to process her trauma causing her mental breakdown, collapse, and retirement from acting immediately after the film was finished - it’s a perfect story to demonstrate the callousness of the film industry. But there is more to the story, and digging deeper shows us that “Saved” may have been the least sleazy project undertaken by the studios.
Dorothy’s account of the sinking and the suffering she endured filming “Saved from the Titanic” are predominantly found in two sources - The New York Dramatic Mirror and Moving Picture World. These were trade magazines, published weekly, and consisting solely of material related to the stage and screen business. These would be announcements of upcoming features, casting news, celebrity gossip, technical news - anything the movie star to the man sweeping the floor at the cinema needed to know. And they included ads … lots and lots of ads.
Immediately realizing that Titanic was not only a horrible tragedy but an incredible business opportunity, Moving Picture World got to work. As people stormed White Star Line offices, and raided newspaper carts for any drop of news regarding the sinking, Moving Picture World provided the latest in Titanic news; or perhaps we should say “Titanic” news.
The headlines of the April 27th issue may have screamed TITANIC, but as the public grabbed their copy and hurriedly flipped through the pages, they found that what they were actually given was ads. Those eye grabbing headlines were followed by much smaller print-
TITANIC EFFORTS... are being exerted by Champion to put before the exhibitors that will make them regular Champ Patrons! Get the following latest [releases] and you’ll be convinced!.
UNSINKABLE … is the reputation of Rep productions, but these two releases will sink into the minds of everyone who sees them and will remain there as worthy object lessons.
THE CRY OF THE CHILDREN …suggested by the poem of Elizabeth Barret Browning in 2 reels this Tuesday!
THE GREATEST MOTION PICTURE OF NATIONAL INTEREST - THE SINKING OF…. the big battleship. Remember the Maine!
THE DEATH SHIP...a sensational two reel drama of the sea containing one of the most thrilling dynamite explosions imaginable!
For all the slimy marketing tricks, flipping through the pages still has plenty of legitimate ads for real Titanic newsreels, movies, and a specific type of presentation known a Myriorama involving painting, music, and recitation. But, show business would strike again - the ads were legitimate, but what they were advertising was not. History has sort of forgotten the huge demand for Titanic media in the wake of the sinking, something that didn’t really exist. When cinema owners would order these “only surviving genuine negatives of the disaster” complete with lobby display package, they instead received-
our astonishment to find the Lusitania and Olympic, and one or two scratch films of ancient days posing as pictures of Titanic.
But they didn’t stop. Animated Weekly advertised that they were “the first to reach the wreck… chartered a tug from Cape Breton and rushed to the scene while the survivors were still in the water”. Cinemas began to promote footage of the sinking. Audiences wrote their disgust to Moving Picture World-
These representations are to the point of criminality … Take, for instance, the picture showing the Titanic with about a sixth of her forward length stuck into the iceberg. Everybody knows the collision did not occur in that manner!
They pointed to the following ad as an example - FIRST PICTURES OF THE TITANIC OCEAN DISASTER. The cinema owners responded by noting that they had misread, crammed in tiny letters were the words “sunk in” so that ad actually read FIRST PICTURES OF THE TITANIC sunk in OCEAN DISASTER. It was the customer's fault, they said, to be stupid enough to think anyone could have actually filmed the sinking.
Once this ruse was discovered, the studios shifted gears. The next step was to advertise film along with presentations by “A Lecturer who was on board”. When the audience realized the lecturer was not on Titanic and demanded a refund - the response from the managers was
Those signs didn’t say he was a survivor.
… and any attempt to charge him with the crime of fraud was absurd because, in his own words-
Of course I didn’t give him his money back. The sign didn’t misrepresent anything. West was on the Titanic, the sign didn’t say when he was.
…which was true. The lecturer, Eugene West, had visited Titanic while she was under construction at Belfast.
As for the movies themselves?
We said we had pictures. If people were foolish enough to think we meant moving pictures, that was their fault.
This particular cheated audience member was told if he wanted his money back, to go on the street and sing for it. Whether it was this, or something else, eventually the public snapped and began hauling out cinema managers and beating them in the streets. By May, the mayors of Boston and Memphis had banned the showing of any Titanic pictures - moving or still- within the city.
But, where was Dorothy in all this? Tucked in the very back of the magazine, after another newsreel ad,, we get to the celebrity sighting and gossip section. Ed Lux of the Rex Film Exchange was in town, Dan Markowitz of Fox Pictures was as well, Arthur Schmidt of the Victor Film Company was seen having a lovely spa at a Turkish Bath, Sam Gobel of the St Louis Motion Picture Company has been walking up and down 42nd street, we don’t know if Southern film maker Henry Wasserman is still here but he might be, Dorothy Gibson survived the sinking of the Titanic, and the Director of Selig Pictures took some actresses to Santa Catalina for a swim and a photoshoot and they had a great time.
By the following edition, on May 2nd, Moving Picture World was also able to provide its readers with the first stills from “Saved from the Titanic” and a feature on Dorothy. Along with this, tucked in the editorials, the magazine finally published a piece of truthful news about the Titanic disaster-
Senator William Alden Smith … declined to grant permission to have the cinematopgraph make a record of the sessions of the committee. “The sessions” he is quoted as saying…”are solemn affairs and must not be hippodromed or commercialized”. He is, however, falling into a serious error in judgement-
…they sniffed.
As a matter of right, the camera man ought to have been permitted. The day of the enfranchisement of the motion picture will surely come .. which will give equal rights to the cinematographer and the newspaper man.
Then, among the illegal false advertising and reports of public brawls at the cinema, they ended with-
The lesson of the Titanic disaster and all its incidents can be made far more impressive by pictures that move than by mere words in cold letters.
submitted by YourlocalTitanicguy to titanic [link] [comments]


2024.05.14 15:05 YourlocalTitanicguy Odd Titanica: Hollywood sleaze

In this edition of “Odd Titanica”, we are going to dive into the sleazy, opportunistic world of show business. A world that comedian Fred Allen said of, “you can take all the sincerity in Hollywood, place it in the navel of a fruit fly, and still have room for three caraway seeds and a producer’s heart”. Hyperbolic? Let’s take a look at Hollywood’s response to the Titanic disaster to see that there really is no business like show business.
Dorothy Gibson and the lost, first, film are well worn trivia by now. The traumatized actress rushed into production, her inability to process her trauma causing her mental breakdown, collapse, and retirement from acting immediately after the film was finished - it’s a perfect story to demonstrate the callousness of the film industry. But there is more to the story, and digging deeper shows us that “Saved” may have been the least sleazy project undertaken by the studios.
Dorothy’s account of the sinking and the suffering she endured filming “Saved from the Titanic” are predominantly found in two sources - The New York Dramatic Mirror and Moving Picture World. These were trade magazines, published weekly, and consisting solely of material related to the stage and screen business. These would be announcements of upcoming features, casting news, celebrity gossip, technical news - anything the movie star to the man sweeping the floor at the cinema needed to know. And they included ads … lots and lots of ads.
Immediately realizing that Titanic was not only a horrible tragedy but an incredible business opportunity, Moving Picture World got to work. As people stormed White Star Line offices, and raided newspaper carts for any drop of news regarding the sinking, Moving Picture World provided the latest in Titanic news; or perhaps we should say “Titanic” news.
The headlines of the April 27th issue may have screamed TITANIC, but as the public grabbed their copy and hurriedly flipped through the pages, they found that what they were actually given was ads. Those eye grabbing headlines were followed by much smaller print-
TITANIC EFFORTS are being exerted by Champion to put before the exhibitors that will make them regular Champ Patrons! Get the following latest [releases] and you’ll be convinced!.
UNSINKABLE … is the reputation of Rep productions, but these two releases will sink into the minds of everyone who sees them and will remain there as worthy object lessons.
THE CRY OF THE CHILDREN …suggested by the poem of Elizabeth Barret Browning in 2 reels this Tuesday!
** THE GREATEST MOTION PICTURE OF NATIONAL INTEREST - THE SINKING OF**…. the big battleship. Remember the Maine!
THE DEATH SHIP...a sensational two reel drama of the sea containing one of the most thrilling dynamite explosions imaginable!
For all the slimy marketing tricks, flipping through the pages still has plenty of legitimate ads for real Titanic newsreels, movies, and a specific type of presentation known a Myriorama involving painting, music, and recitation. But, show business would strike again - the ads were legitimate, but what they were advertising was not.
History has sort of forgotten the huge demand for Titanic media in the wake of the sinking, something that didn’t really exist. When cinema owners would order these “only surviving genuine negatives of the disaster” complete with lobby display package, they instead received-
our astonishment to find the Lusitania and Olympic, and one or two scratch films of ancient days posing as pictures of Titanic.
But they didn’t stop. Animated Weekly advertised that they were “the first to reach the wreck… chartered a tug from Cape Breton and rushed to the scene while the survivors were still in the water”. Cinemas began to promote footage of the sinking. Audiences wrote their disgust to Moving Picture World-
These representations are to the point of criminality … Take, for instance, the picture showing the Titanic with about a sixth of her forward length stuck into the iceberg. Everybody knows the collision did not occur in that manner!
They pointed to the following ad as an example - FIRST PICTURES OF THE TITANIC OCEAN DISASTER. The cinema owners responded by noting that they had misread, crammed in tiny letters were the words “sunk in” so that ad actually read FIRST PICTURES OF THE TITANIC sunk in OCEAN DISASTER. It was the customers fault, they said, to be stupid enough to think anyone could have actually filmed the sinking.
Once this ruse was discovered, the studios shifted gears. The next step was to advertise film along with presentations by “A Lecturer who was on board”. When the audience realized the lecturer was not on Titanic and demanded a refund - the response from the managers was
Those signs didn’t say he was a survivor.
… and any attempt to charge him with the crime of fraud was absurd because, in his own words-
Of course I didn’t give him his money back. The sign didn’t misrepresent anything. West was on the Titanic, the sign didn’t say when he was.
…which was true. The lecturer, Eugene West, had visited Titanic while she was under construction at Belfast.
As for the movies themselves?
We said we had pictures. If people were foolish enough to think we meant moving pictures, that was their fault.
This particular cheated audience member was told if he wanted his money back, to go on the street and sing for it. Whether it was this, or something else, eventually the public snapped and began hauling out cinema managers and beating them in the streets. By May, the mayors of Boston and Memphis had banned the showing of any Titanic pictures - moving or still- within the city.
But, where was Dorothy in all this? Tucked in the very back of the magazine, after another newsreel ad,, we get to the celebrity sighting and gossip section. Ed Lux of the Rex Film Exchange was in town, Dan Markowitz of Fox Pictures was as well, Arthur Schmidt of the Victor Film Company was seen having a lovely spa at a Turkish Bath, Sam Gobel of the St Louis Motion Picture Company has been walking up and down 42nd street, we don’t know if Southern film maker Henry Wasserman is still here but he might be, Dorothy Gibson survived the sinking of the Titanic, and the Director of Selig Pictures took some actresses to Santa Catalina for a swim and a photoshoot and they had a great time.
By the following edition, on May 2nd, Moving Picture World was also able to provide its readers with the first stills from “Saved from the Titanic” and a feature on Dorothy. Along with this, tucked in the editorials, the magazine finally published a piece of truthful news about the Titanic disaster-
Senator William Alden Smith … declined to grant permission to have the cinematopgraph make a record of the sessions of the committee. “The sessions” he is quoted as saying…”are solemn affairs and must not be hippodromed or commercialized”. He is, however, falling into a serious error in judgement-
…they sniffed.
As a matter of right, the camera man ought to have been permitted. The day of the enfranchisement of the motion picture will surely come .. which will give equal rights to the cinematographer and the newspaper man.
Then, among the illegal false advertising and reports of public brawls at the cinema, they ended with-
The lesson of the Titanic disaster and all its incidents can be made far more impressive by pictures that move than by mere words in cold letters.
submitted by YourlocalTitanicguy to RMS_Titanic [link] [comments]


2024.05.11 21:45 welldonefilmsandtv In Praise of Alex Garland's (Cerebral) Sci-fi Chamber Piece: Ex Machina

In Praise of Alex Garland's (Cerebral) Sci-fi Chamber Piece: Ex Machina
https://preview.redd.it/86chslampuzc1.jpg?width=1701&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c688bc6535588f9cd0c90631ce6224cc0d7908a
I’m a sucker for a good arthouse film.
‘Ex Machina’ is definitely that – and much more.
Directed by Alex Garland in 2015, this film is an introspection on life, love, and creation; through the lens of artificial intelligence. With all the recent advancements in AI – I figured it was time to cover a fine piece of filmmaking that takes an in-depth look at the concept of synthetically created people.
Once relegated to science fiction; the creation of “Turing tested” androids now seems like a distinct possibility – in the years to come. As of late, every company has begun to invest in AI Language Models, Automated Processes (driver assist, autopilot, Amazon’s Just Walk Out*), and fully autonomous robots for personal and commercial use(s).* The rate at which ‘Moore’s Law’ is now compounding means that our ability to create AI has exponentially increased. [see below]
Movies and television shows, like ‘The Matrix’, ‘Terminator’, ‘Westworld’, Stephen Spielberg’s ‘Artificial Intelligence‘, ‘The Creator’, ‘I, Robot’, ‘2001 a Space Odyssey’, and ‘Blade Runner’ – to name a few – are becoming increasingly relevant by the day. Their pertinence in light of recent funding for AI based military applications and the aforementioned advancements, is only becoming greater.
Just type flamethrower robot dog into google, you’ll see what I mean.
‘Ex Machina’ has a lot to say about the hierarchical nature of society and how it subsequently affects our sense of right and wrong. Ethics vs scientific advancement is an ever present theme in the film. The plot craftily relies on an opaque narrative to obfuscate the true antagonist of the film. This is a risky inversion; yet it pays off by the end. Ultimately who the “villain” is*, is* left up to interpretation. The young, hot-shot programmer – Kyle certainly fits as the protagonist – but whether you side with AVA over her creator Nathan is left completely up to you (the viewer). And Nathan, the genius tech mogul who built AVA – also seems likely to bring about his own downfall through callousness and over-confidence. His arrogance blinds him from the seriousness of creating a new lifeform, the ramifications – ethical and otherwise.
Here are a few points on what makes ‘Ex Machina’ such a mesmerizing example of cinema.
-Dialogue elevates the piece, allowing for audience suspension of disbelief. Oscar Issac leads the chamber piece, both actors play well off of each other.
-Nothing is wasted on-screen; everything has a purpose. Chekov’s gun is present in the film. When something is center frame – you are meant to dwell on the meaning of the object present. A Jackson Pollock painting is discussed by the characters; automatic action with a level of consciousness is the method Pollack applied; fugue state. This allows for contemplation on pre-determinism vs free will. Later the painting is focused on by the protagonist & the viewer, illustrating the overarching theme of “qualifying sentience”.
-Framing is sublime; everything of importance is center screen, symmetry is used in the placement of actors, mise-en-scene, etc
-Scoring is synced perfectly to the mood/emotion. Elicits mystery when needed, at other times hopefulness, dread, eeriness, etc. The music accompanies the plot & propels the story forward.
-The moments of intimacy between the protagonist and AVA are solidly constructed; chemistry is felt with a mix of trepidation.
-Landscape sequences are magnificent and majestic. Panoramic-anamorphic lenses were used for these breathtaking sequences. My knowledge on lenses and video cameras is still somewhat limited, but if you would like to know a bit more visit the link below:
“The movie Ex Machina, released in 2014 and directed by Alex Garland, was shot on digital using GoPro HD Hero3 Camera, Sony CineAlta F65 Camera, Sony PMW-F55 Camera and Angenieux Optimo Zoom Lenses, Panavision Cooke Xtal Xpress (Joe Dunton Camera Millenium Anamorphic) Lenses” [2]
shotonwhat.com
Oscar Isaac turns in a performance that is exhilarating due to his understated expression of megalomania. The narcissism that Nathan (Isaac) presents is insidiously attractive for the first half of the film. He embodies the “Sigma Male” in his pursuit of longevity, genius, and a self applied “Vitruvian” physical regimen. This showcases the pervasiveness of misogyny when presented in an individual that is both brilliant and enviable.
Domhnall Gleeson’s unassuming charisma is put to excellent use in ‘Ex Machina’. His ability to “under-act” in a naturalistic way is impressive and beneficial to the character. Kyle’s loneliness is construed in a believable manner; a combination of superiority and aloofness that comes off just right. Introversion is a very apparent part of Kyle’s personality and his longing for connection is assumedly what drives him to excel in programming – while simultaneously keeping him isolated from other people.
It is very apt, then, that he falls in love with a physical personification of software; a digital homunculus that shares his social abjection.
If Domhnall Gleeson was a less talented actor, he wouldn’t have pulled it off.
Alicia Vikander’s subtle facial expressions fully display her character’s emotional core; the actress must have done some serious searching to be able to convey such intimacy through body language. Her voice acting is quasi-neutral – conveying her synthetic nature – a common decision for cinematic representations of androids. There are almost unnoticeable variations in her tone/register which really solidifies Vikander’s ability for nuanced vocals. As far as hard sci-fi love interests go – her portrayal of AVA stands side-by-side with the best:
‘Solaris’ (2002), ‘Her’ (2013), and ‘Gattaca’ (1997), all honourable mentions in this category.
A relatively unknown actor, Alicia Vikander’s AVA is brought to life in a way that is truly innovative.
‘Ex Machina’ has truly awe inspiring visual motifs.
It was only upon my last rewatch – that I realized a blatant visual representation of Plato’s ‘Allegory of the Cave’ exists in the final moments of the film.
***Spoiler warning*\\ Okay, you’ve been warned. ***Spoilers ahead**\*
After AVA has successfully escaped the research facility – we find her in a city – making good on her dream of visiting a street corner to observe people experiencing their day-to-day lives. The filmmaker chose to frame the shadowplay of people walking instead of focusing on the people themselves, lingering on the shot, until AVA’s shadow arrives – framed in the bottom/center of the screen. Then we switch to a shot of AVA watching from an overpass (or veranda?) above the crowded square. She is finally seeing the “real people” instead of the “shadows from the cave” that she was once limited to.
Seeing as Plato’s ‘Allegory of the Cave’ is intrinsically linked to the idea of free will vs determinism – it doesn’t seem a long stretch that Garland would throw this motif in. If you view the final scene in ‘Ex Machina’, and don’t agree – that’s fine, but I am fairly certain that’s what the director was going for.
Earlier in the motion picture, there’s a section of dialogue that references “Mary in the White & Black Room”, a thought experiment proposed by Frank Jackson (Famous Philosopher & Professor at ANU); a much more stringent and scientific take on Plato’s philosophical exercise. Even more accurately – it is a modern day evolution of the millenia old thought exercise.
“The knowledge argument (also known as Mary's Room or Mary the super-scientist*) is a philosophical* thought experiment proposed by Frank Jackson in his article "Epiphenomenal Qualia" (1982) and extended in "What Mary Didn't Know" (1986).
The experiment describes Mary, a scientist who exists in a black-and-white world where she has extensive access to physical descriptions of color, but no actual perceptual experience of color. Mary has learned everything there is to learn about color, but she has never actually experienced it for herself. The central question of the thought experiment is whether Mary will gain new knowledge when she goes outside of the colorless world and experiences seeing in color.
The experiment is intended to argue against physicalism—the view that the universe, including all that is mental, is entirely physical. Jackson says that the "irresistible conclusion" is that "there are more properties than physicalists talk about." Jackson would eventually call himself a physicalist and say, in 2023, "I no longer accept the argument" though he still feels that the argument should be "addressed really seriously if you are a physicalist."[1]
The debate that emerged following its publication became the subject of an edited volume—There's Something About Mary (2004)—which includes replies from such philosophers as Daniel Dennett, David Lewis), and Paul Churchland.” - [3] Wikipedia/Youtube
Alex Garland boasts an impressive oeuvre – which includes an equal amount of writing credits and directorial efforts. His body of work consists of five directing efforts and five scripts; making ten films in total; an eclectic collection of independent projects, ranging from gritty action flicks like ‘Dredd’ and ‘28 Days Later’ to cerebral thrillers that lend themselves to analysis and intellectual discussion, like ‘Ex Machina’, ‘Sunshine’ and ‘Men’.
His recent release ‘Civil War’ is a polarizing film, it was released under A24, a relatively smaller production company that Garland has worked with in the past. So far the reception has been positive (70% on RottenTomatoes) and the box office return is adequate. The movie tells a “what-if” scenario of the near future and how political tensions in the United States of America could lead to a violent conflict between US citizens.
The special FX and cinematography in ‘Ex Machina’ are bar none, some of the best I’ve seen in any independent film. Just impeccable.
‘The Creator’ tried to recently recapture the aesthetic and improve upon it – failing miserably in the process. That film “put the cart before the horse” in some respects; forgetting to craft an eloquent and compelling story, and instead relying on cheap visual gimmicks and expensive CGI. Yes, most people agree that the obviously stunning part of Alex Garland’s sci-fi meditation on AI is the look of AVA and how well it (the CGI) meshes with the rest of the world. This is a similar situation to ‘District 9’, it looks amazing but the real genius is in the world building and plot structure, as well as acting, pacing, scoring, and all the other facets that make an overall product enjoyable.
Thank god, Alex Garland gets this.
No “deus ex machina” required.

RATING:
9.5/10
Serve with brown rice and mineral water. Detox all that vodka.
___________
Sources:
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s\_law#:\~:text=In%201975%2C%20looking%20forward%20to,known%20as%20a%20%22law%22.
[2]https://shotonwhat.com/ex-machina-2015#:\~:text=The%20movie%20Ex%20Machina%2C%20released,Hardy%20as%20cinematographer%20and%20editing
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge\_argument#cite\_note-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdTSymICyf4
Want to learn more about Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”?
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-allegory-of-the-cave-by-plato-summary-analysis-explanation.html#:\~:text=In%20Plato's%20''Allegory%20of,experienced%20anything%20beyond%20the%20shadows.
Moore’s Law CAGR:
“In 1975, looking forward to the next decade, he revised the forecast to doubling every two years, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 41%. While Moore did not use empirical evidence in forecasting that the historical trend would continue, his prediction has held since 1975 and has since become known as a "law".” [1] -WIkipedia
MORE ON REVIEWS ON WELLDONEMOVIES.COM
submitted by welldonefilmsandtv to moviecritic [link] [comments]


2024.05.11 21:13 SanderSo47 Directors at the Box Office: Wes Craven

Directors at the Box Office: Wes Craven
https://preview.redd.it/5jhcjegtjuzc1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=71a26f361e87730152e07e12f1bc76322db0b023
Here's a new edition of "Directors at the Box Office", which seeks to explore the directors' trajectory at the box office and analyze their hits and bombs. I already talked about a few, and as I promised, it's Wes Craven's turn.
Craven earned a master's degree in philosophy and writing from Johns Hopkins University. He subsequently bought a 16mm film camera and began making short movies. His friend Steve Chapin informed him of a messenger position at a New York City film production co, where his brother, future folk-rock star Harry Chapin worked. He started in the industry as a sound editor, before transitioning as a porn director. He said he made "many hardcore X-rated films" under pseudonyms. And then he transitioned into directing for the big screen.
From a box office perspective, how reliable was he to deliver a box office hit?
That's the point of this post. To analyze his career.

It should be noted that as he started his career in the 1970s, some of the domestic grosses here will be adjusted by inflation. The table with his highest grossing films, however, will be left in its unadjusted form, as the worldwide grosses are more difficult to adjust.

The Last House on the Left (1972)

"Mari, seventeen, is dying. Even for her, the worst is yet to come."
His directorial debut. The film stars Sandra Peabody, Lucy Grantham, David Hess, Fred J. Lincoln, Jeramie Rain, and Marc Sheffler. The plot follows Mari Collingwood, a teenager who is abducted, raped, and tortured by a family of violent fugitives led by Krug Stillo on her seventeenth birthday. When her parents discover what happened to her, they seek vengeance against the family, who have taken shelter at their home.
Craven, who had no money at the time, was put on the job of synchronizing dailies for Sean S. Cunningham's Together. They became friends, and Hallmark Releasing gave them $90,000 to make another film. Craven considered a hardcore film, but decided to tone it down a bit. The idea for this film came from Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring, and Craven wanted to make a film in which the violence would be shown in detail onscreen, as he felt that many popular films of the era, such as Westerns, glamorized violence and the "vigilante hero", and gave the public a misleading representation of death in the wake of the Vietnam War.
The film attracted negative media attention for its heavy graphic content, and there were calls for some theaters to drop the film. But you know, bad buzz is still buzz and that translated to a pretty good run in theaters, earning up to $3 million in its initial run. Even to this day, the film is polarizing due to its violence and themes. But Craven just made his name well known.
  • Budget: $90,000.
  • Domestic gross: $3,100,000. ($23.1 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $3,100,000.

The Hills Have Eyes (1977)

"A nice American family. They didn't want to kill. But they didn't want to die."
His second film. The film stars Susan Lanier, Michael Berryman and Dee Wallace. The film follows the Carters, a suburban family targeted by a family of cannibal savages after becoming stranded in the Nevada desert.
Craven wanted to make a non-horror, but he found that his investors only wanted films with graphic content. At the New York Public Library, Craven checked the library's forensics department, and learned of the legend of Sawney Bean - the alleged head of a 48-person Scottish clan responsible for the murder and cannibalization of more than one thousand people. He drew influences from this, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and The Grapes of Wrath. Craven also had to cut a lot of scenes to avoid getting an X rating.
The film once again drew negative attention for its violence. But it made over $25 million at the box office, which was an even bigger success than House. It subsequently earned a cult following.
  • Budget: $700,000.
  • Domestic gross: $25,000,000. ($128.8 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $25,000,000.

Deadly Blessing (1981)

"Pray you're not blessed."
His third film. It stars Ernest Borgnine, Maren Jensen, Susan Buckner, and Sharon Stone, and tells the story of a strange figure committing murder in a contemporary community that is not far from another community that believes in ancient evil and curses.
It received negative reviews, but it was another box office success for Craven.
  • Budget: $3,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $8,279,042. ($28.4 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $8,279,042.

Swamp Thing (1982)

"Science transformed him into a monster. Love changed him even more!"
His fourth film. Based on the DC Comics character created by Len Wein and Bernie Wrightson, it stars Louis Jourdan and Adrienne Barbeau. It tells the story of scientist Alec Holland who is transformed into the monster known as Swamp Thing through laboratory sabotage orchestrated by the evil Anton Arcane. Later, he helps a woman named Alice Cable and battles the man responsible for it all, the ruthless Arcane.
The film made $2.5 million domestically, despite mixed reviews.
  • Budget: N/A.
  • Domestic gross: $2,500,000. ($8 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $2,500,000.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

"If Nancy doesn't wake up screaming, she won't wake up at all."
His fifth film. It stars Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Ronee Blakley, Johnny Depp, and Robert Englund. The film's plot concerns a group of teenagers who are targeted by Freddy Krueger, an undead child killer who can murder people through their dreams, as retribution against their parents who burned him alive.
The film was inspired by several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Hmong refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after. This, along with the song "Dream Weaver" by Gary Wright, motivated Craven to craft a horror film focused on people dying through their sleep.
The film's villain, Freddy Krueger, is drawn from Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. This served as the inspiration for Krueger. Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of the film's production. He settled on the name Freddy Krueger, which was based on a childhood bully of his.
The process of writing the film went smoothly, the real problem was finding a studio. Craven sent it to most studios, and all rejected it. The first studio to show interest was Disney, but Craven declined their offer as they wanted a more toned-down kid-friendly PG-13 flick. When Paramount and Universal also turned it down, Craven decided to go to the independent studio New Line Cinema. The studio only distributed films, but they agreed in financing the film. As they lacked the financial resources for the production, New Line had to turn to external financiers.
Despite opening in just 165 theaters, the film earned $1.2 million in its opening weekend, making it clear that it would be an immediate box office success. It eventually closed with $25 million domestically, and $57 million worldwide. It received critical acclaim, and has been referred as one of the best and most influential slashers ever made. Freddy Krueger would soon be hailed as one of the most emblematic figures of horror, and Craven quickly earned a reputation as a horror legend. But most importantly, it was the beginning of New Line Cinema as a studio, which is why it's referred as "the house that Freddy built."
The film would later spawn a franchise, although Craven wouldn't direct any of the "sequels." Why the quotation marks? We'll get to that later on.
  • Budget: $1,100,000.
  • Domestic gross: $25,624,448. ($77 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $57,185,134.

The Hills Have Eyes Part II (1985)

"So you think you're lucky to be alive."
His sixth film. The sequel to The Hills Have Eyes, it stars Tamara Stafford, Kevin Spirtas, John Bloom, Michael Berryman, Penny Johnson, Janus Blythe, John Laughlin, Willard E. Pugh, Peter Frechette and Robert Houston. It follows a group of bikers who become stranded in the desert and find themselves fighting off a family of inbred cannibals who live off the land.
The film was shot on a very low budget, and it simply ended prematurely because they ran out of funds. There are no box office numbers available, but it received awful reviews.

Deadly Friend (1986)

"There's no one alive who'll play with the girl next door."
His seventh film. Based on the novel Friend by Diana Henstell, it stars Matthew Laborteaux, Kristy Swanson, Michael Sharrett, Anne Twomey, Richard Marcus, and Anne Ramsey. Its plot follows a teenage computer prodigy who implants a robot's processor into the brain of his teenage neighbor after she is pronounced brain dead; the experiment proves successful, but she swiftly begins a killing spree in their neighborhood.
Craven wanted to make a PG-rated science fiction film, with a similar tone to Starman, hoping to prove that he could make something that wasn't horror-themed. An unfinished version of the film was screened to a test audience of Craven's fanbase, and it was poorly received for its lack of violence and gore like his previous films. So WB decided to rewrite the film, adding more scenes with tons of gore. This made the final film appear tonally jumbled, and it went from easy PG to struggling to not get an X rating.
The film was poorly received for its story and inconsistent tone. It also marked a huge flop at the box office, not even hitting $10 million. Craven lost interest in the film after WB inserted their own version, and he has since disowned the film.
  • Budget: $11,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $8,988,731. ($25.6 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $8,988,731.

The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988)

"Don't bury me, I'm not dead!"
His eighth film. It stars Bill Pullman, and is loosely based on the life of ethnobotanist Wade Davis, recounting his experiences in Haiti investigating the story of Clairvius Narcisse, who was allegedly poisoned, buried alive, and revived with a herbal brew which produced what was called a zombie.
The film received mixed reactions, but it was a much needed box office success for Craven.
  • Budget: $7,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $19,595,031. ($51.7 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $19,595,031.

Shocker (1989)

"No more Mr. Nice Guy."
His ninth film. It stars Michael Murphy, Peter Berg, Cami Cooper, and Mitch Pileggi, and follows a serial killer who uses electricity to come back from the dead and carry out his vengeance on the football player who turned him in to the police.
Another mixed bag for Craven, but it was still profitable.
  • Budget: N/A.
  • Domestic gross: $16,554,699. ($41.6 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $16,554,699.

The People Under the Stairs (1991)

"In every neighborhood, there's one house that adults whisper about and children cross the street to avoid."
His tenth film. It stars Brandon Adams, Everett McGill, Wendy Robie, and A. J. Langer. The plot follows a young boy and two adult robbers who become trapped in a house belonging to a neighborhood's crooked landlords after breaking in to steal their collection of gold coins as the boy learns a dark secret about them and what also lurks in their house.
After a slate of mixed performers, the film received Craven's best reviews since Elm Street. To the surprise of Universal, it was also a box office success.
  • Budget: $6,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $24,204,154. ($55.5 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $31,347,154.

Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994)

"This time, the terror doesn't stop at the screen."
His 11th film. The installment in the A Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, it stars Robert Englund, Heather Langenkamp, Miko Hughes and John Saxon. The film is not part of the same continuity as previous films, and it portrays Freddy Krueger as a fictional movie villain who invades the real world and haunts the cast and crew involved in the making of the films about him.
While Craven co-wrote the franchise's third installment, Dream Warriors, he wasn't that involved with the rest of the franchise. He wanted to make a deliberately more cerebral film than recent entries to the franchise, as he considered them as being cartoonish, and not faithful to his original themes. Specifically, he wanted Freddy to resemble his original vision: far darker and less comical. To reinforce this, the character's make-up and outfit were enhanced, with one of the most prominent differences being that he now wears a long blue/black trenchcoat. In addition, the signature glove was redesigned for a more organic look, with the fingers resembling bones and having muscle textures in between.
The film received high praise, and was considered as the best film in the franchise since the original (it was Englund's favorite). But the franchise has been bleeding interest at the box office, and New Nightmare unfortunately had to suffer. It was profitable, but it became the lowest grossing film in the franchise.
  • Budget: $8,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $18,090,181. ($38.1 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $19,721,741.

Vampire in Brooklyn (1995)

"A comic tale of horror and seduction."
His 12th film. It stars Eddie Murphy, Angela Bassett, Allen Payne, Kadeem Hardison, John Witherspoon, Zakes Mokae, and Joanna Cassidy. It follows a Caribbean vampire who seduces a Brooklyn police officer who has no idea that she is half-vampire.
The film had awful reviews, and despite the presence of a huge star like Eddie Murphy, it disappointed at the box office. Craven really needed a hit.
  • Budget: $8,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $19,751,736. ($40.4 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $34,951,736.

Scream (1996)

"Someone has taken their love of scary movies one step too far."
His 13th film. It stars David Arquette, Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, Matthew Lillard, Rose McGowan, Skeet Ulrich and Drew Barrymore. Set in the fictional town of Woodsboro, California, Scream's plot follows high school student Sidney Prescott and her friends, who, on the anniversary of her mother's murder, become the targets of a costumed serial killer known as Ghostface.
As he was trying to make it in the industry, Kevin Williamson watched a Turning Point documentary about serial killer Danny Rolling which he said left him unsettled. Williamson later noticed an open window, armed himself with a knife, and called his friend for support. The pair began discussing horror characters that had resonated with them such as Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees. This experience prompted Williamson to start developing a concept wherein a girl is haunted by a caller.
He started writing a film titled Scary Movie, and even left an outline for possible sequels. The concept was part of an era where there was debate over the influence of cinematic violence on audience, with Williamson coming up with a brilliant line "movies don't create psychos, movies make psychos more creative." It was inspired by many 1980s slashers, even though the genre was on decline by that point. His characters were intentionally designed to be knowledgeable about these horror films and their typical elements, with the intention of creating a unique killer who was not only aware of horror film clichés but also exploited them for his own advantage.
While Williamson struggled with his previous films, this script was part of a bidding war with the studios, to the point that Oliver Stone himself wanted to direct it. Miramax (through Dimension Films) bought the script, and Williamson made some rewrites to scale back the violence. Bob Weinstein also wanted to change the name, as he believed the audiences would think the film is a comedy.
The studio considered Danny Boyle, Tom McLoughlin, Sam Raimi, Robert Rodriguez, George A. Romero, Quentin Tarantino, and Anthony Waller as prime candidates to direct the film, but they all preferred to view the film as a comedy. Wes Craven was considered, but the studio believed he couldn't direct a satire. Craven also wasn't planning on directing it, as he wanted to focus on more mainstream films to salvage his career. Craven's assistant Julie Plec (who would collaborate with Williamson on The Vampire Diaries) convinced him in helming the project. By signing, Craven decided to get back some of the gore that was missing in the previous drafts.
A huge contrast to the horror films of the era was that the film had established actors as the leads, as Craven and Williamson wanted to prove that no character was safe. Drew Barrymore had already starred in a few recognizable names, Neve Campbell was on the hit show Party of Five, Rose McGowan was known for Encino Man and The Doom Generation, David Arquette, Matthew Lillard and Skeet Ulrich were recognizable supporting characters, and Courteney Cox obviously was known for Friends. Vince Vaughn and Natasha Lyonne were the preferred choices for Billy and Tatum, but external problems caused them to drop out.
After viewing the dailies raw footage, the Weinsteins criticized the quality of Craven's work as "workmanlike at best", believing it lacked tension and had an inconsistent tone. The Weinsteins also disliked the mask design, and said Barrymore lacked sex appeal because of the pageboy hairstyle she had chosen. While filming the final fight, Campbell's stuntwoman accidentally stabbed Ulrich with an umbrella tip, missing the protective vest he was wearing and hitting the site of an open heart surgery Ulrich had as a child. During post-production, Harvey Weinstein decided to name the film as Scream based on the Michael and Janet Jackson song.
In a surprising move, the Weinsteins decided to release the film during the holiday season as counter-programming, offering teenagers an alternative to more traditional holiday fare. The decision was unpopular with the cast and crew, with Williamson expecting the film to fail. The film opened with $6.4 million and finishing in fourth place, leading analysts to consider the film as a bomb.
But the film just kept growing.
Buoyed by positive word of mouth, the Weinsteins increased marketing and the film managed to increase in its second and third weekends. It closed with $103 million domestically and $173 million worldwide, becoming the highest grossing slasher film ever and Craven's highest grossing film ever. The film received critical acclaim for its characters and writing, and has since been deemed as one of the most influential horror films of all time. It rekindled interest in horror, resurrected Craven's career and launched the careers of Williamson and the cast.
  • Budget: $15,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $103,046,663. ($245.4 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $173,046,663.

Scream 2 (1997)

"Someone has taken their love of sequels one step too far."
His 14th film. The sequel to Scream, it stars David Arquette, Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jamie Kennedy, Laurie Metcalf, Jerry O'Connell, Elise Neal, Timothy Olyphant, Jada Pinkett, and Liev Schreiber. The film takes place two years after the first film and again follows the character of Sidney Prescott, along with other survivors of the Woodsboro massacre, at the fictional Windsor College in Ohio where they are targeted by a copycat killer using the guise of Ghostface.
As Williamson already had plans for sequels, the idea was for Sidney to attend college while being stalked by a copycat Ghostface killer. As filming began, Williamson's script had four killers: Derek, Hallie, Cotton Weary, and Nancy Loomis. But after Williamson transferred his script to the production, it was leaked onto the Internet in full, revealing the identity of the killers and a large amount of the involved plot. This resulted in the production continuing to film with only a partial script while Williamson conducted extensive rewrites, changing much of the film's finale, the identities of the film's killers and drastically altering the roles of other characters such as Randy Meeks and Joel. With a short deadline, Williamson couldn't fully compromise on the final script, forcing Craven to fill in the gaps himself. So the film was one of the very first cases where the Internet leaked major aspects of a film.
As the Weinsteins wanted the film ready for December, it was able to capitalize on the audience's word of mouth to the original. It opened with $32 million in its first weekend, almost five times as big as the original, and the biggest December debut. It didn't hold as great as the original due to the competition, such as Titanic, but it still made $172.3 million worldwide, almost matching the original's gross. It also received very positive reviews, and so a profitable franchise was already underway.
  • Budget: $24,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $101,363,301. ($237.2 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $172,363,301.

Music of the Heart (1999)

"She gave them a gift they could never imagine. They gave the system a fight it would never forget."
His 15th film. The film stars Meryl Streep, Aidan Quinn, Angela Bassett, Gloria Estefan, Jane Leeves, Kieran Culkin and Jay O. Sanders. The film is a dramatization of the true story of Roberta Guaspari, who co-founded the Opus 118 Harlem School of Music and fought for music education funding in New York City public schools.
After seeing the documentary Small Wonders, Craven was inspired to make a full-length film about Guaspari. Madonna was originally signed to play the role of Guaspari, but left the project before filming began, citing "creative differences" with Craven. When she left, Madonna had already studied for many months to play the violin. Streep learned to play Bach's Concerto for 2 Violins for the film. The project marked a huge departure for Craven; it was his first and only film to be rated PG, and his only one to not be horror or thriller.
It received generally positive reviews, but it bombed at the box office. It received 2 Oscar nominations for Best Actress and Best Original Song, the only Craven film to get any noms.
  • Budget: $27,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $14,859,394. ($27.8 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $14,936,407.

Scream 3 (2000)

"The most terrifying scream is always the last."
His 16th film. The third installment in the Scream franchise, it stars David Arquette, Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox Arquette, Parker Posey, Patrick Dempsey, Scott Foley, Lance Henriksen, Matt Keeslar, Jenny McCarthy, Emily Mortimer, Deon Richmond, and Patrick Warburton. The film's story takes place one year after the previous film's events and follows Sidney Prescott, who has gone into self-imposed isolation following the events of the previous two films but is drawn to Hollywood after a new Ghostface begins killing the cast of the film within a film Stab 3.
The plans for a sequel were already underway since Williamson sold the script, although Williamson still didn't write a script yet. When the Weinsteins approached him to write the film, Williamson was already busy with many projects (including his directorial debut), and was unavailable to perform his duties. He only made a 20-page outline wherein Ghostface would return just as production on a fictional film Stab 3 would be filmed. His plan was to show the killers were part of a Stab fan club (this idea would later be adapted into his show, The Following). With Williamson not available, Ehren Kruger was tasked in writing.
Shortly before production began on the film, the Columbine High School massacre took place, and many parties began looking for reasoning behind the shooters' actions and there came an increased scrutiny on the role of the media in society, including video games and film, and the influence it could have on an audience. With production of Scream 3 not yet underway, there were considerations about whether the film should be made at that time, aware of the potential for negative attention but the studio decided to press forward, albeit with changes.
The Weinsteins demanded to scale back on the gore and emphasize its satiric humor, as well as moving the setting to Hollywood. At one point in the production, the studio went as far as demanding that the film feature no blood or on-screen violence at all, a drastic departure for the series, but Craven directly intervened. One of the aspects changed was that the killer would be revealed to be Stu Macher, having survived the original film. The Weinsteins changed it after Columbine, as they didn't want to associate violence and murder with a high school setting.
The film opened with $34.7 million, a franchise record and the biggest February debut ever. But it had weak legs, although it still made a very profitable $161.8 million worldwide. While the previous films were well-received, this film received negative reviews, who lambasted the film for becoming the very own thing it satirizes.
  • Budget: $40,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $89,143,175. ($178.2 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $161,834,276.

Cursed (2005)

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."
His 17th film. It stars Christina Ricci, Joshua Jackson, Jesse Eisenberg, Judy Greer, Scott Baio, Milo Ventimiglia, Shannon Elizabeth and Mýa, and follows two orphaned siblings attacked by a werewolf loose in Los Angeles.
Kevin Williamson started working on a script that followed the exploits of a New York City serial killer who discovers that his lethal tendencies are due to his lycanthrope nature. When one of his projects was scrapped, Craven decided to direct, teaming them up again for another Scream reunion. But it wasn't planned like that. Craven was making a film, Pulse, when Bob Weinstein abruptly pulled the movie from the schedule ten days before shooting and cut through all the slow lanes, wanting Craven to get to Cursed as soon as possible. Craven was reportedly not pleased so Weinstein doubled his pay in order for him to direct the film. The director deemed the script too tonally similar to his film Vampire in Brooklyn, but felt pressured by the studio, leading him to ultimately sign on.
The film started filming in January 2003, hoping to get the film released in August. In June, they only had six days left for filming. Suddenly, Dimension Films decided to put the movie on hold because top executives at the company weren't happy with the film's ending or how the special effects were progressing, specifically the look of the film's lead lupine. Rick Baker was preparing the final transformation effects when production stopped and asked Weinstein to let his team finish the work in order for it to be ready for the reshoot, but he refused. Patrick Lussier was brought in for massive rewrites, and the film didn't return to production until November. Baker was fired, and the prosthetic make-up was replaced with CGI. Skeet Ulrich filmed his scene as one of the leads, but chose to drop out following the reshoots as he disliked the new direction. It was also heavily edited to get the R rating down to PG-13. The budget was originally $35 million, yet some reports suggest it ballooned all the way to $100 million, making it one of the most expensive horror films ever.
With that budget, it was clear it was not going to be a box office success. It flopped with just $29 million worldwide, and was panned by critics. Craven himself dislikes the final product, and a director's cut was never an option because his original ending was never filmed.
  • Budget: $100,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $19,297,522. ($30.8 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $29,621,722.

Red Eye (2005)

"Fear takes flight."
His 18th film. It stars Rachel McAdams, Cillian Murphy, and Brian Cox. The story follows a hotel manager ensnared in an assassination plot by a terrorist while aboard a red-eye flight to Miami.
The film received Craven's best reviews in years, and was a box office success, earning almost $100 million. While he is fine with people loving it, Cillian Murphy is not really fond of the film, "I love Rachel McAdams and we had fun making it but I don’t think it's a good movie. It’s a good B movie."
  • Budget: $26,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $57,891,803. ($92.5 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $96,258,201.

My Soul to Take (2010)

"Only one has the power to save their souls."
His 19th film. It stars Max Thieriot, Denzel Whitaker, Raul Esparza, and Shareeka Epps. It follows Adam "Bug" Hellerman, who is one of seven teenagers chosen to die following the anniversary of a serial killer's death.
This was Craven's first film in almost two decades where he would be directing, producing and writing. But that didn't pan out to a success: it was a critical and commercial dud.
  • Budget: $25,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $14,744,435. ($21.1 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $21,500,813.

Scream 4 (2011)

"New decade. New rules."
His 20th and final film. The fourth installment in the Scream franchise, it stars David Arquette, Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Anthony Anderson, Alison Brie, Adam Brody, Rory Culkin, Marielle Jaffe, Erik Knudsen, Mary McDonnell, Marley Shelton, Nico Tortorella, and Roger L. Jackson. The film takes place on the fifteenth anniversary of the original Woodsboro murders from Scream and involves Sidney Prescott returning to the town after ten years, where Ghostface once again begins killing students from Woodsboro High.
In 2010, Williamson and Craven confirmed their plans for a new film. Craven said that endless sequels, the modern spew of remakes, film studios, and directors are the butts of parodies in the film. The main characters have to figure out where the horror genre is in current days to figure out the modern events happening to and around them. This was the first film in the franchise to use CGI, with the knife's blade added in post-production.
Even though the franchise was profitable, it seemed like its glory days were long behind it by the time it hit theaters. The film disappointed in its opening weekend with just $18 million, and closed with a weak $97 million worlwide, far less than the previous films. It also received mixed reviews, particularly for its writing and new characters. It was the last film directed by Craven before his death in 2015.
  • Budget: $40,000,000.
  • Domestic gross: $38,180,928. ($53 million adjusted)
  • Worldwide gross: $97,231,420.

MOVIES (FROM HIGHEST GROSSING TO LEAST GROSSING)

No. Movie Year Studio Domestic Total Overseas Total Worldwide Total Budget
1 Scream 1996 Dimension Films $103,046,663 $70,000,000 $173,046,663 $15M
2 Scream 2 1997 Dimension Films $101,363,301 $71,000,000 $172,363,301 $24M
3 Scream 3 2000 Dimension Films $89,143,175 $72,691,101 $161,834,276 $40M
4 Scream 4 2011 Dimension Films $38,180,928 $59,050,492 $97,231,420 $40M
5 Red Eye 2005 DreamWorks $57,891,803 $38,366,398 $96,258,201 $26M
6 A Nightmare on Elm Street 1984 New Line Cinema $25,624,448 $31,560,686 $57,185,134 $1.1M
7 Vampires in Brooklyn 1995 Paramount $19,751,736 $15,200,000 $34,951,736 $14M
8 The People Under the Stairs 1991 Universal $24,204,154 $7,143,000 $31,347,154 $6M
9 Cursed 2005 Miramax $19,297,522 $10,324,200 $29,621,722 $100M
10 The Hills Have Eyes 1977 Vanguard $25,000,000 $0 $25,000,000 $700K
11 My Soul to Take 2010 Universal $14,744,435 $6,756,378 $21,500,813 $25M
12 Wes Craven's New Nightmare 1994 New Line Cinema $18,090,181 $1,631,560 $19,721,741 $8M
13 The Serpent and the Shadow 1988 Universal $19,595,031 $0 $19,595,031 $7M
14 Shocker 1989 Universal $16,554,699 $0 $16,554,699 N/A
15 Music of the Heart 1999 Miramax $14,859,394 $77,013 $14,936,407 $27M
16 Deadly Friend 1986 Warner Bros. $8,988,731 $0 $8,988,731 $11M
17 Deadly Blessing 1981 United Artists $8,279,042 $0 $8,279,042 $3M
18 The Last House on the Left 1972 Hallmark Releasing $3,100,000 $0 $3,100,000 $90K
19 Swamp Thing 1982 Embassy $2,500,000 $0 $2,500,000 N/A
He made 20 films, but only 19 have reported box office numbers. Across those 19 films, he made $994,016,071 worldwide. That's $52,316,635 per film.

The Verdict

Quite inconsistent, but a very iconic figure in the horror genre. You know you made it big when your creations include Elm Street and Scream. Craven often struggled with difficult productions (you can blame the Weinsteins for that), but he still managed to make competent and scary films, even if some are better than others. Some even see critical re-appraisal as time passes; even Scream 3 and Scream 4 have their fans. We don't know what he would've done with the franchise after the fourth film, but he made it clear he was exhausted by having to film without finished scripts. Rest in Peace to a horror legend.
Hope you liked this edition. You can find this and more in the wiki for this section.
The next director will be Clint Eastwood. I think I'll have to make two posts, given that he directed 42 films.
I asked you to choose who else should be in the run and the comment with the most upvotes would be chosen. Well, we'll later talk about... Ang Lee. A legendary Asian director.
This is the schedule for the following four:
Week Director Reasoning
May 13-19 Clint Eastwood Great actor. Great director.
May 20-26 Robert Zemeckis Can we get old Zemeckis back?
May 27-June 2 Richard Donner An influential figure of the 70s and 80s.
June 3-9 Ang Lee What happened to Lee?
Who should be next after Lee? That's up to you. And there's a theme.
And that theme is: controversial directors. I'm talking directors who have attained a polarizing response to their films (like Zack Snyder), or the directors themselves are also controversial figures in real life (like Oliver Stone). Basically, a director that has as many fans as haters.
submitted by SanderSo47 to boxoffice [link] [comments]


2024.05.11 07:09 danhibiki337 I watched Disaster Movie (2008)

I watched Disaster Movie (2008)
This movie wasn't all that great, it seemed like a commercial for the other movies by the same company. Lots of 2008 movies that weren't that popular are in it. I can barely remember them everything was rapid fired so fast and didn't make a lot of sense. The plot is a crystal skull from Indiana Jones 4 is taken and so earthquakes and tornados happen. Overall I didn't have as much fun as I was hoping I would watching this. It took me a couple weeks to watch it 15 minutes at a time every couple days was all I could stomach. Some bits were only bad and not horrible. They reference Juno for about 40 minutes and the actress wasn't funny, same with the Enchanted movie. Shorter bits were No Country For Old Men, Hancock, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Night at the Museum, Superbad, Amy Winehouse, Dr Phil, the list goes on. I thought Date Movie, Superhero Movie, and Epic Movie were all better then this I don't know why it missed the mark so bad. Kim Kardashian was in it for the first act, she was alright. The credits run at the 75 minute which is very short, and then they have about 15 minutes of stuff that wasn't good enough to make it in the film. Overall would reccomend something else, but good for a watch if you want to challenge yourself.
submitted by danhibiki337 to iwatchedanoldmovie [link] [comments]


2024.05.09 17:51 wiklr Drake's dad was accused of mishandling of funds, yet it was the tv production cost cutting on the cast and crew

The main events in the documentary revolved around The Amanda show, where the female writers Jenny & Christy, child victims Brandi & Drake and perpetrators Jason & Brian all worked on.
2007 New York Times Article mentioning how The Amanda Show was conceived:
But the turning point in his relationship with the network came after Schneider added to the evolving cast of “All That” a girl named Amanda Bynes. Everyone recognized her as a nascent star, and so the network set about creating a show just for her — without consulting Schneider. The pilot that was shot for this new Bynes vehicle, though, was so poor that the network shelved it and scrapped plans for the series entirely — at which point Schneider felt he had to speak up. “I went to the Nickelodeon executives, and I said: ‘Look, you can’t blame Amanda for that; it was just the wrong project for her. Amanda is such a rangy little actress — she’s like a little Dana Carvey or a little Carol Burnett. What I would have done, if you had come to me, is I would have created a show where she could have played a lot of different characters. More of a sketch-type show.’ So I talked to them for a while and they said O.K., go ahead; and I created ‘The Amanda Show,’ which is one of the most successful shows Nickelodeon has ever had.” (
Quotes from the Quiet on Set Documentary
Joe Bell
He found an attorney to find out about Drake's financial situation. There was never any mishandling of any funds.
Christy Stratton
I remember speaking to the line producer and she said that I was going to have to split a salary with a writer that I did not know. So they were getting two for the price of one. They were going to hire two women and have them share a salary. And I never saw it happen to any of the men.
Jenny Kilgen
I went down to the studio to meet with Dan about Season two. He said, "Here's the deal. We're bringing you back for Season 2, staff writer. We're offering you a 16-week contract, but you need to work the whole season." Which was, I believe, 27 weeks. He was telling me I had to work 11 weeks for free.
Karyn Finley Thompson
One day, I keeled over, and I ended up having to go to the hospital. And, as I'm leaving and curled over, I could hear someone say... "How is the show going to get finished?" And I just remember saying, "I'll be right back!" "I'll be right back." And then, he promised me a job and didn't give it to me. Not only was this job that Dan promised me given to someone else, it was a younger man who had no experience.
Jason Handy
"You and all the kids are why I work for free half the week"
Also remember how Brian Peck was described as being "generous with his time." Did he also take a pay cut like Handy?
___
Also according to Jenny on twitter:
The female writers were only there for season one and there were no predators there at that time. And we were in a separate building. The predators seem to have arrived when production was moved to NICK on SUNSET.
(Brian Peck appeared on the Amanda Show in the later seasons. IMDB credits him on the "Face & Zawyer " episode. And this reddit post said he appeared on Season 3)
___
The payment scheme allegedly carried over to other Nick shows, according to an actress in this video:
I remember working for 4 days, and there was some deal with the contract that I would only be paid for 2 of them, which was shitty but I had the most lines and I knew the other girls were being paid worse.
From the 2022 Business Insider article:
In his memoir, Josh Peck wrote that he made about $450,000 over five years of filming "Drake & Josh." Backstage reported in 2012 that most child-star series regulars earned just $5,000 to $7,000 a week before taxes and expenses, which a parent of three child actors said could reduce weekly take-home pay to a mere $500.
And Drake Bell has talked about not getting residuals during his interview on The Sarah Fraser Show :
... at my age I didn't know that 50% of my money was going to taxes. And that 10% comes out for my agents and 15% for managers. I mean I knew but you can't calculate in your head. So he was putting in my brain, "you know Drake you should be rich like you did a commercial that you should have had $250,000 from that. And that your dad's stealing your money. I mean look how much it happens in Hollywood ... on The Amanda Show I mean we weren't making after taxes, management, agents. You know we weren't making crazy amounts of money. We didn't get residuals on Drake and Josh. And we didn't get residuals on the Amanda Show. So we're really hung out to dry.
submitted by wiklr to QuietOnSetDocumentary [link] [comments]


2024.05.08 01:53 Candid-Umpire2218 Actress in commercial

Anyone know the blonde actress on stage in the recent Straight Talk Wireless commercials?
https://youtu.be/d_u60FdMV6c?si=7TAKifk4ivv8uAFj
submitted by Candid-Umpire2218 to StraightTalk [link] [comments]


http://rodzice.org/