1. We'll be greeted with the same crap with unknown's but we'll less likely to be complaining about it years later. Or wonder why a certain actor/ess is still in big A list movies when several of their last films flopped.

Posted at 5:26PM on Nov 16th 2009 by Rich

2. I hardly think that Christmas Carol can qualify for "flop" status yet

Posted at 5:33PM on Nov 16th 2009 by Joe

3. I wonder why Christmas Carol is being considered a "flop"?
It's been here only two weeks, and admittedly although didn't craze the box office, its far from a flop.
The adaptation is one of the most faithful ones yet, and many are waiting for around Xmas to go and see it, so we shouldn't be "flopping" the movie just yet.

Posted at 5:52PM on Nov 16th 2009 by Maha

4. Plus, I think a movie not doing well is just the main actor's fault. I've witnessed, as I'm sure many have, an acotr doing an amazing job of his/her performance, but the movie failing due to inability to connect with the audience due to unattractive story, poor direction, poor timing release (clash with a megamovie) or perhaps poor supporting performances...
Why pull out the dagger just at the main actor?

Posted at 5:59PM on Nov 16th 2009 by Maha

5. Why, indeed? Some movies are cast specifically with the intent that the star alone is going to make the box office regardless of the quality of the script or production. Additionally, the bulk of the production cost often goes into that star's pocket with the addition of a percentage of any profit (if it exists) in the case of true "A listers." When you carry the load, you get the blame, deservedly or not. It's true that the failure might not be the A-lister's fault, but a huge chunk of the up-front money is going in that direction and not coming back if the movie fails.

Also, I might point out that if the A lister really wanted to protect his/her status, shouldn't he/she be more careful about he/she gets into? Just sayin'. (And don't get me started about those who mess with the original concept by demanding script changes to enlarge a role or re-envision a part ... yeah, that's all for the good of the project ...)

Re Twilight (below): I can't say how large the fan base is, but from what I can tell about it, it's devoted.

I wasn't aware that A Christmas Carol was a financial failure, just a critical one - or does it have to make bunches back to cover the expense?

Posted at 2:02PM on Nov 17th 2009 by ML

6. I wonder if the bad economy, if super-prolonged, will result in an "extinction" of many A-list dinosaurs, who may wind up being replaced by a variety of "smaller, cheaper" stars. We seem to be at a juncture where too many stars are being paid too much money for too little creativity and too little financial return. The sad truth is that creatively, for some of these people we've seen pretty much everything they have to offer.

On the other hand, the thesis is a little off. District 9 did have a big name attached - Peter Jackson. (He just wasn't the star.) Paranormal Activity is basically just the Blair Witch Project on steroids, hardly a harbinger of future movies (notice how Oren Peli can't get his next movie sold, on suspicion that he's already asking too much). As for Twilight, the books were already hugely popular.

Posted at 6:23PM on Nov 16th 2009 by martisco

7. I'll agree to disagree with you here; these are my reasons.

"District 9" did have the Peter Jackson name attached, but that name means squat unless it comes to a movie about Rings or a Big Ape. Case in point: promoting "Drag Me To Hell" as from the director of "Spider-Man". "9" succeeded mostly because of viral marketing and good word of mouth. It was unlike anything out at the time.

"Paranormal Activity" is similar to "Blair Witch" or even "Cloverfield", but Paranormal didn't have the outworldly "viral" campaigns that those films had. It coasted on word of mouth completely. We can debate on whether the film was good or not, but ultimately its success was on the quality of the film, and the niche that it filled. It was a straight-up haunted house/supernatural horror film. We don't get a lot of those. We get Jason stabbing girls in the boob & Jigsaw trapping dudes in shotgun apparatuses.

As for "Twilight", it's no Harry Potter in terms of popularity. Hell, I'll even argue that "Where the Wild Things Are" & "The Chronicles of Narnia" are far more popular literary sources, and look where those films ended up. "Twilight" took a popular novel, played up the entrigue, romance and action (all 10 seconds of it) and came up with a film that attracted tons of girls (of the teenage variety). And it did so with a modest budget & no stars.

This isn't directed towards anyone in particular, but "A Christmas Carol" should've done far better. If you had told me that a Disney Christmas Animated Comedy starring Jim Carrey in 3D was going to be made, I would've pegged it as an automatic smash. It wasn't. It won't make back it's budget in the US, and I doubt it'll make more than $300 million worldwide. Not bad, but for a movie that cost $200 mil to make and probably another $100 million to market, that's no great shakes.

Posted at 12:55AM on Nov 17th 2009 by danterandal19

8. ""District 9" did have the Peter Jackson name attached, but that name means squat unless it comes to a movie about Rings or a Big Ape. Case in point: promoting "Drag Me To Hell" as from the director of "Spider-Man"."

I don't follow your logic. The example you gave ("Drag Me to Hell") has nothing to do with the power of Peter Jackson's name.

"District 9" most certainly DID get heavy promotion from Sony BECAUSE of Jackson's attachment.

Posted at 2:14PM on Nov 19th 2009 by martisco

9. i have to say a good movie even with out any big names aslong it has a good story is a good movie!but some times the actor has to do a lot an example is johnny depp!you never can replace him!so it depends what kind of story is you can have a movie with a lot of efects,accion and suspens but if the story is no good well is a "flop"I think that Christmas Carol was good even when you know the story already i will say go see it now with Xmas around the coner!!

Posted at 2:24AM on Nov 18th 2009 by juan

10. So the brilliant screenwriter who writes good stories for A-Listers will be the most popular guy since MJ. Hmmmm!

Posted at 10:27PM on Nov 16th 2009 by Christian M. Howell

11. Most actors/actresses spend all of their extra time pushing their "cause" or politics so there are very few out there that I'm not tired of seeing.

That combined with every movie just being a re-imagining, or a remake of other films makes it hard for me to justify spending the money on them.

Yet we get to see all of the award shows they create to pat themselves on the back.

Posted at 4:22AM on Nov 17th 2009 by KenMay

12. And some of us are really tired of people like you assuming that actors exist only to look pretty and entertain you. They're people with thoughts and opinions about what needs to change in the world and they want to talk about them, just like you or me. Why is that so wrong?

Posted at 4:31PM on Nov 23rd 2009 by Holly

13. Hey Monika,
"sited"?
Is that like "cited"?
Please learn English before writing columns on the internet.

Posted at 10:08AM on Nov 17th 2009 by charybdis

14. "Sited" must mean he actually saw all that money. :-)

Posted at 8:07AM on Nov 17th 2009 by Mark

15. I have to disagree with the whole Twilight thing. That movie originally made it based on it's popularity as a book. The movie itself was terrible, the acting was bad, the special effects atrocious, and the makeup laughable.

It's making a fortune due to it's lead Robert Pattinson because teenage girls have gone insane over him, which kind of would be enforcing the whole it's the actor that's bringing in the money.

I don't think the A list is what it used to be because the film financiers are only offering A list actors big budget films, and a great deal of the time those aren't the most interesting films available.
When a filmmaker is doing a low budget/indie film they are less likely to go after a big name because it's a waste of time if they don't accept. Usually you have to put out an offer and wait for a week for their agent, manger and finally the actor to read the script and then get together and discuss whether they are even interested. Then there is a bunch of negotiations dealing with back end, other actors the script is going out to, directors. By the time all of that is hammered out if the actor decides to say no, you have to start all over again. You can spend months or years just getting a project together even if you have funding. If you can't afford an expensive casting director with all the right connections you might not even get the actors agent on the phone.

With the big budgets they have a fortune to make back not only because of actor, director, producer salaries, but the advertising budgets. A $300M movie probably only cost $200M or less to make and the rest is advertising. So the distribution companies want big names to sell ads or use for product placement to defer some of those costs.

I have to respect actors that do an indie between big budgets. It gives them the chance to actually act.

Posted at 5:48AM on Nov 17th 2009 by Jaded

16. Just wait. A Christmas Carol will be a steady grosser right through the holiday season and will be a domestic and international success. It is definately way too early to be listing it as a flop. The fact that it had such a small drop off in it's second weekend is testament to it's appeal. Remember a little film called Titanic. It's weekly grosses were solid without being spectacular. It just kept grossing those solid numbers week after week after week. Now Christmas Carol is no Titanic but you get the point.
Very few A-listers are guaranteed box office. They give a movie a better chance for strong box office but no guarantee. One of the most consistent actors in terms of box office success is Vince Vaughn.

Posted at 9:37AM on Nov 17th 2009 by Bob

17. Duplicity flopped? Really...I saw it twice, it had actors I like (by that I mean Clive Owen, Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinison, I'm indifferent to Julia Roberts) and a fun heist concept.

I'd love for the less smart producers in Hollywood to realize that you need a good concept to make a movie that's worth seeing, but I'd worry that "good concept" would get mangled into "hypable gimmick." If the focus becomes a slew of 3-D "This really happened/could happen" thrillers with bad scripts and people I barely recognize, then I'd prefer to watch movies that are an excuse to watch George Clooney just hanging out with his friends.

Posted at 4:32PM on Nov 23rd 2009 by Holly

18. You want to good story that just happens to have some beautiful and talented actors... Let's talk, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus!!! Hollywood needs to let good stories out and support them!!!! I think that we in America are more than ready for better films!!!

Posted at 2:14PM on Dec 15th 2009 by Cash