|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
... (Reply to this comment)
by anderclayton
Remember when he starred in the so-bad-it’s funny action movie with Sharon Stone called THE SPECIALIST
Well sure. Stone was pretty big at the time (wasn't ever a fan though) and James Woods pretty much made that film. Other than that it was pretty bad.
Ander
|
Jun 18 '06
1:01 pm PDT
|
|
Re: a correction (Reply to this comment)
by ChrisJarmick
If we assume the author is correct in saying that because of Costner the movie got finished and got up onto the big screen...
that doesn't change the fact that the studio let Costner DIRECT AND STAR in another post-apocalyptic film after being in one that was incredibly problematic, cost too much, got mixed to bad reviews and didn't break even (Waterworld).
Costner had complete control over POSTMAN. We know this because 1) IT WAS 3 HOURS LONG.
No studio executive with any smarts wants a move over 2 hours because theater owners complain about that and can only have one good showing a night of a movie that is over 2 hours long. They can't schedule a 7 and 9 p.m. showing for instance. A 3 hour film? Yikes (177 minutes).
2. COSTNER CAST HIS SON IN THE MOVIE --has one of the last shots in the movie. (Nothing wrong with this but you don't get to put your son i the movie unless you've got control over a movie)
3. COSTNER cast his dauther in the film and has her sing America the Beatiful.
If Costner FIXED the movie.. he did a bad bad job of it. It cost over 80 million dollars to do and it did less than 9 million domestic box office. It got very bad reviews when it came out.
The author could be trying to be the best possible polish on a bad bad situation because he has other books he hopes are turned into movies some day and doesn't want to bad mouth a guy that made sure his got onto the screen, even if he screwed it up. It is also possible he thought the movie was good!!! People are deluded about such things all the time.
|
Jun 17 '06
7:13 am PDT
|
|
a correction (Reply to this comment)
by voxpoptart
Costner? He talked the studio into letting him do ANOTHER large budget post apocalyptic science fiction (basically MAD MAX rip-off) movie. Costner directed the 80 million dollar POSTMAN which wound up making less than 20 million at the box office.
You clearly know far more about movies than i, but you have your facts wrong here ... unless David Brin, the author of the (wonderful, wonderful) novel of the Postman and a very blunt man, is for some reason totally lying.
The Postman was in production long before Kevin Costner came aboard. It was already becoming expensive, and was steadily being re-written into a disastrous script, one that was not only incoherent but took vicious moral stands exactly opposite Brin's work.
Kevin Costner was called in to _rescue_ the film: to rewrite it extensively in a way that its spirit - though not its literal scenes, in general - were far closer to Brin's work. He also, quite simply, made the movie's release possible, since the awful script was nowhere near completion.
Did the movie lose money? Probably yes, although as Edward Jay Epstein explains in the Big Picture, official movie finances are a bizarre many-layered fiction. Was its loss Kevin's fault in any way? No.
cheers,
- Brian
|
Jun 17 '06
12:08 am PDT
|
|
yup (Reply to this comment)
by garym
Great read.
I figured Bill Cosby´s stinker would be in here.
gary
|
Jun 16 '06
2:37 pm PDT
|
|
To me (Reply to this comment)
by Stephen_Murray,  in Movies
it's as odd that anyone would finance Terry Gilliam as that anyone would finance Kevin Costner after "Waterworld' (which is to say that I think Munchausen is in the wrong part of the list; I prefer "Staying Alive" to it).
|
Jun 16 '06
8:43 am PDT
|
|
Cartoons (Reply to this comment)
by phungus
While reading what you said about Treasure Planet, I was reminded of the bomb that was Titan, A.E..
|
Jun 16 '06
5:38 am PDT
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.