UPDATE: Clooney's 'Leatherheads' Fumbles Friday Box Office
I dive into this weekend's box office forecast below. But first I need to deal with another matter. We all learned from today's Variety that WGA member George Clooney went fi-core last fall after a 2-1 credit arbitration decision that only Duncan Brantley and Rick Reilly deserved screen credit on Leatherheads even though Clooney claimed he did a major overhaul on the script which he also directed and starred in. Well, this certainly explains why Clooney never walked the picket line alongside the striking writers.
Clooney told the trade "he would have quit the WGA altogether, but that would have prevented him from working on all WGA-covered productions. He says he wanted nothing more to do with the WGA but didn't want to be hampered in his ability in writing scripts." Variety takes Clooney's side. Not me. Forget the merits of his case: he was churlish and childish to go fi-core.
Earth to George: such disappointments happen every day of the week to real screenwriters -- but they don't pick up their toys and go home.
I'm not going to diss him for bigfooting the script because that is his right. Nor should anyone hold against him that he starred in it, he directed it, he produced it and he's already got a villa on Lake Como. But, by going fi-core, he deservedly earns the enmity of 12,000 members of the Writers Guild for refusing to play by their rules.
The veteran writers who do the WGA arbitrations take them very seriously. They spend dozens of hours reading all the drafts, comparing all the changes, and then submitting a document justifying their decision. That's then read by yet another member who confirms that it's in line with all the Guild regulations concerning screenwriting credit. So this decision that went against Clooney wasn't somebody's whim or envy. Each arbitrator knows what's at stake. (In order just to be an arbitrator, you have to have a screen credits...)
True, the deck is definitely more stacked against an actor-writer-director-producer, or any combination thereof, on a project. In order for a producer or director (also known as a production entity) to receive credit, each must have made substantative changes in over 60% of the script. The bar is higher for them specifically because of the old days when producers and directors self-administered credits, and everybody and his brother-in-law got a screenwriting credit.
The questions facing the arbitrators was this: did Clooney fundamentally change the story or the characters or the plot? It is a misconception that dialogue doesn't count: if it fundamentally changed the tone and intent of the movie, dialogue does count. But it is the sum total of all the changes that determines who gets credit and in what order.
Now for the supreme irony: Clooney claimed his major overhaul transformed Leatherheads into a screwball comedy. And that seems to be the weakest part of the picture to top critics who gave it only 36% positive reviews. According to Rotten Tomatoes, their concensus is, "Despite a good premise and strong cast, this pro football romcom is half screwball and half fumble."
All of Hollywood is especially watching Leatherheads' release to see if Clooney can open the movie. It's not as if Clooney's career is on the line. Only his paycheck. As one studio mogul said to me this morning, "He's no Will Smith." And if his non-ensemble big studio movies keep opening wide under $16 million domestic (Michael Clayton, Intolerable Cruelty, Solaris, Three Kings, Out Of Sight, The Peacemaker, One Fine Day...), then Clooney may have to cut his price accordingly. For all of his media darling coverage, he seems unable to attract moviegoers on his own. I've written repeatedly and negatively about Clooney's box office performances. I think it's not enough for him to be considered a big a movie star. He has to perform like a big movie star, too.
With a budget of $60 million, the Universal pic was nurtured by a smart marketing campaign that combined football, romance, comedy and nostalgia. Even better, Clooney hyped the hell out of the movie, eking out every ounce of PR possible. The comedy has been tracking well with older men and older women, who've been equally enthusiastic for weeks. And there is also a surprising amount of strength with young males and teens.
Even so, my box office gurus don't expect the movie to be big. Universal is hopeful for high teens. Says a source, "if we can hit $20M, it would be an absolutely exceptional result". My analysts think $15M-$16M. Bad news for George.
As for other pics, Nim's Island starring Abigail Breslin and Jodie Foster for Fox/Walden is traditional family fare aimed at girls. Thanks to Saturday kiddie matinees, it should bring in $14M. The Ruins, that horror thriller from DreamWorks/Paramount, is predicted to make single digits.
I won’t go see it.
Comment by Sean — April 4, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
No, his movie career is over. He knows it. He’s too old. And people are sick of seeing the same overpaid, over-hyped actors over and over.
Comment by Anon — April 4, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
let me save you the trouble nikki: NO! clooney’s a cool dude, but he’s got to quit it with these throwback vanity projects. does anyone remember intolerable cruelty? me neither. this may be a fine film, but it’s not commercially viable. it’s being marketed way more aggressively (and being released way wider) than it should be. this is a niche picture. is ANYONE but clooney was attached, the budget/p&a for this pic would have been half of what it is (actually, this would never have gotten made to begin with w/o george). clooney’s a star, but he’s no miracle worker. due it’s mega-wide release and massive marketing push, this flick MIGHT generate an “acceptable” box office take this weekend but i’m not holding my breath. if nothing else, i predict a mammoth drop-off come next weekend. a month from now, no one will even remember leatherheads. FLOP!
Comment by dudebro22 — April 4, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
I hope it does far better than people seem to expect. Frankly, it looks like a lot of fun and there’s nothing wrong with that! I’d be going myself tonight if I hadn’t already made other plans a few weeks ago; as it is, I’ll be going soon.
Comment by Reader — April 4, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
After seeing the trailer for this piece of shit (which includes Clooney’s smug attempt at being “cute”) and considering he’s never had a hit movie on his own, I’ll say that Leatherheads will bomb. Sure, Zellweger is in this too but she’s had very few hits herself. In fact, the only time she’s had a hit with her name in first place is with the first Bridget Jones movie and that was only because it was based on a huge best seller. Alone, Zellweger can’t pull in a crowd. And neither can Clooney. Add the fact that there were reshoots, a movie poster that has Clooney’s head WAY too big for his body to the point he looks like a bobble head, a less than impressive trailer, and now talk that Clooney is pissed off that he’s not getting a writing credit, well it’s got “bomb” written all over it.
Of course, Warner Bros will continue to pay Clooney top dollar to star in more flops. Hail, Hollywood!
Comment by Anonymous — April 4, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
I’m not a George Clooney fan (sometimes I wish actors would just shut the eff up)but my family is actually going to go see this this weekend (family consists of myself, wife, and 14 and 11 year old boys, for you audience tracking people). I’ll admit I’m not expecting anything great but it at least looks reasonably entertaining plus my boys and I like sports comedies.
My prediction from here in flyover country: Solid base hit for Clooney (to mix sports metaphors; maybe I should call it a field goal?).
I would also add that, given the ad budget and “awareness” of this movie, if Clooney can’t open this, he needs to go back to television. Putting aside the fact that Hollywood insiders love his stuff, I would argue that his celebrity is more like Tom Selleck– much bigger and more successful on television than on the big screen. Then again, unlike Selleck, Clooney never actually carried a television show on his own so maybe he doesn’t even get the edge over Selleck.
Comment by M.C. Hammered — April 4, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
Clooney keeps squeaking along, with disproportionate power and money than earned, because the studio heads have man-crushes on him. He’s old enough for them to relate to, but still has some looks and hair, and deliberately cultivates a glamorous carefree persona.
Comment by Anonymous — April 4, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Based on what I saw in the commercials, John Kransiki is going to be cast as Jim-type characters from now on. I felt like he was trying to woo Renne Zellwegger’s character ala Pam.
Comment by Arrested Development Fan — April 4, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
Clooney’s people don’t respond to letters so screw Clooney and his work. Hey Clooney check your toilet, that’s where you career is headed!
Comment by Santa Clause — April 4, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
A.O.Scott in the NY Times. “Tackled it”. Kicked it while it was down and said awful things about this movies “Mama” (Clooney).
It’s going to hurt for a while.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/movies/04leat.html
Comment by aaaaaaagent Provocateur — April 4, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
I don’t think Leatherheads will do very well. I have no idea what Clooney had in mind as the target group. It’s got football and rom-com elements and I think that uneven mix is eventually going to hurt the movie. Plus the script that he’s taking sole responsibility for, is mediocre at best.
He has alienated his core fan base in recent months by taking his private life public. His ancient frat boy jokes, the re-telling of the same old unfunny pranks on talk shows and his whining about being slighted by the WGA won’t help him either.
Comment by Nanea — April 4, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Uhm dudebro22… “Throwback vanity projects? Yes he has to quit making bad vanity films - like “O’ Brother Where Art Thou?” dot dot dot.
Comment by Owen — April 4, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
George Clooney unfortunately sees himself as a throwback kind of actor, remember his idiotic oscar speech about ‘being happy about not being in touch?’ Anyhow I digress, he’s sees himself as a Cary Grant even a Gary Cooper type. He wants roles that show him to be loveable yet flawed, handsome yet always has to battle to win the girl. The thing is his ERA has passed decades ago. He has talent and if he has wisom he will see he was born a few decades too late and hopefully, eventually he’ll be happy with the only role he was meant to play..the role of being the man behind the camera.
Comment by Johnny Somerset — April 4, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
All of you Clooney bashers are f’ing delusional. Clooney can’t open a movie huh? Really? What planets are you on?
The Oceans films have made close to half a billion dollar world wide.
The Perfect Storm was a massive blockbuster.
His artistically ambitious projects like Michael Clayton. Three Kings, Syriana, Intolerable Cruelty, Good Night and Good Luck, and Out of Sight made more money than any other actor could have pulled in with the same material. Almost all of those films grossed $100 million worldwide just in ticket sales. Not to mention the dvd sales based on this man’s resume. His films have all together grossed over $1 billion, the average film he stars in grosses $55 million, and the average opening for his wide releases is around $22 million.
So….enough about how Clooney “doesn’t open.” Leatherheads isn’t going to make $100 million domestic but nobody in their right f’ing mind would think it’d have that chance in the first place. It’s a throwback, screwball comedy with Football set in the 1920’s. Yeah…that’s gonna get repeated viewing from teenagers. There’s NOBODY else in Hollywood that could get a movie like Leatherheads made in today’s movie climate. Nobody.
So…before we all start discussing the death of Clooney at the box office, just remember what I have stated. The man is a star, and like it or not, he’ll be around for a long, long time.
Personally, I am a huge fan of his work as both actor and director. Leatherheads looks like decent fun and I am sure I will see it but it’s not my first choice this weekend; that belongs to Marty Scorsese’s Shine a Light. But I’d guess that Leatherheads opens to about $16 million and grosses close to $50 million domestic, which combined with overseas grosses and dvd sales/rentals, will make for YET ANOTHER PROFITABLE FILM STARRING GEORGE CLOONEY.
He’s old-school classy and extremely talented as a leading Hollywood man; if only we hade more actors with the kind of screen presence that he has.
Comment by actionman — April 4, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
“is ANYONE but clooney was attached, the budget/p&a for this pic would have been half of what it is”
So what IS the budget for this? I have no idea, but I’d guess it’s probably fairly low. I think this will do OK, it won’t be huge but I doubt it cost much either.
I don’t get all the hate (envy) for clooney - do people really want him to do some big budget tentpole thing just to make money for the sake of making money? He does films because he thinks they will be good films instead of just trying to pander. Why do other filmmakers get respect for that but he gets bashed for it?
Comment by milo — April 4, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
Ugh! Clooney has is so annoying and self absorbed. He will never be a successful producer because all of his projects are vanity one’s for himself. He should be grateful that he wasn’t given a writing credit for this piece o’crap. This script has been kicking around Hollywood for at least a decade. Clooney has aged tremendously over the past year. Lay off the booze George it isn’t doing you any favors. And get some new material will ya? Oh and big YA to the French and Russians for kicking him off the floor at the UN. GMAB
Comment by Hannaford — April 4, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
look up ‘vanity project’ owen. clooney didn’t write or direct o’ brother, the coen bros. did. and that film was entirely different in tone and content than this one. apples and oranges. i’m not hating on george. in fact, i like him quite a bit. i just question his decision in making this film. he’s a rly talented filmmaker (not on the level of the coen bros. though), one need look no further than good night and good luck to realize that. i wonder why he squanders his talents and superstar megawattage on projects like this that are destined to fail in the marketplace. and in response to milo, i can promise you the all inclusive budget for this film (prod., p&a, distro, etc.) exceeds $100 mil. the studio will not see a return on this one anytime soon….
Comment by dudebro22 — April 4, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
I say it won’t break 20 million for the weekend.
Comment by reelbusy — April 4, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
clearly “actionman” works for CAA
Comment by Anons — April 4, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
No way that movie makes $15 million this weekend. It looks retarded. GC looks like a movie star, but he’s not one.
Comment by Jimbo — April 4, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
I’m hardly a gigantic Clooney fan, and most star actors simply annoy me and take me out of movies. But I find it hard to completely trash a guy who’s at least attempted to make some decent films, rather than purely cashing in with a series of bad action films interspersed with worse romantic comedies. Three Kings, O Brother, Solaris, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Intolerable Cruelty, Good Night & Good Luck, Syriana, The Good German, Michael Clayton… some of these are awful, some are actually pretty great. But the point is, none of them are lazy. At least it’s an attempt at something, which is more most A-List stars even bother for.
Also… this “vanity project” talk is ridiculous. He’s a gigantic star. You could just say every movie he’s in is a vanity project. It’s pretty bloody vain to star in a motion picture. Who cares?
Comment by chris — April 4, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
Nikki Finke always publishes these really weird boxoffice-based articles.
Leatherheads will totally bomb. Nobody wants to see it, a money loser all the way.
But before it comes out, we get words about the intelligent marketing campaign.
But when 300 comes out, it’s not praised for being innovative, ground-breaking or interesting. And yet, it opened to 70 million with a niche source material, a burgeoning director and no bankable star.
Leatherheads: Under 12M. Under 36M Domestic. Under 60M Worldwide.
Comment by JCROW — April 4, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
The problem with George Clooney is that he tries too hard. And that we see him trying…to be the new, new Rat Pack… the “hilarious” practical jokes…the “look at me not settling down” bit. George Clooney may have been real at some point, but now he’s just a poor man’s Joey Bishop.
Comment by flyover — April 4, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
This is for Jimbo: If you do not have the critical and analytical skills to say something more incisive than “It looks retarded,” and are too insensitive to realize why many people do not want to see the term “retarded” used as a pejorative, then maybe you shouldn’t post comments.
Comment by Randall — April 4, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
I don’t have anything against George Clooney, but I have no desire to see this movie because
1. 1920’s football? No thanks.
2. Weird leather bathing caps. Ugh.
Comment by Coco Chanel — April 4, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
The envy here is palpable!
BTW, with the exception of one pic, everyone of his others have MADE money!
Comment by independant producer — April 4, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
having a negative opinion does not equate trashing - does that mean the only legit opinion of clooney can be a positive one?
george clooney is voluntarily in the public eye, and this is a forum for this topic - nothing improper going on here
if you don’t like the opinions expressed here, go elsewhere
Comment by equity — April 4, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
good point “independant” producer, but here;s a tip: learn to spell your own name!
Comment by dudebro22 — April 4, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
Are you guys nuts? Clooney is a HUGE international star, somebody every studio in this town is dying to be in business with. The movie doesn’t look great, but nobody’s perfect. His work speaks for itself.
Comment by Freddy L — April 4, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
what superstar wattage outside of Hollywood? Some people here are delusional. lol
Comment by huh? — April 4, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
This explains Clooney’s thinly veiled jab at the writers during the strike [also, the Oscars were on the line and a win would’ve revived his acting career.]
Comment by Mc — April 4, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
People who cannot disagree with others without hurling ad hominem insults, i.e. delusional, nuts, are not worth listening to.
Propaganda from those profiting from the Clooney gravy train will not change the numbers.
Bottom line, Clooney is not big box office. It’s a non-argument.
Comment by Prod — April 4, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
Huge International star? Because Oceans made money overseas? Because you can’t be talking about anything else that Clooney’s been in. Brad Pitt is a huge international star. I wouldn’t even call Matt Damon an international star and he’s done all those Bourne and Ocean movies but most people overseas would walk right past him on the street.
I also agree with whomever said that Clooney won’t be a successful producer until he actually leaves his ego at the door and realizes he’s not right for every script. The more you see of Clooney the less you enjoy or like him. Same old tired stories over and over again.
Comment by Leo — April 4, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
George Clooney has more talent and has done more great things for the world through his humanitarian efforts and socially-conscious films than anyone posting on this, plus Nikki combined. As far as his going fi-core because he lost his arbitration — so many WGA arbitrations are based on antiquated rules & they get it wrong as much as they get it right… also, his identity was probably more public to the arbitrators than other writers and that may have factored negatively in their ruling, since writers by-and-large resent directors who also write.
Comment by llie Mann — April 4, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
“Forget the merits of his case: he was churlish and childish to go fi-core.”
Riiight, because the man doesn’t have the right to take a stand if he believes the WGA was wrong. Gimme a break. If he did a rewrite, he should get credit. Why don’t you criticize the union for being anal about this kind of crap?
Maybe if the “real” screenwriters took a similar stand when they got screwed, this kind of crap would stop. If Clooney writes a script, he’s a screenwriter. He was nominated for an Oscar for screenwriting, so I’d say he also qualifies as a “real” one, Nikki.
Bravo to Clooney for taking a stand.
Comment by Anonymous — April 4, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
MC is right, the strike killed George Clooney’s acting career. The press was all set to hype Michael Clayton to no end in order to lift up that movie and make it a Oscar winner. Maybe 7 wins at the very least including Best Picture. Thanks to the WGA, we were saved four months of Michael Clayton/George Clooney hype which would have included him going on almost every late night talk show in the country the first full week of November.
The only problem was that Michael Clayton was released the first week of October, but you get the idea. With the strike underway, nothing was getting promoted which meant that the box office was hurting and people weren’t going to see expected Oscar nominated films, that is until there were rumors that Worldwide Pants and the WGA were looking into an interim agreement that would allow Dave and Craig to return to the air with writers.
With that, here is a trivia question: Who were Dave’s guests his first day back from the 2007-08 strike? The answer, Robin Williams, Ellen Page (whom I didn’t really know about until her first appearance on the Late Show), and a cameo by Hillary Clinton. If Dave bowed into corporate pressure, that second guest would have been George Clooney, not Ellen Page.
As a result of that show, Dave may have allowed the Democrat Party nomination to end in an convention fight in Denver because her appearance may have ended up with her winning New Hampshire. Meanwhile, Juno shot up into the top 10 at the Box Office and became the public favorite at the Oscars. In contrast, Mike Huckabee may have lost the Republican nomination just by appearing on the struck Tonight Show that very same night.
My Prediction for this weekend: Don’t be surprised to see Mims Island #1 after this weekend while Leatherheads will likely bomb, but will end up becoming good programming for ABC and ESPN.
Comment by Jessy S. — April 4, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
Even if the movie does well, the idiotic PR from Clooney distracted from the movie. PR should have centered on that hot puppy John Krasinki and Clooney should have kept his sleazy private life private.
That said, he was well within his rights to go fi-core. It is one of the options. How ridiculous to suggest he shouldn’t choose the one he wanted. Maybe they did hold who he is against him.
Clooney deserves credit for trying to make decent movies. The real problem is that there aren’t writers of the caliber who wrote the best ’30s and ’40s movies. The movies he tries to make require wit, an understanding of human motivation, and a deeper understanding of certain issues. They haven’t demonstrated that.
Will Smith is amazing but he chooses movies that rely heavily on special effects or rather simple emotions. More importantly, Will Smith maintains a clean cut and likeable public persona which helps his movies open strong - no instant negatives in the public mind, only positives. Clooney has a very likeable public persona, but the drinking is making him age too quickly and the inability to grow up makes him look like a loser as he ages. Will Smith is, and Cary Grant was, careful to maintain public dignity, which is very important to the public, because they go to see people they want to identify with, or emulate. Clooney’s drinking and whoring no longer looks cool, just pathetic. And pathetic is box office poison.
Comment by Wannabe Industry Analyst — April 4, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
Nikki, your evaluation of Clooney’s bankability isn’t wrong, but it’s incomplete.
You need to mention that he doesn’t “choose” marketable projects. If a film skews older, it won’t gross much. Proven fact. It’s not that Clooney’s not a star. It’s that the market’s changed. Look at Brad Pitt; is he “not a star” because his prestige flick flop?
Clooney’s a star, but he chooses projects that don’t attract the kids. But put him in a Jason Bourne-like action film and you wouldn’t question his draw.
It’s not the star, it’s the market.
Comment by 40yearoldstitzer — April 4, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
For an entertainment site this is one hell of a weird crowd I’m viewing. If you don’t like Clooney for his pol. views fine. But use your heads for a moment and ponder this:
He makes adult films. And those are hardly getting made these days. The majority of pictures are greared toward teenagers, but mostly 15 yr old boys. When folks don’t go see a film like this, and i know it’s a certain crowd that will dig this kind of movie. But w/ low turn out, the less films will be made for “adult crowds.”
Thats why you get so many Knocked Ups, cartoon moives, Sci-Fi ones, Sequel after sequel. And Clooney is one of a hand full that can green light a picure b/c of his popularity. Hollywood is into making money. Thats it. It doesn’t give a shit if you’re a women in your 50’s and don’t get many films you can relate to. Or vice versa. A man in your 60’s. They’re more of those but not enough.
So something to think about but I get the impression that the majority on this site aren’t big film fans anyway but conservative haters that listen to what drudge, O’reilly, Ann C. and Hanity or Rush tell them how to think or feel about the hollywood elite. Because after all, it’s their fault we have a recession, endless war that wasn’t imperative, housing crisis, etc. It’s unique for so many conservative folks to frequent an entertainment site.
I’m curious as to what are Ms. Finke’s views are. Is she just pandering to the crowd she gets from Drudges links? Because she knows a large portion of traffic comes from his links to this site.
Comment by Tree Trunk — April 4, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
Actionman,
All of you Clooney bashers are f’ing delusional. Clooney can’t open a movie huh? Really? What planets are you on?
The Oceans films have made close to half a billion dollar world wide.
Yeah, Clooney can make crap films that make money. Ergo, Leatherheads.
Hey, I like the guy. Confessions was awesome, so was Good Night and Good Luck, so was Michael Clayton.
Leatherheads doesn’t look too good. But could be that the DVD sales will reap a fortune. Of course no one will ever know that except the studios who keep hiring him and wasting their money on his box office bombs.
It’s a fucked up industry in a fucked up world. But Clooney seems to know how to play it.
Comment by Roan — April 5, 2008 @ 3:32 am
seriously, who cares if he went fi-core? staying in as a full member does nothing to benefit someone at his level, if anything it’s a hindrance.
I know people like to say ‘remember the people you moved up the ladder with’ and all that shit, but this is Hollywood. It’s a disgusting destructive town. He could be out of the business next week if the fates conspired against him. Besides, he still has to pay into the union and they get to use his money for their causes and he gets no vote, so where is the downside?
Anyone who’s actually worked in this town knows you have to make as much money as you can, as fast as you can because most don’t last more than 10-15 years tops.
Comment by manny — April 5, 2008 @ 3:44 am
#
Even if the movie does well, the idiotic PR from Clooney distracted from the movie. PR should have centered on that hot puppy John Krasinki and Clooney should have kept his sleazy private life private.
That said, he was well within his rights to go fi-core. It is one of the options. How ridiculous to suggest he shouldn’t choose the one he wanted. Maybe they did hold who he is against him.
Clooney deserves credit for trying to make decent movies. The real problem is that there aren’t writers of the caliber who wrote the best ’30s and ’40s movies. The movies he tries to make require wit, an understanding of human motivation, and a deeper understanding of certain issues. They haven’t demonstrated that.
Will Smith is amazing but he chooses movies that rely heavily on special effects or rather simple emotions. More importantly, Will Smith maintains a clean cut and likeable public persona which helps his movies open strong - no instant negatives in the public mind, only positives. Clooney has a very likeable public persona, but the drinking is making him age too quickly and the inability to grow up makes him look like a loser as he ages. Will Smith is, and Cary Grant was, careful to maintain public dignity, which is very important to the public, because they go to see people they want to identify with, or emulate. Clooney’s drinking and whoring no longer looks cool, just pathetic. And pathetic is box office poison.
Comment by Wannabe Industry Analyst — April 4, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
——————————————
Bravo to this whole post. You are so dead on! George’s schitck may have been funny when he was 30 but it ain’t anymore. While he’s grown older so has his audience. To younger viewers he’s grandpa. Grow up George. I saw him on Letterman and another show being interviewed and he can’t go more then a few seconds without launching into the whole drinking bit. But look at him. I don’t think he’s kidding. Clean it up George and stop promoting the hard drinking because it’s taking a toll on you. He’s just really disingenuous.
Comment by Kit Kat — April 5, 2008 @ 5:26 am
I’m a tv fan. I was never really hooked by ER. I always thought Clooney was over-hyped. And even back then when I was 15, I knew his good looks and charm got him more credit than he deserved. Someone here might call that envy, and sure, call it whatever you want, but ultimately it’s disgust at the meritless getting ahead. You can relate to that in all other aspects of life, can’t you–that co-worker who gets a promotion despite being a slacker, etc. Seems to me the WGA used that meritocracy ruler to measure his contributions, and he fell short.
Now that he’s gone fi-core, it’s no wonder that a) he didn’t support the writers’ worthy cause, b) he doesn’t support his own SAG union.
These actions fit the description of an egotistical, self-serving man instead of someone who really cares for his brothers/ peers in the interest of creativity and collectivity.
Yes, he’s entitled to do whatever he wants. Personally, I would’ve probably been childish, too, and gone fi-core in protest, but I’m just a tv watcher, haven’t played in hollywood and don’t have his wealth to be dignified about it.
But to not support his own SAG, which, due to his (undeserved?) status as a moviestar he won’t need to negotiate for him anyway… Well, that’s just a disservice to the real working actors. And so his WGA and his SAG dis-support, together, show a pattern of selfishness (and not just taking a stand or protesting what he felt was due him from WGA).
It’s another unclassy way to throw his influence around incorrectly on issues that don’t really concern him. He probably was never a true member of WGA nor serious about writing. As he stated, he just used it in order to work on projects. That’s just using WGA b/c it can help him, and then it’s just dissing SAG b/c it can’t really help him b/c I guess he goes through those back-end negotiations or whatever the term is. Shame on you, Clooney.
Comment by AvidFan — April 5, 2008 @ 6:00 am
Hey, I’m just happy that there’s a movie star left in the world who even tries to be charming. Most of them are just doing gross-out comedies or bad action movies or both, and trying to make a whole career out of it. No, thank you. Give me charm, no matter how outdated it looks, any day.
Comment by Reader — April 5, 2008 @ 6:41 am
Don’t worry, Hollywoood will make its money. They always do.
Comment by NotFondofHollywood — April 5, 2008 @ 6:45 am
clearly “actionman” works for CAA
um….no….only douche bags work at agencies
Comment by actionman — April 5, 2008 @ 9:28 am
My take is: look back at “stars” throughout the history of Hollywood. They all had ups and downs. Judy Garland was a massive talent, the studios coddled her, then treated her like shit and kicked her out the door. Granted, she had serious problems, but still, the whole “we’re family” thing Hollywood throws at you can very quickly turn into “we’re your worst fucking nightmare.” It’s a toxic town, full of toxic people, obsessed with ridiculous, high school level, feuds and jealousies. I remember walking to an audition on a lot about 8 years ago - I passed “The Judy Garland Building,” and “The Spencer Tracy Building.” I remember thinking, “great talents both, but - one, a pill addicted neurotic, and the other a terrible alcoholic with soul crushing guilt over his infidelities.” Both suffered enormously throughout their time as “stars.” It struck home that it’s all a charade, it’s all fake, and if you buy into it, as Clooney clearly has, it’s gonna get you eventually. Look at the venom of these posts! People are jonesing for him to suffer some horrible, tragic fall! It’s soul destroying, stardom. At least Clooney is trying to get a few good swings in before it goes to shit. I’ve never considered him a first class actor - he’s good, not great. The “no marriage” thing, the “lots of friends crashing at my place” thing - it’s like a young guy, just out of college. Only Clooney’s pushing 50, and once the “star” gravy train slows, he’s going to look around at his life and wonder if he missed something. Like having a family, something outside himself, so it’s not all about me, me, me. I don’t live in L.A. anymore. It’s bad for you.
Comment by MrsWakely — April 5, 2008 @ 11:45 am
The problem with Hollywood nowadays is that Hollywood is so quick to declare someone a star. That’s the wrong way to go. Why? Because the audience makes someone a star. Not Hollywood. When the audience reacts positively to an actor and goes to see them in just about everything they do then that actor becomes a star. Not just because Hollywood declared it so. Just like those awful It Girl and It Boy covers in Vanity Fair and how they destroyed careers before they barely began (paging Gretchen Mol and Julia Ormond).
In this case, Hollywood has declared George Clooney a star even though audience think otherwise. If Clooney was really a star, people would see his movies as opposed to only his ensemble flicks (which get helped by having the likes of Julia Roberts in them as in the Ocean movies).
Comment by Francine Fishpaw — April 5, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
Excellent points, MrsWakely.
Comment by Reader — April 5, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
Hey Nikki, you need to do an article on the real story, which is the failed generational change over. Recent big movies have been headlined by:
Mummified Geezers: Harrison Ford(66), Bruce Willis(53), Sylvester Stallone(63), Robin Williams(57), John Travolta(57), Tom Hanks(52), even Jack Nicholson(71)! And The Middle Aged: George Clooney(47),Julia Roberts(41), Eddie Murphy(47), Brad Pitt(45), and Johnny Depp(45). That’s just the abbreviated list.
Hollywood doesn’t keep recycling them because they secretly love old people! The studios used to know how to tend the garden for future mega-stars. But, they haven’t been doing it lately, and now they’re in a mini-crisis. The Sweet Spot for Movie Stars (women under 40 and men under 45): Tom Cruise(42) - [Broke into stardom in the 1980s!], Drew Barrymore(33), Angelina Jolie(33), Keanu Reeves(43), Matt Damon(38), Leonardo DiCaprio(33), Tobey Maguire(33), Russell Crowe(44), Will Smith(40) - [All broke out in the 1990s]
*** Recently Emerged Stars (Good Job Hollywood): Keira Knightley(23), Natalie Portman(27), Anne Hathaway(25), Katherine Heigl(30), …. and then ??? That’s it???? Notice there are also no males on this list. That spells trouble, and is why we’re still headlining stars from the 1980s.
To be fair, Hollywood has attempted to push some new males, but they’ve all been duds: Colin Farrell(32), Jude Law(35), Ashton Kutcher(30). Those are the big names, but there have also been a string of blink-and-you’ll-miss-them, no-hit wonders like: Jason Biggs, Chris Klein, Matthew Lillard, etc., etc. Bet you forgot all about them and their fleeting hype. There were many of them. Is there hope on the horizon? What does the future have in store? Still Questionable but Good Potential: Orlando Bloom(31), Shia LaBeouf(22), Hayden Christensen(27), Daniel Radcliffe(19), and Emma Watson(18), and then???
TV Stars: “The Next George Clooney” Patrick Dempsey(42) is uncomfortable close to 45! As is the long expected breakout star Matthew Fox(42) . Zac Efron(21) has a ginormous number of youtube hits, but, he’s still unproven in non-Disney musicals. Tom Welling(31) despite the huge # of youtube hits, has only headlined 1 film, to weak box office! His successful films were in supporting gigs.
This is the point we start randomly looking at the cast of big tv shows, throwing them out there, to see what sticks. (Eva Longoria in “Over Her Dead Body”??). OK, tv is looking skimpy, so we turn to: Justin Timberlake(27)! – Could he be the next Will Smith? His youtube hits dwarf all others, and he has a background in Disney tv. But, pop star to movie star rarely works. Even in this short list, we’ve started scraping the bottom of the barrel quickly. This is what happens, if you don’t tend the garden. Your hope for the future descends on actors over 40, random tv stars, and pop musicians!
Comment by Crisis indeed! — April 5, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
“Clooney is no Will Smith.” No, he sure isn’t. Will Smith is only in it for the money; he won’t appear in anything that he doesn’t think will be a blockbuster… he and his people even do extensive research to figure out which scripts have the most earning potential (i.e., the most potential for him to come out ahead on the back end as well as the front). George Clooney, on the other hand, won’t appear in anything he doesn’t genuinely like, or with filmmakers he doesn’t think are talented. Smith won’t do a movie for under $20 million; Clooney did “Michael Clayton” for scale. One of them is an artist; the other is a commodity.
Comment by Nick — April 6, 2008 @ 11:57 am
If I am interested in culture and being educated I read, movies are to switch off for a while and live in a fantasy world. Never-the-less while Michael Clayton was OK it was hardly high-brow and I watched Ocean’s Eleven because Matt Damon Brad Pitt and Andy Garcia were listed as some of the actors. The only thing George Clooney has done well that I have observed is hyping himself.
Comment by Anne — April 6, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
Saw it yesterday….almost feel asleep in it. Cooney sure does think himself cute and quite the ladies man.His pursed lip eye brow shifts are more than old.
If Cooney rewrote the script to make this a romantic comedy, he needs to find a new job. There were so many stupid scenes with poor acting, it’s almost hard to believe these were final cuts. If I never see another GC movie, that’ll be fine with me.
Comment by MikeMikeMike — April 7, 2008 @ 6:12 am
Um, Nikki, I think the Variety article kind of makes you look like a bitter pill. Can we stop hating on Clooney? What did he ever do to you?
So he went fi-core, so what?
So the WGA doesn’t walk on water either.
Their “arbitration” process — SUCKS.
I think it was very cool of him to keep it quiet during the strike and to not take “a film by” credit. In a town of insane egos, he’s a cool, classy dude.
If Leatherheads didn’t do boffo b.o. (since it’s not a sequel or based on a comic book), I bet it will kill in DVDs.
Clooney seems like one of the good guys.
Comment by anon — April 7, 2008 @ 6:46 am
I stopped seeing George Clooney when he told me how to live my life by telling me how to vote correctly. That this guy, who is liberal all the way, DOESN’T LIKE THE WGA, is typical of those that have gotten theirs: do as I say, not as I do. From the Lake Como cottage that he has to use his jet and fuel to get to, and the “profound” statements of political discourse, I gave up. My father never went to see a Jane Fonda movie because of that stupid picture of her riding the cannon like a bull in Viet Nam and I would roll my eyes at this serenade of his every time she was on the air. Now, I know how he feels. I refuse to spend my $10 for a seat at the theater to finance George Clooney. I’m voting with my money. How do you like me now George?
I wish that hollywood stars would just be quiet about their political stripes. Anyone screaming about censorship can also kiss my money goodbye. Here’s a hint: Make the money, be nice to every side of the political spetrcum, be the entertainer, and then quietly donate your money to the rainforest or buy a rainforest but don’t use my money to tell me that I shouldn’t drive to the theater because its killing the rainforest.
FiCORE for a liberal.
I’m shaking my head in disbelief.
You’re only supposed to go FiCORE if you’re a rich conservative and have the mindset to screw the other poor people.
Nice going George. You’ve screwed over your own base with this WGA stuff and you’re never getting back in the good graces of Kentuckians. You are a man without a country - oops, you do have Italy.
Comment by Kay McCann — April 7, 2008 @ 10:45 am
hey kay,
this is america, its your right not pay money to see cloony’s movie and its his right to say whatever the hell he wants to say…
and i’m sure he knows that by speaking his thoughts he will not make as much money as he could have, but apparently that’s ok with him (and by the looks of his house and lifestyle, he’s doing just fine)
you may not aggree with his thoughts/actions/whatever, but at least he has the guts to share them and i respect that he tries to make ‘adult’ movies (i don’t love everything he has done, but i do watch whatever he is in)
i will not pay to see leatherheads at the cinema (i rarely do these days), but will put it in my Q to watch when it comes on DVD and the million times it will eventually play on tv as it appears to be a chick/sports movie (like a jerry mcquire) and thus makes tons of money for everyone involved but most will think it was a ‘bomb’
Comment by joe — April 10, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Your facts about the WGA arbitration system are incomplete. The Screen Credits Manual guarantees that the participating writers are anonymous, so there is no prejudice from the arbiters. However, the anonymity clause was written pre-internet. So the arbiters, aware of the title of the script, are able (and regularly do) simply look it up on IMDB, and the premise and promise of anonymity is gone. The potential for prejudice, one way or the other is the result. I am a ‘real’ screenwriter; I’ve been through the process, and Clooney is correct: it is corrupted.
Comment by Jet — April 10, 2008 @ 10:54 pm