Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Should We Hope For A Hit???

It's apparently make or break time for Nicole Kidman concerning her film career, and while we have been enjoying each new drop in her box office and popularity, its time to take a look at what would happen if Australia is not a hit of any kind.

First, Kidman would definitely take a big hit on her ‘asking cost’ for a film. That would not be tragic as she has not had the big huge hits that many of her contemporaries have had. Most of her films do well either with critics or in foreign markets which has been a bargaining chip. Add to that the Oscar that she used to get a better asking price. However, that Oscar is almost ten years old and she has not won nor been nominated for any major awards in the last five years. Kidman working for cheap may be the future.

Second, an addict of the spotlight and the drug of fame, we have all seen the lengths that Kidman will go to in securing a headline or two. She remarried, had a child, and even exploited her husband's rehab to keep her name in the tabloids. She has used her older children for photo ops and exploited the hallowed United Nations for her addiction to fame. Yes, she could care less about fulfilling her duties as “ambassador” if demonstrated by her attention to the cause, but bet your bottom dollar that if she needs to promote Nicole Kidman we will see her at a UN event speaking with her affected style about something she really doesn't have the intellect to understand.

Third, Kidman is getting too old to have many options left. She has not gone back to the stage in over a decade. She is a film actress in an industry that throws away a woman over forty. Kidman's fault? No, not in this case, but she has shown though her choices in roles that she is not capable of making a decision that will keep her career trendy and vibrant.

What will be the result if Kidman has yet another failure? More than likely her faux happy family will continue to be exploited, even more. For those of us who want Keith Urban free of her influence and her being, the future looks bleak. If she has a hit, we could see the noose around Urban's neck lessened and eventually we might see his freedom. As he begins to rebound his career and hers continues in free fall we will see her more and more as being part of his life. Fame is indeed a mighty heady drug.


doublewide said...

a very good question i've thought about. if it means she'll cut keith loose, then lord help me, let the woman have a hit

Imahick said...

I do worry that NK will be more demanding in the future than now, if Australia is not successful. God knows, I think she & Baz are counting on this epic being successful and there's a lot of $$ tied up in it.

It was announced that she is co-producing and staring in another movie, after NINE and she has one lined up with Naomi she has no intention of quitting. But if Australia is a dud, I think any future projects will have to be ones she produces, so that she can hire herself to act in the project. I don't see her getting too many offers from studios.

If she had some success, perhaps she'd allow Keith to have a life and career also! I think he pays a huge price everytime another article is published pointing out her failures.

hoosierlady said...

Maybe it's a Yoko Ono thing. Maybe he really loves her, and if she has a flop, he will get the happy family he wants, his music will rebound.

don't believe the lies said...

I honestly don't see this movie doing well. There's not any buzz going around for it, it's been pushed back and well Nicole's in it. There has been little to no hype about it. Usually the studios start putting stuff out there to get people interested months in advance (expecially in the summer when mostly all people do is go to the movies) and I have not seen or heard anything. I didn't even know what it was about until I looked it up online. The new Star Trek has previews in the theaters and I don't think it comes out until 2009. Maybe the studio has decided to save some money and not bother promoting it figuring it's just going to bomb anyways.

Choice said...

In a post I put up yesterday, I noted that she has gone full circle. Starting with an Aussie film and possibly ending her career with an Aussie film. Test screeings have been poor for this film so far. People don't find it credible that a hunk like Jackman would fall for skeletor's horse. It's time for Baz to look at other actresses in his future movies.

notachance said...

Appears not all agree with the Forbes declaration (that played directly into the skeptics hands).

To Forbes Magazine:

Re: "Overpaid" Hollywood Actors

This article, and "study," undermines Forbes' credibility. It is bad science. There are so many co-factors to the performance levels of any motion picture, that to hang the success or failure of a film or television property on the head of a single actor is like banking the success of a NASA space shuttle mission on a single astronaut. Such data only make sense when averaged over many samples, not just three, and even then one has to take into account the screenplay, the director, the producers, marketing, distribution plan, general audience responsiveness to a particular film genre, how many films were competing for box office share at the time of the film's release, and many other variables that can affect the revenue streams of any given film. Without even attempting to assign specific weights to the myriad of other factors that affect a film's performance, in truth, Forbes has no idea whether a film property with lackluster performance might have indeed performed Far Worse if the actor in question had not been part of the project. An ongoing analysis of what affects motion picture performance could be valuable, but it would have to at least attempt to take into account all other possible variables. Even then, the "results" should be put forth with some conservative modesty, rather than making blunt proclamations.

Forbes has been a great source for reporting business news and the facts behind the news; but this is a case where Forbes is creating its own very shallow analysis, and instead of reporting the news, it is essentially fabricating its own. This has led to a plethora of basically cheap headlines in media around the world that basically trash the viability of actors who might have actually saved the properties they are in from even worse financial performances. And being a driver of cheap headlines does not help Forbes' own viability when analyzing data related to the motion picture business. Your magazine can do, and usually does, much better.

Andy van Roon
Nashville, TN

* * * * * * *
Serving the Film & Television Community
Andy van Roon
615:573.5238 310:463.5587
@ Nashville Convention & Visitors Bureau
One Nashville Place
150 4th Avenue North, Suite G-250
Nashville, TN 37219
* * * Think Globally, Create Locally. * * *

realitycheck said...

dbtl, you must not be looking in the right places. A trailer, before the reshoots, was released to theatres this summer. They are doing podcasts of all the elements of filmmaking, a behind the scenes look at "Australia". Nicole has been on the cover of Vanity Fair in a photo shoot w/ Jackman and Brandon the little boy to promote the film. They have or are going to release an "Australia" magazine in OZ to promote tourism in the outback and the movie. I don't know if that's been released yet. I'm sure there are some other things Ive missed.

choice, the test screenings did do well. The film wasn't even finished when they happened. Just because some of the viewers were critical of certain things does not guarantee it will flop. One thing they were not critical of was the casting of Kidman. So to say they didn't believe her as Lady Catherine is just more skeptic

And the film being pushed back, common practice when you are up against a known franchise like Bond. It was not pushed back like "Valkryie" was. That film was sent to "dead season" '09, and now its moved up a little bit to December, in an attempt for Oscar consideration. No one has to see your film for it to get nominated. And FWIW I'm only using the Cruise movie because its the only one in recent memory I can remember that was pushed back so far because of such a bad reception. Not because of the Kidman-Cruise connection.
The trailer for "Valkryie" speaks for itself...

I also want to add that unless "Australia" is a blockbuster in America the skeptics will say Kidman's career is over. Which is absolutely ridiculous.

realitycheck said...

notachance, thanks for that article. Here's another response to the Forbes list

Is Nicole Kidman Really Overpaid?
Erin Nolan, Sep 16, 2008

This may sound like an absurd statement, but it's kind of tough being Nicole Kidman.

Last week, Forbes named her the most overpaid celebrity in Hollywood (click here to see the formula), citing her inability to draw big crowds to flops like Invasion and The Golden Compass. It's hard to argue with the math, but I do take issue with Kidman being saddled with this title. Personally, I think Heidi Montag being paid any money for her alleged "talents" makes her a million times more overpaid than Kidman.

It never seems fair to simplify the value of an artist or entertainer into mere mathematical terms. The films that have the biggest impact on our culture aren't always the ones that make the biggest bucks at the box office. And although Nicole Kidman's films don't make tons of money, many of them wouldn't be expected to -- if it weren't for the fact that Nicole Kidman was in them.

For the past eight years, Kidman's celebrity status has earned her paychecks that are in complete disproportion to the types of roles she has played. Before her divorce from Tom Cruise, Kidman seemed happy to remain the less famous half of that super-couple. She often favored roles in smaller, edgier fare like To Die For, staying out of the spotlight while her hubby basked in his superstardom. But then their surprise split in 2001 made her the object of the world's sympathy. Nicole was suddenly the most famous woman in the world, whether she wanted to be or not.

It's not shocking, then, that two of her biggest commercial successes, Moulin Rouge and The Others, came in the summer of 2001, immediately following the divorce. Both of these films were critically acclaimed, but Kidman was the biggest star in them. It's hard to believe that either the extravagant, offbeat musical or the creepy, intelligent thriller would've drawn such big crowds if Kidman hadn't been such an object of public fascination at the time of their release.

Following her big year in 2001, Kidman achieved the dream of every Hollywood actor. She began to earn blockbuster money for films that challenged her inner thespian. She won an Oscar for playing Virginia Woolf in The Hours, a highbrow literary adaptation that bored mainstream audiences.

But soon after, more sensational tabloid darlings like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan began to emerge, and the public lost interest in the former Mrs. Tom Cruise. (Apparently, she didn't need our sympathy anymore after marrying hunky country singer Keith Urban). She made a few commercial flops like Bewitched and The Stepford Wives, but remained in the good graces of critics with strong performances in movies like Margot at the Wedding. Unfortunately, the good people at Forbes caught on to the fact that something wasn't lining up right between her paychecks and her box office returns.

I kind of wish they'd let her get away with it. Kidman's film choices show she is an actress first, and a celebrity second (notice how there wasn't a photo spread of her new baby in People?) and you can't say that about many of the other stars who make the kind of money she earns. I'd love for Australia, her reunion with Moulin Rouge director Baz Luhrmann, to be a big enough hit to restore everyone's confidence in Nicole Kidman.

Forbes may call her overpaid, but I still think she works hard for the money.

notachance said...

That Nolan piece has to be taken as a backhanded compliment to NK. I've read it 4 times and still come away with that feeling.

A440 said...

Nolan was doing well with her analysis until she went off the deep end toward the tail end of her piece. I hadn't considered the success of Moulin Rouge and The Others in light of Nicole's status at that time as A Woman Blindsided By Tom's Divorce Action. The films' subsequent successes now make sense. (Disclaimer: I enjoyed The Others and The Hours, too.)

But here
"She made a few commercial flops like Bewitched and The Stepford Wives, but remained in the good graces of critics with strong performances in movies like Margot at the Wedding." is where Nolan starts to run off the rails.

Kidman did not make a few flops. She made a whole slew of them. Unmentioned are Fur, Birth, Human Stain, Dogville, etc. Nolan discounts those financial and critical flops. All of them pretty much in a row.

Then Nolan comes out with this gem:
"Kidman's film choices show she is an actress first, and a celebrity second (notice how there wasn't a photo spread of her new baby in People?)"

Kidman may be attracted to indie films, but her personal choices that keep her constantly in the public eye make her a definite celeb first. Maybe Nolan isn't aware of the refusal of People to pay Kidman's high demand for Sunday's pics. (I say we'll still see Sunday in a formal portrait sooner or later in some publication.)

Nolan may think Kidman works hard for the money. I think she recycles the same cold, humorless characters over and over again. (INdeed, one of Woolf's friends derided Kidman and her director publicly for making Woolf such a downbeat depressive.)

wastedemotion said...

Every actor is overpaid if you ask me. I dont think any of them deserve the insane amounts of money they make. SO I didnt pay attention to Forbes article, nor did I pay attention to anything that followed. Is Nicole overpaid, hell yes, but so is Julia, so is Reese, so is Angelina, they all are.

don't believe the lies said... she's had one magazine cover? Sorry but thats not enough to get the public interested and btw, didn't that issue have very low sales? I thought I had read it was the lowest of the year thus far for Vanity Fair. Also I went to the movies several times this summer and not once did I see a preview for Australia. Kidmans career is over. At this point she's going to need a miracle for people to care again.

realitycheck said...

funny, I saw the Australia trailer before Sex and The City and one other film, cant remember which one. So plenty of people have see it, just from the SATC film alone.

While many magazine's sales are down, Vanity Fair's sales are up, I don't think they have much to worry about.

notachance, while i don't think Nolan is NK's biggest fan, she does get that Nicole can act. And lets face it, its easier and easier to get to the top of the Hollywood heap without a speck of talent. She is spot on when she says Nicole is an actress first.

a440, the film was not solely about Woolf and her entire life story and work. The other stories which tied together the whole theme of the film were equally as somber in tone. Woolf is known for suffering from depression and committing suicide. The "friend" obviously didnt get the point of the film.

As for the People "refusal", that's just another rumor, its never been proven. More wishful thinking from the skeptics.

TexasCourtJester said...

Mother dearest ... new mum Nicole. From the Sun. I'm not going to waste your time with the article. It's all lies, reprints, and misquotes from old articles.

hoosierlady said...

Do you all know each other apart from this blog?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"don't believe the lies said...
... didn't that issue have very low sales? I thought I had read it was the lowest of the year thus far for Vanity Fair."

You're clearly mistaken!

Nicole was on the cover of Vogue, not Vanity Fair. The Vogue issue with the lowest sale was the one with Gwyneth Paltrow on the cover.

"Australia" trailer was shown before SATC and Indy4.

realitycheck said...

sonora, thanks for clearing that up. I got the mag names switched in my head. Vogue was the cover she did, with the green dress. Hugh Jackman and Brandon were included in the photo spread inside. The Vanity Fair spotlight was early this year with both Nicole and Hugh to promote the film. I believe a large still taken directly from the film was used there. Nicole was on the cover of VF last year.

And Indy 4 was indeed the other film. I wish I could have gotten my money back on that one.

Anonymous said...

RC: Indy4 was a big mess. Cate Blanchett, with her laughable "Russian" accent and very stiff acting, made the film appear cartoonish. Her cheekbones were beyond "frozen" in the film; they looked like objects carved out of stone.

notachance said...

A very BIG thank you to wastedemotion for saying that all of them are overpaid. Every single last one of them are overpaid. These people are paid millions of dollars for what amounts to be weeks of work - it's insanely absurd. None of them work hard for the money - WE, the working class of America, are the ones that work hard for the money and then foolishly spend it at the movies so those that work only weeks can make millions. And then we allow those people to act like royalty. God, what a fu*ked up country we have. Those million-makers should be treating us like royalty.

doublewide said...

A very BIG thank you to wastedemotion for saying that all of them are overpaid. Every single last one of them are overpaid. These people are paid millions of dollars for what amounts to be weeks of work - it's insanely absurd. None of them work hard for the money - WE, the working class of America, are the ones that work hard for the money and then foolishly spend it at the movies so those that work only weeks can make millions. And then we allow those people to act like royalty. God, what a fu*ked up country we have. Those million-makers should be treating us like royalty

gotta go with notachance and wastedemotion on this's insane what these actors make. i can honestly say i don't go to many movies because few are worth anything. i'd much rather see something live, but then the tix are more expensive

and if it is the Vanity Fair shoot i'm thinking about that NK did, she looked like an A class slut! ewwwwwww

don't believe the lies said...

Well perhaps than they just weren't showing her crappy previews where I live because I saw Indy and nothing. Thank Goodness! I appreciate them not wasting my time.

realitycheck said...

sonora, i agree. While the film as a whole was disappointing I was most disappointed with Cate. I usually love her performances.

"Australia" press update...there was a 1 page feature in People last week. And I forgot to mention earlier that the film was picked by Entertainment Weekly as one of the most anticipated movies for the end of the year in the big fall film issue from last month. They also mentioned that the reunions between Baz and Nicole and Kate and Leo in "Revolutionary Road" are both highly anticipated.

Choice said...

The use of Botox will hinder that performance in AUSTRALIA. Trust me on that one.

hoosierlady said...

Where is Keith? Is he back in London with his beloved? Does anyone know?

notachance said...

Oh, I'm sure he flew, excuse me, jetted back to London immediately following the last Kennydrunkenfest so he could be with his daughter. Not that I fault him for doing that.

doublewide said...

i agree nota

i'm sure pics of the happy family (with SR covered up) will surface say by monday? or at least of the 2 of them going ooot and aboot

Casse Role said...

RC & Sonroa, thanks for all the great information. You two should make a blog of your own! I can even see Mrs.Kidman Urban logging in each morning making sure all is corrected and up to date!
Good to know you both can search with the best of them! And by the way, you have one that we can read? Please post here. Thanks!

Now that that is out of the way...

Where has Keith been?

TexasCourtJester said...

He's still on the Opry calender for next Sunday. My cable schedule doesn't have him listed as one of the acts though. I don't know if they know something the opry doesn't or not. Hopefully he's working on new, good music to premier on the Opry stage.

LilyRose said...

NOT Sunday, Saturday. Saturday Saturday Saturday.

Choice said...

Do you think if the movie fails, it might put pressure on their marriage. Or do you think there marriage is strong enough to handle flops of any nature. A match made in Heaven? See this blog entry:

TamiKay38 said...

To be or not to be ... that is the question ... oh, wait! The REAL question is HOW OLD IS SUNDAY ROSE, REALLY???

I'm personally of the opinion that NK didn't actually give birth, that she was never pregnant, only faking it.

If SR only weighed a little over 6 pounds at birth, how the H#LL did she get this big so fast? Now, I'm no math whiz, but I counted my calendar and this coming Monday, Sunday will only be 11 weeks old. MY baby was 7 1/2 pounds at birth and at 11 weeks she wasn't THIS big! Maybe super-sized Nicole is feeding SR super-charged milk so she'll be super-sized like mummy someday. What do you all think?

maclen said...

You're right tamikay...for a 11 month old born at only 6 lbs, that baby looks huuuuuge.... must be a stunt baby for the "baby tease" photo ops... is that even the new kid? The GG post doesnt even mention the baby... interest in kidmans PR baby must be nil... and that's it, kidman, press your babys face firmly into your chest so the paps cant get a shot of her face, dont worry about smothering the kid or anything... I mean, you gotta save that for the magazine baby spread when the PR and shilling for your next movie flop in Nov...

Choice said...

This is the first photo that shows the most of little Sunday Rose. Taken in London yesterday. Although it is from the back.

maclen said...

... as for the report of another film to be "produced" and starred in by kidman... you can add it to the scrap heap of the countless other films she is to "produce" and star in... the monroe "monte carlo" remake... last heard about 10 long months ago when kidman revealed back in Dec when on the red carpet shilling for the failed COmpass that they were in "talks" with julia roberts to be in it as well... roberts must have passed on it or kidman was simply leaking it in an attempt to drum up desperate buzz for an obvious non starter... or the supernatural movie remake... or the broadway remake of "Rabbit hole"...and now this "female indy" role... considering kidman has only produced one film... and that was 5 long years that rate kidman should be done with these in about 20 years... which is superfluous, since kidman will be certified "finished" at her career later this year when Australia bombs at the box office. There is a reason none of these 4 movies, in an even longer list of films supposedly on tap for kidman to "produce" or star in, have not been as of yet made. And the reasons are....Golden Compass...Margot at the Wedding.. The Invasion...Fur...Bewitched...The Interpreter... Birth...Stepford Wives..................

maclen said...

Wow, can anyone seriously deny that "nick" kidman... hideously attempting to recreate the "annie hall" look at the latest pathetic photo ops taken when she "momentarily" appeared at a soccer game simply to get photog'ed wearing those grotesque clothes... clearly washed up and is seriously in a nose dive of any lucid and rationally appealing sense of style or glamour? Her "Scarecrow" look will not add any interest to the so called "Gone with the windesque"...epic "romance" motif they are trying to drum up for the OZ movie coming out soon. But it does conjure images of that clumsly and goofy character from the Wizard of Oz...and certainly does lend comparisons, what with her "androgenous" look lately, to the next person to play the scarecrow in that lame remake"The Wiz"... one, Wacko Jacko... and so, inept team kidman strikes again....

realitycheck said...

The only one who is trying to maintain the Annie Hall look is Diane Keaton herself.

I'm guessing you have to be a long-time Kidman fan to know she's had the shoes for years and has worn more masculine looking outfits before in the past. Its not a red carpet event so who really cares? I applaud her for keeping many of the same bags shoes and pieces of clothing for a long time and actually using them. I'm sure its not the norm in Hollywood.

notachance said...

Yes, Keith is on the schedule for this Saturday (the 27th) at the Opry. I've got my DVR set to record.....

Gotta agree about NK's choice of clothing. I just don't get how she figures dressing like Michael Jackson is the appropriate thing to do. Next we'll see a white glove...just wear a pair jeans and a shirt and look freakin' normal. And while trying to look normal Nic, maybe being out with the larger than normal baby a little more might be the thing to do. Might even try pushing the stroller yourself and letting the nannies have a day off.

doublewide said...

Annie Hall or not, she looks just like the scarecrow in Wizard of Oz, just like maclen said! LOL laughed my head off. especially in one of the pics!

who cares if she's worn the same shoes for a long time.
personally i choose not to believe it, which is my right. and i'm sure it's probably not the norm in HW.

she has too much negative press out there to look good in any light. IMO

these latest pic are nothing but a series of photo ops, and it looks like she is smothering that poor baby. all in the name of LOOK AT ME, I'M A MOM, THE FIRST ONE EVER! blechhhhh

i noticed minnie driver has already shown her baby's face and has NOT revealed the father, and before you jump on me, i'm not condoning having kids unmarried, but at least minnie looks truly in love with that baby, and there is no pimping out for the first pics of the baby.

just wait till UGLY in THE WIND comes out! oh brother....

bravo maclen....where have you been?

TamiKay38 said...

I was over at the worship site seeing what was new ... and guess what? Everybody's wonderin why NK's just wearing her engagement ring nowadays and NOT her wedding ring! Hmmm ... wonder what THAT means??

hoosierlady said...

"Oh I, could tell you why,
The ocean meets the shore,
I'd think of thoughts I'd never thought before,
And then I'd sit. . and think some more,

. . .'cause you see, I've thinking,
She could be another Lincoln,
If she only had a brain."

Hey, I'm sorry, but you guys started it!!!!! THANKS

maclen said...

doublewide said...
"bravo maclen....where have you been?"

Well, DW, I unfortunatly had two deaths in my family 2 weeks ago and hadn't posted... So how have you been, doublewide?
Doublewide, you make some good points, a few other celebs, as you point out, minnie driver, and ethan hawke a few months before, did not make big productions over their newborns...kidmans blatant PR shilling first over not "distastefully" selling her baby picks to the mags because she surely could not get the price she wanted... but now obviously and "distastefully" "unveiling" and teasing out her baby publicly to try to drum up some kind of interest makes her look like the callow and opportunist media monger that she she is. But as I mentioned when tamikay linked to the picture of kidman practically smothering her baby rather than let paps get a picture of her face... reveals that there is zero interest in her PR baby, as even GG didnt even mention the kid in that for the annie hall androgenous look... the fact that she is now even more rail thin and extra anorexic looking... as I said...simply makes her look freakishly bizzare. And adds nothing to the buzz of her film or any insignificant or ill concieved future project she may have lined up... which is now a long list of projects that dont seem to come to any fruition.

doublewide said...

well maclen, i am so sorry for your losses....i had missed you. hope you are ok.

as for me, i'm still struggling, but i think somewhat improving, thanks for asking.

great post hoosierlady! and you're right maclen, NK does look more rakishly thin than ever.....not gonna help her one bit IMO

Lisa said...

Why the sudden fedoras and dressing like a man? What does this help promote? They seem to be in another phase of something.