HueyLongJr

From a storytelling and casting perspective, they are about equal. Collateral is a pretty major technical achievement. It's mostly set at night and was shot on digital when digital wasn't quite ready for this kind of effort. But they made it work.

Michael Mann Peers Into the Digital Night: The Director and His Team Reflect on the Look of ‘Collateral’ and ‘Miami Vice’

The plot was too convoluted. The Vatican bank stuff was just distracting. There was some bad casting. Hamilton and Sofia Coppola. Also the opera singing son subplot was stupid. Between casting and story, the movie was doomed.

Hard to say because it will depend on how dark the roux, the type of stock (dark, light, or boxed), and your own taste. I just add to taste.

NW Arkansas.

The way it's played, it's a terrible sport. I'm not interested in it at all.

It’s worth watching for the unintended laughs. It close to the worst thing HBO has ever made.

The Athletic began to suck when the NYT bought it. Their reporter begging Australian Open players to say something negative about the US was typical fare.

They'll probably put the girl in jail for objecting to being raped by an immigrant.

All good selections above. For something a little more big-city, try Pamplona for tapas, or Park Bistro. Both very good and not typical of what you find in Acadiana.

The Asphalt Jungle. Old John Huston directed movie.

quote:

---

if you were going to protest what you believed to be a tyrannical government, why would you ever NOT bring a weapon?

---

Just vote and respect the outcome, moron.

Fat and Happy and Downvoted to Hell, lol.

The fact that the Wade-tards can vote is bothersome.

Nominated. He didn’t win. Gods and Monsters. Another great movie that failed hard at the box office. Winning an Academy Award doesn’t always increase your minimum salary.

The entire point of this thread was that Astin and others were underpaid in LOTR. My point is that Astin's never been a box office draw and he was likely overpaid for LOTR given his work before and after LOTR. Rudy is a great movie that, at best, had a bad return for producers over 30+ years. All the other movies he's in besides LOTR and Rudy, he's a bit player. In all th movies listed you could have easily swapped him out with anyone and the movie would be just the same. President of SAG? LOL gimme a break. It's literally where you go when you're semi well-known and can't work anymore. Among other SAG presidents; his mom, Melissa Gilbert, Ken fricking Howard. A literal constellation of Hollywood stardom!. (Well, his mom could get it in her day.)

If Rudy cost 13 to make it would need about 30 million in box office to break even. Assuming 50 percent of ticket sales, Rudy didn't even make its production budget, much less marketing and advertising. Not sure where you got your 100 million, but let's say between home video, rentals, and streaming Rudy made 100mm in sales. Producers would see about 25 million of that, so adjusting for the approximately 8 mm loss at on theatrical release (including m&a), Rudy made 17 million over 33 years. That's an IRR of about 1 percent. BuT TeLl mE I kEeP cHaNgInG mY sTorY! Sean Astin cannot put asses in seats, especially at the time LOTR came out. He would have done that role for scale if they asked him to.