4,781
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 38:
Line 38: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Brokeback Mountain (view source)
Revision as of 08:48, October 8, 2008
, 08:48, October 8, 2008popularity of the actors
There was no attempt to conceal or downplay the homosexual subject matter of the film. It quickly gained an international reputation as 'that gay cowboy film' & gathered both its popularity & notoriety from that. I don't know of any evidence to suggest that many people watched this film without knowing the theme beforehand. The movie [http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3690/poster1mm6.jpg poster] is hardly coy about it - notice the pose of the two guys & the words "Love is a Force of Nature". You might see this as "concentrating on the appealing rugged cowboy element", but I think that would be willfully naive. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 16:05, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
There was no attempt to conceal or downplay the homosexual subject matter of the film. It quickly gained an international reputation as 'that gay cowboy film' & gathered both its popularity & notoriety from that. I don't know of any evidence to suggest that many people watched this film without knowing the theme beforehand. The movie [http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3690/poster1mm6.jpg poster] is hardly coy about it - notice the pose of the two guys & the words "Love is a Force of Nature". You might see this as "concentrating on the appealing rugged cowboy element", but I think that would be willfully naive. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 16:05, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
==Name recognition of the actors==
Contested point: whether the actors were indeed "no-names" before Brokeback Mountain was released. Whatever they did afterwards (I'm speaking to you, IanG) is irrelevant. Of course they got starring roles and got name recognition, but this was the movie that gave them all that popularity. They were not recognized stars before this movie, hence the wording "no-name".
Heath Ledger: According to IMDb<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005132/</ref>, before Brokeback Mountain, he had <u>starring</u> roles in the films:
* 10 Things I Hate About You (1999) - domestic box office gross of $38 million ($16 million to make)
* Two Hands (1999) - BO gross N/A, but with less than 3500 votes I'll safely guess it wasn't a big hit.
* The Patriot (2000) - BO gross $113 million (but $110 million to make)
* A Knight's Tale (2001) - BO gross $56 million ($41 million to make)
* The Four Feathers (2002) - BO gross $18 million ($80 million to make - big bust)
* Ned Kelly (2003) - BO gross $74,000 (N/A how much it cost to make, but probably at least a million, making this a bust too)
* The Order (2003) - BO gross $7 million ($38 million to make - another big bust)
Then, released in the same year (2005) as Brokeback Mountain we have:
* Lords of Dogtown - BO gross $11 million ($25 million to make - a bust)
* The Brothers Grimm - BO gross $38 million ($80 million to make - major bust)
* Casanova - BO gross $11 million (N/A how much it cost)
If anything, the box office grosses (relative to the costs of production) reveal that Ledger-helmed films were bombing at the box office in the years preceding Brokeback Mountain. It certainly would explain his eagerness (=desperation?) to take such a risky role.
Now as for the grosses as raw values, the numbers are hardly the makings of a big hit. For a contemporary comparison, Beverly Hills Chihuahua made $29 million in its opening weekend!<ref>http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/fridays-box-office-goes-to-the-dogs-bh-chihuahua-1-nick-norah-3-appaloosa-5/</ref> Now I don't think anyone really would expect that movie to gain the title of "blockbuster hit", so if that's not a star-making movie then what standing to Ledger's films have for being called hits? The sole exception perhaps is The Patriot, which was his biggest hit before Brokeback. Yet it's not surprising no one mentioned it as one of his claims to fame. Everyone remembers this movie as a Mel Gibson venture (his was the main name billed on posters) and not as a movie featuring a young star named Heath Ledger. So I think I've proven my point that before Brokeback, Ledger was a no-name actor. Starring roles alone do not give you name recognition - it's whether you have starring roles in popular movies.
Jake Ghyllenhaaaalll or however you spell his name: Again, figures drawn from IMDb<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0350453/</ref> and these are <u>starring</u> roles:
* October Sky (1999) - BO gross $32 million
* Donnie Darko (2000) - BO gross $514,000 on first theatrical run, another $700,000 on an apparent re-release in 2004.
* Bubble Boy (2001) - BO gross $5 million ($13 million to make - bust)
* Highway (2002) - BO gross N/A but less than 2000 votes so not a hit ($14 million to make)
* Moonlight Mile (2002) - BO gross $7 million ($21 million to make - bust)
* The Day After Tomorrow (2004) - BO gross $187 million ($125 million to make)
His other big movie from 2005, Jarhead, came out after Brokeback, so that does not count to his popularity before Brokeback.
IanG, I don't get where you're getting that Donnie Darko is a "very well-known and beloved" film. Maybe it was overlooked by audiences on its first theatrical run, but if they had the gumption to re-release it and it only eked in a few thousand more, then it's hardly a hit. Personally, I still hadn't heard of it before today and the "Dark"-o element doesn't bode well that I'd like it.
The only hit he had was Day After Tomorrow, which I'll concede was a hit, but Dennis Quaid was the primary billing in that one and the special effects were the real draw of that one (does anyone even know who starred in Roland Emmerich's most recent venture 10,000 BC? I didn't think so). Whether you felt like Gyllenhaal's performance was memorable enough to make you learn <s>how to spell</s> his name is debatable, but at least it's within reason that he may have broken popular consciousness with that film. Broken, maybe, but not permeated. Even Ang Lee said he picked lesser known actors:<ref>http://www.sfbaytimes.com/index.php?sec=article&article_id=4364</ref>
<blockquote>
"With the film spanning a 20-year period, Lee says he knew from the start he wanted to age younger actors. “There is no way to recreate that innocence,” he points out. Additionally, viewers have less preconceived notions about lesser-known talent. Says Lee, “Actors in their 30s have been around 15, sometimes 20 years already.”"
</blockquote>
So that should clarify the no-name statement and I'm going to reinstate it. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 04:48, 8 October 2008 (EDT)