No , the Predator monster that was first made up had no resemblace at all to the Predator we see in the movie. It looked like a big red lumbering lizard.
You, my friend, have obviously never watched a movie starring Dennis Quaid. FOCUS: Tom Cruise turned down two opportunities to be a guest star on The Simpsons, one of which was written specifically for him as the part of Tom in Brother From Another Planet (Season 4, Episode 14). Silly fucker. I'd give anything to have had a shot on that show before the tenth season.
Actually it was red because they wanted to be able to put in the special effects in post production. You did watch the documentary didnt you? I don't think he was disagreeing that the original monster wasn't a wonkee needle headed creature.
Just read on wikipedia that James Cameron wrote the part and actually created story boards with Billy Idol as the T-1000 in Terminator 2. Idol had to back out due to a car crash. He also thought of using Micheal Biehn as the shape shifting Terminator but thought it be to confusing to audiences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-1000 I think using Idol would have been a terrible idea. I think the Terminator would have come off as more of a cyber punk ala Rutger Hauer in Blade Runner. Though I think having Micheal Biehn being a replicant liquid metal robot could have been sweet. But really I think Robert Patrick pulled it off near flawlessly. One of my favorite villains of all time.
I think I read that Kirsten Dunst was originally offered Mena Suvari's role in American Beauty. Ray Liotta was originally supposed to play Tony Soprano.
Elvis turned down Jon Voight's role in Midnight Cowboy. Un-fucking-believable. One, that he turned it down. And two, that they offered it to him in the first place.
Not true. She played the role of child vampire Claudia in Interview with the vampire. She killed it. I can't think of anyone else for that role. To be fair, I haven't liked her in anything else she's ever done. She also comes across as a raging bitch every time she opens her mouth.
That's because Kirsten Dunst IS a cunty, pre-pubescent vampire. She was also in the only movie where they didn't have to digitally remove her horrible snaggleteeth post-production. It saved the studio millions.
Nicole Kidman has also become renowned as Box Office poison. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2008/dec/08/nicole-kidman-angelina-jolie From the link above ...... (I can't help it .... Schadenfreude ) The Golden Compass cost $180m (£120.9m), grossed $70m (£47m) Margot at the Wedding cost $10m (£6.7m), grossed $2m (£1.3m) The Invasion cost $80m (£53.7m), grossed $15m (£10.1m) Fur cost $16m (£10.7m), grossed $220,000 (£147,740) Bewitched cost $85m (£57.1m), grossed $62m (£41.6m) The Interpreter cost $80m (£53.7m), grossed $72m (£48.4m) Birth cost $20m (£13.4m), grossed $5m (£3.4m) The Stepford Wives cost $90m (£60.4m), grossed $59m (£39.6m) The last Kidman picture that approached "hit" status was Cold Mountain, which cost $83m (£55.7m) and grossed $95m (£63.7m).
I don't know whether Nicole Kidman is box office poison or not, but I do know that the numbers you cite above have nothing to do with whether her films were profitable or not. "Golden Compass", for instance, grossed a mere $70 million in the US, but made $302 million internationally, for a total of $372 million. The "cost" you listed above is merely the production budget, but in reality, was probably lower, in the $120-$150 million range. That being said, the P&A budget was likely considerable, in the $60-$80 million range, if not greater. Let's say a total of $210 million, conservatively speaking. However, the theaters get a certain percentage of the box office take, ranging from 0-20% on opening weekend (probably 0 percent for a movie as big as "The Golden Compass"), 50% for the next 8 weeks, and 80 percent after 8 weeks. That's just in the US though, and might be different on a country by country basis. Ultimately, the producers get 55%-60% of the total box office take on a movie like this. So on the high end, considering opening weekend in the US was 36.8% of its final tally (can't find figures for individual countries), that's $236 million, which is $26 million more than their $210 million budget. Of course, that's a generous estimation, and a few different numbers here and there might mean the movie was in the red. I'm no expert, after all. But the point is, the film roughly broke even on its theatrical release, and will probably turn a profit with its ancillary rights. (DVD sales, plane flights, HBO, eventually network television, etc.) That's not good enough to build a franchise from, with multiple sequels, but it also wasn't "poison" or cost the studio tens of millions of dollars. Some of the other movies you listed might have actually been severe money-losing bombs, but then again, that's true of every "major" actor and actress today, except for Will Smith. In conclusion, The Guardian is an idiotic newspaper which didn't provide any real evidence for their conclusion about Nicole Kidman's box office appeal. It might be correct, just not with their sloppy figures.
Nicole Kidman blows. That's what's going on here. She just blows. Except in Moulin Rouge, for some reason I really wanted to nail her in that movie.
I certainly won't argue with that fact. It practically goes without saying. I think she was kind of hot in "To Die For" and "Eyes Wide Shut" (both shitty movies), but that's about it.