Box Office Mojo: "Lucky Numbers" is Travolta's #2 bomb
Chris Owen
"Meanwhile, John Travolta had his second megaton bomb in a row with
Lucky Numbers after last summer's Battlefield Earth. The reunion with
his hack Michael director Nora Ephron mustered a measly $4.5 million
from 2,497 venues. With a likely plummet of over 50% in store this
weekend, the $65 million production could become his lowest grossing
starring role in five years with even less than Mad City's $10.6 million
total (all the more pronounced by the rise in ticket prices since then).
Hopefully, Hollywood will come to its senses and stop paying the portly
Scientologist $20 million. After all, his last two pictures have
performed worse than Perfect, Two of a Kind and the other duds that
killed his career in the mid-80's. His boom time was amidst the comeback
buzz from 1994-97, and even then only Face/Off and Pulp Fiction were
true worldwide blockbusters. Contrary to what recent lists say, the
numbers just don't support a top tier star power rating for him. To put
it in perspective, if he's worth $20 million per picture, than his
fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise is worth $50 million."
My comments:
By comparison, even Battlefield Earth had made $11.5 million in its
opening weekend with a total take of around $21m against a budget of
$73m - this represents just 28% of its cost. If Lucky Numbers follows
the same pattern as BE's nosedive, it could make an even worse
proportionate loss. Believe it or not, Travolta has actually managed to
make a *worse* flop than BE!
----------
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movies/titles/lucky_numbers/reviews.php
Rotten Tomatoes has now gathered 65 reviews of Lucky Numbers, of which
49 are rotten; an overall rating of 25%, which is an 8% improvement on
this time last week. (BE scraped just 7% by comparison). Given that LN
has received a more favourable - though still poor - critical response,
you might expect it to have done better at the box office. The fact
that it has flopped so badly is probably down to the lingering BE
effect; Travolta really squandered his capital on that film, the
relatively good opening of which was probably mainly down to his star
power. Box Office Mojo has him sliding way down the list of star
pulling power, thanks to his run of mediocre-to-abysmal films.
----------
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0219952
Meanwhile, over at the Internet Movie Database, Lucky Numbers is getting
a critical pasting but the ratings are all over the place, giving an
average score of 5.8/10. (See http://us.imdb.com/Ratings?0219952). A
surprising number of users have given the film an 8 or higher, although
most votes are clustered around 5 and 1. Is this the Scientology
sympathy vote coming out again as it did so obviously for BE?
--
| Chris Owen - chr...@OISPAMNOlutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
Mike O'Connor
<chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote:
> http://www.boxofficemojo.com/
>
> "Meanwhile, John Travolta had his second megaton bomb in a row with
> Lucky Numbers after last summer's Battlefield Earth.
[...]
Got this via infobeat.com, where they run a weekly internet movie
opinion poll:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[...]
Finally John Travolta was back flexing his box office muscle with Lisa
Kudrow in "Lucky Numbers," hoping to win a fixed lottery and the
approval of moviegoers. The pic stayed in the average trend of the
other releases with a 2.8 cumulative rating. [Out of 5.] Only 30% said
the movie was above average to average but, 52% said this one was below
average to terrible begging the question: Is it time for another
Travolta comeback?
Lucky Numbers
-------------
- What a waste. I can't believe someone thought that this story was
worth Travolta's usual $20 million. Then again why should Travolta
worry about whether a movie will be good or bad.
- Very bad. Travolta needs a good hit and Kudrow need to get out of
her Phoebe character (from TV's "Friends.")
- Maybe it's time for Travolta to make another call to Quentin
Tarantino.
[...]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dartheodore Maximillian Arada III
Scientologist $20 million>
Travolta gets $20 Million a role while the effective Blair Witch 2 does a good
job on 15 Million?
~DarthArada~
"Snuh!" Homer Simpson
"We have all the time in the world..." ~George Lazenby/James Bond "On Her
Majesty's Secret Service"
MUSSOLINI TO EMBARK ON CHEST EXPANSION CAMPAIGN ~The Onion
Jeremy H.
"Chris Owen" <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OdoEzbAh...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk...
> stop paying the portly
> Scientologist $20 million. ..... To put
> it in perspective, if he's worth $20 million per picture, than his
> fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise is worth $50 million."
Come on... I am far from a Scientologist & not hugely PC, but isn't this a
bit ridiculous? The media seems to have no problem pointing out Cruise &
Travolta's religion every time they're written about... If they were
Lutheran or something & the media did this, it would be just as insulting...
I don't care what the Scientologists did to piss the media off, but there
are people (again NOT! me) for who this is a legitimate religion... It's
pretty ugly to hold someone's religion against them like this.
Jeremy
Bern - http://welcome.to/ars
wrote in <8u3975$19e4$1...@news.gate.net>:
>
>"Chris Owen" <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:OdoEzbAh...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk...
>> stop paying the portly
>> Scientologist $20 million. ..... To put
>> it in perspective, if he's worth $20 million per picture, than his
>> fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise is worth $50 million."
>
>
>Come on... I am far from a Scientologist & not hugely PC
PC?
_________________________
Bernie -- http://welcome.to/ars
Diana Leigh
Bern - http://welcome.to/ars <wel...@bernie.us-inc.com> wrote in message
news:4bda0t8dd8pk69peo...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2000 04:24:13 -0500 "Jeremy H." <ct...@nospam.gate.net>
> wrote in <8u3975$19e4$1...@news.gate.net>:
>
> >
> >"Chris Owen" <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:OdoEzbAh...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk...
> >> Scientologist $20 million. ..... To put
> >> it in perspective, if he's worth $20 million per picture, than his
> >> fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise is worth $50 million."
> >
> >
>
> PC?
Politically correct.
D. Leigh
El Roto
"Jeremy H." <ct...@nospam.gate.net> wrote:
>
> "Chris Owen" <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:OdoEzbAh...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk...
> > stop paying the portly
> > Scientologist $20 million. ..... To put
> > it in perspective, if he's worth $20 million per picture, than his
> > fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise is worth $50 million."
>
> this a bit ridiculous? The media seems to have no problem pointing
> out Cruise & Travolta's religion every time they're written about...
> If they were Lutheran or something & the media did this, it would be
> just as insulting...
I've seen a lot of stories on Richard Geer that mention he's a Budhist
(sp?). So what?
In this case, the media brings it up because: a) Travolta and Cruise
(especially Travolta) have made numerous statements about Scientology
being a part of their success and b) Scientology has such a sordid past
it makes great copy. If JT and TC were Lutherans, praised their faith
for making them better actors/people, the press would mention it fairly
often. If the Lutheran Church also had a long history of criminal
convictions, harassment, and flat-out nasty deeds, you can bet it would
be mentioned even more! IOW, JT and TC are pulling it in.
>
> I don't care what the Scientologists did to piss the media off,[...
Well, The Media does and it has a long memory of past wrongs. Cruise
is especially in the cross-hairs for the stifling restrictions he and
his press agent place on anyone seeking an interview. Couple that to
Co$' penchant for strong-arming the press, and you can bet the gloves
are off when the Gentle Beast gets a chance to take a shot.
> ...] but there are people (again NOT! me) for who this is a
> legitimate religion... It's pretty ugly to hold someone's religion
> against them like this.
I see nothing here that smacks of "holding [their] religion against
them", just a comparison of one Scientologist's recent success at the
box office vs. another's successive bombs. It's a fair comparison at
that. Besides, just because someone thinks they're part of
a "legitimate religion" doesn't mean anyone writing about them has to
regard it in the same light.
Steve G.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jeremy H.
"'El Roto'" <el_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8u46tf$hv2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I see nothing here that smacks of "holding [their] religion against
> them", just a comparison of one Scientologist's recent success at the
> box office vs. another's successive bombs. It's a fair comparison at
> that. Besides, just because someone thinks they're part of
> a "legitimate religion" doesn't mean anyone writing about them has to
> regard it in the same light.
Yeah, but the bottom line is that to group people based on religion is a
pretty stupid thing to do..., and besides, you don't see the media comparing
Woody Allen & Barbara Steisand because they're both Jewish (even though they
both are very public about their religions) ... I can't see comparing one
Jew's box office with another's simply because they're both Jews... Again,
this is poor, ugly, journalism.
On a sidenote, this is different than comparing actors' box-office results
based on ethnicity, as there is a perceived different audience for (e.g.)
black actors/movies. I don't think a similar legitimate argument could be
made for most religions...
Jeremy
McNeeley
>On Sun, 5 Nov 2000 04:24:13 -0500 "Jeremy H." <ct...@nospam.gate.net>
>wrote in <8u3975$19e4$1...@news.gate.net>:
>
>>
>>"Chris Owen" <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:OdoEzbAh...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk...
>>> stop paying the portly
>>> Scientologist $20 million. ..... To put
>>> it in perspective, if he's worth $20 million per picture, than his
>>> fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise is worth $50 million."
>>
>>
>>Come on... I am far from a Scientologist & not hugely PC
>
>PC?
Personal Computer
Cheers,
Todd "Yea I know it doesn't mean that, blow me" McNeeley
email: mcneeley at enteract dot com
Chris Owen
Wrong attribution... I didn't write this.
>"Chris Owen" <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:OdoEzbAh...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk...
In article <20001104122117...@ng-cj1.aol.com>, Dartheodore
Maximillian Arada III <darth...@aol.communism> writes:
>> stop paying the portly
>> Scientologist $20 million. ..... To put
>> it in perspective, if he's worth $20 million per picture, than his
>> fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise is worth $50 million."
>
>
>Come on... I am far from a Scientologist & not hugely PC, but isn't this a
>bit ridiculous? The media seems to have no problem pointing out Cruise &
>Travolta's religion every time they're written about... If they were
>Lutheran or something & the media did this, it would be just as insulting...
>
>I don't care what the Scientologists did to piss the media off, but there
>are people (again NOT! me) for who this is a legitimate religion... It's
>pretty ugly to hold someone's religion against them like this.
>
>Jeremy
Dave Bird
>"Chris Owen" <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote...
>>
>> stop paying the portly
>> Scientologist $20 million. ..... To put
>> it in perspective, if he's worth $20 million per picture, than his
>> fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise is worth $50 million."
>
>
>isn't this a bit ridiculous? The media seems to have no problem
written about... If they were in the Luciano family rather than the
Clambino family or something & the media did this, it would be just
>as insulting...
_____ | | / /
/ \ \ /
-- -| Duck! | \__ ____ /
\_____/ / \ / \ | Da...@xemu.demon.co.uk
/| / You \ / | \ \
/ |_\called?/__/ / | |_____________/////////
< |____\_______| | |(______________ ()
\ | \ / () | () | | \\\\\\\\\
\| | __|__ | |
_|___/___ \___ | | TWOING !!!
__---- ----__\---\_
/ __ | ______________________
\____-------------______/ \ / \
/ / / / _/ ---| hmm, it theemth |
/ \ / / / | i thlighly |
/ $ / / | mithtook |
/ / / | your meaning there, |
| | / | buthtah !!! |
\______________// \______________________/
\________/
Mike O'Connor
> The media seems to have no problem pointing out Cruise &
> Travolta's religion every time they're written about...
It happens the other way as well. Almost every article about Scientology
mentions Cruise and Travolta are members.
Jeremy H.
"Mike O'Connor" <mi...@leptonicsystems.com> wrote in message
news:mike-D4817A.2...@news.optonline.net...
But I'm sure Cruise & Travolta have control over it... If they told the
church to stop, I'm sure they would... I suppose it's not a huge issue to
me, but it's pretty insensitive to label people like that (especially since
it has a negative connotation (or else it wouldn't be pointed out since the
media isn't trying to further the cause of Scientologists))...
Jeremy
ptsc
>
>"Chris Owen" <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:OdoEzbAh...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk...
>> stop paying the portly
>> Scientologist $20 million. ..... To put
>> it in perspective, if he's worth $20 million per picture, than his
>> fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise is worth $50 million."
>Come on... I am far from a Scientologist & not hugely PC, but isn't this a
>bit ridiculous? The media seems to have no problem pointing out Cruise &
>Travolta's religion every time they're written about... If they were
>Lutheran or something & the media did this, it would be just as insulting...
>I don't care what the Scientologists did to piss the media off, but there
>are people (again NOT! me) for who this is a legitimate religion... It's
>pretty ugly to hold someone's religion against them like this.
Travolta made his own religion an issue when he decided to shoot his cult
leader's awful book as an awful movie. Making a horrible bomb is ALWAYS
something to be held against you in Hollywood. Publicly insisting it was really
a success and you plan a sequel is career suicide.
Cruise has not made his religion a central facet of his career, and unlike
Travolta is likely to continue to enjoy success.
Travolta has become box office poison due to his idiotic shilling for his crime
syndicate.
ptsc
ptsc
The media also constantly mention that Richard Gere is a Buddhist and connected
to the Dalai Lama. Sometimes they even make jokes about it. However since all
of Buddhism isn't run by a monolithic criminal organization convicted of crimes
around the world, this isn't an issue that discredits Richard Gere.
Suppose instead, the actors were members of the Aryan Nations Church, a Church
as legitimate as the cult of Scientology can claim to be. Would this also be
off-limits, after all being a sincerely-held religious hate belief?
"Dispose of them quietly and without sorrow." L. Ron Hubbard
ptsc
Michel de Leeuw
<chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/
To put
>it in perspective, if he's worth $20 million per picture, than his
>fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise is worth $50 million."
No no no, Tom Cruise is a bad actor. And most off his films are bad .
And Travolta is always GOOD !!!!
MdL
Tommy
Um - it's not a religion. Their dead god hubbard said as much (see
below).
Except of course when they're trying to hide behind real religions and
scream "religious persecution", or when they're trying to get out of
paying taxes.
Then they're a religion.
HTH.
Tommy
--
"Scientology has opened the gates to a better world. It is
not a psycho-therapy nor a religion."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, "The Creation of Human Ability"
Los Angeles: A.S.H.O., 1971, page 251
Donna
beliefs held against them (religious or whatever). If they are in the
entertainment industry then the judgement should be on the quality of
the films they make.
However, if a celebrity doesn't want their personal beliefs mentioned
in the press, then they shouldn't talk about it. I remember when Rene
Russo did the Thomas Crown Affair. All I heard on all the entertainment
shows was about her scene being topless on the beach, her see-through
dress... and the fact that she is a born again Christian who goes to
church every Sunday. I am sure it was very hard for her to have to deal
with all that, after making the artistic decision to be in the film.
That is the price a celebrity must pay... it is unfortunate. But at
least it shows that these celebrities have some kind of religious,
moral, spiritual values. So many of them don't. I don't agree with
Scientology, but it is their personal choice. Whether its a religion or
not - whatever it is - it shouldn't be held negatively against them.
--
Donna
Donna's Music & Webart
http://www.donnagrayson.com
In article <8u3975$19e4$1...@news.gate.net>,
"Jeremy H." <ct...@nospam.gate.net> wrote:
>
> "Chris Owen" <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:OdoEzbAh...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk...
> > stop paying the portly
> > Scientologist $20 million. ..... To put
> > it in perspective, if he's worth $20 million per picture, than his
> > fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise is worth $50 million."
>
> Come on... I am far from a Scientologist & not hugely PC, but isn't
this a
> bit ridiculous? The media seems to have no problem pointing out
Cruise &
> Travolta's religion every time they're written about... If they were
> Lutheran or something & the media did this, it would be just as
insulting...
>
> I don't care what the Scientologists did to piss the media off, but
there
> are people (again NOT! me) for who this is a legitimate religion...
It's
> pretty ugly to hold someone's religion against them like this.
>
> Jeremy