Jennifer Lawrence - Aurora Dunn (Passengers) #2 -"This is a love story, a character drama between two people. It just happened to be in space." - Morten Tyldum - Page 2

sara12 · 06-16-2015, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Sony Pictures is on the brink of green-lighting Passengers, an outer-space romance adventure starring Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence as a couple onboard a spacecraft where everyone else is frozen in suspended animation.

Conflicting reports surfaced Tuesday about the status of the project, though sources close to the studio tell Mashable that it's not entirely cleared for takeoff just yet. But Jurassic World proved what Guardians of the Galaxy made us all want to believe — that Chris Pratt is a bona fide leading man. Add the solid bankability of Lawrence and the towering success of Gravity in 2013, and Passengers looks like a safe bet to get off the ground.

It would be a bold stroke for Sony, which is still re-emerging from leadership upheaval caused by the hack prior to The Interview's release. It would also be the most public major decision yet so far for new studio head Tom Rothman, who took over in February following the departed Amy Pascal.

Morten Tyldum, director of The Imitation Game, is set to helm the movie with a budget of more than $100 million. And a huge chunk of that cash will pay for the talent.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Lawrence is making $20 million up front, with a whopping — and this is no joke — 30 percent of the profits after the movie breaks even. Pratt's quote is said to have jumped from $10 million to $12 million after the success of Jurassic World.

So much for those reports that Lawrence can't seem to earn as much as her male co-stars. Sony declined to comment on specifics of the stars' potential salaries.

Passengers, an original script that has been orbiting Hollywood for some time, would start shooting as early as late summer/early Fall if Sony decides to move ahead. Sony will share the risk with finance partners. As Lawrence and Bradley Cooper proved with Serena, two hot stars do not a hit movie make.

The only question now is, who will play the frozen-in-suspended-animation passengers? That could get creepy.

Countdown to Chris Pratt/Jennifer Lawrence space romance begins

sunworshipper · 06-16-2015, 05:22 PM

Quote:

The only question now is, who will play the frozen-in-suspended-animation passengers? That could get creepy.

I volunteer! I volunteer as corpsicle!

BTW, I thought this forum's software prevented double-posting. I get a "You just posted of duplicate of this" message when I attempt that by accident. Are those two not indentical?

**J-LawForever** · 06-16-2015, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunworshipper (View Post)

I volunteer! I volunteer as corpsicle!

I think that article about the start date is an error.

But is it or is it not green light? Each articles keep saying different things.

sunworshipper · 06-16-2015, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-LawForever (View Post)

I think that article about the start date is an error.

But is it or is it not green light? Each articles keep saying different things.

I'm guessing yes but not official yet. Maybe July is the deadline date. Sounds like Rothman changed his mind when he realized that two studios and Sony's associated production company were eager to take it off his hands with the original budget.

**J-LawForever** · 06-16-2015, 06:13 PM

Rothman needs to stop dicking around already and

mlkj13 · 06-16-2015, 06:16 PM

**J-LawForever** · 06-16-2015, 06:36 PM

Shia knows what's up.

TPF1138 · 06-16-2015, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunworshipper (View Post)

Just a simple error. It also says

I'm assuming that Jen's 30% of the profits is really 30% of the studio's take after it passes a set figure for the budget. Like say, 30% of 50% (theaters keep about half) after maybe $150-$180 (stated production cost of around $95-120M plus advertising and promotion). So Jen may not make anything extra from this unless the film makes more than $300M worldwide.

Yeah, that stuff's a little bogie, right!? Because back end share percentages frequently mean that a person is in effect, entered into a pool from which they'll draw their bonus. The entirety of the movies profit is not subject to their agreed percentage. This is why back end points are so favoured by studios (and particularly production houses). It limits their risk obviously, but it also limits their payout

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunworshipper (View Post)

This is not Sandra Bullock's deal for Gravity. She got $20M upfront plus 15% first-dollar gross. That's the studio's share of the ticket revenues. She got about 7 cents on every ticket dollar right away. Gravity made over $700M WW so Bullock got 20+50=$70M.

This is very much worth remembering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunworshipper (View Post)

I'll predict Passengers makes around $350M worldwide....

My prediction would be higher tbh. I really don't see Passengers not breaking 400M WW, and even that might be soft.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunworshipper (View Post)

Update: I just learned that $20M against 30% of profit means that she get 30% of profit only if and when it exceeds the base $20M. If Passengers makes $700+M WW like Gravity, Jen gets $100. If less than about $350-400M WW, only the $20M.

Fascinating stuff, all this. No two deals ever seem to be the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunworshipper (View Post)

BTW, I thought this forum's software prevented double-posting. I get a "You just posted of duplicate of this" message when I attempt that by accident. Are those two not indentical?

Fan Forum is mercurial in her ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunworshipper (View Post)

I'm guessing yes but not official yet. Maybe July is the deadline date. Sounds like Rothman changed his mind when he realized that two studios and Sony's associated production company were eager to take it off his hands with the original budget.

I think you've nailed. i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed, but this one's a go. Pratt just proved his worth, though like Lawrence's franchises which have a built in pedigree, it's hard to quantify how much of Jurassic World was down to Pratt, and how much had to do with it being a Jurassic Park movie - which now comes complete with a nostalgia factor that is supremely marketable - but his value seems clear. He has now been in two box office hits in as many years (three if we count The Lego Movie), he's a bankable movie star plain and simple. Alongside Jennifer, they are the two most bankable of the moment. Passengers is a slam dunk.

**J-LawForever** · 06-16-2015, 11:17 PM

Yes. So they have no other option, You have two of the top grossing stars of last year, and no doubt this year too. The only other thing is to JUST DO IT!!!!! DO IT!!!!!!!!!

You rat B@stard Rothman. Don't muck this up!

TPF1138 · 06-16-2015, 11:36 PM

Calm down, crazy!

He's doing it.

**J-LawForever** · 06-17-2015, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TPF1138 (View Post)

Calm down, crazy!

He's doing it.

Then why is it still near the green light? They changed the article from when t was previously posted.

Quote:

One source says Rothman found himself in a potential “lose-lose scenario” because he was caught between placing a big wager on untested material — and setting a pay precedent that might haunt him in his new role — and passing on a project with two of the biggest stars in Hollywood. He also could have sat on the project long enough that the stars would have had to move on to other commitments, which would have angered three talent agencies because Lawrence is with CAA, Pratt is at UTA and Tyldum is with WME.

I could see him doing that. So that way he could get lesser known stars and not have to $32 million to Jen and Pratt. And instead use that money for the film while keeping the budget down. That seems like something he would try to pull.

Sony was stupid to hire him. FOX got rid of him for a reason.

Sorry about the rage outburst. I just really want this movie to happen with the two of them.

TPF1138 · 06-17-2015, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-LawForever (View Post)

Then why is it still near the green light? They changed the article from when t was previously posted.

When I said 'he's doing it,' I meant it's in process. i's being dotted, t's being crossed. This movie's a go.

In truth, I do have some sympathy with Rothman. Lawrence and Pratt have had significant success, but is it just flash in the pan? I don't believe so, in either case, but if it was my €120M would that belief be enough? I suspect I might want a more concrete guarantee. But then if you want concrete guarantees, the movie business is probably not for you. Kim Masters, the author of the THR report, doesn't seem convinced of Lawrence's draw herself. "Lawrence, an Oscar winner and considered a top star," she writes, that 'considered' would seem to indicate that it's a point of view that she herself doesn't yet share.

Truth is, there are question marks over both Lawrence and Pratt. It's clear that their likeability had an impact on the BO of their respective franchises, but is that impact enough to carry a movie without any such built in audience? Do Pratt and Lawrence have enough of a built in audience of their own to turn out a hit movie? How big a gamble are Sony really making?

It's at a point now though, where the only way to find out is to make the movie.

BTW all reports have amended the July start date to September as well.

TPF1138 · 06-17-2015, 08:43 AM

Why Jennifer Lawrence Deserves Every Penny of Her $20 Million Payday

Quote:

All major movies involve some behind-the-scenes salary negotiations, but Sony's sci-fi drama Passengers has endured more than its fair share of paycheck-related turbulence on its way to a green light. Two weeks ago, The Hollywood Reporter's Kim Masters reported that though Sony had landed the red-hot Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt to star in the spaceship-set romance, studio head Tom Rothman was balking at Lawrence's $20 million salary demand. Yesterday afternoon, Masters wrote that Lawrence had indeed secured her paycheck, measured against 30 percent of the profits after the movie breaks even.

I've noticed that many of the writers who've picked up Masters's story over the last two weeks have done so with a can you believe that tone of incredulity, as though Lawrence might not be worth her rare payday. They're not alone: Masters reported that even Rothman "was heard wondering aloud" about Lawrence's actual star power during budget meetings.

Allow me to allay their fears: If anyone in Hollywood is worth a $20 million paycheck, it's freaking Jennifer Lawrence.

It's not for nothing that Jennifer Lawrence landed the No. 1 spot on Vulture's Most Valuable Stars list last year: By practically every metric by which an actor can be measured, she comes out on top. The 24-year-old stars in two of Hollywood's biggest franchises, thanks to The Hunger Games and X-Men, and has been nominated for three Oscars, winning one for Silver Linings Playbook. She enjoys sky-high likability, terrific recognition ratings, and four-quadrant appeal in an era where new young megastars are very hard to come by. She is the only first-billed actress who has made more than one movie that's grossed over $400 million domestically (the few men who've managed that significant feat are comic-book heroes Robert Downey Jr. and Christian Bale), and she may add a third to her tally if the final Hunger Games movie hits its expected number this winter. Simply put, she's the most significant name that Sony could have possibly cast in this role.

Compared to Lawrence, other stars have gotten $20 million paychecks with much less scrutiny, and with far more meager results. Liam Neeson received $20 million for Taken 3, which didn't even crack $90 million domestically, and Sacha Baron Cohen got at least that much money (and by some accounts, even more once scripting and producing fees were factored in) for 2012's dud The Dictator, which grossed a measly $59 million in the States. When Baron Cohen inked his megabucks deal, it was greeted with rah-rah, "go Sacha" enthusiasm at Deadline; I can't help but wonder if the difference in tone now has something to do with Jennifer Lawrence's gender. If, say, her frequent co-star Bradley Cooper had upped his quote to $20 million on the back of last year's megahit American Sniper, would his reasonable request have generated nearly the same amount of scoffing?

To be fair, there are a few legitimate reasons that Rothman might have dug in his heels over the size of Lawrence's paycheck. After replacing Sony chief Amy Pascal in Feburary, Rothman may have had misgivings about spending big so early into his tenure at the studio, fearing that other stars might come to him seeking the same salary. (To them, I'd recommend that Rothman simply say, "You're not Jennifer Lawrence.") It's possible, too, that since $20 million deals are typically reserved for franchise paydays, and Lawrence is not likely to take on another series anytime soon, after wrapping both the Hunger Games and X-Men movies, Rothman wanted to bring her future salary demands down to a more acceptable standard so that Lawrence wouldn't expect the studio to pay $20 million for her next non-sequel, too.

But you know what? **** that. Lawrence is the rare star who has proven herself bankable outside her major franchises and is equally adept at action, drama, and comedy; with such an expansive wheelhouse, she more than deserves a paycheck that puts her on equal footing with stars like Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon, especially since Passengers is a tentpole movie that will attract significant foreign interest on the basis of its big names and outer-space setting. Sony surely wanted Lawrence to take a reduced paycheck up front in favor of a less-risky backend deal that would pay her a significant amount after the movie's profits exceeded its costs, but even in negotiations like those, Lawrence has been stiffed before: The Sony hacking deal revealed that she got fewer profit-percentage points for American Hustle than her three male co-stars (including the less-valuable Jeremy Renner), and when Lawrence asked for a bigger share of the pie for her upcoming David O. Russell vehicle Joy, Fox proved so stingy that the project "nearly fell apart."

After Amy Pascal left her Sony post, she was asked about how little she'd paid Lawrence for American Hustle. "People want to work for less money, I pay them less money," Pascal replied. "Women shouldn’t be so grateful. Know what you’re worth. Walk away." Message received: Lawrence was ready to walk if she didn't get that top-tier paycheck for Passengers, and director Morten Tyldum indicated he'd leave the project, too, if he lost his leading lady. Some people may take issue with the fact that teachers still struggle while Lawrence stands to earn an exorbitant amount for Passengers — even though it's the kind of salary that has been given to stars for nearly two decades, since Jim Carrey first collected a $20 million payday for 1996's The Cable Guy — but I question their sudden interest in income inequality when it comes at the expense of a young female star. For as long as Hollywood is willing to hand out $20 million, Jennifer Lawrence more than deserves it. Sony can take that one to the bank.

The argument that the static Lawrence's payday has received might arise from a gender bias feels sadly on the nose. When have you ever heard of a man getting called a diva for demanding his worth?

We've still got a long way to go folks.

mlkj13 · 06-17-2015, 10:45 AM

I truly believe it's based on gender. No one would be blinking an eye at big name male celebrities making 20 million plus % but people make such a big deal when it's a woman and question the rationale behind it.

Jennifer has major name recognition outside of her franchises. SLP, AH and her Oscar win cemented her status among general audiences. People of all demographics love her. She's earned that salary and should be paid accordingly.

TPF1138 · 06-17-2015, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlkj13 (View Post)

I truly believe it's based on gender. No one would be blinking an eye at big name male celebrities making 20 million plus % but people make such a big deal when it's a woman and question the rationale behind it.

Obviously I agree, though the thought does occur that perhaps the velocity of Jennifer's rise plays a part too. Is it conceivable that people are merely asking, "Really!? Are we there already?"

While I'm now convinced that the fact that she has girl parts is the overriding factor, my inclination is always to assume that these things are more complicated. The sexism though, is simply too hard to deny, particularly when no one bats an eye at male talent receiving the same salary, often with far less justification.

Forum Affiliates
The Hunger Games Fansite, X-Men Daily, Hunger Games Daily, Jennifer Lawrence Source, JLaw Online
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page


Fan Forum > Female Celebrities > Jennifer Lawrence > Aurora Dunn (Passengers) #2 -"This is a love story, a character drama between two people. It just happened to be in space." - Morten Tyldum