Tonight's movie presentation is brought to you tonight with limited interruptions and is intended for mature audiences only.
Just kidding. The leading actor was so sure that the movie was going to be a success that he waived his acting fee and opted for percentage points earned from the movie. At one point, both he and the director paid money out of their own pockets when the production company nearly shut down. Highly successful and perhaps one of the most popular movies ever, he (actor) ended up making about $40 million, however, critics called it a "successful failure" because the cost of producing and promoting the movie still didn't earn any money.
Testing testing, hey I'm still logged in? Huh! Maybe it's getting better. I have been logged in for over an hour. Anyway, back to clues.
The leading role was turned down by John Travolta among others. Chevy Chase and Bill Murray also turned it down.
The writer for the novel from which the screenplay was written was promised $350,000 and 3% of the films profits. The production company claimed it lost more money than it made so he never saw any of the films profits. He did receive his $350K. The movie film respectively made $330,000,000 domestically, $349,000,000 internationally bringing the total world-box office to $679,000,000. The writer was ticked off but that didn't stop him from writing a sequel. Only trouble was that he delivered the manuscript to his publisher on the day before 9/11/2001.
All the other clues point to Gump, so I did some digging. Gump and Co. was published in 1995. The screenplay for Gump n Co was turned in on Sept 10, 2001.
Just from the time frame (1990s) and a lead that could have been played by Travolta or a comedian, I'll guess
Forrest Gump (?)
George
I'm curious George where did you get the 1990's from?
Yes, Forrest Gump. I hesitated for a moment by decided to drop the John Travolta clue in and hoped to have kept it going a bit longer. Thanks Raf for fact-checking that it was the screenplay that was delivered the day before 9/11 and not the sequel. In an odd twist John Travolta turned down the role of Forrest Gump to play a role in Pulp Fiction and ended up being nominated with Tom Hanks for both Best Actor and Best Picture but both Tom Hanks and Forrest Gump took home the Oscars. Tom Hanks would never have done the sequel anyway having already made that clear. Without Hanks nobody would take that risk on in a sequel ("Gump & Co.) Paramount studios claimed it never made a profit.
I'm curious George where did you get the 1990's from?
Well, it was clearly before 2001, so I suppose it COULD have been 2000 or early 2001, but it would be odd to write a sequel that fast. With the money numbers mentioned, pre-1990 seemed unlikely. So, I inferred from what you had written that it was the 90s. It was a reasonable guess.
I've come up with a good title for the next sequel "From Gone With the Wind to Forrest Gump: A sequential record of history in America". Catchy huh!
Stay safe my friend. The tough times are about to come. No political connotation meant by that. Just passing on my sentiments to those I care about in light of the current developments. And that goes for everyone else on GSC.
The historical accuracy of the costumes and settings was overseen by the Smithsonian Institution. It's the first time the Institution ever worked directly on the production of a movie.
Kevin Spacey was the first choice to play the character eventually played by Jason Isaacs. After paying the star $25 million, there was not enough in the budget to pay him.
It was hard finding a swamp for filming. The production rented out a botanical garden and flooded it.
Yes. The swamp was where everyone regrouped after being routed by the British.
Spacey would have played Tavington. I was counting on Jason Isaacs not being a readily recognizable name (though he has been in several TV shows, including, apparently, Star Trek Discovery).
-There's a title that's shared by 2 movies-which is fair since they're 2 different versions of the same story. The 2nd version was directed by Frank Oz.
-None of the endings of the story were incredibly happy. However, in the original, one of the main characters survives, and in the 2nd, 2 of them do (but their future looks endangered.) The 2nd one had an ending that was trashed and never made it past the test audiences- everybody died, and the Earth was invaded, quite successfully (complete with the theater audience among the casualties, with a 4th wall break.)
-Many people forget (or don't know) there was an original version, which was a black-and-white. In that one (made on a shoestring budget of about $30,000 US), they used a clip of a full moon as a cutaway to bridge 2 scenes that didn't link properly. 20 years later, they were shocked to read an 8-page magazine article about the significance of the moon in that movie.
And I actually saw the version with the original ending. It was... awful. I mean, just really bad. It was like, wait, WHAT?
It kinda worked on stage because it was absurd, but as a movie it was godawful.
Ok, you talked me into it. Here it is (this leaves out the part where Audrey willingly gives herself to the plant, and Seymour goes along with it, because she dies in his arms and he just carries her to the plant. That sequence starts at the 2:11 mark in this montage of death scenes from the movie).
The movie we saw gets different at the part where Jim Belushi shows up. Mean Green Mother is about the same except for, obviously, the very end of it.
You'll start seeing the difference in this clip at around the four minute mark or so.
And I actually saw the version with the original ending. It was... awful. I mean, just really bad. It was like, wait, WHAT?
It kinda worked on stage because it was absurd, but as a movie it was godawful.
Ok, you talked me into it. Here it is (this leaves out the part where Audrey willingly gives herself to the plant, and Seymour goes along with it, because WTF).
The movie we saw gets different at the part where Jim Belushi shows up. Mean Green Mother is about the same except for, obviously, the very end of it.
You'll start seeing the difference in this clip at around the four minute mark or so.
It IS "Little Shop of Horrors." I hope you're going to post something, Raf. I think it's your turn on another thread, also.
And I actually saw the version with the original ending. It was... awful. I mean, just really bad. It was like, wait, WHAT?
It kinda worked on stage because it was absurd, but as a movie it was godawful.
Ok, you talked me into it. Here it is (this leaves out the part where Audrey willingly gives herself to the plant, and Seymour goes along with it, because she dies in his arms and he just carries her to the plant. That sequence starts at the 2:11 mark in this montage of death scenes from the movie).
The movie we saw gets different at the part where Jim Belushi shows up. Mean Green Mother is about the same except for, obviously, the very end of it.
You'll start seeing the difference in this clip at around the four minute mark or so.
OMG. That really WAS awful. Not frightening, not funny. Just BAD.
This movie falls loosely into the genre of movies about the making of other movies [actually, it's more of a movie about the work that went into a book that was later made into a movie that starred Robert Blake]. This movie was nominated for best picture. Its lead performer won Best Actor.
A fictionalized version of the main character in this movie appears as a child in a novel by another author, itself made into a classic film. The author of the other novel is a character in this movie.
A similar movie was released a few months later. It, too, was acclaimed, but suffered from coming out so soon after this one. Still, it's definitely worth watching.
To win this round, name ANY movie referenced in this clue:
This movie....
The book/Robert Blake movie that this movie is about
The classic novel/movie that featured the main character of this movie as a fictionalized character (as a child)
The similar movie that came out a few months later.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
953
519
981
261
Popular Days
Oct 12
17
May 25
15
May 12
14
May 8
12
Top Posters In This Topic
GeorgeStGeorge 953 posts
Raf 519 posts
WordWolf 981 posts
Human without the bean 261 posts
Popular Days
Oct 12 2018
17 posts
May 25 2021
15 posts
May 12 2014
14 posts
May 8 2014
12 posts
Popular Posts
Human without the bean
Why didn't you say that 2 days ago Mr. Wolf? Your right Rottie, They are pretty good. Makes it tough on me to get my 2 cents in.
Human without the bean
I was way off going with "The Terminal", except that it didn't have any articles of clothing in the title. I assume WordWolf is correct, but I'm not familiar with it. But that's not unusual.
GeorgeStGeorge
Stallone. Also well-known for reprising his Rocky role. I can't see him in Eddie Murphy's role in BHC, though... George
Posted Images
Human without the bean
Oh, I forgot about this. Give me a few to post something. Jim Morrison could not have pulled of that role imo.
Edited by Human without the beanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
Tonight's movie presentation is brought to you tonight with limited interruptions and is intended for mature audiences only.
Just kidding. The leading actor was so sure that the movie was going to be a success that he waived his acting fee and opted for percentage points earned from the movie. At one point, both he and the director paid money out of their own pockets when the production company nearly shut down. Highly successful and perhaps one of the most popular movies ever, he (actor) ended up making about $40 million, however, critics called it a "successful failure" because the cost of producing and promoting the movie still didn't earn any money.
Edited by Human without the beanLink to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
If "one of the most popular movies ever" made "about $40 million," it must have been some time ago.
"Gone with the Wind"?
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
No. Not GWTW. Little typo there but the actor ending up making $40 m.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
Testing testing, hey I'm still logged in? Huh! Maybe it's getting better. I have been logged in for over an hour. Anyway, back to clues.
The leading role was turned down by John Travolta among others. Chevy Chase and Bill Murray also turned it down.
The writer for the novel from which the screenplay was written was promised $350,000 and 3% of the films profits. The production company claimed it lost more money than it made so he never saw any of the films profits. He did receive his $350K. The movie film respectively made $330,000,000 domestically, $349,000,000 internationally bringing the total world-box office to $679,000,000. The writer was ticked off but that didn't stop him from writing a sequel. Only trouble was that he delivered the manuscript to his publisher on the day before 9/11/2001.
Edited by Human without the beanLink to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Just from the time frame (1990s) and a lead that could have been played by Travolta or a comedian, I'll guess
Forrest Gump (?)
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If it is Gump, then that hint about the manuscript is wrong. The sequel was published in 1995
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
All the other clues point to Gump, so I did some digging. Gump and Co. was published in 1995. The screenplay for Gump n Co was turned in on Sept 10, 2001.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
I'm curious George where did you get the 1990's from?
Yes, Forrest Gump. I hesitated for a moment by decided to drop the John Travolta clue in and hoped to have kept it going a bit longer. Thanks Raf for fact-checking that it was the screenplay that was delivered the day before 9/11 and not the sequel. In an odd twist John Travolta turned down the role of Forrest Gump to play a role in Pulp Fiction and ended up being nominated with Tom Hanks for both Best Actor and Best Picture but both Tom Hanks and Forrest Gump took home the Oscars. Tom Hanks would never have done the sequel anyway having already made that clear. Without Hanks nobody would take that risk on in a sequel ("Gump & Co.) Paramount studios claimed it never made a profit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Well, it was clearly before 2001, so I suppose it COULD have been 2000 or early 2001, but it would be odd to write a sequel that fast. With the money numbers mentioned, pre-1990 seemed unlikely. So, I inferred from what you had written that it was the 90s. It was a reasonable guess.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
I've come up with a good title for the next sequel "From Gone With the Wind to Forrest Gump: A sequential record of history in America". Catchy huh!
Stay safe my friend. The tough times are about to come. No political connotation meant by that. Just passing on my sentiments to those I care about in light of the current developments. And that goes for everyone else on GSC.
Edited by Human without the beanLink to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
The historical accuracy of the costumes and settings was overseen by the Smithsonian Institution. It's the first time the Institution ever worked directly on the production of a movie.
Kevin Spacey was the first choice to play the character eventually played by Jason Isaacs. After paying the star $25 million, there was not enough in the budget to pay him.
It was hard finding a swamp for filming. The production rented out a botanical garden and flooded it.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mrs Wolf isn't sure about the swamp, but he was in "THE PATRIOT." Was this it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Yes. The swamp was where everyone regrouped after being routed by the British.
Spacey would have played Tavington. I was counting on Jason Isaacs not being a readily recognizable name (though he has been in several TV shows, including, apparently, Star Trek Discovery).
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mrs Wolf knows him as an actor. Once I asked her, she looked over the clues, and said "US history plus Jason Isaacs" had to add up to "the Patriot."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
So, WW is up...
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
-There's a title that's shared by 2 movies-which is fair since they're 2 different versions of the same story. The 2nd version was directed by Frank Oz.
-None of the endings of the story were incredibly happy. However, in the original, one of the main characters survives, and in the 2nd, 2 of them do (but their future looks endangered.) The 2nd one had an ending that was trashed and never made it past the test audiences- everybody died, and the Earth was invaded, quite successfully (complete with the theater audience among the casualties, with a 4th wall break.)
-Many people forget (or don't know) there was an original version, which was a black-and-white. In that one (made on a shoestring budget of about $30,000 US), they used a clip of a full moon as a cutaway to bridge 2 scenes that didn't link properly. 20 years later, they were shocked to read an 8-page magazine article about the significance of the moon in that movie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
"War of the Worlds"?
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Nah, this is Little Shop of Horrors.
And I actually saw the version with the original ending. It was... awful. I mean, just really bad. It was like, wait, WHAT?
It kinda worked on stage because it was absurd, but as a movie it was godawful.
Ok, you talked me into it. Here it is (this leaves out the part where Audrey willingly gives herself to the plant, and Seymour goes along with it, because she dies in his arms and he just carries her to the plant. That sequence starts at the 2:11 mark in this montage of death scenes from the movie).
The movie we saw gets different at the part where Jim Belushi shows up. Mean Green Mother is about the same except for, obviously, the very end of it.
You'll start seeing the difference in this clip at around the four minute mark or so.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
No. the word "war" does not appear in this title.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It IS "Little Shop of Horrors." I hope you're going to post something, Raf. I think it's your turn on another thread, also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I am.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
OMG. That really WAS awful. Not frightening, not funny. Just BAD.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This movie falls loosely into the genre of movies about the making of other movies [actually, it's more of a movie about the work that went into a book that was later made into a movie that starred Robert Blake]. This movie was nominated for best picture. Its lead performer won Best Actor.
A fictionalized version of the main character in this movie appears as a child in a novel by another author, itself made into a classic film. The author of the other novel is a character in this movie.
A similar movie was released a few months later. It, too, was acclaimed, but suffered from coming out so soon after this one. Still, it's definitely worth watching.
To win this round, name ANY movie referenced in this clue:
This movie....
The book/Robert Blake movie that this movie is about
The classic novel/movie that featured the main character of this movie as a fictionalized character (as a child)
The similar movie that came out a few months later.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.