Post: #101

Solid WB, always liked her look.

Post: #102

(03-21-2017 02:34 PM)DamnShame Wrote:  Not to shill for ScarJo or anything like that.... but nothing you see in that^ bikini pic is irreversible without a few weeks of squats. To me, that pic just looks like her when she's not getting in shape for a role.

Although on the other hand. Without Hollywood glamour make-up & stylish clothing. There's nothing about Scarlett, that you couldn't find on any major beach anywhere in the world.

Post: #103

(03-21-2017 08:21 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:34 PM)DamnShame Wrote:  Not to shill for ScarJo or anything like that.... but nothing you see in that^ bikini pic is irreversible without a few weeks of squats. To me, that pic just looks like her when she's not getting in shape for a role.

Although on the other hand. Without Hollywood glamour make-up & stylish clothing. There's nothing about Scarlett, that you couldn't find on any major beach anywhere in the world.

You'd find better/much better on any pretty much any beach or major street Vastly overrated.

Post: #104

Ghost In The Shell 2017.

A very stylish film both visually & in terms of tone.
Yet also a very sombre film.




Not a poor effort, yet not a very impressive effort either.
I won't be surprised if critics label it rather soulless despite the one core theme of a soul in a machine.

Post: #105

I don't get why guys find famous women attractive because they are famous. Most A list women can easily be surpassed by an aspiring model or whatever. It's like women wanting guys for status, which is more normal. Maybe they want to get pegged by these high status women, I don't know.

Post: #106

(03-21-2017 02:39 PM)UlteriorMotive Wrote:  Solid WB, always liked her look.

Sorry, but I don't find Asians that attractive.

Post: #107

(03-30-2017 04:13 AM)hv123 Wrote:  I don't get why guys find famous women attractive because they are famous. Most A list women can easily be surpassed by an aspiring model or whatever. It's like women wanting guys for status, which is more normal. Maybe they want to get pegged by these high status women, I don't know.

To be fair, it's mainly because women's looks in film are -- how do you say it? -- optimised. Actresses have so much much makeup and CGI applied to them they might as well be Decepticons.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #108

(03-30-2017 06:53 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  To be fair, it's mainly because women's looks in film are -- how do you say it? -- optimised. Actresses have so much much makeup and CGI applied to them they might as well be Decepticons.

Hell.
They did a heck of a job on ol' Carrie Fischer in that last movie.

Post: #109

(03-30-2017 07:51 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 06:53 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  To be fair, it's mainly because women's looks in film are -- how do you say it? -- optimised. Actresses have so much much makeup and CGI applied to them they might as well be Decepticons.

Hell.
They did a heck of a job on ol' Carrie Fischer in that last movie.

I actually query whether they used more CGI on her in The Force Awakens than they did in Rogue One.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #110

That short hairdo - boner into the ground. A woman THAT good-looking doing that to herself should be a WNB on principle. This isn't some 7 with a bad haircut.

Post: #111

(03-30-2017 04:13 AM)hv123 Wrote:  I don't get why guys find famous women attractive because they are famous. Most A list women can easily be surpassed by an aspiring model or whatever. It's like women wanting guys for status, which is more normal. Maybe they want to get pegged by these high status women, I don't know.

I remember a post on some manosphere blog (I think it was Heartiste) about whether men would rather bang Scarlett or a waitress who looked like her.

Post: #112

(03-30-2017 10:09 PM)fokker Wrote:  I remember a post on some manosphere blog (I think it was Heartiste) about whether men would rather bang Scarlett or a waitress who looked like her.

You'd assume the waitress would have less attitude.
Yet modern chicks these days who think they're all stars in waiting...

Post: #113

(03-30-2017 10:09 PM)fokker Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 04:13 AM)hv123 Wrote:  I don't get why guys find famous women attractive because they are famous. Most A list women can easily be surpassed by an aspiring model or whatever. It's like women wanting guys for status, which is more normal. Maybe they want to get pegged by these high status women, I don't know.

I remember a post on some manosphere blog (I think it was Heartiste) about whether men would rather bang Scarlett or a waitress who looked like her.

Probably Scarlett, because she has more resources for me to screw money out of her by falsely accusing her of rape.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #114

Seen her haircut lately Para? She'd have you up on rape charges before you blew on her face.

I'll take the waitress.

Post: #115

Where did her boobs go?

Post: #116

It's such a dissapointment that so many hot women in the US are hardcore leftists and feminazis. I can't imagine marrying someone like that. You would need to be a cuck or a smug lefy yourself or it would be intolerable. I would estimate that less than 1 in 10 hot American 20 year old chicks are not leftists ... if that. Too much pressure to conform. Hopefully the great meme wars will change all that for the future generation ?

Post: #117

(03-31-2017 10:31 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  Where did her boobs go?

In the past they'd photoshop the model to be more shapely.
They're either photoshopping chicks to be less shapely.
Or the prevailing social sentiment in the media world is going to result in a lot of graphic artist job losses.

Edit.
On a side note. Looks like Ryan Reynolds got the best out of Johansson (& he now has Blake Lively), while this other guy got her worst :

Spouse: Romain Dauriac (m. 2014 - 2017) · Ryan Reynolds (m. 2008 - 2011)

Post: #118

(04-01-2017 12:36 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 10:31 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  Where did her boobs go?

On a side note. Looks like Ryan Reynolds got the best out of Johansson (& he now has Blake Lively), while this other guy got her worst :

Spouse: Romain Dauriac (m. 2014 - 2017) · Ryan Reynolds (m. 2008 - 2011)

Ryan's gotten the best out of a lot of women. He seems to move on just as the wall approaches.

Artie Lange told a funny story about how Ryan used to date older producers and casting people (all women) in Canada to get into the business.

Post: #119

Now the only thing she had going for her, the body, is gone.

Post: #120

(04-01-2017 03:59 AM)DeusVult Wrote:  Now the only thing she had going for her, the body, is gone.

Yep.
She's not even able to carry a known franchise (nonsense controversy or otherwise).

Ghost In The Shell 2017 :

Production Budget: $110 million
Current gross worldwide: $130,965,604

Still awhile yet before it enters profit territory. With the remaining marketing & cinema hosting costs still to recoup.
Plus, there was the suggestion that the production budget may be more towards the $180mil figure.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=...ll2017.htm

Post: #121

Doesn't matter to anyone but the investors if it enters "real" profit territory. Hollywood accounting is fucked; the reason production budgets are so huge is everyone without a share of the gross (and even then, sometimes) knows they'll never see a dime of backend no matter how profitable a movie is so they get all their pay up front.

When you hear about actors getting a percent of net, it's not about making money on that movie--they'll never get it--but about keeping their rates up so they can make a decent payday up front on the next project. Often when they say "Tom Cruise made $20 million" he actually made $12 mil + whatever his share of the projected net would be if they actually paid him. But he never sees that money.

Hollywood accounting is why hugely successful franchises like Star Wars, LOTR, etc are still being claimed as financial losses today. It's ridiculous. There's a lot of interesting reading available online if you want to get into some of the details of how they make 900% ROI projects into net losses.

http://www.pajiba.com/box_office_round-u...profit.php Lots of links to follow at that article. Money quote:

Quote:1. My Big Fat Greek Wedding cost $6 million to make and made over $350 million at the box office, and yet lost $20 million.

2. The Lord of the Rings trilogy made over $2.9 billion in box office [on a ~$300 million total budget], and yet showed “horrendous losses.”

3. Return of the Jedi made $475 million on a $32 million budget, yet has never shown a profit.

4. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix made $939 million worldwide [on a $150 million budget], and yet ended up with a $167 million loss.

5. Forrest Gump earned $667 million [on a budget of $55 million], yet shows a loss of $31 million.

So, if you ever get involved in show business in any way, get your money up front. Unless you're one of the shady producers scamming everyone else.

Other than for pride--which I doubt matters because everyone she knows knows the scam anyway--I doubt Scarlett Johansson cares if her movie succeeded, as long as she can keep booking movies.

Wasn't she thinking about running for office, anyway? Maybe she realized that scam is where the real money is.

Post: #122

^
All the same.
There has yet to be a direct Green Lantern sequel.
The last Fantastic Four film is broadly regarded as a failure.
Plus, the desperate hopes of Sony & co. have been realistically quashed due to the failure of Ghostbusters 2016.

As for Scarlett, I'd say her box office draw isn't viable & her fame is waning.
If it wasn't for the two Avengers / Infinity movies, she'd only have two small projects (listed on IMDB).
One of which is a voice acting gig.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0424060/?ref_=nv_sr_2

Post: #123

Something doesn't give there ... why would anyone "make" a movie then? Just make "Warner Bros" produce the whole thing then.

Post: #124

I'm not sure what you mean.

The studios do handle all the important stuff themselves. They hire a horde of contractors, basically, to do the actual production. The movie is treated as a discrete entity, and they charge different subsidiaries for things like distribution, DVD production, etc. So because the bulk of the expenses outside the up front budget for talent and production are handled in-house, they can charge as much as they want for it. They're charging themselves.

...And poof go the profits. So if you had a share of net coming, you're not getting a dime. Everyone knows that except the naive outsiders who own intellectual property, who get fucked because they think Hollywood studios are honest. Writers especially are not a business savvy bunch.

There have been lawsuits over it. The Tolkien estate sued over it, and so did Peter Jackson. And Warner Bros sued the Tolkien estate back saying they lost licensing opportunities because of the first lawsuit. It's retarded.

Obviously things don't have to work like this. You can make independent films. That's just the standard practice in Hollywood.

The studios do care if their movies flop. Sometimes they put out obvious propaganda pieces that don't earn out but they're in it for the money. That's why they do constant remakes and neverending franchises. They find something that sells and keep making the same thing over and over. It's not as if there's some lack of original IP to develop; they're just too risk averse to take many chances.

Post: #125

I implore anyone doubting how hot Scarlett Johansson is, or at least used to be, to watch "Match Point." I re-watched it the other night after not seeing it for years, and goddamn...





Definite WB for yours truly. At least circa 2005.