Hyperion-X

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

HyperionX958

All Riled Up

Or

Why Hyperion, a blow-torch and vast tracts of real estate should never come into contact with each other

What’s got me riled up today? What’s got me more hot and bothered than Anderson Cooper verbally jacking off while watching people die in a flood?

Glad you asked.

Rile #1: Cameron Diaz

Let’s talk for a moment about a woman who’s only real claims to fame are that she’s relatively pretty, was decent in one movie (more on that in a minute), has zero understanding of the animal/human ecosystem and is dating Justin Timberlake.

Wait. Scratch that last one. Justin has cashed in his chips, which means a failed relationship with Dustin Diamond and a bald head for Cameron shouldn’t be too far behind. (Hey: at least the cuffs will match the collar.)

Glancing at Diaz’s IMDB page, she burst on the scene in THE MASK. That movie was so much fun that I think we all assumed she was fun too. Looking back, I’d have rather had the redhead. After that was THE LAST SUPPER, an indie flick, and Diaz sucked. This would not prove to be an aberration.

The only movie I can see that Cameron Diaz made marginally better was THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY. I’ll give her that. Whether it was that perfect role for her, that Farrelly magic or just the hair gel, those were some good times.

They have not been repeated.

While Diaz didn’t destroy VANILLA SKY, wouldn’t you have rather seen someone really dig into that part? Scorsese managed to work around her in GANGS OF NEW YORK, but a dynamic performance from the lead girl probably brings home the Best Picture Oscar over CHICAGO.

But it is GANGS that brings me to my real anger. After all, there are dozens of pretty faces in Hollywood who managed to get lucky but really can’t act all that well. We tolerate them. Often they more or less play “hot girl” in the film they are in. Hell, as much as I adore Jessica Alba, even I have to admit that Judi Dench probably ain’t losing much sleep. That doesn’t make me like Jessica less, and in the right role I’d cast her. (At least: I’d let her prove to me why she’s right for the role, if you know what I mean.)

But Diaz earned a reported 17.5 million for GANGS. What the fuck?

Let me repeat for those of you who didn’t hear me in the back:

WHAT THE FUCK??

In no way does Cameron Diaz deserve 17.5 million dollars for GANGS OF NEW YORK. I cannot think of a single market segment that would be drawn in by her presence, thus justifying the salary in bottom-line Hollywood. In fact, Diaz should be down on her knees sucking many a dick for the privilege of getting to appear on screen with real actors like the legendary Daniel Day-Lewis, Leonardo DiCaprio and Liam Neeson, not to mention Marty Fucking Scorsese!

Diaz reportedly earned 20 million for the second CHARLIE’S ANGELS flick, but here my ire is tempered. Anyone stupid enough to see the SECOND film deserves to have their money taken away from them and given to such an unworthy cause. Hey: part 1 looked interesting. It wasn’t. Shame on them. But to willingly see part 2?

And people wonder why I advocate Eugenics.

But the real insult comes with the SHREK films. After the gigantic surprise success of the first film, Diaz (along with Eddie Murphy and Mike Meyers) reportedly earned 10 million for the second film. An hour of fruitless searching just now on the ol’ interwebs yields no hard numbers for Part The Third, but reports are putting her salary at 20 million dollars.

When hearing information like this, one can’t help but wonder if General William Tecumseh Sherman might not have received similar news….

Right before he burned an entire state to the ground.

In other words, I’m upset.

Look: I’m not quite as stupid as I look or sound (or our best testing indicates). I realize that Hollywood salaries do not necessarily reflect the relative artistic merit of the actor and film in question, but rather the films revenues and that actor’s leverage in being in the film in the first place. Take a gander at Wikipedia’s highest Movie Salaries page. The films in question either represent sequels where they can’t really do it without the actor (Keanu Reeves, I’m looking in your direction), or established box-office stars with a long track record of success.

In the case of the SHREK franchise, I understand that dollars speak loudly. The first film made 484 million worldwide (268 domestic and 215 international), while the second installment made a whopping 921 millions dollars worldwide (441 domestic and 480 internationally), making it the seventh biggest worldwide movie of all time! There’s plenty of money being made out there, and the actors deserve a good chunk of it.

But here’s the thing: You CANNOT make the movie without Mike Meyers. He’s Shrek, and his voice-work is unmistakable. You CANNOT make the movie without Eddie Murphy, who’s invaluable as Donkey. I suppose you could even argue that Antonio Banderas warrants a healthy salary increase, as he was certainly the savior of SHREK 2.

And while I agree that a Shrek film without Fiona would make no sense, someone tell me why Cameron Diaz is essential in the role. You could replace her no-talent ass with any of three hundred Hollywood actresses, and no one would care. Hell: very few would even notice unless they were told. Moreover, there are very talented voice-actors out there who actually bring something to the work beyond the big name who would actually make Fiona an essential cog in the machine.

But as it stands Fiona is the least interesting character. She certainly is the least funny, and there’s absolutely nothing that Cameron Diaz brings to the table that makes her worth keeping around for SAG scale, let alone 20 fucking million dollars.

I will now go light something on fire.

Posted by Hyperion :: 2:37 AM :: Permalink :: 0 comments