LATEST NEWS

1

Pitt has a habit of doing this - and the only reason he gets away with it is because he's considered by Hollywood to be an A-lister. He's pissed off a lot of directors and producers, and is notorious for being difficult during the development phase - and then, when he doesn't get his own way - leaves abruptly. He did it with The Fountain, back in 2006. Australian crews were already prepping and the director had flown down to Sydney and was deep into pre-production on the film when Pitt decided he didn't want to do it anymore - leaving hundreds of people out of work, and millions of dollars already wasted. I certainly won't shed a tear if his next project flops at the box office. The guy is overrated anyway.

kLO on Nov 3, 2010

2

kLO, you don't know what you are talking about. You sound like a bad studio shill. Pitt has probably one of the best reputations in the biz both above and below line and has never been "notorious" for being difficult. If he insists that the project be quality then that is a good thing for film. So which directors, exactly, are pissed off at Pitt? With the Fountain, Aronofsky was a green director inexperienced with big studios who Pitt was excited to work with. But once they got an A Star like Pitt signed they turned the film upside down and kept making it bigger and bigger and further and further away from the movie Pitt agreed to do. Pitt did what any actor with integrity would do. He exercised his legal right to walk. Even today the director agrees that he should have listened to Pitt and stayed true to his vision but Aronofsky said he didn't have the backbone then. Hopefully he's learned his lesson. If you want to blame anyone, blame the studio for treating its talent like meat and expecting it to eat whatever it is handed. It's just too bad that there are actors who refuse to be abused by the studio moguls who are, let's face it, only interested in making money.

Cameron on Nov 4, 2010

3

Don't I? I worked on The Fountain.

kLO on Nov 4, 2010

4

cameron - you're so deluded. if a studio is PAYING someone millions to act in a movie, then yes - they CAN tell the actor what they want/expect. and when someone is being paid millions, they are NOT being treated like "meat". (as a side note - if someone will pay me millions, i'd GLADLY be treated however they want to treat me! LOL) by the way - you think the studio is the only one interested in making money? let me know when pitt does a movie for less than 10 million........and even less would be an enormous sum. i don't totally agree with #1; but, i do think pitt is closer to an average actor (who's popular with the ladies) than an "A list" actor. you sound like a starstruck fan.

beavis on Nov 4, 2010

5

Beavis, It's been reported that Pitt received "far less" than 10 million for Terrence Malicks' "Tree of Life", which hasn't been released yet.

ModernAmericanMan on Nov 4, 2010

6

I'm bummed. I'm halfway through the book, and it's a helluva story, made all the more amazing by the fact that it's all true. Colonel Fawcett is a colorful, charismatic character that has the potential to be an academy award worthy role in the right hands. Oh well, somebody call Hugh Jackman, stat!

RJ McReady on Nov 4, 2010

7

Aw I've been waiting for this fucking movie!

LINKFX on Nov 4, 2010

8

Lol @ kLO's bombshell. Interested to see who will fill the role now. Shame about Pitt though. I might just pick up the book and see what the fuss is all about..

Cracky on Nov 4, 2010

9

thanks for that, modernamericanman - ok, .........for you - i did some checking. here is what is what i've found to be common knowledge: • Inglourious Basterds (2009): $9,000,000 <• The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007): $1,000,000 • Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005): $20,000,000 • Troy (2004): $17,500,000 <-- • Ocean's Eleven (2001): $30,000,000 ($10m salary + backend participations) <-- • Spy Game (2001): $17,500,000 • The Mexican (2001): $10,000,000 • Fight Club (1999): $17,500,000 • Meet Joe Black (1998): $17,500,000 • Seven Years in Tibet (1997): $10,000,000 • The Devil's Own (1997): $10,000,000 • Sleepers (1996): $10,000,000 • Se7en (1995): $4,000,000 <-- Morgan my point to cameron, above, was not the exact figures on EVERY movie. but in fact, was that actors are NOT treated like meat. it doesn't matter to me in the least what he makes. and i don't doubt he makes less on some movies (and MUCH more on others) - but it's his OWN choice.........not the studios - it's also being said on multiple sites that HIS fee today is 25 mil per picture and that ranks him as the 10 highest paid actor in the business. cams assumption that actors are treated bad is just ludicrous. AND, using pitt as an example of this is even more absurd. thanks for the info and actually making me look into the numbers. i've found my point is MORE than made.

beavis on Nov 4, 2010

10

bummer

A5J4DX on Nov 4, 2010

11

bummed! great book, even more amazing story. and all the more recent finds coming out about Amazonian civilization make it even more ripe for cinema.

dpo on Dec 18, 2010