MovieChat Forums > Jennifer Lawrence Discussion > The fall of Her career

The fall of Her career

posted 4 years ago by djangounlamed (1769)
56 replies | jump to latest

Its pretty clear without some massive revival Jennifers career is over. it started off strong but she's now a flop queen and the amount she demanded was insane for someone who can only lose studies money

-So she does Winter bone. gets some big attention for it which allows her to land both Xmen and hunger games. Silver lining then comes out which is well received. She then does the second hunger games and American hustle. by now he clout has grown and she starts to become more demanding. TO the point they change mystique in Xmen's entire character to please Lawrence so she doesn't have to get in makeup as much

-The first cracks start to show in Serena and what happens when she is a lead/colead and supposed to carry a film. It was a massive flop. making 5 million on a 30 million dollar budget. You could see it in American Hustle. All the other coleads act circles around her and while they can maintain thiers, she can barely keep up her simple accent in a short 5 second take. Going from a strong accent to normal Lawrence. She "seemed good" because of how "crazy and nuts" she was and good directing and editing. But if you rewatch it its really nothing that amazing. especially when you compare to the others.

-the next two hunger games come out which finish off her high paying solid box office success carreer. Next up Joy comes out.a 60% on RT and making 110 million on a 60 million dollar budget. That is a flop and it did not make money.. Xmen apocalypse comes out. They have almost fully gotten rid of the makeup to suit Jennifers demands and she is essentially the protagonist. it makes 540 million on 180 million. Most of which is foreign box office (which the studio gets a smaller cut) and doesn't include advertising which I remember was all over the place.its lucky if it broke even I doubt it...

-while she had the successes of the big franchises, her career as show is already fully in decline starting with Serena, we just didn't know it yet. She's demanding massive salary, including 20 million for passengers, but not delivery at the Box office. it made 300 million on 110. almost 1/5 of the budget being her salary. some rough math the studio made 150 million tops tops...

-Mother! comes out and it Ames 44 million on a 30 million dollar budget. flop Red sparrow makes 150 million on 70 million. flop.

Hell even her normally reliable big movie franchises, xmen, flops when phoenix brings in 250 million on 200 million.

seeing these numbers, who in their right mind would ever want Jenifer as a lead?

Her last 6 movies are all either flops or break even. Her last money making movie was the hunger games in 2015..

[–] SLukyanenko (74) 4 years ago

You are absolutely delusional.

First of all, you have an utterly absurd concept of what a "flop" is. Passengers and Joy were absolutely not flops. At most you could say they under-performed, and did so for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with her.

Secondly, the amount of money a movie makes is of primary interest only to idiots who have no interest in art. mother!, which does indeed count as a financial flop, was a daring and visionary film that is quite likely going to be considered a masterpiece as time passes--just read master filmmaker Martin Scorsese's reaction to it.

And contrary to your bizarre assessment of her worth, she is still very much sought after. She already has another movie in the can (as a lead), is about to star as the lead in Adam McKay's latest film, and is attached (again, as the lead) to another of his films down the road.

Is she going to be in any any huge money making franchises ever again where she can ask for huge paychecks? Probably not, at least I hope not. But that does not define success.

So basically, you don't think like a filmmaker. You think like a troll.

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 4 years ago

"First of all, you have an utterly absurd concept of what a "flop" is. Passengers and Joy were absolutely not flops. At most you could say they under-performed, and did so for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with her."

A flop is a movie considered unprofitable or unsuccessful, sometimes called a movie bomb.

You clearly have no understanding of the film industry or box office. film studios get about 50% of domestic box office and 30-40% of foreign. Also the budget we see never includes advertising.

so please tell me how Joy a movie that made in reality 27 million domestic after the cut was taken and 20 million internationality on a 60 million dollar budget.....

"Secondly, the amount of money a movie makes is of primary interest only to idiots who have no interest in art. mother!, which does indeed count as a financial flop, was a daring and visionary film that is quite likely going to be considered a masterpiece as time passes--just read master filmmaker Martin Scorsese's reaction to it."

You new to filmmaking and Hollywood? Yes if your movies constantly flop and break even, you are not a success. Mother! was a movie with hamfisted and clumsy in your face messaging and themes and little actual subtly or nuance. Cool story Scorese liked it so it must be the best!

"And contrary to your bizarre assessment of her worth, she is still very much sought after. She already has another movie in the can (as a lead), is about to star as the lead in Adam McKay's latest film, and is attached (again, as the lead) to another of his films down the road."

Yes she's attached to such esteem films as Paolo SOrrentino's "mob girl". Paolo is know for such films as....Loro 1, Loro 2, Loro... oh and about 80% of his career being TV movies and shorts. I am sure everyone is waiting with baited breath for this!!

what a career! She's in such demand. Clearly cant keep up with all the offers of roles!

"Is she going to be in any any huge money making franchises ever again where she can ask for huge paychecks? Probably not, at least I hope not. But that does not define success."

and nor did I say it did. I simply pointed out that while she was in them she thought she was high up and could demand massive salaries in her other films.

"So basically, you don't think like a filmmaker. You think like a troll."

You clearly have no understanding of film or how the system works. You've ignored flops cause "think of da art!" like some fart sniffing elitist. Literally choosing one of the most uncreative and amateur handling of subtext and motifs in a film as proof of "art".

you're like the person who thinks hamfisted corporate commercials are "touching deep works of art" while everyone laughs at you. You clearly let your massive bias get in the way of objectively nailing thefts.

so much so you ignored what a flop is and try to present verifiable flops as success. I really feel bad for you. Defending and groveling to someone who doesn't know you exist or care about you

[–] SLukyanenko (74) 4 years ago

A flop is a movie considered unprofitable or unsuccessful, sometimes called a movie bomb.

You just pulled that out of your behind. That isn't how most people use the word, which is to refer to something which lost a catastrophic amount of money, not something which merely underperformed.

And yes, artistic integrity trumps box office success to anyone with any perception and intelligence.

The fact of the matter (and we've clearly established that facts do not concern you at all) is that she took a voluntary break from one of the most successful careers in the movie industry and is now back to making films. They will almost certainly not make much money, but given the integrity of the folks whose projects she's signed up for, they will very likely be of high quality.

Meanwhile, all you can do is whine. Pathetic.

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 4 years ago

"You just pulled that out of your behind. That isn't how most people use the word, which is to refer to something which lost a catastrophic amount of money, not something which merely underperformed."

Talking about pulling out of your butt. No that is how they use it... colloquially and by professional reviews. "catastrophic bomb" or "massive flop" are how they describe extreme situation. a f

Please point me to a film that broke even or lost money referred to as a financial success. I can provide you the reviews calling Joy a flop. You just made that up in your head. Again bending reality to suit your delusion.

"And yes, artistic integrity trumps box office success to anyone with any perception and intelligence.
"

YOU live in how things should be or how you wish them to be. I live in reality.

MOther! has a 6.6 on imdv and 68% on RT. Hardly a cinematic artistic success appreciated by those who love high art while hated by the casual rabble.

So you have a box office bomb. a mediocre response among fans, a mediocre response from critics, yet its was true amazing art!? it was not subtle and hamfisted.

Joy was artistic integrity? Passengers was artistic integrity (a hamfisted attempt to push Pratt and Jennifer). red Sparrow was artistic integrity? a film that blatantly tried to show her looking half nude in the newer trailers when they realized it was tracking to do bad. Hunger games was artistic integrity?

"The fact of the matter (and we've clearly established that facts do not concern you at all) is that she took a voluntary break from one of the most successful careers in the movie industry and is now back to making films. "

Voluntary as in a professional reboot because everyone was getting tired of her and the studios were also seeing she wasn't the new "IT" girl. Show me a star who wouldn't take such a break after flop after flop after flop after flop after flop. You would be stupid not to.

Also take out the hunger games and and Xmen (arguably both would have been massively successful without her, especially xmen)

and her career besides silver lining, American hustle and winters bone is HORENDEOUS and a failure.

"They will almost certainly not make much money, but given the integrity of the folks whose projects she's signed up for, they will very likely be of high quality."

Paolo SOrrentino's is known for quality?!?! really? 90% of his career is TV movies and shorts. What are you talking about? her only one she's guaranteed attached to is two with Adam McKay. You act like she's lined up a series of many films with Nolan, Scorsese, Tarintino, Spielberg eat

60% of Adams career is Will ferrel movies and you are acting like he is Hitchcock. Can I get what you are smoking?

You dont live in reality. You have delusional fan syndrome. Its why you didn't even TOUCH your lack of understanding of how budgets and box office work. pretty cowardly.

https://www.businessinsider.com/jennifer-lawrence-to-make-netflix-movie-after-box-office-flops-2020-2

"While Lawrence topped Forbes' annual list of the highest-paid actresses in the world in both 2015 and 2016, Netflix grants her an opportunity to rebound from a string of recent box-office flops. Her latest bomb was last year's X-Men movie, "Dark Phoenix," which was the lowest-grossing movie of the franchise by far."

The article was written even by a Neflix related board member! and he is saying this

"Mathias Döpfner, CEO of Business Insider's parent company, Axel Springer, is a Netflix board member."

Come back to reality.... you are delusional.

[–] SLukyanenko (74) 4 years ago

YOU live in how things should be or how you wish them to be. I live in reality.

I care about art. You care about superficialities.

MOther! has a 6.6 on imdv and 68% on RT. Hardly a cinematic artistic success appreciated by those who love high art while hated by the casual rabble.

Yes, pumpkin, difficult, challenging films tend to alienate a large portion of the population and are recognized as masterpieces by an elite few with the capacity to perceive what was really there.

Also take out the hunger games and and Xmen . . .

Stop right there. You aren't allowed to take out the bits of reality which make your thesis a joke.

Paolo SOrrentino's is known for quality?!?! really? 90% of his career is TV movies and shorts.

I hate to break it to you, pumpkin, but in the modern age, TV and shorts do not exclude one from making quality art. I advise that you mentally move yourself into the reality of the 21st century. It's great here!

60% of Adams career is Will ferrel movies and you are acting like he is Hitchcock.

And his recent and future output consists of intelligent, funny, and very timely political cinema. It's almost as if you crave being completely out of touch.

Anyway: she's on the way back. Whine all you want, you'll just look increasingly pathetic.

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 4 years ago

"I care about art. You care about superficialities."

Yes anyone who doesn't agree with you hates art. especially when her arguably most artistic or auteur vision movie, Mother! received middle reviews. I guess all those fans and reviewers also hate art. Jesus your vilification of anyone who disagrees is truly sad.. next up "anyone who doesn't agree with me hates babies and their own parents."

you are pathetic.

"Yes, pumpkin, difficult, challenging films tend to alienate a large portion of the population and are recognized as masterpieces by an elite few with the capacity to perceive what was really there."

Yes Anderson, Tarantino, Kubrick, Wes Anderson, Scorsese, Francis Ford coppala, David Lynch, Hitchcock. Never made challenging films and never got any recognition except by a "few elite". Again la la land. your argument is true only if you ignore all evidence and actual reality.

I cant even call you a film elitist because you seem to not even have a basic understanding of the Hollywood box office, nor well recognized and praised auteur filmmakers. You are a wanna be film snob who doesn't even have an elementary first year understanding of film.

"Stop right there. You aren't allowed to take out the bits of reality which make your thesis a joke.
"

You are arguing she has an astounding amazing career of quality films she has carried and led to success. Im not allowed to take out the franchise films not carried by her (Hunger games had a built in fan base so did xmen and she waste the lead most of it)

So now Daniel Radcliff is the reason why Harry Potter is successful? and I cant analyze his acting career and box office unless I include it?

You are delusion.

"I hate to break it to you, pumpkin, but in the modern age, TV and shorts do not exclude one from making quality art. I advise that you mentally move yourself into the reality of the 21st century. It's great here!"

The more you talk the more I think you just use "art" as a catch all thinking it makes you sound intelligent. when time after time you show you dont even have the basic understanding of film.

MODERN TV SHOWS have been the big push of the 21st century as well as streaming companies producing content in house.

TV movies have not been the reality and big new thing of the 21st century. Honestly do you ever get anything right?

"And his recent and future output consists of intelligent, funny, and very timely political cinema. It's almost as if you crave being completely out of touch.

Anyway: she's on the way back. Whine all you want, you'll just look increasingly pathetic."

we dont know what his future output is because by definition IT DOESNT YET EXIST. so you've now assumed he is a great, intelligent filmmaker because of what he will make. You actually think that's an arguement>

SHe's on the way back. cause she has lined up one film with an unknown director and two with one no one would ever describe of being "one of the greats" or "creating art"

Again the fact you dont even know or use the term auteur filmmaker and instead just say "art" like it means something profound shows your ignorance. You ae like a child arguing about something you clearly dont understand

let me guess you never studied filming? Yes I look pathetic because I am describing reality. While you makeup crap and say a guys good because "in the future hes making stuff". I cant believe you actually wrote that nonsense. You look like the most desperate and pathetic type of fan. Actually reinventing reality to suit.

Again yes Jenniffer "is back" cause she has three movies lined up, one with an unknown nd two with Adam McKay.... im sure The other top female Hollywood actresses are sooooo jealous of her current career trajectory. LOL the fact you've convinced yourself this is impressive speaks to your delusion

[–] SLukyanenko (74) 4 years ago

She's one of the most successful actors in the modern age, and nothing you can ever do will ever change this fact.

Grow up and deal with it.

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 4 years ago

In other words. destroyed. nice debate you delusional rat. Go hide now. Also seek help.

Keep watching all that "art" by the true directors who create "art". "art" never gets recognized only crap! we need more "art" in Hollywood. I hate how real art directors never get recognized only by a few smart elite like yourself right? of course Anderson, Tarantino, Kubrick, Wes Anderson, Scorsese, Francis Ford coppala, David Lynch, Hitchcock never got recognition!

LOL spoken like someone who doesn't understand film at all. or should I say "art". Amazing giving Jennifer credit for hunger games and xmen. Wow your level of delusion has no limits

[–] SLukyanenko (74) 4 years ago

In other words. destroyed. nice debate you delusional rat. Go hide now. Also seek help.

Let me guess. . .you're nine years old? Maybe 11 at best?

I hate how real art directors never get recognized only by a few smart elite like yourself right? of course Anderson, Tarantino, Kubrick, Wes Anderson, Scorsese, Francis Ford coppala, David Lynch, Hitchcock never got recognition!

Excuse me, sweetiepie, but none those folks ever made a film as deliberately divisive as mother!, not even Lynch. So please put your thinking cap on and compare apples to apples.

And since you included Scorsese on the list, let me remind you again that he had nothing but high praise for the film and had this reminder for naive, uninformed nitwits like you: "And as anyone familiar with the history of movies knows all too well, there is a very long list of titles that were rejected on first release and went on to become classics."

(I don't think mother! will ever be a classic, but I have no doubt that as time passes it will gradually become recognized as a masterpiece, very much like Aronofsky's The Fountain is coming to be regarded today.)

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 4 years ago

29 and while I didn't major in it is actually studied film in university. unlike you

"Excuse me, sweetiepie, but none those folks ever made a film as deliberately divisive as mother!, not even Lynch. So please put your thinking cap on and compare apples to apples. "|

And if its divisive its automatically good!!! You also said challenging not divisive in relation to art. So not divisive = art =good?

So if someone made a sympathetic movie from the perspective of therapist it'd be "even more art" cause tis even more divisive??

again your lack of basic filming is showing

"and since you included Scorsese on the list, let me remind you again that he had nothing but high praise for the film and had this reminder for naive, uninformed nitwits like you: "And as anyone familiar with the history of movies knows all too well, there is a very long list of titles that were rejected on first release and went on to become classics."

im glad you re a follower and cant think for yourself. it shows immensely. he also made the Irishman and he clearly thought that was good..

"(I don't think mother! will ever be a classic, but I have no doubt that as time passes it will gradually become recognized as a masterpiece, very much like Aronofsky's The Fountain is coming to be regarded today.)
"
Please dont reply. your re a rat and embarrassing. You'd not know anything about filmmaking. you are easily impressed by hamfisted, in your face and over the top techniques. rather than actual dip subtext and metaphors.

again you are a want to be film snob. Just with not actual understanding of film

"but its divisive!!!! so its good!"

LOL embracing

[–] SLukyanenko (74) 4 years ago

29 and while I didn't major in it is actually studied film in university. unlike you.

Actually, sweetiepie, I took several courses in film studies at the university level. And I'm sure I learned a lot more than you ever did. You just don't seem that bright.

And if its divisive its automatically good!!!

I never said that. My, logic really is difficult for you, isn't it? Go back and find the context and see if that pea sized brain of yours can tease out the point I was making. It might hurt to use your brain, but you clearly need the exercise in order to, um, stop "embracing" yourself in a public space.

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 4 years ago

Actually, sweetiepie, I took several courses in film studies at the university level. And I'm sure I learned a lot more than you ever did. You just don't seem that bright.

if you did then id like the name of the proffesors because "its art!' and "its divisive!" is not film terms often used when arguing the quality of a film.

"I never said that. My, logic really is difficult for you, isn't it? Go back and find the context and see if that pea sized brain of yours can tease out the point I was making. It might hurt to use your brain, but you clearly need the exercise in order to, um, stop "embracing" yourself in a public space."

yes your lack of logic is truly astounding hahahah. Love how you've abandoned all the other arguments because you now you lost.

Move along now rat.

Also the fact you dont know that Hitchcocks psycho was more divisive than Mother! is truly astounding. You studied film right?!?!?!Its showing of "nudity", a possible gay or at least crossdressing person, post sex scenes and "extreme violence" literally changed not only film rules but it lead to actual changes to the film industry and filmmaking.

each comment displays more and more of your ignorance of basic filming, film history and the box office system.

I frankly feel embarrassed for you

[–] SLukyanenko (74) 4 years ago

if you did then id like the name of the proffesors because "its art!' and "its divisive!" is not film terms often used when arguing the quality of a film.

You love hallucinating what other people are actually saying, don't you? I guess that's the only way you can ever "win" an argument. . .by playing with yourself.

Also the fact you dont know that Hitchcocks psycho was more divisive than Mother! is truly astounding.

It wasn't. You're conflating controversy among the plebs with divisiveness among critics, who largely welcomed what Hitchcock was doing with the film.

I know, reality is a difficult thing for you. So sad, so pathetic.

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 4 years ago

actually it wasn't.. pyscho was not seen as unanimously good and thought of one of his lesser films esp compared to rear window and vertigo.

it was the people who first loved it and critics who later came around

"The film was initially considered controversial and received mixed reviews, but audience fascination and outstanding box-office returns prompted a major critical reevaluation."

AGAIN YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. please stop talking. Every damn thing you say is wrong and uninformed. In this case getting it the exact opposite

save face. go away

[–] SLukyanenko (74) 4 years ago

Sorry, you lose. It was never divisive in anything like the way mother! was. Ever. You are just making things up left and right.

I'm done with you as I have little patience for idiot losers, and you are one of the biggest morons I've encountered here. Welcome to the ignore function of this site.

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 4 years ago

LOLL in others word "put my fingers in my ears la la la la la la" cause the facts disagree.

"Its divisive so it's good!! Mothers! good its divisive!"

You were destroyed and embarrassed. get to a safe space. If everyone argues like you then debates on here are going to be simple