The Lone Ranger bombed. Now Transcendence bombs...great news! It began here with Depp screwing over Dark Shadows. Time for Depp to go to sleep for 200 years. Maybe when he wakes up he can try to salvage his career.
share200 years won't help any. Perhaps Angelique's curse also covers Depp's future movies as well..haha. "Transcendence" and "The Lone Ranger" are good examples of the malformed polar extremes that Depp's acting repertoire has acquired. In one he cakes his face in white powder and gives us a hammy performance which should have won the Razzie for which it was nominated in "The Lone Ranger." In the second, he has all of the enthusiasm and energy of a spent washcloth. Like Austin Powers, Depp has lost his mojo. He is becoming more and more of an unintentional caricature of himself. In his interview on "Inside the Actor's Studio" Depp had said that his first role was "being eaten by a bed" in "Nightmare on Elm Street." His performance in Transcendence proves that he could put even Freddy Krueger to sleep.
share[deleted]
Your point? I agree with the other guy btw.
share[deleted]
Why should we worry. You do all of the worrying for him. You seem to be rather touchy that "Transcendence" is a flop. Perhaps if you insult and shame everybody who didn't go to the theater and pay money to see the movie or whine to those who gave the movie tepid or BAD reviews then maybe they will suddenly have an epiphany and decide to go see it or change their reviews. Depp was so disengaged and boring in this movie that I'm surprised that even his digital avatar wasn't yawning frequently. Perhaps Windows has an autonomous program that edited those out. Too bad that program couldn't use C++ to create an instance of acting. They must have mistakenly used Depp-- .
shareAre the familiar with Depp's movies pre-Sparrow?
Most of them were box office flops, his only had big success was those Pirate movies and Alice on Wonderland, those are the exception so why would anyone assume all his films would perform?
I don't know what Transcendence is or about but I'm guessing it's not a remake or a reboot like the majority of movies these days. The audience cry for something different and when they get it they cry it's different.
i haven't seen trancendence. but the description makes me think it's '80s style technophobia.
which is not new or original, and definitely not the 'please stop catering to the lowest common denominator' that the audience is screaming for
Lol
shareThe poster above me is right. Until POTC Depp had pretty much flops, except for the occasional hit. It wasn't perhaps so much that the films were bad, they just weren't to commercial enough and more art- films than huge crowd-pleaser. POTC changed all that, and all of a sudden he became a box-office draw.
Depp should be used to flops, half of his carer are filled with them. Tough none of the films deserved to flop. They weren't bad at all.
That being said, we still don't know hos his future films will turn out. Maybe they will earn enough money to go around. Or maybe Depp should just go back to his roots and focus on indie-films.
"box office poison" they called him.
And because he and Tim had a freakish financial hit with AIW, why on earth people expect a repeat of that success with DS I don't know.
But everyone goes thought tough periods in their life, and movie stars are the same. It is a cruel business, and the public can chew you up then spit you out.
Depp started a slow decline with the public when his marriage broke down.
At least he had a career. He's going to be remembered longer and by many more than Ed Bishop.
[deleted]
To name a few- I loved Depp in Chocolate and Edward Scissor Hands. Also like the one (can't remember the name) about the author of Peter Pan.
I liked his Charlie and the Chocolate Factory better then the first one, but imho neither film is nearly as good as the book.
"dark shadows" wasn't a bomb. while it didn't do as well as a lot of people were expecting (especially in the U.S.), worldwide it was a financial success. I thought the movie was great.
shareIt all started with his first movie.
shareThe poster above me is right. Until POTC Depp had pretty much flops, except for the occasional hit. It wasn't perhaps so much that the films were bad, they just weren't to commercial enough and more art- films than huge crowd-pleaser. POTC changed all that, and all of a sudden he became a box-office draw.
--
Isn't that pretty much how a LOT of modern star careers are?
Depp: Remove the POTC films. A lotta flops.
Matt Damon: Remove the "Bourne" films. A lotta flops.
RDJ: Remove the Iron Man films (and the sparse Sherlock Holmes franchise). A lotta flops.
George Clooney: Remove the Ocean's films(only three of them!) A lotta flops.
Jennifer Lawrence: Remove the Hunger Games series. A lotta flops (and X-Men isn't really "hers.")
Tom Cruise: Yep, even Tom Cruise. Before he resurrected Top Gun to monumental heights -- remove the Mission Impossible movies. A lotta flops.
The funny thing for Depp and RDJ and Damon is that studios would pay them ZILLIONS to come back to their franchise roles. That's where they make their main pay. Then they charge high for movies that don't make it.
This thing with Depp and Damon and RDJ REALLY extends to pretty much all the leads in the Marvel movies. The people playing Thor and The Hulk and Captain America make big bucks for Marvel...but can't really carry movies as stars away from them (uh, Chris Evans MAYBE with this Gray Man thing on Netflix...)