Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Brad Pitt Drains THE FOUNTAIN!! An Open & Angry Letter From The Crew!!

shame. by binarybaby	Sep 9th, 2002 07:29:35 AM
Was looking forward to this film, but I guess it will be a longer wait now. Dissapointing to hear of Brad Pitts behaviour because I was just starting to like him as an actor... dont these people have to sign contracts or something before the set-building starts? Or is that too sensible for Hollywood people?
It is a shame that Pitt won't do film... by Frank Black	Sep 9th, 2002 07:38:03 AM
But that is the nature of that industry and he is hardly to blame. As a independent movie maker who has had countless productions stalled and stopped because of various reasons, (including actor problems,) you just accept it as part of the process. This was a film Warner Bros. seemed uneasy about from the start and production did seem to drag. I feel for the crew, but Pitt's instincts about something told him to go. Everyone involved will find other work, and Aronsky will direct many more great films. Pitt will remain talented and popular. Life moves on.
Pitt's box-office caliber by Aronld Scazziger	Sep 9th, 2002 07:47:57 AM
He has CALIBER? Granted, I enjoy most of his movies and some of them are friggin' masterpieces, but he still hasa no drawing power. I guess WB is glad the project has been shelved ... way to risky. We'll probably see some rewrites within the next twelve months happening ... addin' some more mainstream. In the end Mistah Pitt will regret his decision, I guess from now on he will be bullied by the crew members.
The buggers were paid, weren't they? by Glynyfaron	Sep 9th, 2002 07:55:24 AM
Was it Brad Pitt who procrastinated endlessly about getting the production up and running no? He waited and waited for all these 'production difficulties' to be ironed out before he finally got so fed up he left. Hell the man even grew a beard so revolting that Jennifer Aniston wouldn't shag him until he shaved it off. Clearly someone is to blame for this debacle but I don't think it's Brad Pitt.
Just why did Brad walk? Script issues my arse by Ben fong Torres	Sep 9th, 2002 07:58:51 AM

Die Fledermaus by Frank Black	Sep 9th, 2002 08:06:24 AM
I meant to put a positive spin on this, not one of apathy. The truth is, the only ones who truly know what happened are the people involved. I agree with you about people having a stronger sense of morality and responsibility to each other. You are probably right that Pitt made a bad choice in abandoning the picture, but something tells me he made a commitment to the film and stuck to it for a very long time before he made the choice he did. But, when I say "life goes on" I mean it in a positive way, meaning you can't control the choices of others sometimes and you just have to make the best of it and pick up the pieces. I did not mean to say that it doesn't matter, but in this case, what are you going to do. Personally I think it is a shame that the studios don't have the vision to see that a great story doesn't need a "star." There are so many amazing actors out there who are underused anyway. Peace.
oh how stupid by BurlIvesLeftNut	Sep 9th, 2002 08:28:08 AM
Every single one of this crew should be fired if they support this lame letter. Brad Pitt is a business man and he made a business decision in his best interest. He's not fucking Jimmy Stewart in "It's a Wonderful Life". If anyone is at fault it must be Aronofsky. First, for not being able to explain his vision in a way to Warner Brothers that would allow them to see the commercial OR artistic viability of this project. Second, for not being able to convince Pitt that the story is a good one and one that he SHOULD be a part of. And lastly, for working up all of his crew into a frenzy. These people don't work for Brad Pitt... they don't even work for Aronofsky. I bet they don't even work for Warner Brothers. I bet they are a bunch of independant contractors. Sorry you guys feel like you got screwed, but it is BUSINESS. Either adapt or go and get a real job.
No one gets into the film business for financial security by TheMoviegoer	Sep 9th, 2002 08:28:09 AM
As an independent filmmaker, I certainly sympathize with the crew. However, we have chosen a cruel business. A professor of mine once told me that if you can do anything else in life besides pursue film, do it. I agree. I have no clue why Pitt made this decision, but I certainly know that it isn't good business to do the film because the crew will be let go.
Fuuuuuuckkkkk!!! by weird v3.0	Sep 9th, 2002 08:56:11 AM
We don't deserve this shit. I mean us (the audience and geeks), the crew (sorry folks, I mean it)and mr. Aranofsky, for this was (is?) HIS very personal project, and I know how do you feel when all your work in a film is fuck'd up because of some jerk. And 'jerk' means 'Pitt' - what the hell? He's been in four great films (12Monkeys, Se7en, FightClub, Snatch) and now he just screws this one, which could have been (could be?) one of the greatest fantastic films of all time. Sir, wasn't you interested in risky films? Was this one so good one day and so awful the next? Jeez, stop raping our dreams._____________One more thing, Mr.Knowles, are you there? I think you need a hand with Spanish (I know I need it with English, too), but keep on trying.
Thanks for the kind words, Die Fledermaus by Frank Black	Sep 9th, 2002 09:01:24 AM
From reading the boards, I see there are mixed reactions to this, and rightfully so, I suppose. Making movies is a tough business and Hollywood tends to disregard people and the needs of the "little people." Too much money is wasted, and the actions of stars and studios can have a negative impact on the various crew members and other parties involved. Ultimately, it is time people liberate themselves from "over-bloated-Hollywood." The independent movie scene seems dead, but the nature of how people watch movies is changing dramatically in the world. After years of struggling to get features made, I am finally launching a dream project of mine, recruiting digital video artists from all over the country, and someday the world, to collaborate on a project called. Digital filmmakers who are sick of watching bad movies and want to be involved in a cool project that I am developing for a DVD release, called "HYBRID," should check out www.digitalfantastique.com Many of you will scoff and give me a tongue lashing, but everyone has to start somewhere, and I am just a simple man who loves making movies, no matter how small. Check it out!
artistic what? by James Crackcorn	Sep 9th, 2002 09:10:28 AM
1) The usual rant around here is that stars do movies too often for the wrong reasons, i.e., money instead of artistic integrity. Now you're saying that they should also do the movie so as not to screw the poor little worker bees. WTF? 2) You get into the film business you should know and understand that job security ain't in the cards. Grow up, people. 3) Brad can do whatever he feels like. This isn't Russia. It isn't Russia, is it?
Brad Pitt...not responsible ...... by stacey7022	Sep 9th, 2002 09:20:40 AM
Brad Pitt is not the only actor to pull out of a movie. It's not as if he were the one paying the salaries of everyone. I believe that is the responsibility of the producers/directors. And you would think that there would be something in the contract that if their circumstances that the film would not continue on for reasons, there would still be some time of salary to be paid. Blaming one person without knowing all the facts as to why he pulled out..it could have been something personal with his family, that he is not required to disclose. I am sorry that everyone is out of work for now...but to lay blame without knowing ALL the facts is immature....but then this is just my opinion.
wait just a goddamn minute... lemme get this straight... by TV CASUALTY	Sep 9th, 2002 09:26:22 AM
Pitt will do "movies" like Meet Joe Black and The Mexican, but he's bailing on this? WHAT? Thanks for making us all realize how little integrity you really have, jackass.
why blame pitt? by ZO	Sep 9th, 2002 09:51:24 AM
fox obviously did not want to produce this film. he took a 70% pay cut and a year off for this project that never happend. and how is he a top 4 box office guy? whos busy? adam sandler?
It's the WB's fault... by KONG33	Sep 9th, 2002 09:54:09 AM
they should have got a signature on something well-written up. They're worried because this sounds like an original film. WB is preventing this film all the way. And this was really 'angry', Mori.
ok...it was FOX? by KONG33	Sep 9th, 2002 09:55:08 AM
whatever. They're responsible.
living in oblivion! by no-no	Sep 9th, 2002 10:06:47 AM
Tom Dicillo directed "Living in oblivion" after "Johnny Suede" and in it, James leGros plays a caricature of how Pitt behaved in the first movie. It's very funny but he doesn't strike as a nice and reliable character.
Pitt a Big Box Office Draw? by hipcheck13	Sep 9th, 2002 10:11:50 AM
Uh - apparently they have him confused with the Tom Tom club - Cruise and Hanks. Pitt's flix don't make much money at all; in fact, I don't know how it is he's such an enormous celebrity (outside of snaring Ms. Aniston). To me he's just another one of those "fringe" types, ala Jaye P. Morgan (remember "The Gong Show?"), Zsa Zsa Gabor, etc. Anyway, too bad the workers got the core, but hopefully they'll get someone attached to the project who can really fill the seats and get these fine folk back to work.
The reason why Pitt left... by virkku	Sep 9th, 2002 10:13:08 AM
Was the fact that Aranofsky re-wrote the film and the new draft wasn't anymore the film that Pitt had promised to do. Anyway, that's what read in every article about the flick a few weeks ago. I can't blame Pitt for not agreeing to do a script he doesn't like anymore, and the new draft is not the draft that Moriarty reviewed. Why did Aranofsky re-write the script? Maybe the studio told him to, I don't know. Anyway, blame the studio for the failure of this film, if you want to blame someone. And the studio simply realized they were gonna lose a lot of money with this one. It's business for them and the film was seriously over-budgeted. Personally I would have loved to see the film, but it's very easy to understand why the flick is struggling to get made.
"there are only four other big names that are of Pitt's box- by virkku	Sep 9th, 2002 10:14:35 AM
It's pretty obvious that Aranofsky is referring to big names WHO CAN PLAY THE ROLE IN QUESTION.
of all the arrogant SOBs... but not Brad, mind you... by omarthesnake	Sep 9th, 2002 10:15:02 AM
what do these people think, he should be enslaved to this project? clearly, he had misgivings. And if, contractually, he is able to bow out and decides that he wants to bow out because he thinks the project is going to suck, it's not HIS fault those people are out of work, it's the studio's fault. Sheesh.
Just because your a star, you still can be a pro! by ako	Sep 9th, 2002 10:18:14 AM
Between shots Clark Ganel used to hang out with the crew not hidding in a trailer. John Wayne I have been told knew by name every one working on the picture. Acording to him a pro comes to work on time know your lines, talk low and slow and don't trip over the funiture. There is also a quetion of loyalty. Ever notice the chinese actor who was with Wayne in tru grit. Well he was in Donovans reef, Mclintok, north to alaska the spoilers. He showed with Wayne all the way back to the forties. When they shot in momument valley every one from the lowest teamster to the biggest star slept in dirat floored cabins, and showed in cold water fron a bucket. But The duke because he was the greatest movie star of all and the all time box office champ had exra privlege. He had his own bar of soap!
"there are only four other big names that are of Pitt's box- by virkku	Sep 9th, 2002 10:18:18 AM
It's pretty obvious that Aranofsky is referring to big names WHO CAN PLAY THE ROLE IN QUESTION. sure, Will Smith and Jim Carrey are at least as big as Pitt is, BUT does anyone find them suitable for this role? How many 30-45 year old white male actors there are in Hollywood who have the star appeal of Pitt and could pull out convincingly the role in question?
No one has to lose???????? by Jabbathenutt	Sep 9th, 2002 10:21:26 AM
Ahhh - if Twohy moves production from Vancouver to Australia .... What does Vancouver do???
you're not your fucking khakis. by defino	Sep 9th, 2002 10:25:30 AM
i have to admit, i was at least mildly curious about this picture, but alas... it's lame that american culture is so celebrity-based, i mean shouldn't a film like this be able to be made without a "star?" i've got nothing against brad pitt, but the insanity of one actor being able to stop production on a film this large just blows my mind. too bad the american public (or even worldwide movie audiences) would be less likely to see a film like this if it didn't have any "names" in it. fuck celebrity culture, fuck it right in the ear.
Spin control by pedant	Sep 9th, 2002 10:47:08 AM
It sounds to me like Aronofsky is really the one to blame, and he's demonizing Pitt to save face. The letter from the "crew" (which may be from just one individual, for all I know) stated that it was Aronofsky who encouraged them to voice their opinions. Talk about unprofessional behavior. Why else would he do something like this, if not to draw the heat away from himself? He wants to look like the good guy, but I suspect that's not the whole truth. Heck, for all we know, Aronofsky wrote that letter himself and just signed it on behalf of the crew.
Pitt's box office by mjbok1	Sep 9th, 2002 10:57:32 AM
Movie/budget/USBO Full frontal/2/2 Ocean's 11/85/183 Spy Game/92/63 The Mexican/38/67 Snatch/10/30 Fight Club/63/37 Meet Joe Black/90/44 Seven Years in Tibet/70/38 Devil's Own/80/43 Sleepers/44/53 So for his last ten movies the budget has been 574 million with a domestic box office of 560 million. If you take out Ocean's 11 which wasn't really his picture, the overall scope is much worse. I'm not saying anything about the quality of these films, but rather that consistantly he has made films that have not made back their budgets domestically.
I've got a big name for you.... by MOMERATH	Sep 9th, 2002 11:21:16 AM
Aronofsky. dammit. Nobody cares about Brad Pitt. Sure, he's nice looking, but totally unnecessary. Any monkey can play a sci-fi role.
What about Matt Damon? by Achilleus	Sep 9th, 2002 11:23:15 AM
Guy is a bigger draw and has no new movies lined up. Or Depp? Or Affleck? Or Mortensen?
No one has to lose? by JonQuixote	Sep 9th, 2002 11:35:25 AM
What's with the animosity towards Vancouver? What justifies THOSE crew members losing their jobs on RIDDICK to the Aussies?
Why it start by ThingsThatTimDog	Sep 9th, 2002 11:39:12 AM
I would be more upset at the dumbfuck who started the movies production before the star ever signed anything. Thats like building a computer chip factory before getting the right to use a transistor patent. Stupid.
FACK EM AND LET EM STARVE... by bullshitner	Sep 9th, 2002 11:52:47 AM
And Fack em em good...They can all go Fack themeselves up their shitters for all I care... Starve U Bastards......STARVE!... I POO ON YOUR GRAVES Muhhhhhahahahahhahahah
FACK EM AND LET EM STARVE... by bullshitner	Sep 9th, 2002 11:52:47 AM
And Fack em em good...They can all go Fack themeselves up their shitters for all I care... Starve U Bastards......STARVE!... I POO ON YOUR GRAVES Muhhhhhahahahahhahahah
All this Pitt bashing!!! by peejee	Sep 9th, 2002 12:11:58 PM
I don't blame Pitt at all and anyone who does is a fucking dick! He was heavily involved with the development of this project. I mean christ, he's had that stupid fucking beard all summer which must've been a real drag. He went with Aronofsky to scout locations in London and Ausralia and you don't do that if u aren't dedicated to the film. He's been waiting around for what seems like eternity now for MGM and Aronofsky to pull there fingers out and get this film made and if I was him I'd be pissed off too. It seem Aronofsky hasn't sold the film, and recent plot changes, to him well enough and through this we can take it Aronofsky did the same with MGM who are hardly gonna stump up a huge chunk of dough for a highly original concept helmed by a infamously "cooky" Director who can't even pitch the concept to them well enough! At the rap party the crew should go up and have a word with Aronofsky himself instead of blaming a guy who obviously wanted to do the film but got pissed off of waiting when he could've been doing one of the hundreds of offers that come through his door every week. JEEZ!
P.S - I FORGOT TO SAY(AND I DOUBLE POSTED...WHOOPS) by bullshitner	Sep 9th, 2002 12:15:56 PM
If they and their families get hungry can't they just eat their own poo? That way Bad Pitt won't be to blame for them starving cause he pulled outta film...
Please ... by LudwigVan	Sep 9th, 2002 12:17:22 PM
It's funny - I've read a lot of posts on these boards over the years and I've never once heard any one of you cut a bad film or an actor a break because of 'all the little people it/he kept employed'. So are you saying if Brad, spurred on by your heartfelt support for the little people, changed his mind and went on with The Fountain and it turned out (as he has evidently predicted) to suck, you would still support the film? Both critically and with your box office dollars? Your repeat returns to the theaters? Because, dontcha know, that's the only way studios can afford to mount lavish productions in order to keep all these little people you care so much about employed - by all of us going to see movies multiple times, regardless of their merit. Patently absurd. If he'd done the film and it had sucked, you would have been the first to jump down his and Aronofsky's throat - contributing to the destruction of the box-office through negative reviews and hurting the chances of the 'little people' for further employment by contributing to the studio's fear of big budget films. YOU WANT THE FACTS? Here's the facts. Pitt had a script contingency in his contract as ALL major actors do. He did not like the last draft of the script and he responsibly (responsible, that is, to the one person he truly ought to spend his time worrying about - himself) bailed out of the project. As far as the 'little people'? Well, first let me state that there is no more cynical organism in the universe than a film crew. Second, every single person working on that film during prep was PAID - and paid very well - much better than most of the people posting on these boards have or ever will be paid in their lives. Those that were flown in from America with their families - they did not, you'll be shocked to hear - pay their own way. The studios flew them over and put them up and gave them per diem. Their families enjoyed a trip to Austrailia and the crewmen themselves several months of high-paid labor. The job didn't go as long as you expected??? That's your gripe? Welcome to the real world my friend. How many of you out there have permanent, guaranteed-for-life jobs? How about guaranteed for even the rest of the year?? A contract is a luxury and this crew didn't have one. Movies close down production ALL THE TIME! This is business as usual. What difference that it closes down 7 weeks out? That only means that you got to work LONGER than most crews on productions that close down. Did you go out and buy a house because you were counting on this film running its term? If you did, you're new to the film business and a moron to boot. Furthermore, it is literally nauseating to hear Pitt being critized as lacking artistic integrity for pulling out of a film he didn't believe in. I have not read the last draft of the script - have you? Even if you had and had loved it - does that mean it would turn out to be a masterpiece? Of course not. Only Pitt can make that decision for Pitt and that is at the very essence of artistic integrity. And to imply on some warped level that he is not looking out for the little people and that also somehow impinges on his artisitic integrity - well then art has indeed come to a very fucked up place when its impulses are mitigated by socialist considerations. Perhaps, assuming that this film would not have furthered Pitt's career (and we'll never know now), over the long-term picture of his career, he may now be responsible for employing MORE people because he has made wise career-choices that will allow him to make more pictures over the course of his life.
The Fountain would have been a box-office failure anyway. by Modern_Achilles	Sep 9th, 2002 12:18:07 PM
It seemed as if it was one of those films, like Fight Club or the upcoming Solaris, that half of the people definitively hate and the other half absolutely love. Movies like that rarely make a lot of mulah.
Babies by :-o	Sep 9th, 2002 12:59:49 PM
This crew member is an embarrasment to his industry. It is exactly this type of inexperienced whining (to the press no less) that gets productions shut down by producers and studios. It is unprofessional, immature and will untimately threaten the jobs of this person's peers more than it will ever threaten the future of Mr. Pitt--which I assume is the agenda with such a letter. This crew member was being paid, he will continue to be paid for 'wrapping up' the sets for use at a future date. I suggest that this writer tape his or her mouth shut for another ten years until he/she has honed their true-skills to a point where 'craft' and apprenticeship remains the only issue. Talent and who or why they leave a project is no business of the craftsman. Only a skilled PA, grip, set builder, etc...understands this. You;re not involved. Step off and shut up.
Maybe it sucked by Harry's Bitch	Sep 9th, 2002 01:01:39 PM
Did you ever stop to think that maybe Pitt walked because the movie sucked? I don't know anything about this movie so I really can't say, but still if a movie is going to bring an actor down, then that actor should walk if at all possible. I only wish the likes of Ewen McGregor and Liam Neeson had had the sense to walk away from Star Wars once they realized that it sucked so hard. Yeah it's sad that the crew is put out of work, but that's no excuse for making a pathetic movie. "Oh, we HAD to make this movie no matter how hard it sucked, because the crew didn't have any other jobs lined up" is no excuse for making bad movies. So before blaming Brad Pitt, maybe we should get all the facts straight. Maybe the movie was misrepresented to him, or maybe he's got some other good reason, like a friend is in need or whatever. I'm not saying to let Pitt off the hook, I'm only saying to get both sides of the story before condemning him. So far all I've seen is the opinion of a crew member, but I'm sure Pitt would have plenty to say about WHY he walked.
its all arnosfky's fault, he's holding me back! by Silver Shamrock	Sep 9th, 2002 01:02:59 PM
The buck has to spot with the writer/director. This was a 70 million dollar project and Arnofsky was incapable of getting his "vision" across? How is this Pitt's fault? Arnosky was out of his depth here. He set himself up so that he would have no leverage and Pitt would be running the show. What sane person would agree to that nonsense? Oh yeah and this "script contingency" nonsense is one more reason to stay away from hollywood filmmaking. Woody allen doesn't put up with that shit. Imagine if any actor pulled that on woody allen. Woody's films consistantly lose money and he still owns your weak ass!
The facts as I see them by 007-11	Sep 9th, 2002 01:12:18 PM
Here's the score folks, for all of you who say Pitt isn't at fault here listen up. Everything was in place for this thing to go forward. EVERYTHING was ready for the beginning shooting date. The whole thing tanked however, when Pitt decided to pull out of the film. The whole disentegration of this project IS all on Pitt's shoulders. Now as to why he pulled out, sources say it was because of a script redraft, after he'd read the new script maybe he decided it wasn't quite as worthwhile as all the time and beardgrowing he'd put into it and there was another project offered that he felt better about. Who knows, the fact remains that this whole project has been set into free-fall and jobs have been lost because Pitt decided to pull out. Sorry to see it happen, I was really looking forward to this film, and my heart goes out to the crew and Arnofsky. Nothing hurts more than seeing your baby destroyed because of one stupid little thing. I still suggest Jude Law as a replacement. Hopefully this will make it to the screen one day.
I'll reserve my judgement for Brad's side of the story. by Movietool	Sep 9th, 2002 01:13:27 PM
This letter looks so calculated I have no choice but to doubt it's veracity. That line about the director ENCOURAGING the crew to get vocal strikes me as very suspect - can you say "deflection?" Pitt obviously had the option to walk. Shouldn't the crew be little more upset with the studio who failed to secure him? Perhaps Pitt is the total villan here, but if the studio was truly commited, I've got to believe they would have found a way to make it happen. Curiouser and curiouser.
An Open (And Smug) Letter To The Crew From Brad. by Buzz Maverik	Sep 9th, 2002 01:22:32 PM
Dear Below The Liners, I boinked Jennifer Aniston last night. What'd you do? Your idol, Brad. P.S. This now frees me up to star as John Whiteside Parsons in Buzz Maverik's brilliant film BABALON WORKING. P.P.S. Off to boink "Rachel" again.
Brad Pitt makes decisions for a reason by don_gately	Sep 9th, 2002 01:26:47 PM
You don't know the reason, by your own admission. I've heard the stories of Ritchie Blackmore throwing a steak across a restaurant, but I never had it affect me, so I still like his music. I've never been put out of a job by Brad Pitt, so I'm still going to enjoy his movies. It's unfortunate, the displacement that you're all going through, but you'll probably get work. Brad has a finite shelf-life, and can't make decisions about investments of time based on the needs of the crew. Nor should he be expected to. Good luck to you all. Hope you get to make the movie...I'll go see it.
Between this and the Farscape cancellation, it looks like a pret by Rufus_T_Firefly	Sep 9th, 2002 01:32:20 PM
Uh... I got nothing else.
The Fountain Debacle by francois	Sep 9th, 2002 01:47:45 PM
Look at the strange coincidence of events at Warners. Pitt's 'script disapproval' is probably just a smokescreen for what's really going on -- he's decided he'd rather do 'Troy' with Wolfgang Petersen.
Movies shot in Canada almost always look like shit by Charles Grady	Sep 9th, 2002 01:54:59 PM
I second Mori's hope that Diesel and Twohy take their business the hell out of Canada and on down to Australia. Don't get me wrong, Canada is a beautiful country. BUT Canada-shot films almost invariably have that murky, wan, green tinted low-budget look, no matter how gifted the director or cinematographer. Think any Elie Samaha-produced cheesefest -- GET CARTER, HEIST, 3000 MILES TO GRACELAND, DRIVEN. All with that murky, grimy, Canada-shot look. Think AMERICAN PSYCHO trying to pass off sterile, cold Toronto as Manhattan 1987, or BONE COLLECTOR using it to sub for Chicago. The list is endless when it comes to films whose style, cinematography, and production design can't mask unconvincing Canadian locales and the murky winter weather. Now, RIDDICK may pull it off, since Vancouver would be doubling for outer space and another planet, so who cares. BUT that's gonna be one hell of a foresty-green looking planet! So unless it's something climate-appropriate like INSOMNIA, keep major American productions out of Canada, not for the usual "Hollywood craftsmen losing their jobs" complaint, but because the films suffer for it.
AICN Talkbackers: Collection of Morons by Lazarus Long	Sep 9th, 2002 01:59:43 PM
Will you people chill out? NONE of you know the whole story on this thing; it's a lot easier to blame some rich superstar than some nebulous screenplay disagreement, but that may be the case. Others have already stated before Pitt's dedication to this project already. If there's one big-name actor who doesn't appear to be drowning in his own vanity, it's Pitt. The guy has consistently chosen edgy projects, working with directors or other actors he has been inspired by. As for him not sticking up for the little guy, Pitt recently saw a traffic accident in Los Angeles and chased down the fleeing automobile at fault and convinced the guy to come back. He's not sitting by the pool snorting caviar off Aniston's tits all day. Give him a fucking break until you hear all the facts. And if we don't ever get them, don't be so presumptuous to assume what they are and pass judgement. This isn't the first geek fantasy project to go under, and it won't be the last. Pitt knew this film wasn't likely to be a big hit, and was still fully behind the film. Try questioning Aronofsky's integrity; he must have fucked up pretty bad to make such an enthused actor walk out.
First, Warner Bros. was the bad guy, then Brad, is that really f by Blue Devil	Sep 9th, 2002 02:00:53 PM
I really don't know who to blame. From what I understand, Pitt took a pay cut to be in this film, grew a beard and waited around for Warner Bros. to make up their mind. Does that really make him a bad guy? Now that Bonaventura is out at WB, is the new guy to blame? Someone who isn't such a big fan of Aronofsky? And how about Aronofsky. Did his rewrite not work? Has the script ever really worked? Maybe Pitt was hanging in there in hopes that the script would be fixed. Also, is Aronofsky to blame for trying to bring such an ambitious film to life with his relatively small credentials? Remember, Scorsese tried to make Gangs of New York 25 years ago. He's just know finishing it. I totally understand the crew's response, but I challenge AICN to really investigate and bring us the truth!
fettastic by 007-11	Sep 9th, 2002 02:15:48 PM
I'm not saying Brad Pitt is a bad bad man and that Arnofsky is totally blameless in the overall scope of things. His past films have no bearing on what happened here. I'll grant you the fact that this was a languishing production and Arnofsky was probably in over his head with such a huge production which caused him to take a lot of time to sort things out. But you can't ignore the fact that everything had been set into place and this film was good to go when Pitt bailed. He is the piece of wood that when pulled out ended this entire game of Jenga. I'm not judging Pitt for this, it's just unfortunate that things had to play out this way. Whether or not Arnofsky is a good director or whether or not this film was going to be a piece of shit doesn't have any bearing on it. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
They're making a mistake of they think Pitt will guarentee t by TheDanShadow	Sep 9th, 2002 02:19:36 PM
Oh yeah, Brad Pitt a guaranteed sure-fire box office draw: The Mexican (2001) $66 million WITH Julia Roberts in it. Neet Joe Black (1998) $44 million. WITH the Episode One trailer in front of it. Spy Game (2001) $62 million. Seven Years in Tibet (1997) 37 million. Don't don't get me wrong, I like Pitt, and some of those are good movies, but my point is he's no great box office draw. Probably because he does ballsy films like Fight Club. My point is make a good movie with a good actor and it will do well. The Matrix made a shitload of money, and was rated R, and came out in March, and Keanu Reeves was about as bankable as a leaky dam when it came out. Several bigger movies stars had already turned it down so they went with him. I love how the studios waited on Phone Booth till Colin Farrel had been seen in Hart's War and Minority Report. No one is going to go see Phone Booth because of Colin, they're going to see it because it looks like a good, fresh, interesting movie. Farrel is just a vessel, and so would the star of a movie like The Fountain be.
"Someday they'll find out that I don't know what the fuc by last-robot	Sep 9th, 2002 02:32:03 PM
Fettastic- Every artist thinks "Someday they'll find out that I don't know what the fuck I'm doing" or they're an overly confident hack who's art will never progress.
The man didn by braz	Sep 9th, 2002 02:40:50 PM
This "crew@fountains" message sucks. The man (or men) don
Films going out of country by whtalln	Sep 9th, 2002 02:48:37 PM
The thing that blows my mind that no one is talking about is how many films are being shot in other countries. This adversely effects the film industry in America. I work in the industry and get so tired of losing movies to Canada and Australia. I wish the US would offer better deals and tax breaks to studios wanting to film here. So we wouldnt lose American jobs and American money.
RE: FETTASTIC by virkku	Sep 9th, 2002 02:49:55 PM
FETTASTIC, I can understand your point about the visual style of Aranofsky. Interestingly I like his movies but Natural Born Killers was an extremely pretentious, flashy and yet visually uncreative film in my opinion. Not a bad film, just mediocre. Anyway, we are not here to talk about NBK. Here are some quotes from you: * * * "can we really believe that someone on diet pills will end up (in a few weeks? There's no real sense of time in this film) getting shock treatment, which they don't even do anymore by the way?" RE: In fact shock treatment is still pretty common. There are 52 states in USA, so I'm guessing they are using it somewhere in there just like they use it in many european countries. Shock treatment looks nasty, but is in fact a very positive experience. First of all it helps many people who can't be helped in any other way and secondly you are pumped full of morphin before they use it, so you are practically having an all time high when it happens. Secondly the time period with the diet pills was half a year. She started using them in the summer and and ended up in hospital in the winter. There were title cards for different seasons. And finally, she used AMFETAMIN, which is illegal but it is indeed used as diet pills by some people. Amfetamin can be highly addictive and it's even more dangerous to a small, weak old woman than to a young person. She was using them every day along with diapan or some other "sleeping pill". Where she ended up was very likely. * * * "The necrotic arm is possible I guess, but also seems far-fetched." RE: It's actually fairly normal. When you have wounds and you don't pay attention to hygieny, your arm can end up like that very fast. Junkies occasionally have those. * * * "There are no good characters in this film. How are we supposed to identify with these people? They're stupid amoral assholes, all of them." RE: That's how heroin abusers are. It's a drug that makes even the nicest persons to total self-centered assholes. Film was just being realistic. * * * "Jennifer being cute doesn't justify her actions. Her story arch is the most realistic I suppose, but there's no resolution, no ending, and ultimately no story to tell." RE: But it does serve a point. It rather realistically describes where drug use takes you. * * * "Druggy bitch loses connection (also VERY hard to believe that the entire city just stops selling all drugs and they have to drive to Florida to find more? COME ON!)" RE: Depends where they live. Smaller cities can have that problem. Did the film happen in N.Y? I don't remember. * * * "The story was shit because it had nothing to say and was completely unbelievable." RE: Actually it was quite believable. You seem to find things that happen in real life unbelieavable. The film had something to say: Drugs are bad for you and they are only one form of harmful addiction. It's not a deep film at all in my opinion, but it does have something to say. * * * "The quick cutting, split-screens and total uninterest in visual story telling lost me shortly after the opening credits." RE: Actually 90-95% of the running time in RFAD is fairly traditional filmmaking. Only 5-10% is more of the flashy stuff (as opposed to 100% flashiness of Natural Born Killers).
I think Brad Pitt is not to blame for this one by CoolDan989	Sep 9th, 2002 03:00:34 PM

Who cares? by Jack Burton	Sep 9th, 2002 03:19:26 PM
I work in the US. I've been laid off twice in a year and am starting a job in a week for 1/3 of what I was making last January in a completely different industry. While I am sorry that the crew of "The Fountain" are out of work at the moment, I have a hard time really giving a shit. These things happen. Get a grip you whiny bastards. Pitt probably left because the script rewrite sucked. I'd rather he walk and force them to rethink the flick then create yet another crappy "could have been" movie.
FETTASTIC and others by DelSam	Sep 9th, 2002 03:39:47 PM
requiem was based off a book- so the arm, the addiction, the schock treatment was all taken from the original story- not the directors. Also- the screenplay was written with the original author Hubert Selby.
hold yer horses there moroniarity by plainhighdrifter	Sep 9th, 2002 03:42:17 PM
pitt pulls out of the film so let's rip him the length of your lame reporting. yellow journalism geek. get your facts straight before you shred an individual at length. you're laying 100% of the blame on pretty boy pitt - wrong wrong wrong. and you stand by it - wrong wrong wrong. this production was troubled from the start. EVERYONE associated with above-the-line is to blame. not some redneck with a hot wife. charlie rose you are not.
You Want to Know Why "Fight Club" Tanked? by The Feral Kid	Sep 9th, 2002 04:08:54 PM
Because Pitt got a $20 million paycheck and he isn't a bankable actor. Ego folks, that's the name of the game. If he had of settled for a understandable amount of cash, production would have been a lot cheaper and instead of an expensive bizarre bomb of a movie, it would have been viewed as a modestly priced Sleeper possibility. Do you really think that Pitt deserves more cash over Norton? So this guy who some think is some brilliant auteur of an actor is actually a big time poser who almost walked from a role of an anarchist and system fighter. Yeah, I enjoy several of his movies but the man himself is not the fan's best friend. He doesn't do films for artistic merit, I think that much is evident.
There it is... by Cool-Hand-Mook	Sep 9th, 2002 04:27:00 PM
How cool is that? I'm honestly, and unsarcastically excited to see the crew blast him like that. Don't get me wrong, I love Brad Pitt... But now... I don't know... I hope it gets more media attention.
Whoever Wrote That Letter Is A Moron. by shapiro	Sep 9th, 2002 04:28:18 PM
Any massive financial undertaking experiences setbacks. The crew member who wrote that letter could not possibly comprehend Brad Pitt's responsibilities, let alone the pressure his career puts him under. The higher one's professional ranking, the more consequences come from his decisions. That's the nature of the business, and Pitt didn't create the rules.
what a load of horse crap by the_pissboy1	Sep 9th, 2002 04:41:48 PM
So Pitt should do a film he doesn't believe in so that a bunch of industry people will have a job for 12 weeks? Come on! What a load of socialist crap. Ayn Rand was right...a bunch of little people standing on the shoulders of giants, thinking the giants owe them a place to stand.
"Requiem and Pi are both films with no intrinsic value. Mostly I by sackley whistle	Sep 9th, 2002 04:43:06 PM
its your choice if you don't like these films, man, but come on! As a filmmaker myself, i can say with quiet conviction that you are full of shit. Pi didn't really light my fire but it is brilliantly original and very well written and directed for its budget. As for requiem, all social realism aside, from a technique point of view it was one of the most terrifying and surprising films i had seen in a long while and got me excited about the possibilities and boundaries of cinema again. Don't confuse criticism with technical understanding. @the whistle man@ (you know how to whistle don't you?)
I DON'T AGREE WITH RESENTMENT TOWARD PITT by timmer33	Sep 9th, 2002 04:49:38 PM
To put it bluntly, Pitt has a right to turn down a project. After all, it's his livelyhood in question. If he sees a movie "going south," then he has the right to get out when he can. As I understand it, Aronofsky finished a draft of the script which Pitt did not like. Why should Pitt commit to the film if he doesn't like the script? You know, at one time Michael Douglas was involved with CUTTHROAT ISLAND. He realized he was on a sinking ship (so to speak) and he got out while he could. Smartest move he ever made. I believe Brad Pitt may be doing the same thing here. Furthermore, let's look into this "open letter" a little deeper. In it, the "crew" states that Aronofsky had only 4 other replacement choices that are Pitt's calibre. GIVE ME A BREAK. Exactly when did Brad Pitt become a box office draw? Even FIGHT CLUB (which was amazing) was a box-office disappointment. Then we could talk about SEVEN YEARS IN TIBET ... or THE MEXICAN ... or DEVIL'S OWN ... He is NOT a draw. So, whose fault is this? Is it all Brad's? Or does Aronofsky share some of the blame as well? After all, it was his script change and his refusal to consider other actors that ended this production. If I were the crew members, I'd be looking toward the director to place some of the blame. Peace.
hah by b1gw0rm	Sep 9th, 2002 04:52:32 PM
what a great letter from the 'crew'...i'm sure it wasn't just one angry crew member's whiny rant? right! it's easy to sit arround bad mouthing pitt for walking off. for one thing, shouldnt these contracts be tighter. i mean how can you have all the crew there, all the sets made, and a lot of preproduction work already finished, and the actor can still bow out. seems like by that time, the actor should be firmly committed, and backing out would cause major lawsuits. that's wb's fault for not having a firm contract, or for giving pitt that option in his contract. if i were pitt, and i felt the script was lacking, and i also felt the studio was not taking my concerns to heart, me and my "caliber" would walk the fuck off. is he supposed to make a shitty film just so the crew won't have to find jobs on other shitty hollywood films. and another thing, why does this film have to be made with a star of pitt's 'caliber', of which only 4 or 5 exist? to me that shows that the film must be lacking something, obviously the studio has no faith in it's merits based only on the 'wonderful' script. most of my favorite movies don't have super-star-high-caliber-20-mil l-a-film pretty boys. i love the character actors, the ones that make you forget they exist outside of the movie you are watching. and many great movies have been made with no-names. i'm tired of all these star pics that rely on star power. if this film's script was really that great, they could use any decent actor. maybe the studio has no faith in thier marketing dept!!hah!!!
Pulling it all together by AlyFox	Sep 9th, 2002 05:19:51 PM
Wow. Lots of stuff to wade through here. I hate being the in-the-middle peacemaker, but why fight it. So far, I like LudwigVan. TB'ers on this site have RARELY IF EVER given a second thought to the crew involved in making a film, and that is a fact. I can say this because I am one of the few who HAS stood up for them. But he is right: Everytime you rally readers to boycott a film, you run the risk of reducing the amount of films that a studio makes, meaning less work for crews. So this topic is a bit too little too late. I also agree to some extent with Ludwig about the opt-out clause that every actor has, because it is true and it happens all the time. I think what he misses is that he pulled out SO LATE. I think the fault is 50 - 50: The studio shouldn't let production go very far unless the star is 100% committed, but then again, how much money and time should a studio let pass before they start builing sets? It varies from film to film, but in a nutshell, it isn't so much that Pitt dropped out, it is WHEN he dropped out and how much was at stake at the time. As far as Pitt is concerned, I do like him and think he is talented, but as far as a box-office draw, I have to say he is not very dependable. The guy IS one of the world's biggest CELEBRITIES, but it rarely translates into box office success, and whomever did that budget vs box office post proved it to a T, Ocean's 11 and Vampire aside. Anyhoo, my nutshell (no pun intended) is this: This sort of thing happens all the time, we just rarely get as inside a source as this crew member is. Take it easy, see ya at the movies.
Virrku is a great example of Aronofsky fans... by Cutter's Way	Sep 9th, 2002 05:27:27 PM
People who cannot grasp basic common knowledge are the same people easily impressed by flashy shiny things. Very much akin to a baby's fascination with car keys is the appeal of Aronofsky films to the simple-minded.
Hell Yeah I would have walked too by Whoyou	Sep 9th, 2002 05:42:28 PM
If the studio wouldn't have messed it all up with the different problems. I mean Brad Pitt is sitting at home with that long ass beard asking himself everyday "Why the hell am I not shooting this movie yet?" "Whats the god damn problem!" He can't go and do other films cuz he can't shave that beard. Except he could play a top secret agent who poses as a homeless man or he could play Ulysses S. Grant or Rutherford B Hayes maybe. He had to walk away he was being treated unfairly. He couldn't just sit on his ass anymore and wait for this thing to get started.
"I love teamsters, so lazy and surly. I wanna be just like you!" by Tall_Boy	Sep 9th, 2002 05:51:45 PM
make YEAR ONE, goddamit! The Fountain has run dry. Come back after we get the Bat.
Poor Choice by zigmondsrh	Sep 9th, 2002 06:21:38 PM
I feel no apathy toward the film crew. They should have never gotten on the plane until Pitt signed on the line. They should have never brought their family with them until Pitt signed on the line. Its a matter of business and not personal. Some members of the crew made a poor business decision. After all, it is the the film BUSINESS and Warner Bros. is in BUSINESS to make MONEY. (Even though Warner sucks in the film business.) On a side note, this is a perfect example of why film schools should require basic business courses as part of their core requirements. Also, shame on Darren for insighting this. As a director in the film BUSINESS, he should have assumed responsibility for this and publicly blame only himself. In the real world, Darren would have been fired if he was at the director level of a corporation and started this mess. (As he did here.)
I though films like MEET JOE BLACK made MONEY! by KONG33	Sep 9th, 2002 06:51:56 PM
Sure, he does Fight Club, which was R, but it shouldn't have hurt other films. MEET JOE BLACK was a romantic story with Brad Pitt, so media would have you think almost every female would be interested. I thought those movies sold huge, now that I hear it doesn't, it seems like he's had so many chances, for instance, a Julia Roberts romantic comedy...should've been much, much bigger. They could've given these roles to someone up-and-coming, there's just no reason for it not to make money, who gets paid 20 Million with that track record? I mean, Brad Pitt and Aronofsky... are those really 'names', or not? I guess it's like Marilyn Manson, where the press doesn't get off your back, but the records never sell. That being said, I have nothing against him, he can do what he wants with FOUNTAIN, WB is stupid, though.
Meet Joe Black 2 by elzupa	Sep 9th, 2002 07:19:16 PM
Pitt has always seemed like a contrary fucker to me. He does 'Snatch' for pennies, and cuts his pay for 'Fight Club', but then his agent informs 20th CF that Brad wants his full whack, so everyone else follows suit! Burl Ives Nut (good name man!) said it best. This is a business and Brad Pitt is a businessman. He's not an actor, he's not an artist, he's all about the money. There's one reason this movie got scrapped and that is Brad Pitt. It's refreshing to see the crew voicing there opinion (although I wish they'd put there names to the letter, did they?) I'm no fan of Aronofsky, (too meandering) but this would have been interesting to see. And don't think that Brad couldn't persuade Aronofsky too amend the script, this is Brad Pitt! HE WAS LOOKING FOR A WAY OUT, BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE THE COURAGE OF HIS CONVICTIONS!It was like the Oscars one year, he didn't want to go, but his agency made it clear that he should go, so he did. THAT IS BRAD PITT.
Lucky bastards by Skyfly	Sep 9th, 2002 07:21:09 PM
I think this crew should be happy that they're even in the position where they get to work on high profile studio films with major stars. So many of us would like to have a job working on B-level, with B-level stars. You've gotten enough breaks to get hired to work with Aronofsky and Brad Pitt! Be happy, you'll get another good job sooner than most of us.
Where's the Turtle? by pinatajones	Sep 9th, 2002 07:52:33 PM
Speaking of TURTLES (wasn't someone speaking of turtles at some point in there life?) i found this hilarious 3 minute short at www.quickmechanism.com check it out!
Ah, fuck it. by Noriko Takaya	Sep 9th, 2002 07:57:58 PM
Seriously, just fuck it. Aronofsky should just pack this one away for a rainy day and go make the Michael Bay-esque guns/titties/'Splosions moobie that deep down inside everyone really wants to see. What about that Batman thing he's supposedly attached to? No, I'm not being sarcastic--he needs to prove that he can bring home the box office bacon before they'll let him do the arty stuff. Hell, Spielburg had to do it. Before A.I. and Minority Report there were the Indiana Jones flicks, 1941, Hook. . .as for Pitt, hey, just go ahead on, guy--you're the one who's gotta decide what's best for your career, and if a film don't feel right, then fa cryin' out loud, don't do it. You only live once. Toppu o Nerae!
It ain't too goddamn bookoo!!! by RonJeremysYambag	Sep 9th, 2002 08:28:30 PM
How many actors have bailed on projects when the script has been rewritten? Countless.... Eddie Murphy will be having that nightmare about Pluto Nash for years...damn near killed his "career". This "crewmember" needs to get back to catering, or whatever he does, and let the actors choose their scripts. Edward Norton is desperately trying to salvage lovely Salma Hayek's career by helping her weed out all of the garbage scripts written by hacks (thousands). LISTEN UP: The CORE of every movie is the script. Script sucks = movie sucks. All other variables are irrelevant. Quit crying about Brad's smart move, and watch this movie tank when it's released with Ben Affleck (his toupee gets second billing).
Ok, now wait a minute - who is the ingrate here? by deeplyDisturbed	Sep 9th, 2002 08:29:11 PM
clearly the guy wanted to do the movie - he grew 'the beard' for, oh, I don't know, a year now? i get real tired of 'little people' spitting venom when it doesn't go their way. nobody makes a movie for the good of the assistant grip...
Just another reason for anti-American sentiments overseas... by cinemakdaddy	Sep 9th, 2002 08:49:31 PM
We're coming off as the spoiled brats of the world.
There are probably 20 bigger draws that would step in to play th by Darth Siskel III	Sep 9th, 2002 09:00:37 PM
Get Jake Lloyd.
Enron... Worldcom... The Fountain by cinemakdaddy	Sep 9th, 2002 09:06:38 PM
Another example of getting totally F'ed from the top down. I guess it's not as bad since for ethics and morals were never an issue in Hollywood/movie industry to begin with. Like in "Quiz Show", this is all entertainment, amusement, make-belive... what's the point of investigation or disclosure? But as everyone who frequents this site and/or works in ANY aspect of the entertainment industry knows that IT IS A BUSINESS. A JOB. WORK. Especially a movie. A movie production is like a hybrid company-army. Whatever... Dude, do what you gotta do, but a letter or someting to the crew would be the classy thing to do. You don't just bail without any explanation. That's shallow, selfish way to go.
Requiem for a dream... by IAmJacksUserID	Sep 9th, 2002 09:15:21 PM
I know I am posting late in the talkback, and no one will ever read this, but I have to say it anyway. No matter how much you dislike Requiem (I happen to think it one of the best films in the last five years, but thats just IMHO) you have to admit that Ellen Burstyn gave one of the best performances of the decade. She'd have an oscar right if the academy hadn't screwed her over for Julia Fuckin' Roberts.
I kinda agree with Pitt as Aquaman... by IAmJacksUserID	Sep 9th, 2002 09:38:51 PM
but Gibson as an old Superman? He'd have to wear atleast 8 in. platforms to be the right, then he would just look like an extra in Battlefield Earth...
Please, no Ayn Rand by eggplantq	Sep 9th, 2002 09:44:17 PM
Yes I agree that this was one of the whiniest postings I have ever seen and full of the same horsehit Marxist leanings one expects of people who live outside the US (or any member of the Green Party.) I also agree that those people who worked on this or any film have to realize the risks that they take. And Aronofsky must have been living in a cave to think that a deeply esoteric, highly expensive movie didn't have the odds going against it during this or any time in Hollywood. But please, no Ayn Rand references, the woman did for philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard did for religion. Standing on the shoulders of giants? OK, Brad is pretty, and can repeat his lines with a modicum of sincerity, but he's no giant in the annals of acting. If you've ever read an interview with him you know he's no intellectual giant. And for those who've seen the Playgirl pictures you know he ain't a giant in that sense either (I bet Willem Defoe just giggles like a little girl thinking about poor Brad.) Ms. Rand can only be thought of as profound by adolescents (arrested or otherwise), who have never had to try and bring any project to fruition in the real world. If it wasn't for the little people, no grand visions would ever be completed.
waaaahhhh!!! waaaahhhh!!! by tommy5tone	Sep 9th, 2002 09:44:41 PM
"damn you, brad pitt! you took food from the mouths of my starving kids! you made my wife turn tricks to support my family! i can't provide for us because of your fickle nature and capricious hollywood nature! you're greedy! you're evil!" get a fucking grip, you grip. you're a freelance operative in a well-paid industry that tends to do well even when the rest of the economy's in the shitter - the chances are pretty damn good you'll find another gig quick smart. i'm as pissed as anyone that 'the fountain' isn't getting made, but this kind of whining puts me firmly on pitt's side. the man obviously had a strong degree of commitment to the project (exhibit a: the beard), and to pull out at this stage of the game indicates that it had some serious flaws. what's pitt gonna do, go ahead with a potentially fucked-up movie just to keep you happy? the entertainment industry is a crapshoot for everyone involved - shit, it's increasingly clear that capitalism is a crapshoot for pretty much everyone involved - and there are no guarantees. you just make the best of what you can get. if you pin your hopes on a particular project without having a plan b somewhere in the back of your mind and some emergency savings in the bank, you're a knob. this ain't pitt's fault. if you want to blame anyone, blame warner bros - everyone hates them anyway. and by the way, the non-stop hatred of aronofsky and 'requiem for a dream' by some talkbackers is becoming really fucking dull (not to mention unjustified). rant over.
"None has to lose"?! by yofrankie	Sep 9th, 2002 10:07:55 PM
"Noone has to lose". Are you outta youre fucking mind? Poor Vancouver? Poor Australians. FUCK THEM!! Fuck them in the ear!. How bout American crews, the best in the fucking business, the best in the fucking world, losing THEIR jobs to these countries in the first place?! AndI don't sure as fuck don;t wanna hear about how expenxive it is to shoot here in the U.S.W. because of expensive crews. If anyone with half a brain looks at any tv show, big budget movie and sees the number of do nothing, numb nuts producers that attach themselves like parasites and add nothing except expense to a project soley because they have the power ( and nothing else) to say no and halt a production and thereby manage to extort themselves an expensive credit on a project on which they have no business. And, then there all the people that work for those parasites. Then there the huge overhead of a studio packed with beancounters without a creative bone in their body place their by the corporate watchdogs who own the studios. Thats one reason movies are so goddam expensive to make. I wont even go into star salaries. But, it sure as shit isn't the hard working men and women, skilled technicians, the "backbone", as Moriarty puts it, who are driving productions from here at home. So, when i see people crying about fucking Australians and Canadians(undercutting- lousy infrastructure- poorly-skilled- Mexicans with sweaters), pardon me if I DONT GIVE A FUCK.By the way, productions are shut down all the time. It happens. We've learned to live with it.The good hard working, dues paying IATSE technicians of this country pick up and go on to the next job. When there were next ones. Wait til you start losing jobs to a even cheaper country than yours. Then you'll have something to bitch about, "mate". Live Better. Work Union.
island of doctor moreau, anyone? by ElGuapo	Sep 9th, 2002 10:25:17 PM
maybe there's a good reason why he walked. maybe there's a financial reason. maybe there's a creative reasom. maybe there's a personal reason. whatever. he was obviously committed to the project at some point (and for quite some time, judging by that facial hair experiment). and now he is not. this sort of shit happens all the time. maybe he did us all a favor. saved us from another "doctor moreau". maybe we've lost a "somewhere in time". or maybe we've been cheated out of a "blade runner" or a "2001". get over it. the film will get made - and re-made - one day. and then you'll have more versions of it than you ever fuckin' wanted in the first place. personally, this didn't look that good on paper anyway.
"I say the next time they lay us off... by Terry Tsugura	Sep 9th, 2002 10:30:18 PM
We take a couple of sledge hammers to those fancy fuckin' cars of theirs" Words of wisdom from Keith David in a little movie called They Live, which was later ripped off by every movie in the world including the baseball bat to the cars scene in Fight Club, to say that "These losers" need to get into another business is to ask every single person who has ever worked anywhere that they can lose their job because of the antics of some prima donna whose a "big box office draw" because he's good looking, not because any of his movies ever made money, it angers me to think that anyone interested in movies could be so fucking elitist as to say that people who lose their jobs are in the wrong business, fuck you, how dare anyone sit in judgement of someone from a better postition they gained by pure luck, these people are good at what they do and enjoy it, now all their work is going to waste and people will be ina tight spot because they probably scheduled themselves to be in Australia on this movie for months, now how's about the worker bees go ahead and kidnap the queen, the queen is their slave, you hear that Brad? Watch your car.
52 states? Uh, no... by All Thumbs	Sep 9th, 2002 10:58:12 PM
Shock therapy? Yes, it still happens and is actually considered quite humane. Please, look it up. It's not done exactly the way most movies portray (scary rooms with peeling, dripping walls and a pack of crazed nuthouse cronies putting wires in your noggin'). But as far as this Pitt versus crew thing goes, I'm going to give Pitt the benefit of the doubt. It's his name on the line if the movie doesn't do well, if you really think about it. And if he was told one thing and got another, well, I would walk out, too.
Aaaawwww! Poor baaabeee! by arkansas	Sep 9th, 2002 11:17:04 PM
Oh cry me a river, you poor fucking whiny pussy crewboy. Don't you idiots have better things to do than blame an entire production and budgetary problem on one lone actor who RELUCTANTLY pulled out of the film for his own reasons? He's got his own career and integrity to think about; so sorry if that ruins your day. It ruins his day too, you know. He just lost out on half a year's paychecks and work. Try not to take his leaving the movie so damn personally; believe me, it probably has absolutely nothing to do with you. The guy's got problems of his own other than worrying about a bunch of fuckwats who make up insults to hurl at him during their lunch breaks instead of blaming the culprits who made Pitt's life so miserable, he fel he had no choice but to leave: Warner Bros. Grow the fuck up and quit trying to ruin other people's reputations due to your own immaturity and pettiness.
THE REAL REASON BRAD QUIT......... by dreamerchick	Sep 9th, 2002 11:42:50 PM
is he's been waiting for the deal and he is saving his marriage, Jennifer doesn't want him all the way across the world for six months she's sick of this already he's gonna do a film closer to home and it's his right, as far as the crews in pre-production quote "this is the second time we've built painted and packed this film in less than a year" well sounds as though you've already been paid twice for the same job and "it'll probably go again in the next twelve months" lucky for you that you can look forward to that, they'll get Eric Banna or Hugh Jackman and it'll be set. think of the new and upcoming actors that may have been auditioning many times to have a role in this film with Brad Pitt now finding out what is the biggest chance of their lives gone with no guarantee of keeping the role, depending on who comes in next.
You are not BRAD PITT by arkansas	Sep 10th, 2002 12:51:12 AM
Hey Shadowink, speak for yourself. I know a lot of people who hear the words "Brad Pitt" and they already start lining up. Some films miss (The Mexican) and some hit the jackpot (Ocean's Eleven). But he is always a good actor and interesting to watch. As for Ed Norton....he's supposedly an acting god whose fans would kiss his underwear if they could, but none of you ever show up to see any of his movies. He's yet to have a commercial hit ("Death to Smoochy", anyone?). So I wouldn't trust a big-budget movie like "The Fountain" to rest on Norton's shoulders.
An analogy of sorts... by Seth_Isurus	Sep 10th, 2002 12:56:29 AM
Say you hire a plumber to fix your dodgy toilet. Wages, time, and all the other technicalities are agreed on. Then at the last minute he doesn't show up. Strangely, a lot of you people seem to think that would be fine. 'Fuck all the people with dodgy toilets. If they're not plumbers themselves they should stop winging, or fuck off and find a new job.' This seems a little harsh.
Random Quotes on Hollywood in Canada and Oz by jbreen	Sep 10th, 2002 01:13:11 AM
Here are some quotes from various publications from various countries. This is long - I offer this lot as food for thought, I guess. The U.S. Film and Television Action Committee has posted a number of articles about offshore production. They offer a number of differing viewpoints. Quotes:
What's so great about Brad Pitt? How many legitamate hits do by Tarl_Cabot	Sep 10th, 2002 01:31:07 AM
he's just a eye candy for chicks and gay men; he's not a true star in the male/female crossover draw sense like Bruce Willis. What truly memorable movie has he done to be so indespensible? Fight Club? It made less than $50 Million domestically. He did a great job as a stoner in "True Romance" but I don't run to see his flicks based on that...Can't they get some one more interesting like Thomas Jane or Viggo Mortensen? Or Mark Walberg, Eric Banna, Ewan Mcgregor, Jude Law, Vin Diesel,Ralph Fiennes, Matt Damon,Colin Farrel, Edward Norton, John Cussack...so many actors out there to chose from. Feck Brad Pitt and his ultra trendy wardrobe and medicre box office resume!
RE: FETTASTIC * * * ABUSEDGENREFAN * * * CUTTER'S WAY by virkku	Sep 10th, 2002 04:52:26 AM
A QUOTE FROM FETTASTIC: "I'm pretty sure we no longer use electro-shock therapy anywhere in the US because it's not medically sound and would probably amount to cruel and unusual treatment which even prisoners are protected from." * * * RE: The point exactly was that it's not inhuman, but in fact very human form of therapy. It helps many people who can't be helped in any other way. Many people who have recieved "electroconvulsive therapy" as it is often called refer to it as very positive experience, because they are full of morphins at the moment. So it's in fact very enjoyable. * * * A QUOTE FROM ABUSEDGENREFAN: "virkku posted that there are 52 states in the good ol' USA in his NBK/ElectroShock Therapy talkbalk. What a fucking joke!" * * * RE: I'm not american. Can you say without checking how many countries there are in Europe? Or in EU? Or how many territories there are in my native country Finland? I thought not. My world is not USA centered, and we study way more european history and modern day Europe at school than american history and modern day USA. * * * A QUOTE FROM CUTTER'S WAY: Virrku is a great example of Aronofsky fans... People who cannot grasp basic common knowledge are the same people easily impressed by flashy shiny things." * * * RE: Actually my comments were accurate except for my mistake of thinking that there are 52 states in USA. I could ask you the same question I asked from Abusedgenrefan.
NO GREAT MYSTERY by David Aaronson	Sep 10th, 2002 09:10:46 AM
Pluto Nash drops $100 million at Warner Bros,heads roll,belts tightened,Fountain in turnaround. THE END
eggplantq by James Crackcorn	Sep 10th, 2002 11:12:43 AM
"If it wasn't for the little people, no grand visions would ever be completed." LOL! This is the biggest piece of commie horseshit I've heard in a while. Gotta remember all the great inventions and discoveries the "little people" made... um... NONE! Rand eats your lunch. Just because you can't understand her doesn't mean you have to peddle your crap opinion in public. Loser.
Filmwork as Jobs Program by Uncle Charlie	Sep 10th, 2002 12:24:07 PM
If you choose the kind of job that depends on Brad Pitt or any other Hollywood ego being in a good mood to put food on your children's plate, you have already fated your children to some nights of hunger. To whine about it like you thought you had signed up for some government-backed jobs program is pathetic.
eggplant by the_pissboy1	Sep 10th, 2002 12:28:11 PM
true Pitt's no intellectual or acting giant, but obviously to these people he is the sun, moon and stars. He pulled out and their worlds crumbled. I have to disagree about the peons being useful. All projects are completed because people with vision have a huge pool of drones to do the work. If not for the creative, industrious types the majority would sit on their asses and lament their lot. Pitt's presence gave them work, without him, they're left to grumble and wander around bitching. sorry, i don't think the workers are important in the scheme of things, as they can all be replaced or as one industrious self-made millionaire CEO at a biotech company told me during college, "I could replace all of them in one hour with illegals for half the cost." Guess what he's done since I left? Farmed out all of his bulk manufacturing and most of his R&D to the Czech Republic to another company he owns. He pays his scientists and workers 1/10th what he wasted in the US and gets more for it. He is the cog that makes their lives work, just as he was for now unemployed US workers.
So sorry you lost your jobs Australians... by SandraKay	Sep 10th, 2002 12:29:30 PM
But let me let you know a little something about why you have films there in the first place. Basically, your government is giving tax breaks that is taking the jobs away from people here in Hollywood. I've worked in the film biz 10 years in Hollywood, and have seen the steady decline in jobs happen, because of places like Australia, Canada, New Zealand. I just find it a little ironic that you feel entitled to a job in an industry you never even had until 5 years ago, and where do you think it came from? The good old US, so just think about that next time you decide to whine about not having a job.
"AndI don't sure as fuck don;t wanna hear by Tall_Boy	Sep 10th, 2002 01:26:25 PM
everybody point and laugh at Yofrankie. hehehheheeheh. freakin' retard . . .
Big actors they could use? by badboymason	Sep 10th, 2002 02:16:29 PM
At a guess: Crowe/Cruise/Cage... im struggling for a fourth, and Im sure if they really wanted to get the film made they could rewrite for an older guy and get Hanks/Gibson/Willis/Travolta/F ord interested... Plus dont studios ever learn that names DONT matter. Matrix only had reeves, at that time a has-been, Titanic, two unknowns, Spiderman, name actors but certainly not so-called guaranteed box-office draws...wise up studios...
Fourth - Clooney? by badboymason	Sep 10th, 2002 02:18:22 PM

losers by magnus00	Sep 10th, 2002 03:09:55 PM
i guess these people don't think it's their responsibility to take care of themselves and their families. it's just easier to call brad pitt a dick and whine in public. nobody should be bothered by their crap. let them all be unemployed then.
Brad - The sexy SCAPEGOAT by dEvRoNiKa	Sep 10th, 2002 03:24:40 PM
Hrm - Does anybody know WHY Brad quit? He's certainly not known for being a dick when it comes to good movies or scripts. He did Snatch for next to nothing because he wanted to do it and he loved the script. His agents hate him because he doesn't just do the big money films or the "sure things". This hardly seems "Hollywood Prima-donna" material to me. It sucks when people are laid off but that's the nature of ANY business, especially entertainment. I doubt he quit just to piss off some folks and leave families stranded, PLEASE. I fail to see what he's done that's "irresponsible"? They (actors) do have to sign contracts. If they break them, they pay. That's what the fucking things are for. ???? Had he signed a contract? Did he stomp off because his coffee was cold? I think not. It's easy for folks to pick on the big-names because working with a big name is all the small folks can credit themselves with sometimes. I can understand being disappointed, but damn - seems they'd find out WHY before just assuming he's a dick? Thing is - I've heard that this production has been riddled with problems from the get-go? I think it's less about "the little people getting burned" than it is maybe they should have had their shit together before involving a big name who probably has other things in the wings that can't wait until the problems are all ironed out. I would imagine Brad has a schedule years in advance of films he's working on. Months and months of delay and red-tape is eventually going to force him to make alternative decisions. Sounds to me like somebody fucked up and they're blaming the easy target. Indeed - They're using Brad as a scapegoat for their own fuck-ups.
Brad Pitt by robamatic	Sep 10th, 2002 03:25:44 PM
The number one rule of producing is that the star IS the money... If you don't keep your star happy & you lose him, you're a stupid producer. Blame the producers - not the star.
Brad Pitt & Outside of Hollywood Production by Hollywood Only	Sep 10th, 2002 04:05:46 PM
There is obviously more to this than Brad Pitt and his salary. Personally, I hope that Australia and Canada both go bankrupt. If we could just get the pathetic Unions in order here, we could keep production in Hollywood where it belongs. Why should we be responsible for their economy. Sydney, Vancouver, and Toronto can all kiss my butt!
again let's reserve judgement by Jack the Lad	Sep 10th, 2002 04:31:53 PM
It's a shame that this project is stalled, but there's a number of things about the way Brad Pitt is getting pushed out in front and blamed for everything that I don't like. I understand that people are out of work, but that is an occupational hazard in this business as many have already pointed out. Besides, if Pitt makes too many bombs, he will wind up in a position where he won't be able to put anybody to work, so ultimately even for crew members it made good business sense for him to pull out of a film he probably thought was headed in the wrong direction. It's Aronofsky's right to be pissed, but if he actually did encourage the crew members who may or may not have sent a letter it was a pretty lame, cowardly move IMO and I think it will come back to haunt him. Finally, I think Pitt deserves a little more credit for backing difficult subject matter. It's on record that he put his weight behind the head in the box ending in Seven when the studio wanted to change it. It's a safe bet he gave Fincher similar support on Fight Club. And after appearing in The Devil's Own, I think he knows from sad experience what happens when he signs on for one script and then gets another. So if he bailed on this movie, he may well have had good reason to do so. I think somebody's making him the fall guy. Runaway production is a very touchy subject and I suspect that the studios would like all the negative attention to be focussed somewhere else.
God you guys are a bunch of star butthole kissing jerks by TallScott	Sep 10th, 2002 06:33:37 PM
Ive never seen such contempt for the people who without them there is no movie....Sometime the asshole amount on these talkbalks reach critical mass..Now is one of those times..
Star kissing/Tall Scott by Hollywood Only	Sep 10th, 2002 06:51:35 PM
I hate to inform you genius but, I doubt anyone that is plopping down $20 on average per seat or spending $20 for the DVD is doing so for the "best boy" or the "Director" or the "Lighting crew." Yes everyone is essential but without the star, there is NO production. Who is going to tell the story? The A.D. or maybe even the makeup artist will give the movie an opening weekend that will set records. EVERYONE is important. If you need attention, take acting lessons so you can get the attention you need to justify your current occupation. Oh wait, the Cinematographer could carry all of Lawrence of Arabia. Who is this guy named Peter anyway? Shit, for that matter, isn't National Geographic and Tech TV the top rated TV outlets according to Neilsen? Surely it is not some silly actor named Anniston or Sheen.
BRAD PITT DISINFORMATION by csmith	Sep 10th, 2002 07:25:35 PM
All this speculation regarding BRAD PITT's hollywood attitude is complete disinformation at its best. The "CREW LETTER" is complete nonsense, yes some of the crew are upset, but the letter is false, and Darren didn't tell those people to write it,because its fake..Its fodder and is a cover-up. Lets not forget who MORIARTY works for., and its not Brad Pitt,..always going to movies, meeting Weinsteins, etc.. MORIARTY is nothing more than a tool that thinks their in control; when there nothing but a puppet..The BRAD PITT DISINFORMATION IS SPREADING FASTER THAN WEST NILE and no one stops to think what the truth is..THIS IS ALL PR done by the movie studios behind FOUNTAIN.. MORIARTY IS A PUPPET..WE DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH, BUT THE TRUTH IS NOT WHATS BEING WRITTEN, ITS BEING DISTORTED TO THE FULLEST TO PROTECT THOSE MOST RESPONSIBLE.....
Poor poor TallSnott by James Crackcorn	Sep 10th, 2002 11:30:19 PM
"Ive never seen such contempt for the people who without them there is no movie....Sometime the asshole amount on these talkbalks reach critical mass..Now is one of those times.." Only since you joined in, buttlick. And fuck the crew... fuck them in their asses...
I second banning Moriarity by Renata	Sep 11th, 2002 01:30:13 AM
isn't this the guy who's suppose to be writing a movie for a studio? Isn't that a conflict of interest...not that this is all that important a website, but there should be some integrity, no? Personally, I think the studio gave him the job just to get good ink on this website. Bet anything that script never gets out off the development shelf.
assfucking by sweetnothing	Sep 11th, 2002 02:18:41 AM
It amazes me that in order to find an alternative viewpoint on the machinations that lead to Brad Pitts dropping the Fountain, I find myself wading through various opinionated film johnny's raving on about ass and ear fucking. Then to add insult to injury, infantile gibberish outlining generous Aussie bashing, Canadian toasting and crew-in-general fuck you's...not to mention accusations of (heaven forbid) socialism and communism. The virtual jism flies thick and fast in this cyberspace. I personally am not a big fan of Aranofsky, having seen his 2 films and, particularly, the doco add-in on Requiems DVD, which put me off his work more than his cliched junkie tale did. What I wanna know is there anyone out there who has an intelligent, realistic and/or fresh take on what transpired between the actor, director and the studio? Contrary to the popular opinion on this subject that the Fountain Crew are a bunch of cry-babies ill-prepared for the cut-throat wam bam thank-you-mam yankee doodle dandee world of film, most of us are curious to know how and why an 11th hour pullout occurred. It's a simple, human request for the truth. Now you more cynical types may beging tearing up your keyboards in order to show me the harsh realities of ass fucking and cry-babying, but you will only prove yourselves boring as batshit and incapable of original, constructive and functional thought. I enjoy getting up in the morning and putting in a good ten hour day making stuff for artists on all levels to use in their films,especially when to all appearances, the film is a done deal and all elements are in place and intentions clearly stated (ie; the ubiquitous beard factor) I am quite reconciled to the fact that the world does not revolve around me, and that Brad Pitt/(Big)Warner Brothers is the centre of the universe. So has anyone out there got anything to say about why I don't have to go to work anymore that is anything but cunty and ethnocentric?
One reason- The "Bin Laden" by WT	Sep 11th, 2002 06:15:12 AM
Brad's image was being ruined by that beard. In the long term he made the right decision...for himself. It's sad, but that's how politics work I guess.
OZ, Canada & everywhere else (except the "U.S.W"[sic]) by mcarter	Sep 11th, 2002 06:55:49 AM
But enough about Mr Aniston really. jbreen - Kudos, Well said. All your points about shooting in LA are SO true and is your union comments. yofrankie - your jingoistic "USA, USA (U.S.W?.) chant is amusing but kinda "stoopid". I've lived in LA, worked there and have many friends in the business. When a Key grip(and yes he is a friend) is complaining about runaway production while sitting in his $2million home, I have to think LA crew's sense of entitlement is getting out of hand. Just because the industry has been in LA for 70 odd years doesn't mean things don't change. Economics not nationalism dictate where a movie shoots. Face it, LA crew's have started to price themselves out of the market. A star, director and producers get what they get paid, no matter where the movie is shot. The producer owns the property, and the stars and directors are marketable commodities to the public. No one's going to pay to see a movie with the marketing line "from the crew that brought you Forest Gump" but will go see a Hanks or Zemekis film. Fact of life, above the line are not cutting their fees and in Hollywood's ecomomic logic, their fees make "sense". When a movie starts flirting with $100 million or more, a nervous studio has no choice but to cut costs where it can and that is locations and crew. There are many excellent crews in LA but there all also shit crews. Same goes for Sydney, Vancouver, London, Toronto, Prague (the current hot spot for big budget films), where ever films are now made. The problem with LA crews is for half to 2/3 what is costs for them you can get an equally excellent crew in one of those cities or elsewhere. Add this to the fact that their locations haven't been seen for the last 20 years of every episode of the A Team, Rockford Files & Beverly Hills 90210. LA locations are now boring, having been seen and re seen in too many shows... When LA crews whine that politicians should create tax breaks like Australia and Canada, it doesn't get to the root of the fact that your unions demand WAY too much compared to crews elsewhere. Even with equivalent tax breaks, it's still horrendously expensive to shoot in LA or New York Vs. Sydney or Toronto. They also forget that the public (who elect the politicians) don't look to kindly to what are percieved as handouts to crews that make WAY more then the average working person. Collectively cut your rates, stop living like stars and maybe films won't be so quick to run to other countries. And by the way, LA filming is up 36 percent this year so the rest of the world clearly isn't "destroying" the LA production scene. Also BTW LA(one city) is still home to 80% of film and TV production so stop being so damn greedy about the other 20% the the rest of the world divides up. Charles Grady - as someone who has shot all over the world, I have to take a little exception with your "movies shot in Canada look like shit" line, having worked on more than a few projects there. Item: "Legends of the Fall" (Oscar Winner cinematography) looked AMAZING and it shot in Alberta and Vancouver. ITEM: For the first 5 years of "X Files"(the Canada years) everyone was raving about how "cinematic" the show looked and how Vancouver credibly subbed for almost all 50 states during its run. Also it is almost universally acknowledged that when the show moved to LA (and DOUBLED its per episode budget) the look became very blah and LA generic (not to mention the scripts started to suck but that can be attributed to the writer's running out of ideas after 5 solid years) Perhaps one of the major reasons that made in Canada films may look cheap to your eye is: Many of the things shot in canada are cheaper TV series, lower budget films and TV movies. Because the Australian dollor and or the Czech Krowne makes the Canadian dollar look like a powerhouse, Oz and Prague get a lot of Big budget films while Canada gets the "cheaper stuff". At first glace that gives those coutries more and better "production values" but the reality is they work on higher end shows that naturally look "better". The only $80million plus movies shot recently in Canada that I can recall is "6th Day", "X Men 1 & 2", and "13th Warrior". While "6th" sucked as a movie, it looked good (though yes it did have a lot of forest shots). "Xmen" looked great and judging from the trailer "X2" will look even better. Given equivalent size productions, I'd say Canada more than holds it's own again Australia or any other film center in the world, including LA and New York. If you've ever seen the lower budget TV stuff coming out of OZ (ever hear of a bad Sci fi show called "Time Trax" or the abominible pre Tom Cruise TV remake of "Mission Impossible"), you might not be so quick to praise Austrailian production values so universally. Canada has the advantages of being close (2 or 3 hour flight as opposed to flying to the armpit of the world 18 hours away; & I mean that in relation to is remoteness, personally I love the country), similar to the US in geography and look, same power system, same time zones, lower costs and excellent crews. Granted you wouldn't shoot a tropical thriller there but for the most part it can be almost "anywhere USA" for half the cost and all of the production value. Lest you think I'm "Canada-centric", I;m currently in Europe on a studio feature and then heading off to OZ for another. Unlike "yofrankie", I work my ass off and don't ask for ridiculous fees so I get invited to work on so called "runaway shows". Yes I've been lucky, but I'm also good and not greedy and "union-centric". Peace.
No one is responsible for your livelihood but you! by jdausten	Sep 11th, 2002 11:27:34 AM
I cannot believe that these people believe that Brad Pitt or any other human being is responsible for their livelihood. A direct quote from this pathetic loser says "Do these stars, who get paid a huge percentage of a film's budget, understand that they are responsible for the livelihood of so many others?" It is not the responsibility of others to put food on your table, or clothing on your backs or money in your wallet. If it were then that would be slavery? Is that what this loser is asking for Brad to be his slave?
What's the real story? by miss naw	Sep 11th, 2002 12:30:10 PM
Brad Pitt committed to do this movie for a reason. I am sure he also had reasons from dropping out. And if the producers really NEEDED a top 5 actor, that tells me that something in the story line is missing. Is Pitt really responsible for people working on the film or is that the job of the person that hires them (producers & directors)? There are other industries and businesses that provide better job security. I am waiting to hear the real story but I doubt it will ever be told. I am sure the blame shouldn't lay just on one person.
The writer wrote that letter half an hour after some shitty news by Trav McGee	Sep 11th, 2002 12:56:03 PM
(Assuming it's NOT lying studio spin.) I think people are missing the smaller picture for the larger issues that are more fun to dissect. Whoever's fault it was for this one particular project getting yoinked, it was a relatively long-term well-paying gig for this crew guy, promised then removed. Who wouldn't be pissed immediately after being told that? He should be stoic on the matter, and contemplate the greater isssues of a global entertainment industry, international tax law, and the pros and cons of entrenched union systems? Maybe the next morning, while working on the hangover, scanning the trades, possibly. But right after hearing the bad news? So he shot off a pissed-off rant--and noooooobody ever does that in a Talkback, do they. Type something they might not if it weren't for the heat of the moment, reread it and regret it. Nope, never happens. So don't pile on this one poor fucker who DID just lose a nice gig for reasons (whatever they may be, Pitt, Aronofsky, WB, throw a dart) beyond his control. Perhaps instead pile on Moriarty for opportunistically lending this "open letter" more weight than it deserves by publishing it without further review. Sure it's a scoop, but Mo should have replied to the guy first, give him a chance to cool his jets, and decide if that's exactly what, and all, he really wants to say on the matter. Something like this should have been treated not as an offhand Letter to the Editor, but as a Guest Editorial (Internet publishing still wonders why it lacks the respect of Print). Maybe he's dead proud of every word, maybe he's mortally embarrassed. Either way it was obviously a rant of passion, not premeditation. Heh, Rant One, reduced sentence. Wordslaughter. Now I'm just cracking myself up.
Maybe it is a...MASSIVE MARKETING IDEA! by JurassicJustin	Sep 11th, 2002 04:11:22 PM
What the subject is...
look i'm sad they're out of a job but the bottom line is by Bottacelli	Sep 11th, 2002 06:25:09 PM
if the movie sucks DON'T DO IT! Keanu Reeves is a terrible actor but he still has a career because he passed on SPEED 2 (and the MATRIX buffered any fallout from SWEET NOVEMBER). The crew should be angry at the writers for not writing a better script--should an actor really feel morally obligated to act in a terrible film because others involved (writers, director, producer) haven't done their utmost to create a good film? I think not. Again, it's unfortunate that these people have to go look for work but I don't think that's sufficient reason for a star to knowingly act in a terrible movie--to many, you're only as good as your last picture. Bottacelli
The Fountain by 01234	Sep 11th, 2002 10:58:56 PM
Dear Brad I could go on about how I feel about you, the fact that your life doesn't stop, infact it grows richer, but I actually don't particularly care about you or your life. This letter is about me. I have a relatively small role to play in the making of The Fountain - that of costume buyer / stand-by, but it was my role. I have chased this film with sheer determination and persistance because I not only wanted to work with you, but with the talented names associated with the costume department. In the three weeks I worked on The Fountain it was an amazing feeling for me to work amoungst such talented people. I enjoyed soaking up the feeling of creativeness in the workroom, the dye room, the workshop - seeing work in progress coming from the designer, artists, sculptures, machinists. Truly inspiring. Now it seems that all those talents will be laid aside as we are all laid off work. The finished and unfinished costumes stowed away, Cate's dress in a box, your jacket folded and put away. I hope that I get to work with these people again, that an opportunity to form again comes my along. Great people, great team spirit. I don't think you deserve the privilege of working with us or the other 600 that have been let down. I don't think that Australia should be your freindly host. And I doubt I'll be watching your movies. May the next lead be greatful and happy to be part of a great project. Angela Duncan Team Member
The Fountain by 01234	Sep 11th, 2002 10:58:56 PM
Dear Brad I could go on about how I feel about you, the fact that your life doesn't stop, infact it grows richer, but I actually don't particularly care about you or your life. This letter is about me. I have a relatively small role to play in the making of The Fountain - that of costume buyer / stand-by, but it was my role. I have chased this film with sheer determination and persistance because I not only wanted to work with you, but with the talented names associated with the costume department. In the three weeks I worked on The Fountain it was an amazing feeling for me to work amoungst such talented people. I enjoyed soaking up the feeling of creativeness in the workroom, the dye room, the workshop - seeing work in progress coming from the designer, artists, sculptures, machinists. Truly inspiring. Now it seems that all those talents will be laid aside as we are all laid off work. The finished and unfinished costumes stowed away, Cate's dress in a box, your jacket folded and put away. I hope that I get to work with these people again, that an opportunity to form again comes my along. Great people, great team spirit. I don't think you deserve the privilege of working with us or the other 600 that have been let down. I don't think that Australia should be your freindly host. And I doubt I'll be watching your movies. May the next lead be greatful and happy to be part of a great project. Angela Duncan Team Member
Pitt - Bullying by FilmLuv	Sep 11th, 2002 11:58:47 PM
I can understand people being upset at loosing work 'However' not one post I've read explains 'why' Pitt stepped aside. Yet there are plenty to knock him severly. To me, thats emotional with no objectivity. Until you have the 'real' reason he left, leave it open. He put projects aside for this one, spent all that time growing his beard etc., so he's out of money and time as well. So logically, there seems to be a reason, if not a good one as to why he left. Could anyone else hold the blame other then Brad? Dont hang someone just because there's a mob moving that way. Be reasonable and find the reason before you throw the noose over the branch.
Someone else for the Fountain ! by erywen	Sep 12th, 2002 01:59:13 AM
I've read the problems about the fountain movie. OK, Brad Pitt has gone. Is it really impossible to find someone else ? I know the Warner wants a star but i think a movie can be a blockbuster even if there is not a famous actor in the casting. Some movies are even greater without. It's the occasion to discover actors and actresses. Sure, producers don't think like me.
Send the word.... Brad is a dick. (Read) by Hellraiser	Sep 12th, 2002 12:39:16 PM
In Swedish Pitt is one word for Dick/Cock/Penis... Ironic?
response from an LA crew member by LA James	Sep 14th, 2002 11:46:23 PM
I'm a lighting tech in Los Angeles (IA Local 728). I heard about the "angry letter" from the Aussie crew about Brad Pitt choosing not to be in Aronofsky's latest. Do you know how many billions of production dollars (US dollars) have flowed "down-under" in the last few years. Who do you think is hurt most by that? The producers or the crews in LA? Why don't you ask the Aussie government to cover your costs? They seem so eager to put money in the pockets of American producers they should be happy to give you some welfare. Shame on you hypocrites and quit your bitchin'. I hope Mr. Pitt's decision brings a few more jobs back to the US.
Hollywood monoculture by sweetnothing	Sep 17th, 2002 01:56:34 AM
Are you fucking serious? Only Americans are allowed to make movies? Forgive my antipodean ass for thinking that the means of production and creativity is a moveable feast...so now LA James is the centre of the universe...
brad(is the ) pitts by sunshine1	Sep 17th, 2002 03:29:41 AM
i don't give a damn how many problems or set-backs there were on the set of "fountain" or how long everyone had to sit around and wait for things to get moving. mr. pitt is

Talkbacks

Brad Pitt Drains THE FOUNTAIN!! An Open & Angry Letter From The Crew!!