DVDizzy Forum

http://www.msnbc.com/news/984669.asp?0cv=CB20

All I can say is ... WHEW
Although it does concern me that Disney signed a deal that requires them to pay Affleck regardless...I can't see any other studio wanting to take this mess off of their hands.

----------

Studio pulls plug on Affleck movie
Actor’s tarnished image reportedly scared off Disney

LOS ANGELES, Oct. 24 — Four weeks from starting production on its Ben Affleck wedding comedy “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past,” the Walt Disney Co. has had a case of matrimonial jitters.The studio pulled the plug on the project late Monday.

“GHOSTS” WAS TO star Affleck as a bachelor who goes to his younger brother’s wedding, where he is visited by the ghosts of his past girlfriends. In August, Betty Thomas (”I Spy”) came on board to direct the film, and several high-profile castings were close to being finalized.

Disney declined comment on the decision. But it is believed that in addition to the film’s expected high cost, another contributing factor was Affleck’s tarnished image. The star has taken a beating in the tabloids and at the box office with the failure of his most recent film, “Gigli.” He returns to theaters on Christmas Day with the John Woo actioner ”Paycheck.”

Because Disney signed a pay-or-play deal with Affleck — meaning that he gets paid even if the movie is not made — it has reason to hope that one of its competitors will step in to take the project off its hands.

Representatives from Affleck’s LivePlanet production company, which is producing the film along with Jon Shestack, could not be reached for comment.

He's a terrible leading man - the only movies of his I can enjoy are those where he's a supporting character.

I agree with you Luke. I really liked his role in Armageddon (sp?) other than that I can't think of anything else.

Luke wrote:He's a terrible leading man - the only movies of his I can enjoy are those where he's a supporting character.

I have to disagree. In Chasing Amy (Miramax) he was a great and honest leading man. His supporting roles have been good though.

The worst thing about this is that Kevin Smith's Jersey Girl (also Miramax) may suffer publicity-wise because of the J-Lo-Affleck connection, although all reports indicate it will be a terrific film.

I just find it a shame that such things, in a supposedly "creative" industry, can happen. I know essentially it is a business, but you'd like to think that actors are chosen for more than their 'bankability'.

BriarRose32 wrote:I agree with you Luke. I really liked his role in Armageddon (sp?) other than that I can't think of anything else.

I think he rocked in Mallrats (a minor role)...... but like Loomis said...

Loomis wrote:I have to disagree. In Chasing Amy (Miramax) he was a great and honest leading man. His supporting roles have been good though.

He really was awsome in Chasing Amy.... i personally think it was his best ever... even though it was Jason Lee who stole the show in that flick....

i dont like Ben Afleck at all. i alos dont like having to hear all this news about J-Lo and Ben.

Uncle Remus wrote:i dont like Ben Afleck at all. i alos dont like having to hear all this news about J-Lo and Ben

yeah... it's seriously getting boring already!!

Agree with Chasing Amy and Mallrats and he was a good suppoorting actor in Good Will Hunting, Dogma and Dazed and Confused also. Plus he killed his role in Boiler Room. I just got the dvd last week.

Luke wrote:He's a terrible leading man - the only movies of his I can enjoy are those where he's a supporting character.

For the most part I agree. Sure he's had at least one solid performance (Chasing Amy), but all-in-all it just doesn't seem to work too well for him. He was just too cheesy in Pearl Harbor.

I have a problem with Ben Affleck: I can't believe in any of his characters. I always see Ben Affleck as... and that, to me, doesn't make a good actor.

Ben isn't a bad actor. He's won an Oscar for his role in Shakespeare in Love (not that he deserved it).

His problem is, mainly, his choice of movies. He can do well. He was good in Good Will Hunting and Chasing Amy. He was even reasonable in Daredevil (I wasn't expecting him to be). And don't forget "Affleck was da bomb in Phantoms"

So he's always Ben Affleck. Eastwood is always Eastwood. Arnie is always Arnie. Technically he may not be a character actor - but I think he could be if he had a chance - but he's what Hollywood wants these days.

Look at Depp in Pirates - the Hollywood Execs wanted him to tone his performance down. In other words they wanted his acting to be blander. Perhaps Ben has the same demands made, and simply does what is asked.

I think when Ben's ten years older, we will see some better and more character driven acting from him.

2099net wrote:Ben isn't a bad actor. He's won an Oscar for his role in Shakespeare in Love (not that he deserved it).

Actually he wasn't even nominated for that. His "Oscar winner" label is strictly as co-writer of "Good Will Hunting."