Last night, I was talking about movies with my friend Mark. He mentioned a new romantic comedy with Cameron Diaz, Jude Law, Jack Black and Kate Winslet. We agreed that it sounded really awful. I asked him if he’d see it for $50, knowing he’d say no.
He said he would see it for $100, but then raised it to $120. This has reminded me of similar conversations I’ve had: I know I’ve set my price for seeing a Robin Williams movie at $500. I might see an animated movie with Robin Williams for $120, but not for less.
I wouldn’t watch “The Passion of the Christ” for $1 million. I just don’t need the money that much. I wouldn’t see “Hostel,” of any of the “Saw” movies for any price. It’s not only moral grounds. I simply couldn’t take it.
I think I could see a film with Kate Hudson, but not if Owen Wilson was in it, too. That would probably take $500, minimum.
Anybody care to name their price for any movies? I’m really interested!
I dunno. I can be kind a greedy bastard, so money can be a motivator for me. Can I bring earplugs?
I think The Passion of the Christ kind of misses the whole point of the story, which is not, to me, suffering.
that is the wierdest cast i’ve ever seen. seeing at kate winslet and jack black exchanging cow eyes almost made me lose my bacon egg and cheese biscuit.
i dunno. i cannot sit through movies like saw. i did watch saw, and it was a mistake. i usually am smarter than that. therefore you could not pay me to watch saw 2, saw 3, or saw 40012. i don’t see remakes of the texas chainsaw massacre, house of 1000 corpses, or anything like it, either. not for $100 and not for $1000000.
on the other hand, for $500 you could get me to watch a film starring tom cruise, drew barrymore, or demi moore.
for a mere $1000 you could get me to sit through 2 hours of paris hilton video, with the stipulation of it not being a horror movie.
I would do 30 minutes of blues clues for $50.
The Soloist. I’d see it for $3000, not a penny less.