Really? I can think of an awful lot of actors who made their directoral debut at the helm of a multi-million dollar movies. Often, though not always, starring themselves. I'm not a conspiracy nut, but that seems like a remarkable coincidence.
Undoubtedly there are a lot of actor-directors, but I still only can think of one where it seems a clear case of the studio backing a vanity project to get him to act in their movies. (ETA: currently; I think Kevin Costner may be in that category in the past) It seems to me that there would be very few because there are very few actors where the studio can toss them a couple dozen millions in order to make a guaranteed blockbuster with them later. I don't think Clint Eastwood is being given vanity projects because he's a big box office draw, I know Mel Gibson wasn't, nor is Favreau or Tucci or Braff or whoever.
Which is not to say that those people can't get small investors, just that they're not pressuring a studio to back a project with the promise of another blockbuster later.
ETA2: Maybe Tom Hanks with That Thing You Do!
When I think of Kubrick, I think of sophisticated intellectualism (and other less flattering things); when I think of Shyamalan, I think of empty-headedness.
Well, that's the "turning out to be Spielberg" part... I associate the three because of their visual precision and control. Just on a technical level. It's not about their intelligence or depth or anything else.
they're not pressuring a studio to back a project with the promise of another blockbuster later.
Oh, wait, maybe I misunderstood what you were objecting to? Or maybe I'm just confused generally. I do remember that in exchange for doing Ghostbusters, Bill Murray got to make Razor's Edge (which he didn't direct, but he did star & co-write). Those kinds of deals don't require that someone be such a huge star that their name alone can guarantee a blockbuster. It's when X star in Y project is a potential blockbuster that you get tit-for-tat deals; in general I think that kind of arrangement is less common. So if that specific idea is what you were objecting to, sorry if I confused the issue.
I think it's much more common that the actor directs and also stars. And because they star, the movie pays for itself. Or so they hope. I could swear that much is still true for Eastwood, at least sometimes. Didn't he have to be in Million Dollar Baby to get it made? I could swear I've seen something like about one of his recent-ish movies. Anyway, I think all I'm saying is, whichever variation, it's still using your star power to get a directing job.
Movie image quiz. God, I suck. 8, but I feel so close on at least four more.
Hm, I got 18, but there's definitely a few I know I know. Y'know?
I've got 14, though I feel like I should know a few more.
I got 15. And that flick with who I *think* may be Charlotte Gainsbourg is gonna drive me nuts, because it looks really familiar.
I only got 11 and nothing else looks remotely familiar. I don't see Charlotte Gainsbourg anywhere--do you mean #1? I thought that might be Maggie Gyllenhaal.
Yeap, #2 (ETA: oops, I meant #1 -- the second picture.) I think it's the limp hair and the downcast eyes that made me think it was Gainsbourg, but on a second look, maybe not. She doesn't particularly look to me like Maggie Gyllenhaal or however you spell her name, either. I don't think it's an American film, for some reason.
