Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Dear Movie Watchers, Here...watch this sh*t. ~ thx Hollywood

Jangler

By Jangler,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

Jangler Newbie

Jangler

Posted
Posted

http://www.cinematical.com/2010/03/30/move-over-geico-cavemen-here-comes-the-e-trade-baby-movie/

Apparently Hollywood didn't learn that taking funny TV commercial gimmicks and trying to turn them into something bigger (like an actual TV show) really doesn't work. Part of this has to do with the fact that it's a blatant gimmick constructed solely to grab your attention for roughly 30-or-so seconds -- but whatever, you'd rather ignore original ideas and tackle the stuff that really entertains the family during Dancing with the Stars commercial breaks. I get it. Yes, if Pajiba's sources are correct, a movie based on those E*Trade talking baby commercials is actually being planned.

Not exactly a huge stretch, since there was a time when the Look Who's Talking movies were a big hit, and those Baby Geniuses movies did decent business -- and even without the E*Trade commercials, cute, quirky babies were beginning to infiltrate pop culture in some pretty strange ways (Babies, anyone), so I could've seen something like this happening eventually. Pajiba claims 20th Century Fox are behind the project, which will follow a group of talking babies as they make their way across a playground. So, you could pay twenty bucks to see this sucker in 3D in IMAX theaters, or you can simply head over to the local day care right after lunch and watch real babies walk (and crawl) across the playground with somewhat humorous results.

No word on whether the same kids from the commercials will star, or if they'll shoot the entire thing from the point of view of a computer monitor camera, but I will say this: If they can turn some of the humor found in characters like Stewie from The Family Guy into a live-action baby adventure, this could work. Knowing Hollywood, though, they'll completely screw it up ... and then blame you for their mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...