| 09-03-2008, 11:49 PM||
Are you retarded? I'm seriously wondering if you have some form of mental retardation. Why would we have detailed financial information for Samuel Jackson? We're not his lawyer or agent. It's easy to say, source this or post records of that, and think you've "won" some sort of argument. Let me remind you that this is a forum, not a research paper.
You obviously lack some sort of common sense if you can't look at his salaries from three movies made 7-10 years ago and make a fairly reliable estimate of how much he currently makes. Not only did I use 5 million as an example, but I went further and halved it in order to prove to you that even if he makes nearly a third of what he made on those films (which were made when he had achieved less success than he has now), then he still has more than enough necessary to make a movie with a substantial budget.
You really should look up the definition of "starred in" and correct your thinking. You don't have to be the number one actor in a film to be someone who has starred in anything. All the time you'll read "starring...", and then multiple names will follow. He wasn't even the number one actor in "Unbreakable", Bruce Willis was, and Sam Jackson still cleared 7 million dollars.
Umm... You made a statement to note why "Pulp Fiction" was an exception as if it is a reason why Sam Jackson's movie can't be made for a similar budget or be similarly successful. No one ever said that he would cast stars or whatever other bullsh*t exception you want to throw out there. So your statement is irrelevant. And if you didn't mean to insinuate that Sam Jackson couldn't make a movie similarly because of that exception, then why would you even have said it. Stop trying to act naive because you come off sounding like an idiot. Trying to change your point/argument after the fact due to semantics is evidence of your argument's weakness.
This proves the pettiness of your argument. You're really going to argue about whether I said 20 million or less than 20 million? Is there any better example of your desperation?
Then you argue about whether 40+ is the same as "nearly fifty"?
Huh? I just gave you a source with his salaries for three films made after the year 2000 and they all were higher than 7 million. In my estimate I lowered it to 5 million, and then I cut that in half and he still had 125 million. There's no need to source common sense. Get some.
Want more sources?
Here you go:
In 2004, Forbes estimates that Samuel Jackson raked in 30 million dollars.
Yup, that's right. They estimate his per film take at 8 million dollars.
Or how about this:
You're right, fuk you. I don't have to explain sh*t to your mongoloid brain. It's my opinion. If you've got a problem with it, go fuk yourself. If you enjoy living the ignorance of your existence, then so be it. Keep thinking that people are working for chump change, keep thinking that actors who have been starring in movies for multiple decades are broke and can't scrape up enough money to make a movie, keep being unwilling to give an inch when you're obviously wrong, and keep thinking that you know everything. And news flash, no one makes a movie on their own you dolt, even if they've written, directed, starred in, and produced. It still takes scores of people to bring it all together.
Got it? Good.
game over for the other guy