That’s outrageous! Although I was young, I recall it being a show with brilliant dialogue. At the very least, there was a lot of fast talking. Wouldn’t Willis be entitled to residuals if it was licensed? I struggle to imagine him without a sizable nest egg, but if he was cramming in those movies to afford health insurance, maybe he isn’t as well off as I’d assume.
…
Is this just a speech thing or a cognitive thing too? I was reading how, in some of these recent low budget flicks, he would repeatedly forget to give a cue to another actor before firing a gun. People were concerned about his mishandling of weapons. That sounds like a more severe situation than just an inability to talk.
We can speculate a lot but since we don’t have access to Mr. Willis’ medical information that’s all it is, speculation.
He does have hearing loss, that’s been known since his Die Hard series, but that didn’t stop his acting career. Hearing loss might impair conversation, but not the reciting of rehearsed lines which is apparently one of the problems he’s been having.
Aphasia refers just to the ability to process language, nothing else. It can occur in isolation or it can occur along with other problems. You can have more than one problem at a time.
I am sorry that he is suffering and unable to live normally.
However, I am somewhat annoyed that for years he has been accepting compensation that in any one case would support an entire family for a lifetime while being physically unable to do his job at even an amateur’s level of competence.
Why does the Willis family need multiple millions of dollars while so many people are working hard and getting paid peanuts?
It’s not a matter of “need”, it’s the fact that any movie with his name attached to it is virtually certain to be viewed by a significant number of people who might very well not view it otherwise. They were making money off of his name and screen presence, so they needed to compensate him accordingly.
I know that. It doesn’t change anything. It’s money that would have been better spent elsewhere.
Well, that’s a matter of perspective. If you are producing a movie and want to make a profit on it, any money you spend that increases revenue is “money better spent”.
I’m not criticizing the people who hired him. I’m criticizing Bruce Willis for accepting millions of dollars to do shitty work.
Why? I’d do it. Eddie Murphy said that at one point in his career he took every crappy movie they offered him(Norbit, Pluto Nash) because where he grew up, you’d have to be a massive fool to not take millions of dollars no matter the project.
It’s not like his movies hurt anyone. Kept the crew employed for another few weeks.
For $2 million, I’d show up to be in Critters 6 and I’ve not seen 1-5 and don’t care how crappy it would be.
One of the remarkable properties of modern geriatric medicine is its ability to drain your life savings, long before it ever allows you to die.
Willis may not need the money today, but someday he will.
It’s money that could have been spent making a less shitty movie with less shitty performance. It’s a lost opportunity to use the money to make something that might have more overall value to the culture and society.
Also, I understand that for many of the recent movies, Willis’s salary took up some ungodly huge percentage of the production budget and that much of the crew was making minimum wage or volunteering.
If Willis hadn’t accepted those assignments, then the budget could have gone to a project for which the budget was more reasonably distributed throughout the production, and, perhaps, produced final results that were something more than the trash bin stuff that came out of these Willis projects.
Motion picture productions take a huge amount of resources–most importantly, the time and effort of human beings. I would rather that the effort expended by humans be spent on something a little more worthwhile. Bruce Willis was essentially wasting the entire world’s time by producing garbage to make millions that could have been spent on something else.
Based on everything I’ve read recently, that’s not true at all. He does/did not possess the cognitive ability to do more than what he did. Assuming you believe any of the first-person reports from the sets, he didn’t even have the endurance to do the full day, and instead needed his parts to be cut short so he could leave at the half day mark.
If Willis hadn’t accepted those assignments, then the budget could have gone to a project for which the budget was more reasonably distributed throughout the production, and, perhaps, produced final results that were something more than the trash bin stuff that came out of these Willis projects.
I don’t believe for even a second that the producers of these kinds of films would have made Oscar-caliber films and richly paid the crew had they found out that Bruce wasn’t available. These films are a niche part of the industry made for overseas markets using any number of ‘washed up’ actors as the putative leads.
Also, even major productions have problems with pay equity. There’s an army of PAs that make the operation work that do not get paid well.
Last but not least, it’s been pointed out that an actor has to perform X number of hours of work per year to keep their SAG insurance active and in place.
“Less shitty” doesn’t mean “Oscar-caliber.” “More reasonably distributed” doesn’t mean “richly paid.” False dichotomy and strawman.
Or they’d have cast Steven Seagal and made the exact same movie.
Arguably, even Steven Seagal might do a less shitty job of acting than Bruce Willis at this point. So long as you paid his drug dealers and criminal entourage, I suppose.
Or, without a big name like “Bruce Willis” those films might not have been made at all.
Yes, and that money might have been spent on something that resulted in (even marginally) more value to society.
That is not true. Those Seagal DVD movies are even worse than the ones Bruce has made, at least most of them are. Seagal does zero ADR and in almost every Seagal movie, they can not get enough coverage footage of him to keep him edited into the whole movie. He is often (badly) replaced by body doubles for not just a couple of moments here or there, but entirely visible scenes. His voice is often replaced by (again, bad) impersonators.
This actually does happen a little bit for Bruce Willis. But nothing like the Seagal movies.
If Bruce gives each movie 5-7 days of his time, Seagal looks like he gives them 2 days and even less effort. And to my knowledge, Seagal suffers from no mental health issue other than he is a massive jerk and loser. Who also got real fat and can’t do any of the scenes he was actually skilled at at one point.
Seagal is much worse. Much.
So they’re both jerks for taking money to do a bad job. Doesn’t change my position.
Well, taking money to do a bad job to pay medical bills and support one’s family is marginally better than taking money to do a bad job because you’re a massive asshole.
So… by my reckoning Willis is the lesser of the two evils.
I’m confused at the whole “He needs the money for insurance/medical costs” arguments.
Doesn’t have have an ungodly amount of money already from doing all those big budget movies in the 90s and 2000s? I understand medicine is expensive here but he’s already rich, he can figure out a way to avoid paying $10,000 for a single hospital aspirin as the saying goes.