Film | Gus van Sant | News | Taylor Lautner

BigGayDeal.com

Taylor Lautner to Produce and Star in Gus van Sant Film Based on Article in 'The New Yorker'

Lautner

Taylor Lautner is going to be producing and starring in an indie film directed by Gus van Sant, according to the Hollywood Reporter:

Gusvansant"Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that Lautner is finalizing a deal to team with auteur director Gus Van Sant (Milk, Drugstore Cowboy) on a small-budget film based on a nonfiction article in The New Yorker magazine that Lautner has optioned. Details are still emerging about the project, but sources say an announcement is expected later this week revealing who is write the script for the Van Sant-helmed film. The aim is to shoot the film in the first quarter of next year."

I'd put money on that script being written by Dustin Lance Black.

The paper adds: "The new project would almost certainly take Lautner’s career in a new direction. He is said to be determined to work only with top directors and writers from now on as he strives to define himself as an actor."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Hello? What article is the basis for this film??

    Posted by: jtbnyc | Nov 2, 2011 10:04:11 AM


  2. "Top directors and writers."

    No surprise there...

    Posted by: Mikey | Nov 2, 2011 10:06:51 AM


  3. He's an actor?

    Posted by: jeffg166 | Nov 2, 2011 10:08:59 AM


  4. Isn't Taylor a little old for Gus Van Sant?

    Posted by: Gregoire | Nov 2, 2011 10:11:03 AM


  5. LOL

    do they want to work with him after abduction crashed

    no project or top notch directors can help the fact he can't act his way out of a paper bag

    his money would be better spent on acting classes for a year or 2

    Posted by: say what | Nov 2, 2011 10:21:38 AM


  6. This kid's gonna be a producer now? Really?

    Posted by: Jack M | Nov 2, 2011 10:29:02 AM


  7. Lautner always looks like he has to go to the bathroom. I suppose it's heartening to learn that he can read, but still...

    Posted by: jomicur | Nov 2, 2011 10:50:01 AM


  8. Abduction did better overseas, total Box Office $71,680,206.00. Not too shabby.

    Posted by: Rob West | Nov 2, 2011 10:50:34 AM


  9. rob west

    production cost 35 mill

    advertising/ promotion had to cost at least another 10 mill

    box office take is split from 1/2 to 1/3

    remember ticket sales covers distributor's cut and theater's cut

    Why people think theaters show movies for free still amazes me. People toss box office ticket sale numbers around and never figure theaters taking their part of it

    so best cas scenario the studio only had to split 1/2 the ticket sales through some sweatheart deal with both distributos and theaters

    the studio lost money

    1/2 of 72ish mill = 35.5 mill

    production cost + advertising and promotion cost more so the studio lost money even in the best case scenario

    worse case the studio had a 3 way split

    1/3 of 72ish mill is 24 mill for the studio that tossed out 35 mill to make and probably another 10 mill to promote

    Posted by: say what | Nov 2, 2011 11:04:34 AM


  10. Eh, the 'top directors and writers' part bugs me. Reputation does not necessarily equal talent. It's rules like that that keep truly talented people out of the spotlight.

    Posted by: Top to Bottom | Nov 2, 2011 11:39:48 AM


  11. a) His career HAS TO go in a different direction now that he's shown he can't open a film on his own. Abduction was more abs than abduction, unfortunately.

    b) Kid can't act.

    c) It was weird hearing about that dinner with Van Sant and Black, like they were accepting his membership into Gay with a capital G.

    d) He would have a better shot at a post Twilight career without his Dad being his manager. The dad as manager thing after you turn 18 is a bad bad idea.

    e) So many other actors his age have spent these years learning how to act. He should have been locked in a room with the ghost of Stanislavski until he can deliver a line with credibility.

    Posted by: Joe B. | Nov 2, 2011 11:45:31 AM


  12. if he wants to define himself as an actor, i'd say that acting school would be a good place to start.

    Posted by: alguien | Nov 2, 2011 12:14:36 PM


  13. So the resident anti-Taylor Lautner fanatic is now using his "insider" knowledge of Hollywood and all the legals and financials concerning a movie he's not connected to in order to prove Taylor Lautner, who's not even old enough to drink and has three global mega-hit movies behind him and two guaranteed global mega-hit movies in his immediate future and is now a producer/actor working (again) with (another) one of the most sought-after film directors alive, is actually a failure?

    You forgot to figure in sales for DVD, BD, PPV, VOD, and EST among others factors, Mr. Spielberg. "Abduction"'s life as a property isn't over, it's just begun.

    Taylor Lautner remains a worldwide celebrity and an industry success with a long career ahead of him and I have no idea why that hurts you so much, but you got a lot of years ahead to be hurt by it. Maybe you could grieve privately?

    Posted by: ohplease | Nov 2, 2011 12:34:12 PM


  14. Funny, I thought Abduction, which I saw solely because Taylor Lautner starred in it, was a little light on the abs. Way too heavy on the abduction or whatever the rest of it was about.

    The studios don't make most of their money on box office. But everyone else sure does. Remember those "production costs" are often or maybe mostly paid to companies owned wholly or in part by the movie studios. It's a way of hiding profits from taxes to pay $35 million dollars to make a movie and list it all as expenses. When a huge chunk of those expenses are going into someone's pocket and a lot of it is the movie studio's back pockets.

    I have also read that most of the money the studios make on a movie come from post theater revenue like DVD's and television / pay per view rights etc. Someone else pointed that out too.

    It's no coincidence that this trial run of Lautner as the headliner for this average to less than average movie comes just a few months before the next Twighlight. The studio is no doubt counting on his continued high profile with that film to boost the real money maker for Abduction: DVD and netflix viewing by pubescent teenage girls and dirty old men (I'll let you guess which I am).

    I read Michael J Fox say once, that Teen Wolf was the movie that made his career. Everyone in Hollywood said, "he can make money in a bad movie? We got to get him on our project." He's known for the Back to the Future franchise, but he made his money on Teen Wolf.

    I have a feeling Lautner will be known for the Twighlight franchise, but it might be said he made his money on Abduction. It opened the door to a lucrative producing career and insider connections ala Gus Van Sant that sets him up for a long career in movies after his teen hearthrob looks are gone. The kid might be smarter than anyone thinks he is.

    I hope to marry him one day.

    Posted by: Dave L | Nov 2, 2011 12:55:14 PM


  15. Fierce read, OHPLEASE... snaps for that.

    I commend Taylor for wanting to work for a Gus Van Sant, and wanting to sink his acting chops into more dramatic roles. I think he's on the right path. And, anyone who doesn't like him doesn't have to watch his movies. Win win.

    Posted by: Hollywood, CA | Nov 2, 2011 12:58:25 PM


  16. "...as he strives to define himself as an actor."

    Now that's a laugh.

    Clearly the boy can't act.

    Posted by: Michael in Toronto | Nov 2, 2011 1:11:48 PM


  17. I'd like to see more Gus Van Sant + John Cameron Mitchell.

    Posted by: Roger | Nov 2, 2011 1:24:26 PM


  18. I'd like to see him "strive" to take his pants off more and do some nude scenes, because no one is going to his movies to see him act. Just give what the audience really wants.

    Posted by: B-rod | Nov 2, 2011 2:43:57 PM


  19. can't act to save his life. he should just model, and/or get naked (and model).

    Posted by: Justin | Nov 2, 2011 5:13:32 PM


  20. He listened to my suggestion and is making a low budget gay theme indie! Van Sant made the pretty but incomprehensible "Gerry" (2002) in which Matt Damon and Casey Afleck spent two hours hiking. Lautner will probably spend two hours lounging in his underwear.

    Posted by: jaragon | Nov 2, 2011 6:23:59 PM


  21. @ oh please

    taylor is that you?

    More likely an older fatter gentleman into young flesh

    Anyway; type in abduction Flop into any search engine and go cry for your fantasy taylor to the world. The verdict is long past in. Abduction flopped. Google is your friend

    Posted by: say what | Nov 2, 2011 8:02:23 PM


  22. Is working with Gus Van Sant a boon for anyone's career or indie cred at this point? RESTLESS? LAST DAYS? FINDING FORRESTER? PSYCHO? MILK was a limp biopic only a mother (or Oscar voter) could like. The edgy iconoclast who made MALA NOCHE, DRUGSTORE COWBOY, MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO is long gone.

    Posted by: egopark | Nov 2, 2011 8:35:03 PM


  23. Taylor need to live his life anyway he desire. Lautner has enough money now to take a chance, if it work fine if not try something else. I will support his work for as long as my heart beat. So take your shirt off, pants off, anything I.ll be there waiting and loving it.

    Posted by: oberee | Nov 6, 2011 11:27:05 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «NAACP Chair Emeritus Julian Bond Speaks Out for Marriage Equality: VIDEO« «