Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Chas411

Future of Movie Stars: Who Will Shine? Who Will Fade Away?

Recommended Posts

I feel like the only person in the world who doesn't like the Deadpool trailer. Admittedly, I'm not the target audience, since I don't read comics and am not into superheroes, but it honestly looks bad and like it's trying to hard to be cool and snarky. The buzz is great though, so good for Ryan Reynolds, but ehhhhh.

As for Miles Teller, yeah, total douche.

 

You're not - I have exactly zero interest in Deadpool ...... and I do read comics (though Deadpool is not a favorite of mine).

 

I don't understand the attitude of Teller and others of his ilk - if it is such a "chore" for you do be an actor and you cannot remain civil during press junkets, perhaps you should consider another line of work.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

 

I feel like the only person in the world who doesn't like the Deadpool trailer.

 

You are not, I thought it as deeply horrible, those jokes were as stale as 10 year old bread, that is the infamous Merc with a Mouth? OY VEY.

 

 

Miles Teller is this generation's John Cusack, who I also love on-screen but who also gives off a major douche in real-life vibe.

 

I've been saying that for a while and while Cusak's douche didn't show until nearly 10 years into his fame, I still really like Miles Teller, and I've seen no evidence that people he works with legit don't like him or that he's a raging dick on set. He's young and brash but IMO he's talented as fuck so I can still enjoy him as an actor.

Edited by blixie
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I've been saying that for a while and while Cusak's douche didn't show until nearly 10 years into his fame, I still really like Miles Teller, and I've seen no evidence that people he works with legit don't like him or that he's a raging dick on set. He's young and brash but IMO he's talented as fuck so I can still enjoy him as an actor.

 

Actually, people say JK Simmons referring to him as "a slappable little bastard" was more truth than joke.

 

OMG - I didn't realize Fantastic Four was reviewing so poorly -- it's at 10% on RottenTomatoes!!  That's worse than Pixels and people haaaaaate that movie!!  Oof...

Edited by dusang

Share this post


Link to post

 

"a slappable little bastard" was more truth than joke.

 

I'm sure it was more true than joke, he's clearly obnoxious, but that's different from being a malicious or unprofessional on set, and he's worked repeatedly with the same actors (Michael B. Jordan, and Shailene Woodly). I don't like that he chose to commit to two sucky franchises and then chooses to talk shit about them in print, because look in the mirror dude, but otherwise I still think he's talented, and he doesn't aggravate me like at all.

Share this post


Link to post

Miles Teller is this generation's John Cusack, who I also love on-screen but who also gives off a major douche in real-life vibe.

       

I've been saying that for a while and while Cusak's douche didn't show until nearly 10 years into his fame,

 

 

 

 

On the "How Did this Get Made?" podcast of Con Air, Paul Scheer and Jason Mantzoukas said that they met Danny Trejo and when they talked about this movie full of tough guys like Ving Rhames, who would he not get in a fight with and he said not joking "John Cusack" because of what he's got behind his eyes. In an interview later Trejo said:

   

I love John. [Laughs] Everybody always asks me, “Who are the real tough guys?” “Ooh, it’s a ‘bad boy’ of Hollywood!” He tore up a bathroom on an airplane. [Laughs] So I look at people, I look at their eyes, you know? And I’m going to tell you right now, you look at John Cusack in the eyes, and you see there’s just something there. John Cusack’s got it. George Clooney’s got it. Uh, Matthew McConaughey, he’s got it. Not that they’re tough, [Laughs] but there’s just this little thing in their eyes that kind of tells you, “Motherfucker, I will go beat up the people who dry clean your clothes after I’m done with you,” you know what I mean? [Laughs] It has nothing to do with how tough you are. It’s just, “Am I willing to take this all the way to the end?” And those guys, they got it.
Edited by VCRTracking
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I know he's not a movie star yet but what do you think of Corey Stoll ?

He's very handsome in an unconventional way and crazy talented IMHO.

 

His IMDB credits lists four very interesting projects : the adaptations of American Pastoral and The Seagull, big budget new Matthew McConaughey Gold and (I know...) the 2016 Woody Allen movie.

 

I don't know, he's just so interesting to watch.

 

Not to mention being the main villain in Ant-Man and starring in the TV series "The Strain".

Share this post


Link to post

I feel like the only person in the world who doesn't like the Deadpool trailer. Admittedly, I'm not the target audience, since I don't read comics and am not into superheroes, but it honestly looks bad and like it's trying to hard to be cool and snarky. The buzz is great though, so good for Ryan Reynolds, but ehhhhh.

As for Miles Teller, yeah, total douche.

 

It'll be interesting to see where Teller's career goes from here.  I haven't seen enough of his work to determine if he's actually talented, but if I get a "yep, asshole" vibe off of a clip of one interview, things do not bode well. Alas, he's not the first asshole to have a thriving film career.   

 

I'm not interested in Deadpool, either.  They almost had me with using "Shoop" in the trailer, but then it spiraled downward into Pixels territory, and I knew I wasn't the target audience. But as ChelseaNH mentioned upthread, I think the role is right in his wheelhouse.  Outside of that, watching Hollywood try to make fetch happen with Reynolds has been perplexing.  

 

Someone mentioned Colin Farrell, and I'm like, "YES! Why is this man not on my screen more often?" I refuse to watch the pretentious drivel that is True Detective.           

 

I love John. [Laughs] Everybody always asks me, “Who are the real tough guys?” “Ooh, it’s a ‘bad boy’ of Hollywood!” He tore up a bathroom on an airplane. [Laughs] So I look at people, I look at their eyes, you know? And I’m going to tell you right now, you look at John Cusack in the eyes, and you see there’s just something there. John Cusack’s got it. George Clooney’s got it. Uh, Matthew McConaughey, he’s got it. Not that they’re tough, [Laughs] but there’s just this little thing in their eyes that kind of tells you, “Motherfucker, I will go beat up the people who dry clean your clothes after I’m done with you,” you know what I mean? [Laughs] It has nothing to do with how tough you are. It’s just, “Am I willing to take this all the way to the end?” And those guys, they got it.

 

I can see it with Cusack and Clooney, but McConaughey surprises me. Guess you never know!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

What I find hilarious is that what started that conversation was them asking Danny Trejo if Nicholas Cage was as crazy as he seems, and Danny Trejo was basically like "nah, he's cool."  

Share this post


Link to post

Hey, he's a man, what does it matter if he's 37? Men in Hollywood can make it at 37, 47, or, in Bryan Cranston's case, 57. If Ackles were a woman? Then, yes, his window would most likely be closed.

Unless of course that woman is Amy Adams.

As a woman, I abhor ageism against females in every single situation (workplace, dating and marriage market, etc.). But for some reason Amy Adams might irk me more. Especially when she's cast as Cavill's love interest. She doesn't look that young to me.

I'll see my way out now.

Edited by turbogirlnyc

Share this post


Link to post

I think Amy Addams is the Gen X Julianne Moore, another redhead who hasn't really been affected that much by ageism. Julianne is in her 50's and she hasn't really been sent off to play old biddy rules.

Edited by methodwriter85

Share this post


Link to post

 

but McConaughey surprises me. Guess you never know!

 

 

I could see where McConaughey would have the potential to just go batshit crazy on you.

 

Heh.  I just thought of Crispin Glover on Letterman all those years ago.

Edited by vb68

Share this post


Link to post

 

What I find hilarious is that what started that conversation was them asking Danny Trejo if Nicholas Cage was as crazy as he seems, and Danny Trejo was basically like "nah, he's cool."

 

When John Travolta was on Inside the Actor's Studio and was talking about Face/Off, he mentioned that he and co-star Cage bonded over how they liked the nicer things in life and they would talk excitedly about sometimes you want coffee in a china cup, or a fine cigar or a fancy brand of wine and then suddenly Cage said (Travolta doing a Cage impression) "John, did you ever wake up, and you just are in the mood for buying a fine piece of glass?(Travolta impersonating Cage pronouncing it "glahss")" and John laughing and shaking his head said  "No, Nick ya lost me there!"

 

1 hour and 1 minute into this video:

Edited by VCRTracking
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

As for Miles Teller, yeah, total douche.

 

So for those of you who don't follow sports, the starting QB for the NY Jets got his jaw broken after getting sucker punched by a teammate. 

Teller tweeted: "I thought I was having a bad week." I may have misjudged this kid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

So I just saw Trainwreck yesterday and I loved it. Amy Schumer and Bill Hader were both great and I'd love to see more of them.

 

However, it reminded me that I really love Brie Larson and want to see her in more as well. I've only really seen her in this and 21 Jump Street, but there's just something about her that is great to me. She just seems so genuine and natural on screen. Hoping to hear more from her soon!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

However, it reminded me that I really love Brie Larson and want to see her in more as well. I've only really seen her in this and 21 Jump Street, but there's just something about her that is great to me. She just seems so genuine and natural on screen. Hoping to hear more from her soon!

 

She was also in The Spectacular Now, as Miles Teller's ex-girlfriend. Her role is small but as always she does a great job with it.

 

I think Brie is likely done with teenaged roles. Kind of a shame, because I would have loved to have seen her tackle Alaska in Looking for Alaska.

Edited by methodwriter85
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

One of the few good things Community season 4(the one after show creator Dan Harmon was fired) was Brie Larson's appearance in one episode as the cute coat check girl Abed liked in was When Dan Harmon was hired back for season 5, he had the good sense of bringing back the character to be Abed's girlfriend that year. He didn't have to. He could have ignored everything that was done in his absence. It speaks to how good Brie Larson was in just a small role.

Share this post


Link to post

Serious Question:  Can we really say there is such a thing as "box office poison"?  I mean, people aren't not seeing the films of Ryan Reynolds or Armie Hammer because they do not like the actors in question (at least not that I think), but rather those guys just don't apparently make a lot of films worth watching to many people.  Most films produced today are pretty derivative.  That doesn't mean they can't be a lot of fun with the right talent on board but I saw about two seconds of the RIPD trailer and figured it would be a terrible, terrible movie.  Could a different actor in Ryan Reynold's part have made it work?  No one can say but judging by the commercials it just looked awful and can we really blame the movie's lack of success on him?  That's not to say that a charismatic actor can't elevate a role or carry a franchise.  I highly doubt Pirates of the Caribbean would have become what it has without Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow.  Not just any actor would have pulled that off.  But using Johnny Depp as example, despite all of his successes, his star alone is no slam dunk to open a film.  Just recently he's had to add The Lone Ranger, Dark Shadows, and Mortdecai to his imdb page.  Obviously Mr. Depp has a long resume of other successes so no one really questions his future bankability but it just goes to show that no one is immune to a string of flops.  Who really does open a movie these days no questions asked?  Meryl Streep and anything with Minions?  And what of films that would have done well regardless of the leads?  I don't think Shia LeBeouf should necessarily get the same type of credit for the Transformers films that Johnny Depp gets for Pirates.  (not saying that I've heard anyone give Shia LeBeouf that type of franchise making credit but just using it as an example).  So for me, this begs a bunch of questions:  is it that guys like Reynolds or Hammer have potential but have yet to find their own Jack Sparrows?  Have they had a chance to create their own Jack Sparrows but whiffed on the opportunity?  Or are they both so untalented that they'll only continue to field unsalvageable dreck like RIPD and The Lone Ranger?  Who can really know?

Edited by kiddo82

Share this post


Link to post

Serious Question:  Can we really say there is such a thing as "box office poison"?  I mean, people aren't not seeing the films of Ryan Reynolds or Armie Hammer because they do not like the actors in question (at least not that I think), but rather those guys just don't apparently make a lot of films worth watching to many people.

 

I've never really thought of box office poison as an active thing, if that makes sense. It's just the opposite of "I enjoy this actor and will even see a shitty shitty film if they're in it." For someone like Reynolds, as an example, I don't think he has enough personal fans to overcome being in a terrible movie. It's not so much that he sinks the film, he just can't salvage it.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure about box office poison but I'm sure a lot of people will avoid movies starring certain actors if they can help it. I try to avoid any movie with Bradley Cooper, but unfortunately for me he works with people I love to watch. I'll never watch American Sniper, but I'm fine watching him in smaller roles, like American Hustle,* because I was interested in watching pretty much every other member of that cast. Bale, Adams, Lawrence, Renner, and Deniro in one movie? Off course I had to see that. 

 

*Although to be fair I thought Cooper did a good job in that movie, even if he was way down on the list of things I enjoyed about it. His Oscar nomination for that movie did baffle me a little though.

Share this post


Link to post

So for me, this begs a bunch of questions: is it that guys like Reynolds or Hammer have potential but have yet to find their own Jack Sparrows? Have they had a chance to create their own Jack Sparrows but whiffed on the opportunity? Or are they both so untalented that they'll only continue to field unsalvageable dreck like RIPD and The Lone Ranger? Who can really know?

I don't think either of them are untalented, per se, or that anyone thinks their failed movies are their own fault - no one is blaming Lone Ranger on Armie Hammer. In many ways, Armie seems to keep getting solid supporting roles in movies that, on paper, should be box office gold - co-starring with Johnny Depp or Julia Roberts - but the movies themselves are terrible, quite beyond the fault of a single player (actually, Mirror Mirror was delightful and I don't know why it didn't do better). Ryan, on the other hand, has great success in rom coms- The Proposal, Definitely Maybe - but seems incapable of picking a good script in the action genre. Again, many of his bombs have been less about him and more about everything around him. In fact, "box office poison" has far less to do with talent or track record and more to do with public perception of the actor off screen. Mel Gibson is box office poison.

Edited by dusang
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I've never really thought of box office poison as an active thing, if that makes sense. It's just the opposite of "I enjoy this actor and will even see a shitty shitty film if they're in it." For someone like Reynolds, as an example, I don't think he has enough personal fans to overcome being in a terrible movie. It's not so much that he sinks the film, he just can't salvage it.

There are other cases where having that much attention can work against you when you make a flop. Like with Serena starring Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper. Don't tell me these two don't have enough fans, especially together, to ride a flop. And all the hard core fans of the 2 have probably sought out and watched Serena already. And even most of them knew that the two were in a crappy movie. But no one wanted to draw attention to the film that just naturally having the two most famous stars would gain.

Share this post


Link to post
In fact, "box office poison" has far less to do with talent or track record and more to do with public perception of the actor off screen. Mel Gibson is box office poison.

 

I agree 100%.  For the record, I don't have any vested interest in the success or lack there of of the careers of Ryan Reynolds of Armie Hammer.  It's just that "box office poison" seems to be a term du juor and I think it's both overused and misused by fans and the media. 

Share this post


Link to post

It was a term first phrased in the 30's by a theatre exhibitor who arguably claimed certain HW stars box office grosses didn't warrant their star status, including Joan Crawford, Katharine Hepburn, etc.

Nowadays, I don't think it applies to anyone, just as box office star doesn't really apply to any either. There are no "stars" that anyone will flock to their movies regardless or avoid their movies either.

Edited by caracas1914

Share this post


Link to post

Even back then, it's not like the big Hollywood stars never had flops. It always depends on the movie, to some extent. Now I think the term star should be used to denote someone who's at least a household name, rather than a box office draw, since no one puts asses in the seats all the time.

Share this post


Link to post

 

It was a term first phrased in the 30's by a theatre exhibitor who arguably claimed certain HW stars box office grosses didn't warrant their star status, including Joan Crawford, Katharine Hepburn, etc.

 

 

I always associate the term with Joan Crawford because of Mommie Dearest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't really think actors can be 'box office poison'. Because a single actor doesn't make or break a movie, it takes so many different things, from writing to directing to marketing. Taylor Kitsch was written off as a bust because of John Carter and Battleship, but John Carter was a decent action movie that was marketed horribly and doomed to fail, and Battleship was a terrible project that he probably signed on to do because of his working relationship with Peter Berg on FNL.

 

Ryan Reynolds was doing okay until Green Lantern, but I don't care who you put in that movie, it would have stunk and people would have avoided it. It seems like he's picked one or two other projects that have turned out to be bad movies, but they weren't bad because of him, and I don't think people avoided them because of him.

 

Sure, there are plenty of actors who will cause me to actively avoid seeing a movie, but I've never believed that my view of them is the overriding one (I still can't understand Mark Wahlberg's success). But it seems more likely to me that anyone being branded box office poison, or anything like that, will be because people involved higher up in the industry don't want to cop to their own mistakes in allowing shitty scripts and shitty directors to make shitty movies. Easier to blame an actor who's been in some other shitty movies (overlooking the fact that they will have approved the casting of said actor).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Serious Question:  Can we really say there is such a thing as "box office poison"?  I mean, people aren't not seeing the films of Ryan Reynolds or Armie Hammer because they do not like the actors in question (at least not that I think), but rather those guys just don't apparently make a lot of films worth watching to many people.  Most films produced today are pretty derivative.  That doesn't mean they can't be a lot of fun with the right talent on board but I saw about two seconds of the RIPD trailer and figured it would be a terrible, terrible movie.  Could a different actor in Ryan Reynold's part have made it work?  No one can say but judging by the commercials it just looked awful and can we really blame the movie's lack of success on him?  That's not to say that a charismatic actor can't elevate a role or carry a franchise.  I highly doubt Pirates of the Caribbean would have become what it has without Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow.  Not just any actor would have pulled that off.  But using Johnny Depp as example, despite all of his successes, his star alone is no slam dunk to open a film.  Just recently he's had to add The Lone Ranger, Dark Shadows, and Mortdecai to his imdb page.  Obviously Mr. Depp has a long resume of other successes so no one really questions his future bankability but it just goes to show that no one is immune to a string of flops.  Who really does open a movie these days no questions asked?  Meryl Streep and anything with Minions?  And what of films that would have done well regardless of the leads?  I don't think Shia LeBeouf should necessarily get the same type of credit for the Transformers films that Johnny Depp gets for Pirates.  (not saying that I've heard anyone give Shia LeBeouf that type of franchise making credit but just using it as an example).  So for me, this begs a bunch of questions:  is it that guys like Reynolds or Hammer have potential but have yet to find their own Jack Sparrows?  Have they had a chance to create their own Jack Sparrows but whiffed on the opportunity?  Or are they both so untalented that they'll only continue to field unsalvageable dreck like RIPD and The Lone Ranger?  Who can really know?

This is more related to Ryan Reynolds and Armie Hammer than being box office poison, but I honestly think the case with Ryan Reynolds is that he's got a leading man's face with a character/supporting actors talent.  And that isn't a bad thing, but it does speak to why he can't really break out of that romantic comedy box.  I've always thought Jude Law has the same issue - and that's fine, some people just don't have the right charisma to be leading men.  Some actors are just quicker to figure that out than others.

 

Armie Hammer, to me, is just a block of charisma-less wood, so I can't speak objectively about him.  He falls in that category of Sam Worthington and (perhaps an UO) Henry Cavill to me - good looking guys, but cannot hold my attention on-screen.  How Sam Worthington starred in two major film franchises, I will never know.

 

Since he was brought up briefly in your post, I will say that I wish Shia LeBeouf wasn't a total trainwreck in real life, because there is something oddly charismatic about him, and I think there's real talent in there.  He's not box office poison, but he has (unfortunately) gotten himself to a place where people are very hesitant to work with him, and understandably so.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Serious Question:  Can we really say there is such a thing as "box office poison"?  I mean, people aren't not seeing the films of Ryan Reynolds or Armie Hammer because they do not like the actors in question (at least not that I think), but rather those guys just don't apparently make a lot of films worth watching to many people.  Most films produced today are pretty derivative.  That doesn't mean they can't be a lot of fun with the right talent on board but I saw about two seconds of the RIPD trailer and figured it would be a terrible, terrible movie.  Could a different actor in Ryan Reynold's part have made it work?  No one can say but judging by the commercials it just looked awful and can we really blame the movie's lack of success on him?  

I think you are right. Considering that most big movies are now some kind of pre-existing property that already has a fan base, and that is what draws people to the theatres, I think the idea of box office poison doesn't really work. That being said I think a bad script writer can be box office poison.  I also don't really think there is such a thing as a big box office draw. There is only a small handful of actors these days who are bullet proof and can guarantee a big opening for a movie (especially one that isn't part of some kind of franchise). 

Share this post


Link to post

Regarding Jude Law - has he ever pursued leading man status? Outside of Sherlock Holmes, I can't think of any blockbuster films he's done to put him on the map.  To me, he had a similar (albeit less severe) problem as Colin Farrell in that his personal life overshadowed the professional at an integral point in his career.  But he's always struck me as a character actor anyway. Plus, in my view, most leading men aren't character actors.       

 

There is only a small handful of actors these days who are bullet proof and can guarantee a big opening for a movie (especially one that isn't part of some kind of franchise). 

 

I can't think of any - who are you thinking of?

Share this post


Link to post

Regarding Jude Law - has he ever pursued leading man status? Outside of Sherlock Holmes, I can't think of any blockbuster films he's done to put him on the map.  To me, he had a similar (albeit less severe) problem as Colin Farrell in that his personal life overshadowed the professional at an integral point in his career.  But he's always struck me as a character actor anyway. Plus, in my view, most leading men aren't character actors.

There was that one year where movie studios were REALLY trying to make Jude Law happen; I want to say around 2004.  He was the lead for a couple of movies that just bombed (Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, and Alfie are the two that are popping into mind, but I think there are others), which led to Chris Rock snarking on him at the Oscars ("If you want Tom Cruise, and all you can get is Jude Law?  Wait!"), and Sean Penn got hilariously offended by that.  And then, as you mention, his affair with Sienna Miller came out, and then he didn't do a whole lot of big movies until Sherlock Holmes.  

 

There is only a small handful of actors these days who are bullet proof and can guarantee a big opening for a movie (especially one that isn't part of some kind of franchise).

I can't think of any - who are you thinking of?

 

Off the top of my head, Leonardo DiCaprio fits into this category for me.

Edited by Princess Sparkle
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think Chris Pratt is big in his domestic market, whereas Leonardo is an international star and I'd rank him as being a much bigger draw. It all depends on how you would define a movie's success. But I'm not sure Chris could carry a movie to the level I would consider a top actor should.

Share this post


Link to post

I think Chris Pratt is probably in that category right now, though that may fade.

 

I think Pratt has been very lucky to get cast in some 'can't miss' movies. The LEGO Movie was always going to be a hit, because it's genuinely funny, and LEGO has been a true zeitgeist product for several years now. Guardians could have been a bust, but the movie is genuinely fun and enjoyable, even outside of Pratt's admittedly great performance. And Jurassic World was going to make buckets of money no matter what.

 

He's an affable, enjoyable presence on screen, but I don't see him as someone who can open movies based on his name alone.

 

Hell, I don't really think DiCaprio can either. He makes his movies with big, talented names, and all those involved will contribute to the allure of the film. Scorsese and Tarantino and Nolan directing, co-stars like Matthew McConaughey and Matt Damon and Mark Wahlberg. He gets a lot of help too, even if he is the headliner. It's kind of a strange thing, to say someone can guarantee a big opening by themselves, because there's no way to prove it, other than putting the guy in a no-budget, no-talent, no-name little picture, and throwing it out there to see if it makes big money.

Share this post


Link to post

The term "black office poison" developed in a time when studios relied more heavily on their stars to make the money and bring in the crowds. Nowadays, I feel most people see franchise movies or adaptations because of their premises, familiarity with the work, etc. rather than just for the stars. Franchises make actors not and it's usually not the other way around.

 

I do think there are A-list actors and celebrities who have followings, but movies now rely less on their name for audiences to go see the movies. I think people expect more ensemble movies now as well. In the past, two actors were enough for the title billing, but now a franchise usually has 3-4 leads and lots of supporting actors.

Share this post


Link to post

I can't think of any - who are you thinking of?

With the release of Mission Impossible 5 several reviewers referred to Tom Cruise as the last "movie star". He's been working steadily for decades but has a relatively short resume with a very good ratio of hits to misses. He's sort of the last man standing of the megastars of the 80s and 90s. The rest have moved on to the Expendables.

Share this post


Link to post

I can see that, although I wonder if the fact that Mission Impossible is a 20 year-old film franchise has equal bearing. I didn't think his other recent films have done that well (i.e, Jack Reacher, Oblivion, Edge of Tomorrow).  

Share this post


Link to post

 

With the release of Mission Impossible 5 several reviewers referred to Tom Cruise as the last "movie star".

 

I've seen the same thing said about Denzel.  I think his movies are remarkably consistent. 

 

 

He was the lead for a couple of movies that just bombed (Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, and Alfie are the two that are popping into mind, but I think there are others)

 

Cold Mountain is the one I think of, but that's probably because it's the only one I saw.

Share this post


Link to post

I can see that, although I wonder if the fact that Mission Impossible is a 20 year-old film franchise has equal bearing. I didn't think his other recent films have done that well (i.e, Jack Reacher, Oblivion, Edge of Tomorrow).  

 

He's had some smaller releases recently but most of them exceeded $100M in the US and did reasonably overseas.  He's not pulling Marvel or Furious money but for a single-lead, non-franchise film $100M is solid.

 

I've seen the same thing said about Denzel.  I think his movies are remarkably consistent. 

 

I was thinking that too, although I wasn't sure if my judgement is biased by listening to the Denzel Washington is the Greatest Actor of All Time Period podcast.  Although Denzel seems so much more... serious than Tom Cruise?  I mean, that's probably unfair because TC has done some serious films but... I don't know, DW just has gravitas.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

I was thinking that too, although I wasn't sure if my judgement is biased by listening to the Denzel Washington is the Greatest Actor of All Time Period podcast.  Although Denzel seems so much more... serious than Tom Cruise?  I mean, that's probably unfair because TC has done some serious films but... I don't know, DW just has gravitas.

 

It certainly helps that Denzel dares to look and act his age. I long for the day when Tom Cruise is finally called to play the father of, say, Jennifer Lawrence or Ryan Gosling, but I know it's but a futile wish...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It certainly helps that Denzel dares to look and act his age. I long for the day when Tom Cruise is finally called to play the father of, say, Jennifer Lawrence or Ryan Gosling, but I know it's but a futile wish...

 

I take your point in the larger sense but challenge the contention that Denzel Washington looks like he's 60 years old.  Also, TC has played the father of teenagers and he's only 52 -- he'd be a teen dad to Ryan Gosling (35).  And TC and DW are pretty much equally guilty of age-inappropriate screen romances:

 

http://www.vulture.com/2013/04/leading-men-age-but-their-love-interests-dont.html

Edited by dusang

Share this post


Link to post

Off the top of my head, Leonardo DiCaprio fits into this category for me.

Yeah, I'm not sure any actor could be called "bulletproof" these days, but Leo is the closest right now I think. I was just double-checking his box-office numbers and I'd never realized that The Wolf of Wall Street made almost $400 million worldwide - that's seems nuts for an divisive, R-rated Scorcese comedy. And The Great Gatsby did $350 million, which I really can't imagine happening with anyone else in the lead. The fact that he's only had one movie in the last six years make less that $100 million domestic despite having never done a franchise is really impressive too.

Hell, I don't really think DiCaprio can either. He makes his movies with big, talented names, and all those involved will contribute to the allure of the film. Scorsese and Tarantino and Nolan directing, co-stars like Matthew McConaughey and Matt Damon and Mark Wahlberg. He gets a lot of help too, even if he is the headliner. 

 

That's a fair point, but it's worth pointing out that aside from the Nolan Batman movies, all three of the directors you mentioned have had their biggest box-office successes with DiCaprio. Django is Tarantino's biggest, Inception is Nolan's biggest original film, and five of Scorcese's six highest grossers are his collaborations with Leo. You're right that he's not doing it entirely on his own, but it's hard to deny that the guy can put butts in the seats.

 

 

On another note, while she hasn't really been headlining long, I'd throw Melissa McCarthy out there, in the US at least (I don't know about her international numbers). Both Tammy and Identity Thief got ripped to shreds by the critics but had great box office numbers being sold pretty much on her name alone.

 

I think Chris Pratt is probably in that category right now, though that may fade.

I really like Chris Pratt but I do think people might be getting a little ahead of themselves when it comes to his starpower. He's only headlined two live-action movies so far, and one was a Marvel production, a company that seems to have the Midas touch these days, while the other was a sequel to one of the most beloved blockbusters of all time and released at a time when 90s nostalgia is huge. I'm curious to see how he'd do with a non-franchise film.

Edited by AshleyN
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

I really like Chris Pratt but I do think people might be getting a little ahead of themselves when it comes to his starpower. He's only headlined two live-action movies so far, and one was a Marvel production, a company that seems to have the Midas touch these days, while the other was a sequel to one of the most beloved blockbusters of all time that was released at a time when 90s nostalgia is huge. I'm curious to see how he'd do with a non-franchise film.

 

His next film is an SF film called Passengers, where he stars with Jennifer Lawrence, Michael Sheen and Laurence Fishburn.  After that is a remake of The Magnificent Seven.

Share this post


Link to post

Chris Pratt might wind up as the next Channing Tatum, who had a great 2012, but things got a little rocky after that. The Jump Street franchise is pretty much the only thing keeping him afloat.

 

Jude Law DEFINITELY pursued leading man status, and he burned out pretty badly. I'm glad he's alright though- his bit part in Spy reminded me of how much I like him and how handsome he can be.

Edited by methodwriter85

Share this post


Link to post
The Jump Street franchise is pretty much the only thing keeping him afloat.

 

I think Foxcatcher gave Tatum a ton of credibility with the industry, and the Magic Mike movies have given him plenty of juice at the box office.  I don't think he's in any danger of fading soon.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Chris Pratt might wind up as the next Channing Tatum, who had a great 2012, but things got a little rocky after that. The Jump Street franchise is pretty much the only thing keeping him afloat.

With both Tarantino's 'The Hateful Eight' and the Coen brothers' 'Hail, Caesar!' (With Clooney, Swinton, and Fiennes) coming up, Mr. Tatum's not exactly treading water.

Edited by WhyIsTheRumGone
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size