Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Interesting. Re: Abominable Bride. I wonder if it isn’t included based on it being an episode of the Sherlock TV series which was then released to theaters? That’s more a pondering than asking anyone here for the answer, based on our industry knowledge at least. However, respect due, Tank might have info there.

The below is an afterthought to my prior post. Fozzie and Met already replied so I chose not to edit this into it as I was in the process of doing.

In regards to whether an actor is a draw, or a superstar, and thus in hopes to further display why I was reinterested in this thread, rather than what I infer is me picking on someone, I’ll offer this: I am hesitant to opine whether someone is a movie superstar without considering their leading role’s box office take. I would also be hesitant to compare parts of an actor’s career in relation to another’s career if both comparisons are not equal. People’s careers vary, and the idea of pondering overall success as a superstar and then limiting the data to exclude the greatest successes is at best awkward to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Whoever gets sent back to the 90s would have to be a teenager again because anyone else would be desperate to stay rather than return to this hell. Shit even some teenagers might prefer it honestly.

Batman I have a feeling a lot of man franchises will get listed here. LOL I’ll also add in my namesake. These have, for me at least, gone everywhere they can go. I have so much burnout

Hate to say it...but maybe Star Wars needs to be put out to pasture. Everything has been lackluster for years now. All the Disney stuff has moments of good stuff but by in large feels like a Disn

Posted Images

 

24 minutes ago, Spider-Man said:

Interesting. Re: Abominable Bride. I wonder if it isn’t included based on it being an episode of the Sherlock TV series which was then released to theaters? That’s more a pondering than asking anyone here for the answer, based on our industry knowledge at least. However, respect due, Tank might have info there.

 

It doesn't make sense to me that it's included in his overall box office and not included in the lead role box office, but it's a decision that the people who made that site made. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it is totally awkward. So much so there is a part of my weirdo brain that is just running it around and around because I can’t compute why they did it. lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Darth Krawlie said:

I hope it's the last one too. The spoilers I've read on it (if accurate, of course), seem pretty batshit, so I'm just going along for the ride. Can easily dismiss it as non-existent if it's bad. I'm not really sure how they can spin off from either this or previous films, though. I know Ke Huy Quan just came back to acting, but who would pay to see a grown up Short Round movie?

Indy’s magic came from the trifecta of Spielberg, Lucas & Ford. I really don’t get the appeal of a fifth one with an 80 year old action hero when 2/3 aren’t even involved in it. So even if it does end up being good, it’s not really Indy. As bad as the 4th one is, at least it had that. 

I think it’ll make some coin but not enough to constitute anymore or any spin offs. Judging by the reactions to it I think LF misread the want for this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's insane to think that's the only possible way another one can be good. I'm not saying Indy 5 is definitely going to be good, it might be garbage. But acting as if it's not possible makes no sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not saying that’s the only way it can be good, I think it’ll at least be decent with Marigold behind it. But what made the whole thing special is up until the 4th one at least, it felt like a passion project between a bunch of friends. Without two of the biggest players in the mix it just feels like a generic cash grab. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Movies are made to make money. Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford wouldn't have made Raiders, TOD, or TLC if they didn't think they were going to make money, no matter how much passion they had for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back a few replies....There are lots of movie "stars" left, that can sell a film by being in it. I'm not sure why that's even really in question? Unless I'm missing the point. Johnny Depp (up until a few years ago), DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Tom Hardy, Willem Dafoe, Will Smith, Denzel Washington, DeNiro... Sure some of them haven't done a film in a while, but any of those names put a film out now it'd sell on their name alone. There are many more to add to the list if I thought a bit about it 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think another problem with doing more Indys is the movies work best in a specific time. Once you get out of the 20s/30s era, they don't feel the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Odine said:

Going back a few replies....There are lots of movie "stars" left, that can sell a film by being in it. I'm not sure why that's even really in question? Unless I'm missing the point. Johnny Depp (up until a few years ago), DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Tom Hardy, Willem Dafoe, Will Smith, Denzel Washington, DeNiro... Sure some of them haven't done a film in a while, but any of those names put a film out now it'd sell on their name alone. There are many more to add to the list if I thought a bit about it 

I think the point is people who can get an audience regardless of the movie. You definitely have some big names there, but Dafoe has never been someone who you can put on a movie poster and guarantee ticket sales. Not the way that Arnold could, or The Rock can. Hardy is the same - he does a great job, but I’ve never had anyone ask me to go see the new Tom Hardy movie, it’s a movie they want to see and Hardy happens to be in it.  People would go see Venom regardless of the actor, but nobody would have ever watched Cliffhanger without Sylvester Stallone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn’t it be better to suggest that marketing films like Cliffhanger would have been more difficult without a star like Stallone, rather than no one would have been interested in the film without him? Considering no one knew who Stallone was when Rocky was released, and that film was a critical and financial success, even fair to class as a phenomenon.

Circling back to the OP:

The Rocky franchise should probably be retired at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fozzie said:

I think the point is people who can get an audience regardless of the movie. You definitely have some big names there, but Dafoe has never been someone who you can put on a movie poster and guarantee ticket sales. Not the way that Arnold could, or The Rock can. Hardy is the same - he does a great job, but I’ve never had anyone ask me to go see the new Tom Hardy movie, it’s a movie they want to see and Hardy happens to be in it.  People would go see Venom regardless of the actor, but nobody would have ever watched Cliffhanger without Sylvester Stallone.

Okay that's fair about Hardy and Defoe... But I'd totally see a new DiCaprio film based solely on him. (never turns in a bad performance). Or a new Brad Pitt film, or a DeNiro film. Maybe less these days since he's been doing more novelty comedies. 

No one tops Arnie though, true I take your point. But I mean.. that guy was lightening in a bottle. The Rock doesn't even come close. 

Part of it is people want to see people who can actually act these days, not just a beefcake blowing shit up. People actually want to forget who their stars are and see only the character. DiCaprio is one of the ones who manages to be both somehow.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spider-Man said:

Wouldn’t it be better to suggest that marketing films like Cliffhanger would have been more difficult without a star like Stallone, rather than no one would have been interested in the film without him? Considering no one knew who Stallone was when Rocky was released, and that film was a critical and financial success, even fair to class as a phenomenon.

Circling back to the OP:

The Rocky franchise should probably be retired at this point.

The difference is Rocky is a good movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Darth Krawlie said:

Movies are made to make money. Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford wouldn't have made Raiders, TOD, or TLC if they didn't think they were going to make money, no matter how much passion they had for it.

Obviously? I just don’t get what the appeal of a fifth one without the other two, or Spielberg at the least. 

It feels like the Beatles throwing a last farewell concert that only Paul performs at. Might be really f**king good but it’s not the Beatles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Darth Krawlie said:

I dunno man those two Creed movies are really good. But if it continues with Adonis just fighting the kids of all of Rocky and Apollo's old nemeses, then I agree.

I pity the fool who isn't down to see the son of Clubber Lang.

 

image.jpeg.52c85467d20be79d4cfc4c8552ee9a03.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I think that some of those actors numbers are a bit blown out of proportion. I love Samuel L. Jackson, but I wasn’t going out of my way to see snakes on a plane, or Coach Carter. He just so happened to be a role player in 3 massive franchises with Star Wars, Jurassic Park and MCU.

 

I think that most of us would agree that they should stop making The Matrix movies. They just get worse with each release.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson has been around forever, which inflates his numbers a lot, but if you take out every franchise or sequel, you're still left with $5,826,503,037. Cumberbatch drops to $1,848,662,148, which puts him not too far above Chris Evans at $1,332,859,147. 

Again, I'm not doing the work to dig in between leading roles and non-leading, because I'm not taking the time to look up each movie and make the determination of what makes a leading role. That sounds like a fun project from the data geek in me, but I still just don't have the time.

I refuse to acknowledge any Matrix movies after the original, much like anything after season 3 of Arrested Development, they just don't exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2022 at 5:46 PM, Tank said:

Of all the big franchises we’ve been watching all our lives, which one do you think had been played out and needs to stop?

Conversely, an old franchise that I think could have a great new lead on life: The Thin Man.

Dead and buried: The Terminator 

Ready for a revival:  Back to the Future? I know I know. I cringed when I typed that. But a part of me would be curious to see it redone to fit our time now. That movie today would mean Marty would be going back to the 90's. In the original, Doc Brown thought it was ridiculous that Ronald Reagan had become president. What would he think to hear about Donald Trump?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever gets sent back to the 90s would have to be a teenager again because anyone else would be desperate to stay rather than return to this hell. Shit even some teenagers might prefer it honestly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.