Yup cuz he looked older then
I know they made him look older for the movie
I've always found it funny how Cruise refused to dye his hair for the movie and just wore a wig.
Yup cuz he looked older then
I know they made him look older for the movie
Outside of Star Wars, I just don't see John Boyega being a leading man/box office draw.
The days of big stars drawing people to the box office are over.
Like, okay... let's take return on investment. Forbes crunched those numbers.
9. Jennifer Lawrence ($17.70 on every $1 paid)
9. Matt Damon ($17.70)
8. Robert Downey Jr. ($18.40)
7. Ben Affleck ($20.10)
6. Jennifer Aniston ($27.80)
5. Vin Diesel ($32)
4. Mila Kunis ($49.50)
3. Scarlett Johansson ($88.60)
2. Chris Pratt ($125.40)
1. Chris Evans ($135.80)
So, pick a metric.
No they're not. And repeating it doesn't make it true.
That's a poor metric that doesn't account for variables such as the type of film they've been in, whether they were the lead actor, if they had an ensemble cast or not, if the film was part of franchise or a Brand, etc....
Unless you think Jennifer Anniston and Mila Kunis in any list discussing Box office draws helps your argument.
That extent is much reduced. It's obviously not completely missing. It's still there. But it's no longer a primary factor.
Branding has more or less replaced "star power" as a primary draw. People still care who is going to be in their movies, but at this point, that presence is considered bonus. If a movie's branding (and/or presence and marketing) is strong enough, people will show up regardless the stars.
And if the movie isn't appealing in that premise or the marketing, the star power is no longer enough to carry a film past those negatives.
Star power exists but it is there for only a select few and not as powerful as some think. It's overblown in that some people think it's obtainable after a couple of hits. That Chris Pratt can turn out hits based on his name or Scarlett Johansson is a draw based on one hit outside the MCU.
I'm saying return on investment offers up a list of actors and actresses who very few would call box office draws.
But you haven't offered up any other metric. I even gave you some options.
”He's a name people trust," said Phil Contrino, vice president and chief analyst at BoxOffice.com. ”He is a brand. Really, it's no different than Marvel or Pixar. People hear Denzel Washington and they show up."
Over three decades in the film business, Washington's films have generated north of $3 billion at the global box office, but he's put up those lofty numbers in a unique way. At the age of 59, he is launching his first franchise with ”The Equalizer," an adaptation of the CBS action series that Sony, the studio behind the film, hopes will inspire a sequel.
That's a long time to go without starring in a film that has a numeral in the title. Consider Washington's fellow A-listers — George Clooney has the ”Oceans 11" films, Tom Cruise anchors the ”Mission: Impossible" series, Robert Downey Jr. has two franchises with ”Sherlock Holmes" and ”Iron Man" and Johnny Depp has one in ”Pirates of the Caribbean" and is trying to kick off another when the sequel to ”Alice in Wonderland" hits theaters in 2016.
Washington has also been able to outlast actors from his generation, including past co-stars such as Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, who have seen their box office powers wane over the past 10 years. Contrino says the only actor with a similar appeal has been Adam Sandler, who had a torrid run throughout much of the aughts, but lately has been striking out as often as scoring with audiences.
Consistency has been the hallmark of Washington's career. His movies have never been billion dollar grossers, and only four have topped $100 million stateside. Instead of being crafted to sell toy lines or comicbooks, they've encapsulated a range of genres, many of them geared at adults, a demographic studios often ignore. Some, such as ”Deja Vu" or ”The Book of Eli," are formulaic and instantly forgettable, but most are profitable. Through it all, Washington's movies have relied on his name as the guarantor of a good time.
”He's very good at mixing it up and he's absolutely believable in every role he's been in," said Rory Bruer, president of domestic distribution at Sony Pictures. ”He's one of those actors audiences totally embrace and he's somebody who embodies our best values across all races, sexes and creeds."
Exaaaaaactly. As I said earlier, a well-executed movie with a good hook will perform well.
So why is your article better than any of the others I posted that actually looked at the numbers?
That Variety article itself seems to concede the fact that branding has replaced star power as the primary draw with filmgoers.
Because it's more to the truth than your list that has Jennifer Aniston and Mila Kunis in the Top 10. LOL
I picked a randomly metric to show you the weird ass names that pop up when you crunch the numbers.
And again, you offer nothing.
But do you agree with their assessment that Denzel is a brand himself?
Worldwide updates
Despicable Me 3 - $879M (now the top gross of the summer)
Wonder Woman - $794M
Pirates 5 - $781M
Spider-Man Homecoming - $671M
Transformers 5 - $583M
Dunkirk - $314M
Cars 3 - $286M
War for the Planet of the Apes - $278M
Baby Driver - $155M
Also from the last thread, Wolf Warrior 2 has now grossed $469M in China after a second weekend of $162M (giving it the largest second weekend in a single territory). Domestically the film has made $1M in two weekends.
Not really.
Did we all take this super long walk just to defend the notion Denzel Washington still has some star power?
I mean, yeah, he does. Is it worth as much as "star power" used to be? No, not really. Industry wide, that's a fairly obvious conclusion to draw. So obvious that even in the industry article citing industry experts regarding Denzel's maintaining of some modicum of old-school "star power," the point of comparison places him in a lesser position to the factor that's cleanly replaced it.
The article you presented only works if you agree with the argument Mike & I are pushing: Star Power as a primary box-office factor has declined and been replaced with branding. In order to buy into the notion that Washington's held onto his power more than other actors, you have to simultaneously agree that all the other actors HAVE lost it because Star Power in general isn't even a thing so much anymore.
My disagreement is only that Denzel doesn't have Star Power when he does
So what you're saying is Denzel's movies don't perform well enough to get sequels!
So what you're saying is Denzel's movies don't perform well enough to get sequels!
but the argument isn't even that Star Power is non-existent, just that it's been replaced by other factors. It's obviously still there to some extent, but that extent is definitely lessened. And it is. Denzel can't be the exception to the rule (as your Variety example claims) without acknowledging that there's a new rule he's excepting, right?
How much does John Wick gross with Denzel as the lead?
Fences: Building the Gates to Heaven
I offered common sense, and you're stlill running with that poor metric of a list. Unless you can explain why Jennifer Aniston and Mila Kunis aren't leading any Movies, but Denzel still is.
Again, I pick one metric to show you the weird ass names that pop up.
Let's see the last Ulmer Scale.
Most recent available Ulmer Scale:
Tom Hanks
Will Ferrell
Julia Roberts
Hugh Jackman
Denzel Washington
Number five there.
Vulture has a list of the most valuable Hollywood star, with a huge list of data across eight different metrics. Here's the 2015 list:
1. Jennifer Lawrence
2. Robert Downey Jr.
3. Leonardo DiCaprio
4. Bradley Cooper
5. Dwayne Johnson
6. Tom Cruise
7. Hugh Jackman
8. Sandra Bullock
9. Channing Tatum
10. Scarlett Johansson
Denzel is #22 in the last list they did. Even his highest spot in the list over the years is #5.
They're poor metric that don't account for all the different variables I discussed. Robert Downey Jr's numbers are heavily inflated due to the Marvel films and Sherlock Holmes, for instance.
The article touched on that for example. Denzel IS THE BRAND.
They're poor metric that don't account for all the different variables I discussed. Robert Downey Jr's numbers are heavily inflated due to the Marvel films and Sherlock Holmes, for instance.
The article touched on that for example. Denzel IS THE BRAND.
Yeah, but Sherlock is a big deal because of Downey, as were the original Iron Man films. At this point Iron Man is the draw, but he made the character someone we cared about in the first place.
Of course RDJs numbers are higher. He's fucking Iron Man. But then you have to ask, which came first? Iron Man was a B-lister until RDJ.
I'm not the one arguing that star power is a thing. I'm saying, any metric - PICK ONE - and Denzel ain't at the top. And most of the metrics available, I believe are based on the strength of the work or property, not the actor.
You're the one arguing that Denzel is somehow the last bastion of Star power. I'm saying it barely matters and the film itself trumps the rest.
My point is Denzel doesn't need Marvel because he has Star Power and can carry almost any type of film.
So you have no metric and are going purely on your gut. Fine. If you feel Denzel is the last and greatest in your heart of hearts, by all means.
Is there a place I can go to look up when movies are releasing digitally? Blu-ray.com maybe?
What is Kswis going to do with all his free time now that movies are pretty much done for the year
Rank the Star Wars movies, now!
Nah, we're gonna start making predictions about IT and Blade Runner until both those movies actually drop.
I'm sure somewhere in there we'll have our 4000th conversation about Avatar while somehow entertaining the notion that there's more to Avatar than its box office even though it is the primary topic of discussion regarding the film.
Great numbers for Girl Trip. Sucks for War especially after the way Dawn did.
Homecoming doing good since it hasn't come out in China or Japan yet.
I was definitely off about Wonder Woman and it's great it's done so well. I expected $675 million overall and it managed to get close to $800 million.
LOL @ last and greatest in my heart of hearts. Just admit Denzel still got that thang as a movie star and we good.
Nah, we're gonna start making predictions about IT and Blade Runner until both those movies actually drop.
And if the movie isn't appealing in that premise or the marketing, the star power is no longer enough to carry a film past those negatives.
I feel like Passengers might be a good example here. Pratt & Lawrence at Christmas = #3 Opening Weekend. Less than $20mil domestic.
Ishtar still happened, even in an era when star power was supposedly at its height.
You don't understand bro, it's a cinematic masterpiece. Not like all those other movies today that just focus on special effects while not giving a damn about story or characters or dialogue, nuh-uh dude. It was Oscar-nominated for a reason, brah.Nah, we're gonna start making predictions about IT and Blade Runner until both those movies actually drop.
I'm sure somewhere in there we'll have our 4000th conversation about Avatar while somehow entertaining the notion that there's more to Avatar than its box office even though it is the primary topic of discussion regarding the film.
Nah, we're gonna start making predictions about IT and Blade Runner until both those movies actually drop.
I'm sure somewhere in there we'll have our 4000th conversation about Avatar while somehow entertaining the notion that there's more to Avatar than its box office even though it is the primary topic of discussion regarding the film.