Passengers | Chris Pratt, Jennifer Lawrence | Dec 21, 2016 | Trailer pg 70

[JennaJ]

Depends on what you mean by "bigger star". 

If you mean "more people in the GA would recognize his name" than yeah, probably - he's been in Hollywood as a recognizable actor for a lot longer.

If you mean - is a bigger draw for audiences nowadays, and considered more valuable by studios, then I'd say probably no.

[Moviesareawesomegirl]

2 hours ago, misafeco said:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=freestateofjones.htm

 

Pratt still has not made a film that became an actual hit (not an underperformer or a barely-there, almost, possibly, might-do-a-profit after DVD and TV rights so-so performer like Passengers) based off his name alone above the title. He has coasted on two big properties that would have been huge regardless of who starred in them and one film that had Denzel as its selling point.

[Water Bottle]

Just now, Moviesareawesomegirl said:

 

Pratt still has not made a film that became an actual hit (not an underperformer or a barely-there, almost, possibly, might-do-a-profit after DVD and TV rights so-so performer like Passengers) based off his name alone above the title. He has coasted on two big properties that would have been huge regardless of who starred in them and one film that had Denzel as its selling point.

 

Guardians of the Galaxy was based on an obscure comic book series that even comic book fans weren't that familiar with. It "became" a big property after the box office run of the first movie.

 

I don't really believe in Star power but come on now. GotG being big was in question before it came out so I wouldn't say it would have been huge without him.

[trifle]

4 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Guardians of the Galaxy was based on an obscure comic book series that even comic book fans weren't that familiar with. It "became" a big property after the box office run of the first movie.

 

I don't really believe in Star power but come on now. GotG being big was in question before it came out so I wouldn't say it would have been huge without him.

 

I didn't know who he was before Guardians of the Galaxy, but I didn't know what GotG was either, the concept sounded inane, and it wasnt until I started posting here that I realized it was a Marvel comic.  I was told it was good, I loved it, and his part in it is a really big part of why I loved it. 

 

I didn't see Jurassic World, but Chris being in Passengers WITH Jen is what made me look forward to it more than I do to a number of her projects. I thought they would be great together.  I think they are.

Edited January 16, 2017 by trifle

[Moviesareawesomegirl]

16 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Guardians of the Galaxy was based on an obscure comic book series...

 

GOTG was released smack in the middle of MCU-mania.

You cannot tell me that the potent, white-hot MCU brand had nothing to do with GOTG's success.

[Water Bottle]

1 minute ago, Moviesareawesomegirl said:

 

GOTG was released smack in the middle of MCU-mania.

You cannot tell me that the potent, white-hot MCU brand had nothing to do with GOTG's success.

 

Despite this even some Marvel fans on this board were surprised by GotG breaking out. It was considered a huge risk for Marvel at the time and many thought it would be their first real flop.

[JennaJ]

36 minutes ago, Moviesareawesomegirl said:

 

Pratt still has not made a film that became an actual hit (not an underperformer or a barely-there, almost, possibly, might-do-a-profit after DVD and TV rights so-so performer like Passengers) based off his name alone above the title. He has coasted on two big properties that would have been huge regardless of who starred in them and one film that had Denzel as its selling point.

 

Going by this type of logic you can discredit almost every actor in Hollywood as a "star". How many actors are the sole reason a non-franchise/sequel/known property movie does amazingly well? Basically there's DiCaprio, and... DiCaprio.

If anything, this movie is about as close as you can get to that perfect storm of having an actor's name be the sole appealing thing. But then that's not enough because it's not a huge hit, it's just a 300m WW panned original sci-fi.

 

As for Pratt "coasting" on two "big" properties... GotG became big due to the movie, it wasn't big beforehand. His portrayal of Star Lord is what established him as an up and coming star, and he brought a lot of his own humor and improvisation into the role. Simply put - it would be a different character if he wasn't playing it.

 

Jurassic, while it was a more straightforward role, still utilized his image and presence very heavily in its marketing. It's the only movie in the series which had a human character appear prominently in the posters and artwork. And all of this, when he's not even the main protagonist in the movie! You can argue he had nothing to do with its success but obviously Universal's marketing team felt differently when they decided to plaster him all over the billboards. 

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by JennaJ

[babz06]

55 minutes ago, Moviesareawesomegirl said:

 

Pratt still has not made a film that became an actual hit (not an underperformer or a barely-there, almost, possibly, might-do-a-profit after DVD and TV rights so-so performer like Passengers) based off his name alone above the title. He has coasted on two big properties that would have been huge regardless of who starred in them and one film that had Denzel as its selling point.

It's hard to know what his real worth is, because he's only starred in two films with bigger stars then him outside of the franchise stuff.

Atleast hes been smarter than Hemsworth in that regard, the sole blame can't be put on him. He doesn't have a outright flop (yet), so the jury is still out. He needs some films with him has the biggest star. 

[JennaJ]

7 minutes ago, babz06 said:

It's hard to know what his real worth is, because he's only starred in two films with bigger stars then him outside of the franchise stuff.

Atleast hes been smarter than Hemsworth in that regard, the sole blame can't be put on him. He doesn't have a outright flop (yet), so the jury is still out. He needs some films with him has the biggest star. 

 

 Just because Jen is a bigger star than him, doesn't mean he gets none of the credit/blame for how this movie is performing. It was sold very much on their combined star power. I think it speaks to both of their ability to open a movie, and I agree with Trifle that their combined presence here was an added attraction, making the partnership larger than the sum of its parts.

 

It might be a while before his next non-frenchise project is announced, though - he is pretty much booked solid through 2019 with roles in GotG 2, JW 2, and Infinity War + sequel. I'm very curious to see what he does next but I'm not expecting to find out anytime soon.

 

[Moviesareawesomegirl]

When Pratt makes a non-MCU, non-established franchise film with his sole name above the title become a big hit (like Tom H, Tom C, Julia, Angelina, and Harrison before him have done), then I will believe that his presence made GOTG and JW the smash hits they were.

[trifle]

This is a discussion that never convinces anyone of anything they didn't think before.

 

 

[JennaJ]

Just a reminder that Passengers is officially the highest grossing original movie of 2016.

 

"Non-established franchise films" don't come around as often as they once did. 

 

But this really is a useless argument that never ends. It's enough for me to see recognition that this movie's performance relied entirely on its stars' wattage. They are all this movie had going for it, and if that alone is worth 300 million, that's plenty.

[DeeCee]

 

[UTJeff]

13 hours ago, Krissykins said:

 

You're speaking domestically, so we'll ignore international grosses just now:

 

 

So if Passengers makes $10m less than its budget domestically, but "clearly isn't a flop"

 

Ghostbusters makes $16m less than its budget domestically, yet it's considered a flop?

 

Yeh, Hollywood.

 

Krissykins, I think we can have a civilized discussion about this, and I think most of the discussions here are pretty civilized.  So with that in mind.

 

Well I've never specifically classified Ghostbusters as a flop.  However, Ghostbusters if you look at it's circumstances, the film was built to be a global franchise starter for Sony.  Passengers was not.  

 

Now for Ghostbusters, The Hollywood Reporter published an article that said the movie is going to lose the studio about $70 million or more.  You can see that here.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-box-office-loss-sequel-unlikely-918515

 

Now one number that we hardly ever seen get thrown around is the P&A/marketing budget.  I can't be certain, but one would imagine the P&A budget on Ghostbusters was easily higher than it was for Passengers.  With Ghostbusters, you had a big marketing blitz that Passengers just didn't have.  So those are other heavy expenses that have to be weighed on whether the film can be considered a financial success or not.

 

That being said, I fully acknowledge I could be wrong about Passengers. For all I know, the film could've lost money when you figure in payouts to Pratt and Lawrence and all the other costs.  But I think when you consider how well it's performing overseas, it's having a stronger performance than Ghostbusters overseas.  And it's shown remarkable staying power from week to week.  

 

Anyway, I get that Ghostbusters can be a touchy issue for some, so I see where you are coming from.  I sort of feel similarly about Passengers.  I think it got beat up in the press for the wrong reasons.

[trifle]

33 minutes ago, UTJeff said:

 

 

That being said, I fully acknowledge I could be wrong about Passengers. For all I know, the film could've lost money when you figure in payouts to Pratt and Lawrence and all the other costs.  But I think when you consider how well it's performing overseas, it's having a stronger performance than Ghostbusters overseas.  And it's shown remarkable staying power from week to week.  

 

Anyway, I get that Ghostbusters can be a touchy issue for some, so I see where you are coming from.  I sort of feel similarly about Passengers.  I think it got beat up in the press for the wrong reasons.

 

Jen and Pratt's salaries are included in the production budget.  Jen would get some back end, but only as a percentage of excess above profits +.  Chris may have some back end as well.  There is no participation in the gross by the actors.

[DeeCee]

1 minute ago, trifle said:

 

Jen and Pratt's salaries are included in the production budget.  Jen would get some back end, but only as a percentage of excess above profits +.  Chris may have some back end as well.  There is no participation in the gross by the actors.

And I doubt the movie is anywhere close to either of them getting back end.  

[The Futurist]

1 minute ago, DeeCee said:

And I doubt the movie is anywhere close to either of them getting back end.  

 

Hope they will both be ok.

 

 

[DeeCee]

1 minute ago, The Futurist said:

 

Hope they will both be ok.

 

 

So do I. I'm barely sleeping just thinking about it. 

[trifle]

4 minutes ago, DeeCee said:

And I doubt the movie is anywhere close to either of them getting back end.  

 

Yeah, it would have to make considerable profit before Jen's back end deal kicked in, and I don't see that happening. I don't know the details about Chris, but I would assume the same with him, if he negotiated back end participation.

Edited January 17, 2017 by trifle

[UTJeff]

1 hour ago, trifle said:

 

Jen and Pratt's salaries are included in the production budget.  Jen would get some back end, but only as a percentage of excess above profits +.  Chris may have some back end as well.  There is no participation in the gross by the actors.

 

Not sure if this happens, but I remember in the past reading that some actors negotiating for an off-the-top gross percentage regardless of how much money is made back.  Like I think Keanu Reeves was able to negotiate this for The Matrix sequels, but I could be mistaken there so don't take my word for it.  But what you said makes sense that they probably only got back end at most and no gross participation.