MovieMan89

Do you really believe Apocalypse would have made less though without her? I don't. Maybe like 15-20m at the absolute most.

Well now that you mention it, the role of God may be the point he stopped caring...

The main takeaway is the studio perceived her as a draw and chose to market a rather supporting character as the lead for Apocalypse. And if it didn't pay off, how can we say that has nothing to do with her draw power then?

Joy is what diminished it, not Apocalypse for the record. Apocalypse was just further proof she didn't really have any pull there. Especially since marketing emphasized her so much despite such a large ensemble film.

I'm sorry, but no one can star in two blockbusters and an Oscar bait flick consecutively, have them all under-perform and still hold onto their draw power title. It doesn't work that way. Her draw power has definitely diminished after that 1-2-3 punch.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but we have no way to prove that given the kinds of films they were. So his draw power is still up in the air. Hell, even M7 being the huge hit I think it will still won't prove much for arguing the case of his draw power unfortunately, given the film has way more going for it than just his presence.

JLaw was definitely a draw up through Joy. It was a horrid, unappealing mess of a film that maybe would have done about 25 with someone else. After that, MJ, and Apocalypse under-performances though, I do think her draw power might be gone. She could earn it back again, but don't expect her to be a draw again until she does.

All that said about Leo, I do agree that he has finally become a legit draw with his past three films in particular. Yes, he did add something to the gross of Gatsby and TWOWS that other actors wouldn't have and most notably to The Revenant. So maybe now he can turn garbage into gold like Denzel too? It remains to be proven, all I know is he definitely couldn't do it in the past.

Denzel would never be in a movie as acclaimed and award buzzed about as Blood Diamond for example, and still have it flop. Leo is not the draw people think he is. He is a very smart business man and knows the right kinds of roles to take and people to work with.

Leo is a bigger star than Denzel. Denzel is a bigger draw. Again, draw power does not equal making the right film choices that will be successful regardless. Draw power is how much did your presence help a film that may have otherwise made way less? People can't seem to understand that there's a difference between having a filmography stacked with blockbusters and having one stacked with filler that an actor turned into hits. That is why we can't declare Pratt a draw yet. We don't know how he'll do in a more unappealing looking film. We do know that Leo tends to tank said films though.

Riiiiiiiight, because it clearly wasn't the big budget eye catching production or adaptation of one of the most read books ever that helped it. Nope, it was all Leo.

Draw power should be about how much extra the actor nabs a film in gross, not just how many huge 150m+ hits an actors in. Titanic, Catch Me If You Can, The Departed, Inception, Django, Gatsby...these were all movies very much set up for success and appeal regardless of the star. Now I will say that The Revenant is one of the few cases I think Leo's draw power really was the driving force of success, since it had the whole "give Leo an oscar" narrative pushing it.

You're obviously missing my whole point. Denzel gets movies to 100m that literally no one else could, including Leo. When he actually does something truly appealing or buzzed about, like say American Gangster, they do even better. And I never said one thing about OS draws. I have no clue how Mag7 does there.

So you're proving my point basically. It's not so much that Leo is this major draw on his own, it's that he takes the right kinds of roles 90% of the time. Again, Denzel makes B movies into 100m successes. When will Leo?

This whole thing gives me big time The Last Samurai vibes. Which actually turned out to be a fairly enjoyable box office hit.

And yet whenever he does a film that doesn't fit into the categories I mentioned (awards buzz, big budget) they bomb. See J Edgar, Revolutionary Road, Body of Lies. He has been incredibly smart with his career choices on the whole. Unlike Denzel, who basically just seems to take any generic low key project he wants and turns it into a hit. Now that he's in something that actually has a lot of appeal and a big push for the first time since probably American Gangster, it will do big numbers like that film did.

Leo has never made a shitty/generic film successful like Denzel has done countless times, so I still don't consider him the level of draw that Denzel is. It's one thing for people to flock to your films when you're in an awards buzzed about film with an awards buzzed about performance or a big budget Nolan or classic literature based flick. It's quite another when an actor gets entirely generic B movies with poor or mediocre reception near or over the century mark. The closest Leo has ever come to doing what Denzel does is with Shutter Island, and even that was a fairly big budget Scorsese production with decent reception.

Denzel is the most irrefutable draw in the business. He can and does take direct to video worthy horseshit to 100m that would be lucky to make a quarter of that without him. Pratt is in the two biggest breakouts of 2014 and 2015. Even if he's not a confirmed draw, everyone knows who he is right now and I'd make a strong assumption he's well liked among the GA. The western has made a huge comeback this decade, with three big hits the likes of which hadn't been seen in the genre for well over a decade prior (True Grit, Django, and The Revenant). Mag 7 is a remake of a very well known and successful western, much like True Grit before it. The trailer made the film look very appealing to modern audience, it didn't at all seem like some dated Western. Sully is the only real direct competitor in all of September, and let's be real that movie isn't going to do more than say a Bridge of Spies type run. Need any more reasons?

Why? September and October are very weak for competition and the film co-stars arguably the two biggest (hell maybe the only two) male draws right now in the industry. The trailer looks extremely appealing to mainstream audiences to me, even if it is a Western. Hell, the Coen bros made a Western that made over 200m adjusted. M7 can definitely hit that mark. Has the most going for it of any Western ever released since the popular Western died out decades ago.

After the effective trailer, I'm even more convinced than before Mag7 will be huge. I won't even be surprised if it continues our one megahit per month trend this year and pulls 300. 200+ is happening for it.

Well to be fair, I guess maybe the plot from the first game isn't quite so film ready. But I really would like them to be able to still set it up so that they could tell the plot from the second game almost as it is. Uncharted 2 was one of the first games I ever played where I legitimately felt the video game medium told a story that could have been a great feature film just as it was, and likewise some of those action sequences in the game would be incredible on the silver screen.

God dammit!!! This has so much potential to be the breakthrough for video game films. I honestly can't stand to see them fuck it up. Just cancel the damn thing if they can't figure it out. It shouldn't be that hard, the games would lend themselves ridiculously well to film if they basically just copy and paste a lot of the plot, characters, and setpieces.

Ya know that abysmal Kellan Lutz direct to video deserving Hercules movie a few years ago? This makes that look like high concept cinema. I'm at a loss for words here for how a classic of epic cinema got turned into this sad 300 by way of Uwe Boll looking mess.

All the usual rules apply 1. Will Bourne open above $57.5M? NO 2. Will Bourne open above $65M? 2000 NO 3. Will Bourne open above $70M? NO 4. Will Bad Moms open above $17M? YES 5. Will Bad Moms open above $21M? 3000 YES 6. Will Bad Moms open above $25M? YES 7. Will Nerve reach $10M by the end of the weekend? YES 8. Will Secret Life of pets stay in the top 3 this weekend? NO 9. Will Star Trek have a weekend drop above 54.5%? 2000 NO 10. Which will finish highest out of Lights Out, Ice Age and Ghostbusters? 3000 Ghostbusters 11. Will The Purge finish above Kabali? YES 12. Will Dory have a $5M weekend? NO 13. Will Independence Day finish above BFG? NO 14. Will Train to Busan have a PTA above $3,000? YES 15. Will Star Trek overtake Central Intelligence's Total Gross by the end of the weekend? NO 16. Will the total gross of the three biggest new entries exceed $100M combined? 3000 NO 17. Will the Hilary Clinton thing drop more than 60% this weekend? NO 18. Will any non-expanding film increase more than 70% on Friday? YES 19. Will Mike and Dave have a Saturday increase above 31%? NO 20. Will Bad Moms have any affect on Scrat's Nuts this weekend? (I am very tired, that's the best I can do, sorry) Bad Nuts will be greenlit 14/20 - 2000 15/20 - 4000 16/20 - 6000 17/20 - 8000 18/20 - 10000 19/20 - 15000 20-20 - 20000 Part 2 1. What will Bourne's OW be? 5000 51.555m 2. What will Lights Out's Percentage Drop be? 5000 -53.250% 3. What will be the difference in gross between SLOP and Ice Age this weekend? 5000 8.775m Part 3 4. Pets 5. Nerve 7. Lights Out 11. Cafe Society 13. The Infiltrator 17. Absolutely Fabulous 3/6 - 2000 4/6 - 5000 5/6 - 8000 6/6 - 12000

Words aren't people.