Weekend Estimates (Page 28): Magnificent 7 35M | Storks 21.8M | Sully 13.8M | Bridget Jones 4.5M

[Mojoguy]

I do wonder if certain actors aren't paired with one another simply because they're too expensive. You'd never see a Leo/Denzel film or a Cruise/Jolie film because the salaries would be $40m

How do you explain the low budget for the star filled the Ocean's Eleven trilogy?

[Avatree]

Neither Jlaw or Chris Pratt have major draw power.

[Noctis]

5 minutes ago, Treecraft said:

Neither Jlaw or Chris Pratt have major draw power.

 

lmfao

 

J-Law doesn't have major draw power? lol

[JennaJ]

29 minutes ago, Treecraft said:

Neither Jlaw or Chris Pratt have major draw power.

 

We'll see about that when Passengers opens. That's a draw power movie if there ever was one.

[trifle]

34 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:

How do you explain the low budget for the star filled the Ocean's Eleven trilogy?

 

I know stars sometimes take a cut for an ensemble piece, at least with Indies. Don't know about blockbusters.

[trifle]

1 minute ago, JennaJ said:

 

We'll see about that when Passengers opens. That's a draw power movie if there ever was one.

 

It is sold on the stars and the optics.  Period.

 

And barring something distinctly faulty that we don't know about, I think it is going to do very well. 

[4815162342]

37 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:

How do you explain the low budget for the star filled the Ocean's Eleven trilogy?

 

An $85 million budget for the first film in 2001 was definitely expensive. Today it'd be "mid-budget" but back then it was definitely higher scale.

 

Ocean's Twelve went up to $110 million, then they dropped the budget back down to about $85 million for Thirteen.

[cannastop]

12 hours ago, Chaz said:

Trolls is going to save Dreamworks. It'll be huge.

I doubt it's going to make more than $170m dom. And even that wouldn't "save" Dreamworks animation, whatever that means for a subsidiary of Comcast.

[cannastop]

38 minutes ago, Treecraft said:

Neither Jlaw or Chris Pratt have major draw power.

That is one of the most baffling statements I have ever read.

[JennaJ]

1 minute ago, trifle said:

 

It is sold on the stars and the optics.  Period.

 

And barring something distinctly faulty that we don't know about, I think it is going to do very well. 

 

Yup. Reviews will play a role of course but as long as it's a decent movie I think it's going to do very well indeed.

This year, the two movies I'm most excited about are both coming out in December and both star a couple of my favorite actors (Passengers and La La Land). It's been a long wait but I think it's gonna be worth it.

[John Marston]

12 minutes ago, cannastop said:

That is one of the most baffling statements I have ever read.

 

 

Its true. JLaw drawing power has faded

[trifle]

2 minutes ago, John Marston said:

 

 

Its true. JLaw drawing power has faded

 

I guess we'll find out in December.

 

If you mean Joy, that movie was a hard sell.  I found it inspirational, and there is no question (unless you ignore Oscar nominations and haven't seen it) that Jen's performance was amazing.  However, it also had this weird soap opera theme with dreams of the characters in soap operas, and the premise of making a mop didn't seem to set the world on fire.  Even so, it made over $100M.  Write ups in Forbes and other places considered that movie to prove her draw, not to suggest it was fading.

 

From your comments since I've come on this site, you don't seem to like her, which is fine, but I think it colors your judgment.

[The Futurist]

Drawing power is a myth to me anyway.

 

Mega movie stars are super self aware, they perfectly know and understand what audiences like about them, what kind of characters work with GA, what make them special to audiences.

 

Character actors never (rarely) become movie stars, a movie star is someone where the line between the actor, his style of acting and his off-screen persona are super blurry and it s almost not about acting it is about your presence on screen, your halo, your charisma, your very unique "X" ingredient that  no else has.

 

You can't change what you project on screen and stars know this.

 

Tom Hanks (the kind hearted average american), Julia Roberts ( smile, Julia, Smile, also, don't forget to smile), Tom Cruise ( run, Tom, Run,  ), Denzel Washington ( his "don't play with me motherfuckers" stares) they are the masters of their very own cinematic universe and they are not that different than RDJ, Vin Diesel,  actors that play James Bond or any other famous character from a franchise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2016 by The Futurist

[John Marston]

21 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

I guess we'll find out in December.

 

If you mean Joy, that movie was a hard sell.  I found it inspirational, and there is no question (unless you ignore Oscar nominations and haven't seen it) that Jen's performance was amazing.  However, it also had this weird soap opera theme with dreams of the characters in soap operas, and the premise of making a mop didn't seem to set the world on fire.  Even so, it made over $100M.  Write ups in Forbes and other places considered that movie to prove her draw, not to suggest it was fading.

 

From your comments since I've come on this site, you don't seem to like her, which is fine, but I think it colors your judgment.

 

 

Joy still cost 60m. It was a flop. Mockingjay 2 and X-Men Apocaylpse (which she was featured prominently in the marketing, portrayed as the main character almost) underperformed.  Lot of actors that are the new in thing fade out of prominence even if they are still doing good work later. It is totally normal.

 

 

Passengers seems to be expected to make huge money just because of the actors.  Maybe if it was the 90's that would work but not really right now. 

[trifle]

6 minutes ago, John Marston said:

 

 

Joy still cost 60m. It was a flop. Mockingjay 2 and X-Men Apocaylpse (which she was featured prominently in the marketing, portrayed as the main character almost) underperformed.  Lot of actors that are the new in thing fade out of prominence even if they are still doing good work later. It is totally normal.

 

 

Passengers seems to be expected to make huge money just because of the actors.  Maybe if it was the 90's that would work but not really right now. 

 

We can get back to this discussion come the end of December.

[Webslinger]

Jennifer Lawrence is definitely a draw. Honestly, Joy did decently for a film released to middling reviews at Christmas (without the awards buzz and all-out critical raves that accompanied her other collaborations with Russell, it didn't have a prayer of coming close to those films' performances), and the underperformances of Mockingjay and X-Men have much more to do with overall franchise fatigue than with Lawrence's individual drawing power. Unless Passengers is a turkey, the sheer charisma of the Pratt/Lawrence pairing should result in strong numbers.

[John Marston]

Just now, Webslinger said:

Jennifer Lawrence is definitely a draw. Honestly, Joy did decently for a film released to middling reviews at Christmas (without the awards buzz and all-out critical raves that accompanied her other collaborations with Russell, it didn't have a prayer of coming close to those films' performances), and the underperformances of Mockingjay and X-Men have much more to do with overall franchise fatigue than with Lawrence's individual drawing power. Unless Passengers is a turkey, the sheer charisma of the Pratt/Lawrence pairing should result in strong numbers.

 

 

again Joy cost 60m.  That might seem like a low budget but it is actually higher than movies like American Sniper and Deadpool. The studio definitely expected it to make money. 

[Avatree]

43 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

I guess we'll find out in December.

 

If you mean Joy, that movie was a hard sell.  I found it inspirational, and there is no question (unless you ignore Oscar nominations and haven't seen it) that Jen's performance was amazing.  However, it also had this weird soap opera theme with dreams of the characters in soap operas, and the premise of making a mop didn't seem to set the world on fire.  Even so, it made over $100M.  Write ups in Forbes and other places considered that movie to prove her draw, not to suggest it was fading.

 

From your comments since I've come on this site, you don't seem to like her, which is fine, but I think it colors your judgment.

What does her performance in Joy (which I agree was fantastic) have to do with her draw power?

 

i enjoyed Joy a lot but honestly stick any other young pretty actress in her role and it woulda made the same amount of money. Sorry, I refuse to accept that opening a movie to $17M demonstrates any kind of star power.

[La Binoche]

1 hour ago, cannastop said:

That is one of the most baffling statements I have ever read.

 

They're yet to truly prove their power. Even Passengers is based on a combo of their drawing power.

 

We do know that Pratt added nothing to the typical Denzel opening this weekend, contrary to what many were expecting (some prognosticators were saying $60m+ lololol). 

[trifle]

10 minutes ago, Treecraft said:

What does her performance in Joy (which I agree was fantastic) have to do with her draw power?

 

i enjoyed Joy a lot but honestly stick any other young pretty actress in her role and it woulda made the same amount of money. Sorry, I refuse to accept that opening a movie to $17M demonstrates any kind of star power.

 

again, we can discuss this in December.

 

What I am saying is that  movie stars don't open a film widely billed as faulty at any huge numbers, although there were bigger budgets that opened to less and acclaimed films like Spotlight and Room both did less -- they bring eyes and add significant box office to a good film that would perform much more poorly if non- movie stars were in it.  This film is going to open as it will on the strength of Jen and Pratt, and draw what conclusions you care to when that happens.

Edited September 25, 2016 by trifle