Is anyone other than DiCaprio really a draw??

[EscObAR123]

 

17 hours ago, Barnack said:

 

That was true before 2013, but since he seem to have augmented is base with more diverse mens in it. Is sample size is small and it has been a while since he had a really non special movie, but he seem to have reached is own level, with him alone on it with a clear step above everyone else.

 

Even outside the US:

 

Django: 262m intl

Gatsby: 206m intl

Wolf: 275m intl

Revenant: 349m intl

 

That is really an impressive run, combine that by being clearly a safe 40/50m above Cruise domestic and I think he is clearly over Cruise worldwide now. He can make close to Mummy WW money with a Great Gatsby movie that made only 13.3m in China, and more with Django (and Django made only 2.65m in China).

 

Leo's movies typically have more going for them than his mere presence though. Django, Wolf, Revenant benefited from strong reviews and awards buzz and were all until recently in the top 250 (Revenant has dropped out now). Also with wolf there was the Leo/Scorsese team up which in itself seems to be a draw and Django had QT who has mostly been a reliable draw in his own right over the years. Compare that to Cruise who has been starring in films with mixed to downright career worst level reception and it is not really an apples to apples comparison. Looking at it another way, would a film like Never Go Back or The Mummy really make significantly more money with Leo instead of Cruise, provided all other factors remained the same? And by the same token, would the likes of Django, Wolf etc do that much worse with Cruise in Leo's roles? I am not quite sure the answer is a resounding yes in either case. Cruise has only himself to blame though with his less than stellar project selection in the last decade.

Edited June 26, 2017 by EscObAR123

[Barnack]

Dicaprio filmography and director collaborator are certainly a strong part of the story and it would be hard to dissociated the 2 most of Dicaprio appeal come from the audience being confident the movie will be good, if he did choose it when he got an offer for 14 others he said not to and it will be the best of the best working on it.

 

But both Jack Reacher (one of the biggest book franchise of modern time, over 60 millions sales according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books, with a big 17 entry so not dan Brown, Girl on a train or Life of Pie but that is still a very solid fanbase) and Edge of tomorrow (Giant action-comedy movie with an commercial high concept + being one of the best blockbuster of the 2010's) had a lot going for them more than the lead actor and were has commercial project can get.

 

Quote

 it another way, would a film like Never Go Back or The Mummy really make significantly more money with Leo instead of Cruise, provided all other factors remained the same? And by the same token, would the likes of Django, Wolf etc do that much worse with Cruise in Leo's roles?

 

The exercise is hard to really do, those Cruise movie were so much Cruise movie that they would have been totally different without him being involved, maybe DiCaprio doing a Cruise movie would not work much better, but I think that yes both those 2 would have opened higher domestic with Dicaprio and that the Revenant would not have made 400m with Cruise.

[The Futurist]

What Leo is doing has barely any relevance, he is just the anomaly of the system, the exception to the rule.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Wake me up when he has a B$ WW franchise.

 

[CJohn]

It depends on the movie itself and premise. 

[The Futurist]

1 minute ago, CJohn said:

It depends on the movie itself and premise. 

 

Yup, put Leo in a movie like that one (nakid) Scajo did and very few people will show up.

[Mockingjay Raphael]

There's no male draw apart of mah baby Tom Hardy, and soon God Styles.

[Mockingjay Raphael]

21 hours ago, Kingp0va said:

not with ha last 4 flops or underperformances

 

12/21/16	Passengers (2016)	Sony	$100,014,699	3,478	$14,869,736	3,478	10
5/27/16	X-Men: Apocalypse	Fox	$155,442,489	4,153	$65,769,562	4,150	6
							-
12/25/15	Joy	Fox	$56,451,232	2,924	$17,015,168	2,896	11
11/20/15	The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2	LGF	$281,723,902	4,175	$102,665,981	4,175	4

 

Excuse me? I feel that I'm in an eternal loop always repeating this, but Joy and Passengers did a lot better than what they would do with anyone but J-Law as main lead.

 

Joy is an Oscar contender, that received mediocre reviews, a marketing that focused on nothing but JLaw, and it still grossing $100m WW (one of the biggest movies from 2015 Oscar), this was one of the rare cases where people went exclusively because of it's star. Take off JLaw and it would have made Big Eyes' numbers at best, or maybe even less considering that this one at least had an interesting premise. 

 

Passengers grossed $300m WW, almost 3x it's budget. Surely, Sony expected more, but I'm pretty sure that they didn't expect the reviews that it got. Sci-Fi is the most depending genre of reviews, you don't see a movie of this genre breaking out without amazing reviews, actually, even the ones that gets acclamation are not locked to explode (Arrival), that's how hard this genre is to work with GP, the fact that it grossed on the same level of Elysium, despite the less favorable reviews and the little action, says all about JLaw's status. Without her, this would have been another Jupiter Ascending.

[grey ghost]

J Edgar shows DiCaprio can have poor box office performances if he chooses a weak role but he's actually one of best modern actors at attracting quality roles and picking the one's with the most critical and financial rewards.

[HesAPooka]

World wide and being able to turn in profitable movies time after time regardless of costars and critical reception is what counts and for that it's Cruise, Hanks, and Leo at the moment in what ever order you prefer. As far as big picture goes Leo has a ways to go before he's seen at the same level as Hanks and Cruise in in my opinion, but if he keeps it up for another 10+ years and adds another 10+ domestic 100m pictures without the aid of big name costars and directors than maybe we can add him to the discussion of reaching the ranks of Hanks and Cruise.

[RobinHood26]

STAR POWER IS REALLLLLLLL

 

 

Yeah the Judge bombed but if Clive Own is the lead that shit isn't released in theaters, if it was it does 4m OW. 

 

If Josh Brolin actually got cast instead of Pratt in Jurassic World that movie doesn't do 600m + 

[ChipDerby]

23 hours ago, Barnack said:

 

So I would ask you (to try to define what people mean when they say draw):

 

Do you think that if the movie Tammy:

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

 

Would have got the same marketing budget, trailers, free awareness giving by the media, theater at the same release day with total unknowns actor that it would have reached 100m ?

 

That Identity thief would have been one of the biggest money maker of the year:

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

 

With a unknown actress ?

 

I mean, how Kevin Hart not a draw, him completely alone on a stage with a mic can open above 10m:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kevinhart2016.htm

 

That's not how to properly judge it. If you replaced any lead actor in a role with an unknown, the majority of those films will do less.

 

You have to figure out if there would be movement on the movie gross if you got any other star. If Gatsby had, say, Brad Pitt, would it have grossed more/less? Ditto his other roles. Are his films reaching their max potential?

[Barnack]

2 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:

 

That's not how to properly judge it. If you replaced any lead actor in a role with an unknown, the majority of those films will do less.

 

Not significantly less (if it still get the same release date, theater count, marketing budget, etc...) otherwise well the majority of know lead actor are draw. Replace Gerard Butler or Clive Owen for unknown actor and a vast part of their filmography box office would stay pretty much the same.

 

 

Quote

 

You have to figure out if there would be movement on the movie gross if you got any other star. If Gatsby had, say, Brad Pitt, would it have grossed more/less? Ditto his other roles. Are his films reaching their max potential?

 

Using Brad Pitt one of the biggest movie star of all time, that could push a Burn After Reading type of movie over 100 million oversea has not being a draw is pushing it. If you use an other star with perceived box office clout you are not looking if using a star in the movie helped it or not.

 

Maybe I do not understand you correctly, is being a box office draw definition for you is being a bigger one than Brad Pitt, that he would be a good cut-off to use ? Could you give a definition of what you mean by box office draw (I suspected people saying that there is none are not using the word like what I think it mean) ?

 

[baumer]

Part of being a draw is choosing good scripts, scripts that highlight your capabilities and scripts that audiences might want to see you in.  

 

I doubt if Leo starred in a Friday the 13th remake, it would do any better than it did in 2009.  

[nomyth]

Star power at the box office hasn't really been much of a factor since the '90's I think. Even Leo and Clint Eastwood couldn't make J. Edgar a hit. I don't think any actor now is as consistent as Will Smith or Tom Hanks or Jim Carrey or Julia Roberts were back then.

 

As others have said, the content is what really matters most. That and marketing. Leo's been in a lot of well received movies. If he stars in a stinker, the box office will still reflect it.

[Joel M]

17 hours ago, nomyth said:

Star power at the box office hasn't really been much of a factor since the '90's I think. Even Leo and Clint Eastwood couldn't make J. Edgar a hit. I don't think any actor now is as consistent as Will Smith or Tom Hanks or Jim Carrey or Julia Roberts were back then.

 

Julia Roberts couldn't turn I love Trouble into a hit. Will Smith couldn't make Ali or the Legend of Bagger Vance a hit, Jim Carrey with the Cable Guy and Majestic and so on. Yeah, star power was much bigger than it is today but most of the stars of the 90s weren't as bulletproof as people saying today. The only ones that were pretty much bulletproof for a very long time were the Toms, and both did it by using their clout to pick the best projects or the best collaborators or both.

[Alli]

Most actors are somehow a draw. You'll find fans/stans for the most obscure actors.

 

Actors are like a brand. Leo's brand is strong because he does good movies. He's a draw. His brand is strong. Concept matters too, of course.

[lilmac]

Denzel maybe. Chris Pratt. Still Tom Cruise. No one is immune to bombs. You can still be a draw even if the movie fails because it's bad.

[EscObAR123]

On 27/06/2017 at 4:32 AM, Barnack said:

But both Jack Reacher (one of the biggest book franchise of modern time, over 60 millions sales according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books, with a big 17 entry so not dan Brown, Girl on a train or Life of Pie but that is still a very solid fanbase) and Edge of tomorrow (Giant action-comedy movie with an commercial high concept + being one of the best blockbuster of the 2010's) had a lot going for them more than the lead actor and were has commercial project can get.

 

 

There is a huge fan backlash against the casting of Cruise as Jack Reacher with many refusing to see the movie with him as the lead.  There were petitions and even many mainstream news outlets covered the fan outcry:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/21/entertainment/la-et-jc-tom-cruise-jack-reacher-fans-react-20121220

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/cruise-comes-up-short-over-giant-new-role-20110816-1iwo4.html

 

Cruise is not Reacher fb page:

https://www.facebook.com/reacherfriends

Taking a look at the author's facebook page, you would be hard pressed to find many positive comments from Reacher fans about the casting of Cruise and all urge him to recast the role. So while in theory you would expect the many fans of the books to rush to the cinema to watch their favorite character brought to big screen, in reality many were put off by the casting and in all likelihood chose not to go and see it.

I agree on Edge though, even though its Cruise only non MI 100M domestic film this decade, it  should have done a bit better than it did. It was probably a mix of mishandled marketing and Cruise already having lost the trust of audiences by that time, especially since just a year earlier he had been in a lackluster sci fi. Will be interesting to see how the sequel does.