John Rambo Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 (edited) Pacino had solo hits as well as hits as a supporting actor, but De Niro has lots and lots of misses, looking at the available data i.e wiki, BO Mojo, some articles etc. De Niro had very less solo hits but scored more success when he had other main lead like the meet the parents series, Cop Land (Decent success), Analyze This, Silver linings, Jackie Brown, Heat etc. Pacino on the other hand has quite good number of them like And Justice for all, Dog day afternoon, Serpico, Scarface, Sea of Love, scent of women, Frankie and Johnny,Carlitos way, The recuit etc. With this level of success i wonder how did De Niro get a good paycheck? Discuss. Please feel free to correct me where i may have misjudged. Edited December 27, 2021 by John Rambo text Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fancyarcher Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 Pacino has more successes even something as problematic and hated as Cruising opened big back in the day, heck his worst wide opening for over a decade post comeback City Hill still managed a PTA of over 4,000 on its opening weekend, but also, he tended to take less traditional risks and supporting roles then DeNiro did in his prime. Love him, but I couldn't see Pacino doing something like Raging Bull for example. The other thing about DeNiro is that most of his biggest hits or good openers were generally well-received films, and or looked interesting / kinda cool, movies like Ronin, the Scorsese collaborations (Goodfellas, Casino), Heat with Pacino etc... all had solid numbers on their opening weekends. DeNiro's best run at the box office in fact, was post Meet the Parents, where he had five 10m + openers in a row, and was always paired with some younger hot actor of the time, and yes his paychecks were getting increasingly high. He got 17.5m for Showtime alone. I get the sense that he was more concerned about his movies doing well around the time, hence the shift to more absurd palatable "stupid comedy". In comparison Pacino floundered a bit more, but still had a little bit of an audience left. By that point, neither were at the height of their powers, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Rambo Posted December 27, 2021 Author Share Posted December 27, 2021 2 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said: Pacino has more successes even something as problematic and hated as Cruising opened big back in the day, heck his worst wide opening for over a decade post comeback City Hill still managed a PTA of over 4,000 on its opening weekend, but also, he tended to take less traditional risks and supporting roles then DeNiro did in his prime. Love him, but I couldn't see Pacino doing something like Raging Bull for example. The other thing about DeNiro is that most of his biggest hits or good openers were generally well-received films, and or looked interesting / kinda cool, movies like Ronin, the Scorsese collaborations (Goodfellas, Casino), Heat with Pacino etc... all had solid numbers on their opening weekends. DeNiro's best run at the box office in fact, was post Meet the Parents, where he had five 10m + openers in a row, and was always paired with some younger hot actor of the time, and yes his paychecks were getting increasingly high. He got 17.5m for Showtime alone. I get the sense that he was more concerned about his movies doing well around the time, hence the shift to more absurd palatable "stupid comedy". In comparison Pacino floundered a bit more, but still had a little bit of an audience left. By that point, neither were at the height of their powers, however. Pacino when compared De Niro kind of balanced art/award winning movies and BO success movies. Raging Bull yes it was a De Niro kind of movie and he nailed it but even De Niro couldn't have done some roles which Pacino nailed...basically they were written or made for these 2 specifically! Like you say, De Niro best BO run was post meet the parents but none of his hit were something which he pulled alone...like he was the star...it always had a backup or some kind of padding in the form of other lead actor...surely he was overpaid but was it his Great actor tag which got him such paychecks for some of his worst movies? 17.5m for showtime 🤯 man who were the producers...it cost like 80-90m to make and WW it barely touched 75-80m...eddie and de niro inflated the budget with their paychecks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...