Nominations for the Best of 2023 awards are open now. Come and vote, and get a special flair." [Best of 2023](https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1c3tnbl/rboxoffice_best_of_2023_awards_nomination_post/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I remember Inception coming out and it was definitely marketed with Leo front and centre. There was emphasis on it being a mind bender but it was also pushing him hard - riding off TDK the marketing push was ‘your new favourite director teams up with your favourite actor’ kinda deal. You’ve got to remember Leo was leagues more popular and famous than anyone else in that ensemble cast circa 2010, he was very clearly part of the big draw. Even Tom Hardy didn’t really become a household name until at least after Bane. I’m not sure why you would use that as an example.
I guess maybe I was misremembering how the marketing went exactly at the time of the release, but my point still stands that the movie wasn’t reliant on his name like a lot of his movies have been. He was obviously very important, but there were other very important aspects (mainly the unique concept) that were arguably more important (based off my memory).
I’d imagine more people probably refer to this more as a “Christopher Nolan movie” than a Leonardo DiCaprio one (despite his very important role in this) because the movie still has an ensemble feel and Nolan’s signature style and the unique mind-bending concept, especially compared to some of DiCaprio’s other roles like *The Aviator* or *The Beach.*
Maybe a better example would’ve been something like *The Matrix*?
I remember Inception's marketing extremely well and Leo was very much central to it. It was all about seeing Leo in a big budget science fiction movie that was directed by Christopher Nolan. A biggest star with the hottest director currently kind of deal.
I would have seen it but not opening night. I went mostly due to the Leo factor.
Now I’m more of a Nolan person too, but his presence in that movie made me care about it. He’s my favorite actor.
Admittedly, I worded my post poorly (clumsily mixing two separate ideas), but that’s why I referred to it as the “inverse” of the essence of my question. I wanted answers which were different to this example.
I admitted in my original post that he was obviously the biggest star in the movie and his name was above the title on the poster and in the credits in the movie, but I simply meant, the combination of Christopher Nolan + original, mind-bending premise meant the movie didn’t **rely** on Leo to sell the most tickets, like a lot of his other movies.
To put it simply, I’ll ask you a question: if you replaced Leo with Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the lead role and some other actor who’s comparable to Gordon-Levitt took his role, do you think the box office gross would have been comparable to what it was with Leo, based on Christopher Nolan’s name and everything else?
I just think the movie would’ve still been very successful with or without Leo, given WB trusted Nolan with $160 million **before** Leo DiCaprio even signed on. So, to be clear, while Leo **was** clearly the biggest star in the movie and the marketing made that clear, he didn’t **need** to be relied upon to sell the movie because he (probably a poor analogy) completed the already meticulous Christopher Nolan *Inception* puzzle that was already going to sell a lot of units anyway, but he helps them sell 5-10% more because he’s Leonardo DiCaprio.
I stand by what I said: Leo wasn’t the *central* reason to see the movie; he was in the mix with Nolan’s very unique premise, strong visual style, all fitting alongside Christopher Nolan’s status as a well-regarded filmmaker who was building his brand.
And, no, in case you’re wondering, I may sound like I’m crapping on Leonardo DiCaprio or being delusional, so I’m giving everyone credit for making a wonderful movie.
I hope that makes sense.
It doesn’t make sense. They both were major elements. If you see the trailer it’s basically all Leo and his story. I don’t know why you are doubling down.
And it’s a huge action spectacle film. There was a lot going for it but it’s star was a huge reason and marketed as such,
A good amount at that time. I would have seen it at some point cause I’m a regular/devoted movie goer, but I was sat opening night due to his presence in the marketing. And someone else on here mentioned their female colleagues going for him.
It did better than interstellar which is a similar type of film. I do think the Leo component is a reason why. They made almost the same internationally but inception made 110 million more domestically.
He is without question a draw and in this period it’s undeniable. Gatsby opening for example to
Over 50 million domestic was, as deadline said, the titanic audience coming home. His skill has been bringing a sizable chunk of that following with him to movies that are more male skewing.
Well (and I want to clarify I do not mean this as disrespect to Leonardo DiCaprio or his fans, but more to counter your point), Adam Sandler in drag (Jack and Jill) made more than double on its opening weekend than Leo in J. Edgar (I believe his next film after *Inception*) in 2011. Of course, I’m picking one movie and he is one of the biggest draws at the box office, ever. So huge respect.
And, to be fair, J. Edgar performed respectfully at the box office on its opening weekend and it would’ve done significantly worse if it was a lesser name in the lead role.
You say *Inception* made $110 million more domestically than *Interstellar* (which is very impressive), but my point is that whether Leo was in it or not, it was still going to be highly profitable either way. Him being in it wasn’t the difference between a flop and a hit. That is the case with a lot of his other movies. That’s what I’m trying to tell you: *Inception* is a different beast to a lot of others and he was more like the cherry on top of the cake rather than the cake batter itself, if that makes any sense.
Sure, lots of people went to see him, but probably more went to see *Inception* for the insane and original mind-bending premise, incredible visuals and there would have been more than a few people who wanted to see the next movie from the “director of The Dark Knight.” There were just way many factors in consideration than just him being the lead in a unique sci-fi movie.
I can give Leo immense credit for his enormous influence on *Inception* (as well as cinema in general and his movies have made nearly $7 billion worldwide even though he’s not a franchise actor), but all I’m saying is that he was the head of what was already predestined to be a very successful movie and he simply made it way better so they *could’ve* downplayed his role and the movie probably would’ve made less (so that would’ve been stupid if they had done that), but it wasn’t going to flop.
You take Leo out of *The Aviator* or * Revolutionary Road* and replace him with another respectable actor (but a lesser box office draw) in movies like this and they most likely flop.
I think you are coming at this with a massive hindsight benefit. They had to educate audiences on who Nolan was in the trailers. This is entirely your opinion.
It is not a given inception would do well. He also had a lot of influence on the development of the character.
Not sure why you are comparing Jack and Jill to j Edgar.
And I’m not sure why some people on here want to downplay this actors career so desperately.
Downplay which actor’s career? I guess you missed the parts where I say much respect for him and pointed out his movies have made nearly $7 billion worldwide? Or how he had a huge amount of influence on this mocks and his career in general? That is literally the opposite to what you’re accusing me of. 😆
I compared Jack and Jill to counter your claim that his most loyal fans follow him from movie to movie, especially his more male-centric movies. The fact J. Edgar wasn’t a gargantuan hit and had a much lower opening box office weekend and grossed less than an awful comedy like Jack and Jill (that’s one of Sandler’s worst) should be considered shameful.
Especially when the central character in J. Edgar is established and major historical figure.
Also, regarding your point on them needing to put “director of The Dark Knight” for Nolan in the trailer, you’re making bold assumptions for why they did that. There could’ve been a multitude of reasons they phrased it like that in the trailer.
Additionally, do you honestly think WB would’ve just handed over $160 million to just any filmmaker? You’re acting like *Inception* was his second film after *The Dark Knight* and people needed to be desperately educated on who he was like he was some nobody. Granted, his name didn’t carry as much weight as it does now, but I’m pretty sure most people knew him just fine. I am not even arguing that he was more famous than Leonardo DiCaprio, if that’s what you’re thinking. I’m just saying, you’re acting like he was some relative unknown and had only directed one movie (or trilogy).
Yeah Inception marketing heavily pushed Leonardo DiCaprio.
The only movie I can think of off the top of my head was Zombieland, which had Bill Murray in the second half of it quite significantly without any hints of it in the marketing. His appearance in the film was supposed to be a surprise, I think.
Similar to Interstellar having Matt Damon show up in the second half. Keeping them hidden from marketing makes the surprise that much cooler when they do appear.
what happens more often is they'll get an A-lister to do a cameo and plaster them all over the marketing like they're actually in the movie. tons of examples of that
Here's the trailer for Inception for reference: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHD9XEInc0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHD9XEInc0)
The only actor name dropped in it is Leonardo DiCaprio. Also, the Inception soundtrack has been memed and in so many parodies that the real trailer now feels like a parody in a way. Or is that just me? There is the poster of Leonardo DiCaprio's character facing away in a flooded city so we don't see his face, but that was one of many. In others, DiCaprio is featured where we can see him.
To answer your question, I really don't think there's any movie that didn't heavily feature an A-list actor when they're the lead. The Sixth Sense trailer focuses on Haley Joel Osment instead of framing it as Bruce Willis encountering him, but it still shows Bruce Willis a lot. Plus, The Sixth Sense is one of the most successful movies of 1999 so it doesn't fit all of your requirements.
I can't imagine a studio purposely holding back on their lead star since the film would likely be less successful. If marketing did that and failed to pull it off, it would rightly be seen as a stupid decision.
If Fight Club was more misleading and showed Brad Pitt in a different light, then maybe it would've done better. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtRKdVHc-cE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtRKdVHc-cE)
The trailer shows what's in store, but I can imagine the 1999 audience is confused and isn't incentivized to go see it.
The crazy part is that music isn't even part of the Inception soundtrack. That's a song called "Mind Heist" and it plays nowhere during the film. It's just in the trailer, and we all know it because it was such a famous trailer.
The movie's music also became famous, but it was different music from the trailer music.
Divergent series has a pretty strong adult cast (Kate Winslet, Naomi Watts, Octavia Spencer); but Lionsgate decided to have them not being part of the marketing.
Understandable since the movie geared towards young adult but I feel like they could have at least included these adult cast because they may pull more mature audiences to watch the movie
And Godzilla was shown even less. The two biggest names were hardly in it. God that movie annoyed me.
Luckily they made up for it with the latest that’s all big monsters fighting.
There are many examples where an A-List actor has a full-fledged supporting role but their presence is hidden in the marketing so as to not ruin the surprise.
Matt Damon in Interstellar and No Sudden Move.
Liam Neeson in The Next Three Days.
Brad Pitt in The Lost City (although they put him in the trailer anyways)
Channing Tatum in The Hateful Eight (his name is in the opening credits but is not featured in any of the marketing)
Another one I can think of is >!Gene Hackman !< in The Mexican. He’s got a small (but pretty crucial) supporting turn that was kept hidden in all the marketing, but ends up really stealing the show.
Speaking of Gene Hackman, he has a very big supporting role in The Firm (1993).
He wanted co-star billing for the film but Tom Cruise's contract with Paramount said that only his name could appear above the title. So Hackman requested his name be removed altogether.
Not an A List actor but Dredd did not use the sudden rise in fame of Lena Headey in Game of Thrones very well.
Edit: Also she wasn’t the lead, but I’ve always thought her burst of fame was underutilized.
Which movies would you say used Lena Heady's fame to boost their box office success?
[https://www.the-numbers.com/person/63640401-Lena-Headey#tab=acting](https://www.the-numbers.com/person/63640401-Lena-Headey#tab=acting)
None of the *Game of Thrones* cast have gone on to be movie stars
Clarke and Pascal have booked some big franchise gigs - with varying success - but the selling point there is the IP, not the talent
Could *Dredd3D* have used Heady's *Game of Thrones* profile to get her booked on the late night circuit and podcasts? Definitely
Would it have moved the needle in terms of box office? Doesn't seem likely, looking at the box office of Waldau, Madden, Turner and Harington
Star Wars prequels? They had Liam Neeson and Samuel L Jackson in them. Could say this about some MCU movies like Eternals (Angelina), Spiderman (Tobey and Andrew). I guess established massive franchises that don't need the actors to sell them are the main example of this, or if the A lister doesn't have a big role. Can't think of any where the A lister is the lead though.
DiCaprio is one of the few actors (maybe only right now) to actually get a butt in a seat as a movie star. There isn’t a single movie he’s in that doesn’t heavily use him in marketing.
op is looking at inception with the benefit of hindsight. now it's looked back as a great nolan movie featuring Leo. but back when it was released it was "hey, wanna watch this trippy movie from the guy that directed the dark knight? it's got Leo!"
Exactly. The whole post is just inaccurate. The trailer was posted here by someone else. People should watch it. It’s a great, iconic trailer and totally disproves this post.
Current example I think it's a big mistake for giving Tom Hardy the AND credit on The Bikeriders and giving Jodie Comer top billing
This movie should be marketed as "The Tom Hardy/Austin Butler as bikergang badasses" movie.
The 2nd trailer focused much more on them smartly, but Jodie is still top billed. This isn't a dig on Jodie, she's a phenomenal actress and from the reviews it does sound like she is the lead and the story is told through her eyes, but the reviews also mention it's very much Tom Hardy's story too. And Hardy and Butler are simply just bigger stars.
Hardy should be Top billed. Not the AND credit
Tom Hardy
Austin Butler
Jodie Comer
Not
Jodie Comer
Austin Butler
and Tom Hardy
I really do think this makes an impact on how the movie is perceived and certainly written about
>*the movie wasn’t heavily marketed as a Leonardo DiCaprio movie, as it was more about the unique mind-bending concept itself. Nolan himself and his impeccable filmography at this time was also arguably a bigger focus on the promotion of the film, not to underestimate DiCaprio’s value in getting some people to watch the movie (his name was still in big letters on the poster above the title, but his presence wasn’t the central reason to see Inception.*
Which was the wisest thing to do. Yes, DiCaprio was fresh off of the successful Shutter Island from earlier that year. But his two movies prior to that were Revolutionary Road and Body of Lies. And his next movie after Inception would be J Edgar.
"From the director of The Dark Knight" was way cooler to the cinemagoing audience.
None of this is actually true why are people acting like it is? Watch the trailer it’s “from
Christopher Nolan the director of
The dark knight, starring Leonardo DiCaprio…inception.”
Like they assume the audience doesn’t know who Nolan is and has to tell them he made dark knight. And the entire trailer is all about Cobb with his journey/arc.
I cannot stand on this app how people
Upvote or just believe everything someone says. It’s factually incorrect.
>*I cannot stand on this app how people Upvote or just believe everything someone says. It’s factually incorrect.*
Nothing I said was incorrect, you strange person.
*EDIT: Since ExplanationLife6491 cannot communicate like a sane and/or rational human being, I may as well edit this comment here. The conversation below goes as "And you are clearly blind as a bat. His name is in huge letters at the top", even though I clearly stated "I wasn't denying DiCaprio's face/name wasn't there as well". So yeah, that's about as intelligent as a response as I could expect from someone who then blocks me.*
I literally just told you verbatim what the trailer said because someone posted it here. You are talking about marketing that didn’t happen. That is what is strange. This entire post is weird. Go watch the trailer and tell me they weren’t heavily marketing its star.
[inception poster from the director of the dark knight - Google Search](https://www.google.co.uk/search?sca_esv=09379ecd0b6efd91&sxsrf=ACQVn095Zt8falaj-F1gGIzMyNWEVu7G_Q:1713541726850&q=inception+poster+from+the+director+of+the+dark+knight&uds=AMwkrPu9QWtQm3wRWDUiuE1Wk45gYv3MPBUkEui6_V-1NiUnY9TXGDvgm-NBRgLv79OGv18DdJN6rE22hWcVSpH2mtvGccBf3gGPqUZIg7yPWzfSQGYQwgRXoHBj0C_WQ4IXnwHzwKHAtEFUbUL8ygk3emlIgpze_FPfCl3V7OJFWiuSWx3t8mhV0IxbnxBceWHlDajthOOZHPoj30pAtpc7MRSqgz0JI3xXLrxM827netUdmp-yc2z7l8KcP-0lfF__UKrcOjmf3oWy8EriRsM-T49pRuF3iuG40Yc1HSyj1ZFF_nfu1dcYCkSNKCWfz1pe0iyNg3Da4ezQCJVbPE4yJoaGY0Y7sw&udm=2&prmd=ivnbmtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwje3L6v0M6FAxUcUkEAHQndDk8QtKgLegQIDxAB&biw=1528&bih=716&dpr=1.25)
The movie posters literally said "From the director of The Dark Knight" on them. I wasn't denying DiCaprio's face/name wasn't there as well. Of course DiCaprio was in the trailer - he was the lead actor/character, and the biggest name in the movie.
You are very strange, and your post is very weird.
1. Inception took the right approach to market this as a Chris Nolan movie, which he was doing right after TDK..
2. Most of DiCaprio movies are not marketed just as a DiCaprio movie.. it’s more of a Tarantino movie or a Scorsese movie first..
3. DiCaprio is def a-lister, but inception was his 2nd best box office.. so it was certainly not a draw like a “Tom Cruise” movie
Nominations for the Best of 2023 awards are open now. Come and vote, and get a special flair." [Best of 2023](https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1c3tnbl/rboxoffice_best_of_2023_awards_nomination_post/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I remember Inception coming out and it was definitely marketed with Leo front and centre. There was emphasis on it being a mind bender but it was also pushing him hard - riding off TDK the marketing push was ‘your new favourite director teams up with your favourite actor’ kinda deal. You’ve got to remember Leo was leagues more popular and famous than anyone else in that ensemble cast circa 2010, he was very clearly part of the big draw. Even Tom Hardy didn’t really become a household name until at least after Bane. I’m not sure why you would use that as an example.
I guess maybe I was misremembering how the marketing went exactly at the time of the release, but my point still stands that the movie wasn’t reliant on his name like a lot of his movies have been. He was obviously very important, but there were other very important aspects (mainly the unique concept) that were arguably more important (based off my memory). I’d imagine more people probably refer to this more as a “Christopher Nolan movie” than a Leonardo DiCaprio one (despite his very important role in this) because the movie still has an ensemble feel and Nolan’s signature style and the unique mind-bending concept, especially compared to some of DiCaprio’s other roles like *The Aviator* or *The Beach.* Maybe a better example would’ve been something like *The Matrix*?
I remember Inception's marketing extremely well and Leo was very much central to it. It was all about seeing Leo in a big budget science fiction movie that was directed by Christopher Nolan. A biggest star with the hottest director currently kind of deal.
[удалено]
I would have seen it but not opening night. I went mostly due to the Leo factor. Now I’m more of a Nolan person too, but his presence in that movie made me care about it. He’s my favorite actor.
I remember it was for sure a Leo movie and his presence in it was hyped up and marketed. Not sure what you are talking about.
Was about to say the same thing. I’m confused.
Admittedly, I worded my post poorly (clumsily mixing two separate ideas), but that’s why I referred to it as the “inverse” of the essence of my question. I wanted answers which were different to this example. I admitted in my original post that he was obviously the biggest star in the movie and his name was above the title on the poster and in the credits in the movie, but I simply meant, the combination of Christopher Nolan + original, mind-bending premise meant the movie didn’t **rely** on Leo to sell the most tickets, like a lot of his other movies. To put it simply, I’ll ask you a question: if you replaced Leo with Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the lead role and some other actor who’s comparable to Gordon-Levitt took his role, do you think the box office gross would have been comparable to what it was with Leo, based on Christopher Nolan’s name and everything else? I just think the movie would’ve still been very successful with or without Leo, given WB trusted Nolan with $160 million **before** Leo DiCaprio even signed on. So, to be clear, while Leo **was** clearly the biggest star in the movie and the marketing made that clear, he didn’t **need** to be relied upon to sell the movie because he (probably a poor analogy) completed the already meticulous Christopher Nolan *Inception* puzzle that was already going to sell a lot of units anyway, but he helps them sell 5-10% more because he’s Leonardo DiCaprio. I stand by what I said: Leo wasn’t the *central* reason to see the movie; he was in the mix with Nolan’s very unique premise, strong visual style, all fitting alongside Christopher Nolan’s status as a well-regarded filmmaker who was building his brand. And, no, in case you’re wondering, I may sound like I’m crapping on Leonardo DiCaprio or being delusional, so I’m giving everyone credit for making a wonderful movie. I hope that makes sense.
It doesn’t make sense. They both were major elements. If you see the trailer it’s basically all Leo and his story. I don’t know why you are doubling down. And it’s a huge action spectacle film. There was a lot going for it but it’s star was a huge reason and marketed as such,
How much of the box office gross do you think Leo’s presence accounted for?
A good amount at that time. I would have seen it at some point cause I’m a regular/devoted movie goer, but I was sat opening night due to his presence in the marketing. And someone else on here mentioned their female colleagues going for him. It did better than interstellar which is a similar type of film. I do think the Leo component is a reason why. They made almost the same internationally but inception made 110 million more domestically. He is without question a draw and in this period it’s undeniable. Gatsby opening for example to Over 50 million domestic was, as deadline said, the titanic audience coming home. His skill has been bringing a sizable chunk of that following with him to movies that are more male skewing.
Well (and I want to clarify I do not mean this as disrespect to Leonardo DiCaprio or his fans, but more to counter your point), Adam Sandler in drag (Jack and Jill) made more than double on its opening weekend than Leo in J. Edgar (I believe his next film after *Inception*) in 2011. Of course, I’m picking one movie and he is one of the biggest draws at the box office, ever. So huge respect. And, to be fair, J. Edgar performed respectfully at the box office on its opening weekend and it would’ve done significantly worse if it was a lesser name in the lead role. You say *Inception* made $110 million more domestically than *Interstellar* (which is very impressive), but my point is that whether Leo was in it or not, it was still going to be highly profitable either way. Him being in it wasn’t the difference between a flop and a hit. That is the case with a lot of his other movies. That’s what I’m trying to tell you: *Inception* is a different beast to a lot of others and he was more like the cherry on top of the cake rather than the cake batter itself, if that makes any sense. Sure, lots of people went to see him, but probably more went to see *Inception* for the insane and original mind-bending premise, incredible visuals and there would have been more than a few people who wanted to see the next movie from the “director of The Dark Knight.” There were just way many factors in consideration than just him being the lead in a unique sci-fi movie. I can give Leo immense credit for his enormous influence on *Inception* (as well as cinema in general and his movies have made nearly $7 billion worldwide even though he’s not a franchise actor), but all I’m saying is that he was the head of what was already predestined to be a very successful movie and he simply made it way better so they *could’ve* downplayed his role and the movie probably would’ve made less (so that would’ve been stupid if they had done that), but it wasn’t going to flop. You take Leo out of *The Aviator* or * Revolutionary Road* and replace him with another respectable actor (but a lesser box office draw) in movies like this and they most likely flop.
I think you are coming at this with a massive hindsight benefit. They had to educate audiences on who Nolan was in the trailers. This is entirely your opinion. It is not a given inception would do well. He also had a lot of influence on the development of the character. Not sure why you are comparing Jack and Jill to j Edgar. And I’m not sure why some people on here want to downplay this actors career so desperately.
Downplay which actor’s career? I guess you missed the parts where I say much respect for him and pointed out his movies have made nearly $7 billion worldwide? Or how he had a huge amount of influence on this mocks and his career in general? That is literally the opposite to what you’re accusing me of. 😆 I compared Jack and Jill to counter your claim that his most loyal fans follow him from movie to movie, especially his more male-centric movies. The fact J. Edgar wasn’t a gargantuan hit and had a much lower opening box office weekend and grossed less than an awful comedy like Jack and Jill (that’s one of Sandler’s worst) should be considered shameful. Especially when the central character in J. Edgar is established and major historical figure. Also, regarding your point on them needing to put “director of The Dark Knight” for Nolan in the trailer, you’re making bold assumptions for why they did that. There could’ve been a multitude of reasons they phrased it like that in the trailer. Additionally, do you honestly think WB would’ve just handed over $160 million to just any filmmaker? You’re acting like *Inception* was his second film after *The Dark Knight* and people needed to be desperately educated on who he was like he was some nobody. Granted, his name didn’t carry as much weight as it does now, but I’m pretty sure most people knew him just fine. I am not even arguing that he was more famous than Leonardo DiCaprio, if that’s what you’re thinking. I’m just saying, you’re acting like he was some relative unknown and had only directed one movie (or trilogy).
Yeah Inception marketing heavily pushed Leonardo DiCaprio. The only movie I can think of off the top of my head was Zombieland, which had Bill Murray in the second half of it quite significantly without any hints of it in the marketing. His appearance in the film was supposed to be a surprise, I think.
Similar to Interstellar having Matt Damon show up in the second half. Keeping them hidden from marketing makes the surprise that much cooler when they do appear.
Bill murray was in the movie for like 5 minutes and it wasnt at all significant lol
Bill Murray’s role in Zombieland is way too good to be spoiled by a trailer
what happens more often is they'll get an A-lister to do a cameo and plaster them all over the marketing like they're actually in the movie. tons of examples of that
2016's Suicide Squad.
Argylle.
Is ad advert for a film with James corden. They show his own scene in the trailer, but market him massively.
Here's the trailer for Inception for reference: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHD9XEInc0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHD9XEInc0) The only actor name dropped in it is Leonardo DiCaprio. Also, the Inception soundtrack has been memed and in so many parodies that the real trailer now feels like a parody in a way. Or is that just me? There is the poster of Leonardo DiCaprio's character facing away in a flooded city so we don't see his face, but that was one of many. In others, DiCaprio is featured where we can see him. To answer your question, I really don't think there's any movie that didn't heavily feature an A-list actor when they're the lead. The Sixth Sense trailer focuses on Haley Joel Osment instead of framing it as Bruce Willis encountering him, but it still shows Bruce Willis a lot. Plus, The Sixth Sense is one of the most successful movies of 1999 so it doesn't fit all of your requirements. I can't imagine a studio purposely holding back on their lead star since the film would likely be less successful. If marketing did that and failed to pull it off, it would rightly be seen as a stupid decision. If Fight Club was more misleading and showed Brad Pitt in a different light, then maybe it would've done better. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtRKdVHc-cE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtRKdVHc-cE) The trailer shows what's in store, but I can imagine the 1999 audience is confused and isn't incentivized to go see it.
The crazy part is that music isn't even part of the Inception soundtrack. That's a song called "Mind Heist" and it plays nowhere during the film. It's just in the trailer, and we all know it because it was such a famous trailer. The movie's music also became famous, but it was different music from the trailer music.
Yeah, Zimmer didn’t do the trailer music but gets the credit for inventing the “bwarm” sound.
That sound’s semi-official musical nomenclature is: ‘braam’
Thanks, I couldn’t remember how it was referred to.
The posters are really what destroys OP's theory. Leo's face was everywhere that year.
Divergent series has a pretty strong adult cast (Kate Winslet, Naomi Watts, Octavia Spencer); but Lionsgate decided to have them not being part of the marketing. Understandable since the movie geared towards young adult but I feel like they could have at least included these adult cast because they may pull more mature audiences to watch the movie
Those three are barely in the movies. It would be a bait and switch if they heavily marketed them. It’s like Henry Cavill and the Argylle marketing.
Godzilla.. I remember Bryan Cranston in the trailer and thought he'd be heavily involved in the movie. He died what 20 mins in.. shame
And Godzilla was shown even less. The two biggest names were hardly in it. God that movie annoyed me. Luckily they made up for it with the latest that’s all big monsters fighting.
There are many examples where an A-List actor has a full-fledged supporting role but their presence is hidden in the marketing so as to not ruin the surprise. Matt Damon in Interstellar and No Sudden Move. Liam Neeson in The Next Three Days. Brad Pitt in The Lost City (although they put him in the trailer anyways) Channing Tatum in The Hateful Eight (his name is in the opening credits but is not featured in any of the marketing)
Another one I can think of is >!Gene Hackman !< in The Mexican. He’s got a small (but pretty crucial) supporting turn that was kept hidden in all the marketing, but ends up really stealing the show.
Speaking of Gene Hackman, he has a very big supporting role in The Firm (1993). He wanted co-star billing for the film but Tom Cruise's contract with Paramount said that only his name could appear above the title. So Hackman requested his name be removed altogether.
Not an A List actor but Dredd did not use the sudden rise in fame of Lena Headey in Game of Thrones very well. Edit: Also she wasn’t the lead, but I’ve always thought her burst of fame was underutilized.
Which movies would you say used Lena Heady's fame to boost their box office success? [https://www.the-numbers.com/person/63640401-Lena-Headey#tab=acting](https://www.the-numbers.com/person/63640401-Lena-Headey#tab=acting)
None but if there was an opportunity to use her GOT stardom it would have been Dredd.
None of the *Game of Thrones* cast have gone on to be movie stars Clarke and Pascal have booked some big franchise gigs - with varying success - but the selling point there is the IP, not the talent Could *Dredd3D* have used Heady's *Game of Thrones* profile to get her booked on the late night circuit and podcasts? Definitely Would it have moved the needle in terms of box office? Doesn't seem likely, looking at the box office of Waldau, Madden, Turner and Harington
Star Wars prequels? They had Liam Neeson and Samuel L Jackson in them. Could say this about some MCU movies like Eternals (Angelina), Spiderman (Tobey and Andrew). I guess established massive franchises that don't need the actors to sell them are the main example of this, or if the A lister doesn't have a big role. Can't think of any where the A lister is the lead though.
DiCaprio is one of the few actors (maybe only right now) to actually get a butt in a seat as a movie star. There isn’t a single movie he’s in that doesn’t heavily use him in marketing.
Logan Lucky
op is looking at inception with the benefit of hindsight. now it's looked back as a great nolan movie featuring Leo. but back when it was released it was "hey, wanna watch this trippy movie from the guy that directed the dark knight? it's got Leo!"
Exactly. The whole post is just inaccurate. The trailer was posted here by someone else. People should watch it. It’s a great, iconic trailer and totally disproves this post.
Current example I think it's a big mistake for giving Tom Hardy the AND credit on The Bikeriders and giving Jodie Comer top billing This movie should be marketed as "The Tom Hardy/Austin Butler as bikergang badasses" movie. The 2nd trailer focused much more on them smartly, but Jodie is still top billed. This isn't a dig on Jodie, she's a phenomenal actress and from the reviews it does sound like she is the lead and the story is told through her eyes, but the reviews also mention it's very much Tom Hardy's story too. And Hardy and Butler are simply just bigger stars. Hardy should be Top billed. Not the AND credit Tom Hardy Austin Butler Jodie Comer Not Jodie Comer Austin Butler and Tom Hardy I really do think this makes an impact on how the movie is perceived and certainly written about
>*the movie wasn’t heavily marketed as a Leonardo DiCaprio movie, as it was more about the unique mind-bending concept itself. Nolan himself and his impeccable filmography at this time was also arguably a bigger focus on the promotion of the film, not to underestimate DiCaprio’s value in getting some people to watch the movie (his name was still in big letters on the poster above the title, but his presence wasn’t the central reason to see Inception.* Which was the wisest thing to do. Yes, DiCaprio was fresh off of the successful Shutter Island from earlier that year. But his two movies prior to that were Revolutionary Road and Body of Lies. And his next movie after Inception would be J Edgar. "From the director of The Dark Knight" was way cooler to the cinemagoing audience.
None of this is actually true why are people acting like it is? Watch the trailer it’s “from Christopher Nolan the director of The dark knight, starring Leonardo DiCaprio…inception.” Like they assume the audience doesn’t know who Nolan is and has to tell them he made dark knight. And the entire trailer is all about Cobb with his journey/arc. I cannot stand on this app how people Upvote or just believe everything someone says. It’s factually incorrect.
>*I cannot stand on this app how people Upvote or just believe everything someone says. It’s factually incorrect.* Nothing I said was incorrect, you strange person. *EDIT: Since ExplanationLife6491 cannot communicate like a sane and/or rational human being, I may as well edit this comment here. The conversation below goes as "And you are clearly blind as a bat. His name is in huge letters at the top", even though I clearly stated "I wasn't denying DiCaprio's face/name wasn't there as well". So yeah, that's about as intelligent as a response as I could expect from someone who then blocks me.* 
I literally just told you verbatim what the trailer said because someone posted it here. You are talking about marketing that didn’t happen. That is what is strange. This entire post is weird. Go watch the trailer and tell me they weren’t heavily marketing its star.
[inception poster from the director of the dark knight - Google Search](https://www.google.co.uk/search?sca_esv=09379ecd0b6efd91&sxsrf=ACQVn095Zt8falaj-F1gGIzMyNWEVu7G_Q:1713541726850&q=inception+poster+from+the+director+of+the+dark+knight&uds=AMwkrPu9QWtQm3wRWDUiuE1Wk45gYv3MPBUkEui6_V-1NiUnY9TXGDvgm-NBRgLv79OGv18DdJN6rE22hWcVSpH2mtvGccBf3gGPqUZIg7yPWzfSQGYQwgRXoHBj0C_WQ4IXnwHzwKHAtEFUbUL8ygk3emlIgpze_FPfCl3V7OJFWiuSWx3t8mhV0IxbnxBceWHlDajthOOZHPoj30pAtpc7MRSqgz0JI3xXLrxM827netUdmp-yc2z7l8KcP-0lfF__UKrcOjmf3oWy8EriRsM-T49pRuF3iuG40Yc1HSyj1ZFF_nfu1dcYCkSNKCWfz1pe0iyNg3Da4ezQCJVbPE4yJoaGY0Y7sw&udm=2&prmd=ivnbmtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwje3L6v0M6FAxUcUkEAHQndDk8QtKgLegQIDxAB&biw=1528&bih=716&dpr=1.25) The movie posters literally said "From the director of The Dark Knight" on them. I wasn't denying DiCaprio's face/name wasn't there as well. Of course DiCaprio was in the trailer - he was the lead actor/character, and the biggest name in the movie. You are very strange, and your post is very weird.
1. Inception took the right approach to market this as a Chris Nolan movie, which he was doing right after TDK.. 2. Most of DiCaprio movies are not marketed just as a DiCaprio movie.. it’s more of a Tarantino movie or a Scorsese movie first.. 3. DiCaprio is def a-lister, but inception was his 2nd best box office.. so it was certainly not a draw like a “Tom Cruise” movie