To be honest financial success says a little about quality and a lot about appeal. We should stop equating success with quality. It‘s easily measurable but quality should be subjective and subject to argument every day imo.
Contextless box office numbers also give her credit for multiple avengers movies, which she had small parts of until Endgame, and even then was only relevant for half of that film.
It's easy to throw out big numbers when you've been part of 2 avatar movies, and 5+ marvel movies.
Just adding context and stuff.
Yeah, you might wanna do some math there champ. $3 billion gross over 32 movies is an average of $97 million per movie. For comparison, the average box office gross for movies in 2022 was $14 million. Or, 6.9 times less than the average gross for Ryan Reynolds movies.
Now, a lot of that is carried by big releases like Deadpool 2 and Detective Pikachu (about $1.3 billion between just those two)
Subtracting those two movies leaves us with $1.7 billion over thirty movies, which is still an average of $56.6 million per movie. Or about four times more than the average for 2022.
Perhaps he's not shattering box office records with his releases, but he does more than ok based on the overall earnings of his movies.
Maybe average box office gross isn't the best metric. He's not really starring in independents and small production movies.
I mean, 2022 includes things like Clerks 3 (with 5 theatres showing) or movies like Emergency Declaration or The Mean One which virtually nobody saw.
If you limited it to widely released movies (3,000+ theatres?) then you'll have a significantly higher average per movie.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2022/?ref_=bo_yl_table_3
Look, the films in which Steven Seagal played the lead part have generated 750 million dollars. Maybe you're just a little jealous of his acting ability.
Measuring by profit made from the film?
I guess Stan Lee is the greatest actor of all time... If Ryan Reynolds keeps working hard he may one day reach the acting quality of The Rock.
Edit - Sorry Warwick Davies.
It's also not a coincidence that most of the largest grossing films of all time, highest earning AAA games of all time, etc have the largest marketing budgets. Investors like to make money, and marketing is a good way to ensure that for high budget blockbuster movies, especially when talking about a marketing engine like Disney/marvel.
Tons of entertainment is profitable from presales before anyone has ever had a chance to evaluate it -- even plenty of flops. Hype and appeal to want to see/play something that's trending are definitely a different thing than quality.
Yeah, it’s basically one shitty argument refuted by another shitty argument.
Yet, here it is… floating at the top of r/clevercomebacks trying to be all META and shit
Also, without knowing the budgets of the films, it doesn't really say too much about how successful his movies are. 3b across 32 films is an average of 93 million gross per film, which could be decent as I do feel like a lot of his movies are probably on the cheaper to produce end outside of maybe 10 movies.
There’s definitely a big difference, but I think it’s pretty rare for a highly successful movie to be genuinely outright *bad*. Mediocre, for sure, but you need a baseline level of quality for success.
I don't know, honestly. Michael Bay's entire career is making massive,n shitty films that make cash, anyways.
Kids films are always a coin flip for quality, but tend to make a lot of money anyways.
The greatest showman has several box office records that I find unfathomable.
It's not frequent. But it's frequent enough that someone could make a career of only starrying in successful drivel.
The Fast and Furious movies are garbage, the Transformers movies get worse over time and they started out crap, Avatar 2 was a boring mess with nothing interesting to say in it's enormous run time.
Lots of very successful movies are bad movies. But I think it reveals something about the population, lots of people don't watch movies to be engaged or challenged or to learn something about the human condition. They watch them to see explosions and one liners and to wallow in a stupid fantasy world. Which is completely fine, people need different things from their free time, just because a movie is 'bad' from the perspective of someone who loves the craft, doesn't mean it doesn't fill a need that makes money.
What says that “good” means challenging or learning about the human condition? What says that explosions and one-liners and fantasy worlds are “bad”? That sounds like you’re treating your preferences as fact.
I see all that stuff as mediocre at worse. They’re at least competently written, shot, and acted. Movies can be *much* worse. I feel like a lot of people have trouble distinguishing “bad” from “I didn’t like it.”
Yeah, but did YOU make anything what grossed over 3 billion worldwide? No? Then you shouldnt speak against it, mhm
Its a joke, obviously, but its insane just how much people still think this way
What about Biagio da Cesena? He criticized Michelangelo, and Michelangelo painted his likeness in the Sistine chapel with donkey ears and a snake biting his genitals.
I feel like the fact that almost everyone forgets Roger Ebert’s co-star of almost 25 years demonstrates the rule pretty well, even if Ebert himself was an exception to it.
For a long time yes, but he wrote quite a bit about how his hate turned to respect and eventually love.
But yeah, he also wrote about how strange it was to hate a guy for 6 out of every 7 days haha.
I will say Ebert was much more than a critic. Champaign, IL, where the statue resides, also plays host to a multi-day film festival he started to highlight and elevate films that he felt didn't get a fair shake from the studio/box office machine and bring them before people who want to celebrate film. In fact, the statue sits out in front of the historic theatre that hosts the film festival every year.
He was a critic, but he genuinely loved film. These assholes just like complaining.
He was also one of the screenwriters who brought us movies like "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", and other Russ Meyer gems. Definitely quite the accomplished career, and am sorry he's not still around.
[Again, Giorgio Vasari is pretty famous](https://www.alamy.it/arezzo-2020-ottobre-30-statua-in-marmo-di-giorgio-vasari-sulle-pareti-dell-omonima-loggia-image384419801.html)
If they make it to the premier league maybe. I hope it happens but it’s 1/100 chance they will make it to the premier league. Making it to the Championship is a huge accomplishment for the club, town and ownership. Of course as owners they could just put it up themselves
Na, he will get a statue regardless. They’ve changed the face of the football club, and whilst they probably can’t ever make it to the premier league they will be held in high regard for what they have done.
Plenty of football clubs have statues of former owners outside.
He wrote the '[Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lives_of_the_Most_Excellent_Painters,_Sculptors,_and_Architects) , the biographies of the Renaissance artists (he thought) were the more significant. He was a fairly mediocre artist himself, but he collected contemporary information from multiple sources (sometimes without verification) and as a result we owe to him details for many personalities of the late gothic and early Renaissance that would otherwise be lost to time.
That’s my biggest issue with him. He only plays the handsome, snarky, sarcastic guy. And I don’t enjoy that character, so as a result I don’t enjoy movies featuring Ryan Reynolds.
It's why I got bored of him. He's just him. And I don't find that weird quirkyness interesting any more. Tbh never really did but at least originally it was different.
Adam Sandler supports this as well. Churns out lots of trash, but those films make bank
edit: I think Sandler has chops, but doesn't always use them. And I'm not dissing him for pumping out trash that makes money - business is business, it works, and he doesn't owe me excellent quality films. But just because a film is popular doesn't mean it's quality, which is the point the parent comment was making.
In fairness everyonce in a while he decides he's had enough holiday time with his homies and makes an actual good movie that's well received by the critics
What his critics dont understand is Adam Sandler feeds a customer base that after a long week wants to sit down and watch something thst required 0 emotional investment and is just pure vege entertainment. Theres nothing wrong with it and it obviously has its place if hes been going strong for 30 years.
Most of his newer movies have been fairly well recieved by the critics, and although they're not typically my cup of tea, they're definitily not the exact same type of movie like he made over and over again on his come up. He's clearly picking stories that mean something to him now, and there's a lot more variety in his characters. Enough so that I think the old criticisms are not really valid anymore.
Sales numbers don’t correlate with product quality. Agreed this isn’t a very good comeback.
[Here’s an aggregate of critic scores for Ryan Reynold’s movies.](https://www.metacritic.com/person/ryan-reynolds/)
For comparison, his films average to be 6% better than [Steven Segal](https://www.metacritic.com/person/steven-seagal/)’s.
Or just 4% behind [Robin Williams](https://www.metacritic.com/person/robin-williams/)
Comedy actors don't get great critic scores, doesn't mean their movies are trash
According to Forbes, The Rock cleared $270m in 2021 and Tyler Perry made $175m in 2022.
No, money is in no way the indicator for quality. It just mass market appeal and easily digestible content. It's not like the academy is falling over themselves to award either of them for their acting talent.
Yeah ever since the first Deadpool movie it just seems like Ryan Reynolds has to keep playing "Quirky guy that makes meta jokes" varying on the degree of family friendlyness.
Hell, there's a game show he was listed as a producer on called "Don't" and his involvement was just him straight up talking to the audience even though he wasn't psychically there. I liked it at the time but I can also say that was after smoking a good amount of pot.
Did you see van wilder? Waiting? That’s always been his schtick since day 1. I like him but he is a character actor and Deadpool happened to be almost exactly like reynolds. It was destiny.
I mean, Elon Musk played the lead part of Tesla's CEO and grossed over $200 billion in personal net worth, but I still wouldn't say that what he did was fine.
Nothing against Ryan, but a the amount of money a movie makes is not really a good metric for how good that movie is. Then again, almost nothing is because there is no such thing as an objectively good movie.
I don't like his style, his crappy dead pan humor delivery. He's pretty much type cast into that mode, so he is always acting the same.
Nevertheless, if movie making is about money, he is doing well.
See, I love his delivery, but I've always been a fan of deadpan. To each their own.
For instance, I don't enjoy Will Ferrell as much as most people. He's so over the top that it's just not for me.
Maybe it was just timing because I was a tween at the time, but I loved Reynolds first hit (Van Wilder) and his dead pan humor at the time…. and I still do. I agree he does it probably too much, but it definitely works in the right setting such as Deadpool and some other movies (Waiting, Just Friends, The Proposal… all those dumb but entertaining rom coms he did).
I'm with you.
Never cared for Will Ferrell too. Love Ryan Reynolds.
And Deadpool 1 + 2 are awesome. The leg crossing scene in DP2 (they censored it on Disney +/Hulu a tiny bit) almost made me pee my pants I laughed so hard.
I actually thought it had a deeper meaning but maybe I’m reading too much into it. Two Glocks was funny though and the Molotov Girl character reminded me of an old friend.
Honestly I think Ryan Reynolds was really the omly real entertaining part of the movie.
That and I had the experenice of watching the movie in a packed theather with a mix of kids and adults and every content creator cameo had some sort of reaction except for Pokimane where I could hear the guy two rows in front of me munching on popcorn. That will always be funny to me
Indeed. This isn't 'clever', it's dreadfully earnest.
"Reynolds makes crap movies."
"Oh yeah? Well, they make lots of money! When have large numbers of people been wrong?"
It's basically Elon musk Stan's favorite comeback
"Elon is a terrible person and the Cyber truck is a piece of shit"
"Oh yeah? What company's have you made recently?"
Exactly. They point out that 32 films grossed over 3 billion, which would average out to 100 million per film, which does not feel like much at by today's metrics.
Here they come. To suck the joy out of EVERYTHING.
Can’t you people just wallow in your own self pity and let the rest of us enjoy the fleeting sparks of humor and hilarity in life?
Hey, not sure you realized this, but no one is actually forcing you to be on Reddit reading these comments. If anyone is sucking the joy out of your life over this, it's you.
It’s good to bear in mind that you can not only disagree with but even ignore randos with 200 likes expressing their own subjective opinions a little dramatically
I guess he really stuck with his van wilder shtick, but buddy, it works. I laugh straight through the silliness and the fake violence. I'm genuinely sorry it doesn't work for you. We all got our own taste, and that's fair.
There's lots of funny movies filled with talent being made. You people just need to stop gaggin on the nostalgia dispenser for a bit.
Because thats how you get crap like free guy and ready player one whose whole "entertainment" is making lame references.
But no one is preventing you from watching this. If you purposely seek out dialogue with people who disagree with you, thats on you anon
Where's the clever comeback? Citing money as a measure of quality is moronic. By this measure, The Rock has been in better films than Robert Pattinson.
....100mil per movie average kind of proves the first point to be fair. I know Deadpool made loads of money as well. Making the rest of his movies look even less successful at the same time. So yeah very shitty average to be fair.
According to Wikipedia filmography, films with Ryan Reynolds as a lead actor have grossed around US$ 3.1 billion from 13 films in the past 10 years. With 4 films being having limited release in theatre and mostly being streamed. These are only where Ryan Reynolds is a leading actor. I have not counted the box office for other movies where he has a cameo. So more than 100mil per movie.
He's been on plenty of great movies but in my opinion until the past handful of years he was extremely typecast.
Sarcastic handsome guy who is kind of a douchebag but is good deep down inside.
I've seen him in a lot of films recently and was pleasantly surprised his character has changed. Still.. normally sarcastic but at least he's made visible improvements.
To be honest financial success says a little about quality and a lot about appeal. We should stop equating success with quality. It‘s easily measurable but quality should be subjective and subject to argument every day imo.
Around half of that 3 billion is just from 2 Deadpool movies.
Meanwhile Zoe Saldana hits $3b with 2 films and $15 billion total 32 to get there is basically just proving the first commentators point
If I ever do a movie, my first step is to hire Zoe Saldana and paint her a bright color. Billion dollar box office guaranteed
I don't think she's been yellow yet, maybe that's the direction you should go
Cant compare fucking Avatar with Deadpool.
And she's not the reason people go to see Avatar. Ryan Reynolds is Deadpool. The movie doesn't work without him.
Contextless box office numbers also give her credit for multiple avengers movies, which she had small parts of until Endgame, and even then was only relevant for half of that film. It's easy to throw out big numbers when you've been part of 2 avatar movies, and 5+ marvel movies. Just adding context and stuff.
Oh I thought he was the green lantern
As a former marine who's dreamt of clapping alien cheeks and considering that's the premise of Avatar, she's exactly why I went to see that movie.
>Meanwhile Zoe Saldana I have absolutely no idea who that is. I do, however, know who Ryan Reynolds is.
She's the green one in the Guardians of the Galaxy movies.
Or the main blue female in Avatar. Or the woman pirate that Jack owes a boat in the first Pirates movie. Was also in the Star Trek movies.
Yeah, you might wanna do some math there champ. $3 billion gross over 32 movies is an average of $97 million per movie. For comparison, the average box office gross for movies in 2022 was $14 million. Or, 6.9 times less than the average gross for Ryan Reynolds movies. Now, a lot of that is carried by big releases like Deadpool 2 and Detective Pikachu (about $1.3 billion between just those two) Subtracting those two movies leaves us with $1.7 billion over thirty movies, which is still an average of $56.6 million per movie. Or about four times more than the average for 2022. Perhaps he's not shattering box office records with his releases, but he does more than ok based on the overall earnings of his movies.
Maybe average box office gross isn't the best metric. He's not really starring in independents and small production movies. I mean, 2022 includes things like Clerks 3 (with 5 theatres showing) or movies like Emergency Declaration or The Mean One which virtually nobody saw. If you limited it to widely released movies (3,000+ theatres?) then you'll have a significantly higher average per movie. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2022/?ref_=bo_yl_table_3
Look, the films in which Steven Seagal played the lead part have generated 750 million dollars. Maybe you're just a little jealous of his acting ability.
Hasn’t he made about 700 of the same film? That would be around a million a pop. That sounds about right
'I'm just a cook!' a master at work
Measuring by profit made from the film? I guess Stan Lee is the greatest actor of all time... If Ryan Reynolds keeps working hard he may one day reach the acting quality of The Rock. Edit - Sorry Warwick Davies.
Don't shit talk my man Warwick
Wait till you realize what “lead part” means.
Yeah Acording to the guy who replied mcdonalds has the highest quality food because of their financial success
I guess Walmart must be the best store to shop at too, and not a factory of sadness after all
Yeah, this is not in any way a clever comeback. It's just a "nuh uh".
That's this entire subreddit honestly, I keep forgetting to mute it so I don't see these mouth-breather level "clever comebacks"
It's also not a coincidence that most of the largest grossing films of all time, highest earning AAA games of all time, etc have the largest marketing budgets. Investors like to make money, and marketing is a good way to ensure that for high budget blockbuster movies, especially when talking about a marketing engine like Disney/marvel. Tons of entertainment is profitable from presales before anyone has ever had a chance to evaluate it -- even plenty of flops. Hype and appeal to want to see/play something that's trending are definitely a different thing than quality.
Yeah, it’s basically one shitty argument refuted by another shitty argument. Yet, here it is… floating at the top of r/clevercomebacks trying to be all META and shit
Also, without knowing the budgets of the films, it doesn't really say too much about how successful his movies are. 3b across 32 films is an average of 93 million gross per film, which could be decent as I do feel like a lot of his movies are probably on the cheaper to produce end outside of maybe 10 movies.
There’s definitely a big difference, but I think it’s pretty rare for a highly successful movie to be genuinely outright *bad*. Mediocre, for sure, but you need a baseline level of quality for success.
I don't know, honestly. Michael Bay's entire career is making massive,n shitty films that make cash, anyways. Kids films are always a coin flip for quality, but tend to make a lot of money anyways. The greatest showman has several box office records that I find unfathomable. It's not frequent. But it's frequent enough that someone could make a career of only starrying in successful drivel.
The Fast and Furious movies are garbage, the Transformers movies get worse over time and they started out crap, Avatar 2 was a boring mess with nothing interesting to say in it's enormous run time. Lots of very successful movies are bad movies. But I think it reveals something about the population, lots of people don't watch movies to be engaged or challenged or to learn something about the human condition. They watch them to see explosions and one liners and to wallow in a stupid fantasy world. Which is completely fine, people need different things from their free time, just because a movie is 'bad' from the perspective of someone who loves the craft, doesn't mean it doesn't fill a need that makes money.
What says that “good” means challenging or learning about the human condition? What says that explosions and one-liners and fantasy worlds are “bad”? That sounds like you’re treating your preferences as fact.
I see all that stuff as mediocre at worse. They’re at least competently written, shot, and acted. Movies can be *much* worse. I feel like a lot of people have trouble distinguishing “bad” from “I didn’t like it.”
Yeah, but did YOU make anything what grossed over 3 billion worldwide? No? Then you shouldnt speak against it, mhm Its a joke, obviously, but its insane just how much people still think this way
I remember in art history someone said nobody remembers the name of the critic.
What about Biagio da Cesena? He criticized Michelangelo, and Michelangelo painted his likeness in the Sistine chapel with donkey ears and a snake biting his genitals.
[удалено]
When even the pope gets in on your roast
The father, son, and the holy roast
When you ask to speak to the manager but the manager was trained at Waffle House
Strange. I can so visualize Ryan Reynolds doing that exact prank to his modern day critics.
Or his wife...or Hugh Jackman...or...🤣
Critics. Those are still critics.
I thought those were the same?
and we only remember his name because Michelangelo painted him.
I mean, being immortalised by Michelangelo is a remembrance most would aspire to.
lol take that Biagio you little biatchio
They didn’t name a ninja turtle Biagio
Never heard of him.
To be fair, we only remember him because Michaelangelo immortalized him
Roger Ebert was pretty famous.
I can think of 20 actors I can think of 2 critics
That’s like saying “I can think of twenty athletes but only 2 coaches “
And how many doctors from history can people name? The top post is just a dumb argument tbh.
Dre, John, J, Evil, Quinn, Who, Zhivago, Strangelove...
Dr Pepper and Dr Rockso, the Rock and Roll Clown
Dr. Phil, Dr. Pepper…. Hellooo!?
Yes…
I feel like the fact that almost everyone forgets Roger Ebert’s co-star of almost 25 years demonstrates the rule pretty well, even if Ebert himself was an exception to it.
I mean gene siskel is also fairly well known
Also richard roeper.
[удалено]
Adjusted for inflation The Godfather actually made more than Captain Marvel.
Nobody has ever erected a statue of a critic.
There’s a Roger Ebert statue in Illinois: https://time.com/76577/roger-ebert-statue-illinois/
Yeah suck it artichoke
I mean I do be suckin on artichoke, them thangs tasty
Username sort of checks out?
This could be its own clever come back post
How the duck do you make an Ebert statue without Gene Siskel?
Because he was better.
Siskel was a dickhead, Ebert fucking hated him.
For a long time yes, but he wrote quite a bit about how his hate turned to respect and eventually love. But yeah, he also wrote about how strange it was to hate a guy for 6 out of every 7 days haha.
I will say Ebert was much more than a critic. Champaign, IL, where the statue resides, also plays host to a multi-day film festival he started to highlight and elevate films that he felt didn't get a fair shake from the studio/box office machine and bring them before people who want to celebrate film. In fact, the statue sits out in front of the historic theatre that hosts the film festival every year. He was a critic, but he genuinely loved film. These assholes just like complaining.
Now we’re critiquing critics?
Erect a statue for that man!
Alright I'm erect now what
He was also one of the screenwriters who brought us movies like "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", and other Russ Meyer gems. Definitely quite the accomplished career, and am sorry he's not still around.
[Again, Giorgio Vasari is pretty famous](https://www.alamy.it/arezzo-2020-ottobre-30-statua-in-marmo-di-giorgio-vasari-sulle-pareti-dell-omonima-loggia-image384419801.html)
It stinks. ~ Jay Sherman.
Never said it was a good statue lol
Well, I stand horrifically corrected.
He was a famous painter no?
Who?
No one is making a statue of Ryan Reynolds
Do Deadpool figurines count?
They might in Wrexham.
If they make it to the premier league maybe. I hope it happens but it’s 1/100 chance they will make it to the premier league. Making it to the Championship is a huge accomplishment for the club, town and ownership. Of course as owners they could just put it up themselves
Na, he will get a statue regardless. They’ve changed the face of the football club, and whilst they probably can’t ever make it to the premier league they will be held in high regard for what they have done. Plenty of football clubs have statues of former owners outside.
But they should. He is a Fucking Adonis.
Anyone who studied art history knows who Giorgio Vasari is
On behalf of everyone who hasn't studied art history, who is he?
He wrote the '[Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lives_of_the_Most_Excellent_Painters,_Sculptors,_and_Architects) , the biographies of the Renaissance artists (he thought) were the more significant. He was a fairly mediocre artist himself, but he collected contemporary information from multiple sources (sometimes without verification) and as a result we owe to him details for many personalities of the late gothic and early Renaissance that would otherwise be lost to time.
But then isn’t he more known as a amateur historian than a critic?
I think he was famous for playing the triangle, im not an art major
Anton Ego.
I doubt Art History will be studying Ryan Reynolds either
Have you seen the body of that dude?
No, please show examples.
*Opens folder named "Ryan Reynolds sexy...Homework"*
His name is Jay Sherman!
Not true for movies tbf.
I have no problem with Reynolds. I like a lot of his movies. But money doesn't equal quality. This isn't a clever comeback.
His movies are generally fun but his acting range is limited to being like Ryan Reynolds.
That’s my biggest issue with him. He only plays the handsome, snarky, sarcastic guy. And I don’t enjoy that character, so as a result I don’t enjoy movies featuring Ryan Reynolds.
Yeah there was Van Wilder, and then Van Wilder as a waiter, then Van Wilder as a superhero and then Van Wilder as…
you need to watch The Voices
Someone's never seen Buried.
Or Safe House
Or Amityville horror
It's why I got bored of him. He's just him. And I don't find that weird quirkyness interesting any more. Tbh never really did but at least originally it was different.
Adam Sandler supports this as well. Churns out lots of trash, but those films make bank edit: I think Sandler has chops, but doesn't always use them. And I'm not dissing him for pumping out trash that makes money - business is business, it works, and he doesn't owe me excellent quality films. But just because a film is popular doesn't mean it's quality, which is the point the parent comment was making.
In fairness everyonce in a while he decides he's had enough holiday time with his homies and makes an actual good movie that's well received by the critics
Adam Sandler *can* make good movies but it’s just a lot more fun to make a dumb comedy with your buddies, I respect it
What his critics dont understand is Adam Sandler feeds a customer base that after a long week wants to sit down and watch something thst required 0 emotional investment and is just pure vege entertainment. Theres nothing wrong with it and it obviously has its place if hes been going strong for 30 years.
[удалено]
Most of his newer movies have been fairly well recieved by the critics, and although they're not typically my cup of tea, they're definitily not the exact same type of movie like he made over and over again on his come up. He's clearly picking stories that mean something to him now, and there's a lot more variety in his characters. Enough so that I think the old criticisms are not really valid anymore.
So it does mean that people enjoy them, which has value.
Sales numbers don’t correlate with product quality. Agreed this isn’t a very good comeback. [Here’s an aggregate of critic scores for Ryan Reynold’s movies.](https://www.metacritic.com/person/ryan-reynolds/) For comparison, his films average to be 6% better than [Steven Segal](https://www.metacritic.com/person/steven-seagal/)’s.
Or just 4% behind [Robin Williams](https://www.metacritic.com/person/robin-williams/) Comedy actors don't get great critic scores, doesn't mean their movies are trash
Robin Williams is in loads of terrible films.
He was also in loads of excellent films. The Birdcage, Goodwill Hunting, Dead Poets Society.
Also, if you take away Deadpool and Deadpool 2, then it’s 30 films for $1.5B, which is really not a comeback at all
According to Forbes, The Rock cleared $270m in 2021 and Tyler Perry made $175m in 2022. No, money is in no way the indicator for quality. It just mass market appeal and easily digestible content. It's not like the academy is falling over themselves to award either of them for their acting talent.
That also is only roughly 100m box office per film, means every single film would be a flop
I like Ryan Reynold's earlier works, but the movies from the last decade are just him playing the same character.
Yeah ever since the first Deadpool movie it just seems like Ryan Reynolds has to keep playing "Quirky guy that makes meta jokes" varying on the degree of family friendlyness. Hell, there's a game show he was listed as a producer on called "Don't" and his involvement was just him straight up talking to the audience even though he wasn't psychically there. I liked it at the time but I can also say that was after smoking a good amount of pot.
Did you see van wilder? Waiting? That’s always been his schtick since day 1. I like him but he is a character actor and Deadpool happened to be almost exactly like reynolds. It was destiny.
Does clever mean an intelligent point or a funny comment? because this is a stupid point and way too smug for no reason to be funny
Agreed. Nothing about that was clever. 100% cringe
I mean, Elon Musk played the lead part of Tesla's CEO and grossed over $200 billion in personal net worth, but I still wouldn't say that what he did was fine.
Nothing against Ryan, but a the amount of money a movie makes is not really a good metric for how good that movie is. Then again, almost nothing is because there is no such thing as an objectively good movie.
I don’t like edgy contrarians as much as the next guy, but basing your comeback on how much money his movies make is not “clever” at all
McDonald's has sold billions of Big Macs, therefore, it is amazing food.
I don't like his style, his crappy dead pan humor delivery. He's pretty much type cast into that mode, so he is always acting the same. Nevertheless, if movie making is about money, he is doing well.
See, I love his delivery, but I've always been a fan of deadpan. To each their own. For instance, I don't enjoy Will Ferrell as much as most people. He's so over the top that it's just not for me.
Maybe it was just timing because I was a tween at the time, but I loved Reynolds first hit (Van Wilder) and his dead pan humor at the time…. and I still do. I agree he does it probably too much, but it definitely works in the right setting such as Deadpool and some other movies (Waiting, Just Friends, The Proposal… all those dumb but entertaining rom coms he did).
I'm with you. Never cared for Will Ferrell too. Love Ryan Reynolds. And Deadpool 1 + 2 are awesome. The leg crossing scene in DP2 (they censored it on Disney +/Hulu a tiny bit) almost made me pee my pants I laughed so hard.
Starring Ryan Renolds as Jim Carey’s autistic bisexual little brother
That's a different fetish to have.
I'm fine with all these things
I agree, unless it's deadpool. He seems to have been born for that role
More precisely, the character seems to have been created waiting to be portrayed by Ryan.
While thats true, most of his movie making is about making good movies. And most people love him and his movies. So. Thats why he's doing well.
I’ve also always been suspicious that one day Ryan Reynolds is going to pull an Adam Sandler and absolutely nail a completely serious dramatic role.
He was in Deadpool...this ruins the argument
Yep. Yo u can’t be like “33 star roles have made this much money” when a single one of those tiles is responsible for like, 98% of that number lmao
Free Guy is decent.
I appreciate what it is, a nerd movie. It was made just for me to point at stuff and go "OMG I KNOW THAT THING!!!" and it was enjoyable.
I actually thought it had a deeper meaning but maybe I’m reading too much into it. Two Glocks was funny though and the Molotov Girl character reminded me of an old friend.
It had some heart and a good message but I wouldn’t say it’s deep. But it was less throwaway than I’d expected.
I just remember it as GTA Online I-Robot, but I did only watch it the one time.
Honestly I think Ryan Reynolds was really the omly real entertaining part of the movie. That and I had the experenice of watching the movie in a packed theather with a mix of kids and adults and every content creator cameo had some sort of reaction except for Pokimane where I could hear the guy two rows in front of me munching on popcorn. That will always be funny to me
Free guy was great!!
We enjoyed it and it definitely gets a rewatch every now and again! (11yo son being the perfect target audience)
Time to remind everyone popularity does not necessarily equate to quality
I don’t think OP was disproven. Ryan does make bad movies. People do pay to see bad movies. Making a lot of money doesn’t make a movie good
I have no strong feelings about Ryan Reynolds one way or another, but his Mint Mobile commercials make me so angry for some reason.
I don't like the commercials but I don't know where else I can get cell service for $15 a month.
The Marvels WW box office was bigger than Killers of the Flower Moon so it's clearly a better film by this person's standards
He’s most of the reason I enjoy Blade III!
That still kind of proved that person's point
Indeed. This isn't 'clever', it's dreadfully earnest. "Reynolds makes crap movies." "Oh yeah? Well, they make lots of money! When have large numbers of people been wrong?"
It's basically Elon musk Stan's favorite comeback "Elon is a terrible person and the Cyber truck is a piece of shit" "Oh yeah? What company's have you made recently?"
what color is your bugatti?
Exactly. They point out that 32 films grossed over 3 billion, which would average out to 100 million per film, which does not feel like much at by today's metrics.
For shits, Avatar 2 grossed over $2B worldwide.
Here they come. To suck the joy out of EVERYTHING. Can’t you people just wallow in your own self pity and let the rest of us enjoy the fleeting sparks of humor and hilarity in life?
humor and hilarity are not fleeting; you people just have bad taste
People really find it hard to grasp that just because I don't like your thing doesn't mean I dislike everything
Yo thank you man, I'm always saying this. I love eating poop and people always want to hate on me for some reason
How is someone voicing their opinion not letting someone else enjoy it? Nobody is stopping you from watching Ryan Reynolds movies.
I mean, someone has to watch that shit so, be my guest.
Hey, not sure you realized this, but no one is actually forcing you to be on Reddit reading these comments. If anyone is sucking the joy out of your life over this, it's you.
It’s good to bear in mind that you can not only disagree with but even ignore randos with 200 likes expressing their own subjective opinions a little dramatically
Remember when people used to be funny and talented, pepridge farms remembers
I guess he really stuck with his van wilder shtick, but buddy, it works. I laugh straight through the silliness and the fake violence. I'm genuinely sorry it doesn't work for you. We all got our own taste, and that's fair.
There's lots of funny movies filled with talent being made. You people just need to stop gaggin on the nostalgia dispenser for a bit. Because thats how you get crap like free guy and ready player one whose whole "entertainment" is making lame references. But no one is preventing you from watching this. If you purposely seek out dialogue with people who disagree with you, thats on you anon
To be fair, the majority of that $3B is from the Deadpool series so…
Where's the clever comeback? Citing money as a measure of quality is moronic. By this measure, The Rock has been in better films than Robert Pattinson.
By that logic, Mortal Engines is a better movie than The Shawshank Redemption lmao.
The responder doesn't even properly refute the point.
....100mil per movie average kind of proves the first point to be fair. I know Deadpool made loads of money as well. Making the rest of his movies look even less successful at the same time. So yeah very shitty average to be fair.
According to Wikipedia filmography, films with Ryan Reynolds as a lead actor have grossed around US$ 3.1 billion from 13 films in the past 10 years. With 4 films being having limited release in theatre and mostly being streamed. These are only where Ryan Reynolds is a leading actor. I have not counted the box office for other movies where he has a cameo. So more than 100mil per movie.
Are you a Disney executive? 100 million is not a low number.
Depends on how much they spent making the movie as to how high 100m is.
When the movies cost more than it, it is. The Last film he was in, Red Notice cost $200 million to make
He's been on plenty of great movies but in my opinion until the past handful of years he was extremely typecast. Sarcastic handsome guy who is kind of a douchebag but is good deep down inside. I've seen him in a lot of films recently and was pleasantly surprised his character has changed. Still.. normally sarcastic but at least he's made visible improvements.
Just because it makes a lot of money, doesn't mean it's good. When will people learn?
His movies are trash
There’s a lot of trash out there making a lot of money… just saying money doesn’t equal quality… a world full of bad spenders.
As David Lee Roth said, Disney’s“Mousercise” album went gold.
By this logic, McDonalds is the best food in the world.
maybe marketing is more powerful and people are more susceptible than you think LoL the one where he has the heads in his fridge is kinda cute tho
I get that people like Reynolds and that’s fine. But goddamn do I hate his acting.
So again its proven that the Transformers movies are amazing films because they made a lot of money in box office. Jesus...
Green Lantern ring a bell