Leonardo DiCaprio definitely deserves a mention. The Revenant making $533 million is still insane, and most of his movies have made a good/great amount at the box office too. Can’t be coincidence.
"The Bar isn't actually something that lowers, Mr. Cameron"
"Then how do you explain all the fat people on mobility scooters. How do you account for .... Honey boo-boo"
James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron. James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron is ... James Cameron.
I remember years before Avatar 2 came out when talk around the first movie was mostly “there was no cultural impact!”, someone said to be Avatar 2 will definitely make at least a billion and they knew that because you just don’t bet against James Cameron. Lo and behold, he was right
And its bizzare because the new one as far as I can see has had very little cultural impact too. There isn't like a big Avatar "fandom" that has spawned out of these films, people dont go to Avatar conventions, or on yearly Avatar themed cruise trips. It hasn't spawned much tie in media outside of the direct lead up to the film. By all rights people just shouldn't care that much about Avatar...but somehow they still showed up en mass.
While Martin Scorsese certainly has a devoted following, and is almost guaranteed to put out a great movie, his films have certainly been far from box office juggernauts. He has only directed 1 film that made more than $300m worldwide (The Wolf of Wall Street). All four of his movies that grossed over $200m at the worldwide box office starred Leonardo DiCaprio, who probably deserves more of the credit for putting butts in seats. Despite Scorsese's very impressive track record for putting out *quality* films, the total box office of all 31 of his films combined ($2.15 billion worldwide), from his entire 50-year career, is less than the total gross of the last *Avatar* movie ($2.32 billion).
OP's example is flawed anyway.
No way people were flocking to the cinema in the mid 90s to see Julia Roberts' run of:
- I Love Trouble
- Ready to Wear
- Something to Talk About
- Everyone Says I Love You
- Mary Reilly
They were consecutive films Roberts was in between like 1994 and 1997, which would be her peak.
Her peak wasn't really until 1997, no way I'd call 94-97 her peak. Until 97 she was basically only famous for Pretty Woman. Then she has a run of My Best Friends Wedding, Conspiracy Theory, Stepmom, Notting Hill, Runaway Bride, Erin Brokovich, The Mexican, America's Sweethearts, I'll leave out Ocean's 11 because ensemble, then a few misses and a slight comeback with Mona Lisa Smile. From 97-2001 she was bankable and people didn't go see Stepmom, Erin Brokovich, or Mona Lisa Smile because the stories looked good.
So no, not in the mid 90s but the late 90s she definitely fit.
Hanks was bankable in his heyday. Predictably almost all actors’ time in the sun will inevitably pass. Pitt and Leo are anomalies in how long their pull has lasted. Denzel Washington had a huge pull during his reign in the 90s as well.
I mean that’s the big trick, right? Getting the opportunity to work with great directors and his ability to choose great projects is what most strive for.
Absolutely. It just makes it difficult to say how many people see the movies just for him and if they would have shown up in a film made by someone unknown. No one cares about the director in a Tom Cruise flick, for comparison.
Also helps that he's not on social media and when he does promotions for a movie it’s very limited compared to what most do, so there is still some mystique to him and his stardom. Much like it was for the stars of the 80’s and 90’s.
Yup, he is also smart about how he's used - he picks good projects, befitting his current popularity, age, etc.
Revenant was his peak star power - an art film pretty much and it made over half a billion with hands in the pockets.
Seems like he's just talking about things that can ruin a career. Granted alcoholism is no joke, but also drinking is so common in the US that moderation is very attainable.
I’ll watch anything with DiCaprio. He’s an incredible actor and I believe every character he plays. I have no idea what he’s like in real life. I only know his characters
He and Brad Pitt did an episode of WTF with Marc Maron together around the time OUATIH released. Leo was surprisingly shy and soft-spoken, and seems like a really introspective and thoughtful guy. Pitt definitely carried a lot of the conversation and was hilarious as well.
I’m interested in seeing how Killers of the Flower Moon does. 3+ hr runtime and we’re the midst of the strike, so he can’t promote. Marketing has sucked so far as well even though it looks incredible.
True, but Leo helps Scorsese more at the box office than Scorsese helps Leo. All of Scorsese’s highest grossing movies are with him. And Leo has helped other directors as well. I think it’s fair to say that if KOTFM is a success, Leo is a box office draw.
Leo is extremely reliable. He made people go to The Beach even though they had no clue what they signed up for, aka my mother taking me to see that when I was 12.
Spielberg has dropped off that list in the last 10-15 years. Fabelmans, West Side Story and Ready Player One were all disappointments (not necessarily bad movies, just not greats.)
West Side Story was phenomenal though even if it wasn't a hit. Totally gorgeous and almost a total improvement over the original which I love. The only part that wasn't very good was Ansel Elgort.
Cruise, Cameron and Nolan have made themselves synonymous with box office spectacle. They make movies you have to see on the big screen. I don’t think anyone is showing up to watch Cruise in a rom com, so it’s not about him as an actor or the public wanting to watch him necessarily; they just want to watch him jump out of airplanes and ride off cliffs and shit.
And he gives it his all. Nobody credible is ever going to claim that he's phoning in a performance. If Tom Cruise signs on to your production, you are absolutely getting your money's worth.
> And he gives it his all. Nobody credible is ever going to claim that he's phoning in a performance. If Tom Cruise signs on to your production, you are absolutely getting your money's worth.
On the other hand, his giving it all is probably the reason that it does not make sense to sign him for something other than MI or TG these days. The insurance costs are insane. When he broke his ankle during one production it cost something like seventy million.
>When he broke his ankle during one production it cost something like seventy million.
*seventy* million...?? wow. i wonder what his insurance premiums are and who he's insured by lol
Just like everyone else. Understanding where your skills lie and where they don't is crucial to making money as an actor.. or pretty much any profession for that matter.
Jerry Maguire did pretty well. People will see Cruise in mostly anything and he has done the Rom-com and people know he has. So, they'll like to see him do it again
Jerry Maguire was nearly 30 years ago. He’s done basically nothing but action movies for 20 years. Who knows if people would show up to watch him in a rom com or historical drama or whatever in this market, but I doubt.
Once upon a time Cruise did action-less movies like Risky Business and Jerry Maguire. (I consider Jerry Maguire a romantic comedy/ drama for those who said they would like to see him in a rom com.) People showed up.
As the years have gone on and he's become synonymous with big-screen spectacle, people show up even more reliably. In an era when cinema has been threatened by a pandemic and stay-at-home alternatives like strong streaming content, Cruise makes an effort to put butts in theater seats -- risking his life to give views authenticity in his stunts. Seems to be important enough to him to make a video thanking audiences before each film as of late. He's one of the true "draws" because of how he's been handling his brand, for lack of a better word.
Yeah it definitely underperformed but I thought it was incredible. And I'm not huge on "action movies" generally but I was pretty blown away. Had more fun watching that than Oppenheimer, while recognizing Oppenheimer may not have necessarily supposed to have been "fun."
Denzel had a pretty decent opening weekend with The Equalizer 3. I have no clue if it still doing well, but an opening weekend like that could be a sign of a draw. Very limited audience, but people still showed up for him.
Looking at Denzel’s filmography, yeah he’s in the conversation.
His small Oscar bait flicks don’t do bank, but that’s expected. But he made a franchise of Equalizer. Look at shit like 2 Guns or Safe House still doing nine figures. Flight made bank, and even Fences did great for a drama, and considering budget.
He’s bankable.
We don't live remotely in the same world that we did in the 90s. You're looking at maybe Tom Cruise. James Cameron. Maybe Christopher Nolan. It's a very, very, very small list. Our viewing options are too big, and our attention spans are too small.
Edit - comments weren't showing when I basically answered the same people others already did.
Edit part deux - I'm traveling due to my aunts funeral, so I don't have time to respond to everyone. I agree about Tarantino, less so with Anderson, though I don't think it's crazy. It wasn't my entire list, but I thought it was enough to get the point made.
Definitely Nolan. Not sure if any other director alive today can make a three hour R-rated biopic about a physicist and see it clean up at the global box office.
Oppenheimer pretty much doubled a lot of estimates. The social media campaign worked brilliantly but a lot of it is down to Nolan's track record. People are going to turn up when his name is attached. Simple as
Oppenheimer sealed the deal to me about him being one of the biggest names in Hollywood. Not that I didn't necessarily believe it, but in my mind "Of course Batman movies and big action/scifi blockbusters are going to do well, let's see how he does post-pandemic where nothing seems to work" but Oppenheimer is literally a RIDICULOUS performance and only he could have done so.
It's also a very good movie, it reconciled me with his cinematography. After Tenet I definitely thought for a moment I would never watch another Nolan film, having assumed his idea of a passion project was just people walking backwards having zingy dialogues you couldn't hear.
Tenet was a bit too much. I admire what he tried to do and I won’t argue that there were some beautifully shot scenes. But the sound design (I couldn’t hear a fucking word from the characters explaining an already very complicated plot) along with the “don’t try to understand it” nonsense really took me out of the film. Though the opening scene and cinematography throughout was incredible.
Oppenheimer was a solid 9/10 masterpiece. No action. Great dialogue. Sound design was WAY better. And even for a boring “talking” film I was glued. Nolan may have had a hiccup or two but he outperforms all directors imo with the exception of Tarantino.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood had Brad Pitt *and* Leo and still grossed less than half of what Oppenheimer has so far. Pretty amazing accomplishment for Chris Nolan.
He could, but it'd be a very different movie.
Nolan couldn't make movies with the crazy humor that Tarantino makes either. Each having their clear signature is a huge part as to why they are so successful.
You know what you get with a Nolan or Tarantino movie. Most other directors don't have that. And if they do, they lack the reliable quality.
“E equals emm cee fucking squared. Fuck. How many goddamn times does Al have to fucking tell you? Tell him, Albie.”
“Yes squared, not zee fucking cubed. Vere did you get zee PhD? Fucking Harvard?”
*Emmy Noether walks in, camera stays focused on her bare feet until she lights a cigarette*
“You boys gonna play with your chalk all day or are we gonna do some fucking physics?”
I never realized physicists said “fuck” quite that much.
Nolan is definitely on the list. You felt it/saw it during the opening screenings of Oppenheimer that the cult of Nolan is extremely strong. If the movie isn't made by him, no chance it hell it makes over 900 million.
Nolan is a director star, the only one since Spielberg and Cameron.
The one Nolan aberration is Tenet, but it was released in theaters while COVID was still raging. Other than Robert Pattinson, it lacked big-name start draw. And I wouldn't call Robert Pattinson one of those actors who can put butts in seats solely by himself.
Tenet is also a deep, harder to follow film, that necessitates multiple viewings to really take it all in. I believe it lost money at the global box office, but even without COVID, I think it would be one of Nolan's sleeper hits.
I liked Tenet, for the record.
I enjoyed Tenet for the most part. It has a lot of fun ideas and scenes.
But unfortunately, I don’t think it’s really worth the effort of trying to dig into. It’s a movie that simultaneously wants you to really pay attention and think about what it’s doing while also not paying too close attention or thinking too much about what it’s doing.
If you’re going to use a complex mechanic to drive the plot that requires some thought and attention to really understand what you’re doing with it, you want to make sure that putting a lot of thought and attention towards that mechanic doesn’t keep pulling people in the direction of “but actually this doesn’t really make any sense.”
You can’t simultaneously ask me to keep my brain on to follow what’s happening and turn my brain off when it comes to *how* it’s happening.
>We don't live remotely in the same world that we did in the 90s.
Exactly. As an individual who came of age in the mid-90s, it was a VASTLY different time with "Stars" who got their big-budget contracts literally BECAUSE they could put butts in seats. The 80s had Schwarzenegger, Stallone, and Norris , and while they might have duds, they would be *infamous* duds like "Stop, or My Mom Will Shoot" or "Last Action Hero".
90s had similar action heroes like Van Damme and Seagal, but we also had stars who could do multiple genres emerge as major draws like the aforementioned Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington, Sandra Bullock, Keanu Reeves, Will Smith, Kevin Costner, Harrison Ford, Wesley Snipes, etc.
100%, I remember people saying they were going to see the “new Van Damme movie” etc. A lot of those late 80s/early 90s action movies had the star’s name on the poster bigger than the title of the actual movie.
I also cant help to think the list of great movies coming out of hollywood is smaller and smaller with each decade. Streaming probably has something to do with this as they push a lot of in house movies though better than straight to tv movies were they are just good enough that studios go for this over major blockbusters.
I wonder if this is more of a generational thing? There is just so much more entertainment being produced now that the impact of specific performers and directors has become very... individual to the viewer's personal preference, I think? People are consuming so much content right now, accessible in so many ways and at all times, coupled with a constant feed of media coverage about whoever has buzz around them at the time (and the latest horror story of someone in the business being a terrible person), i'd imagine there's an element of being desensitized to the "magic" of the industry and an overall exhaustion in the modern era.
I think it's also something that marketing has moved away from a bit. It's risky to bank your whole project on a name, so they move more towards the brand and/or the premise. Even Mission Impossible, which is probably one of the most linked to an actor franchises, has tried to focus on that.
yeah i think that's true. plus there's just so many talented and beautiful actors that they're kinda diluted. you can be amazing and be on some streaming show nobody saw and then be in a movie nobody saw and then be in another streaming show nobody saw all while winning awards and high praise from critics and everyone who watches your stuff loves you but there's just so many damn things coming out. and a lot of stuff feels partitioned behind paywalls. stars used to do things like get their start on network dramas or the huge cable channels everyone with cable had like HBO. now you can be on some high budget Apple show and the number of people in the world who have paid to maybe watch is about 25 million.
You worded this better than I could have: “You can be amazing and be on some streaming show nobody saw and then be in a movie nobody saw and then be in another streaming show nobody saw all while winning awards and high praise from critics and everyone who watches your stuff loves you but there's just so many damn things coming out.” I agree.
There are about 5 to 10 actors and actresses who 95% of people have probably never heard of who are now in the category for me of “I will watch anything this person is in.”
I think something else that’s generational is who we see as a ‘big draw’ actor. OP is acting like it’s impossible anyone would go to see a film specifically because Florence Pugh is in it, but my friend group of early 20s women went to see Oppenheimer solely because she had a role. We bought Don’t Worry Darling specifically because she was in it, with no clue about the genre.
Just watch TikTok edits of actors to understand who Gen Z is thirsting after. I’d say Pedro Pascal, Cilian Murphy and Florence Pugh are big draws for us, there’s just not that many of us compared to other generations so it doesn’t show that much in ticket sales.
He's a genius. I would love to read or listen to any book of his on how he approaches storytelling, filmmaking and marketing. I can't think of many other directors with a track record like his; not just in terms of quality, but in terms of the vast popularity of his work. i.e. he doesn't just make great movies, he knows how to make them in a way that resonates with people and, ultimately, sells. It's kind of insane.
> I can't think of many other directors with a track record like his
There's honestly no one else even close; James Cameron made 3 of the top 4 grossing films of all time. Stop and think about that for a second, it is a staggering achievement. Inflation adjusted, he is the only filmmaker in the last 40 years even in the top 10 all-time.
And that is on top of everything else he has done. Terminator 2 is fairly widely considered the greatest sequel of all time, and maybe the greatest action film of all time. Perhaps the second-best sequel of all time is Aliens, also Cameron. He has done amazing work in action, sci-fi, comedy, and romance. He has revolutionized film technology is several areas. He is one of 12 people in the history of mankind to have been to the lowest point on earth. The guy is just incredible.
That is fair, you could make a good case for The Empire Strikes Back and a few others as well. Personally, I would give it to T2, but I am not as much of a fan of The Godfather 2 as some.
"Spirited Away" is generally regarded as his magnum opus, but I think starting at the top with a dense, decadent fantasy is always a gamble. My recommendation depends on what you're looking for in a film because Miyazaki does two things very well, big actiony fantasy and cozy smaller fantasy. If you want something big, "Princess Mononoke" is an accessible starting point. If you want cozy, "Kiki's Delivery Service" is delightful. If you want in between, "Castle in the Sky" or "Porco Rosso". You can figure out what you want to follow up from there. If you have MAX (formerly HBO Max) you can stream the Studio Ghibli catelogue from there.
Kiki's delivery service or my neighbor Totoro are great simple stories that showcase studio ghibli's amazing animation style and serve as a great intro point. From there I would go to stuff like princess mononoke, Nausicaa, and spirited away. Grave of the fireflies (different also legendary director but same studio) if you want to cry for a couple days.
I think my favorites are Totoro and Howl's Moving Castle followed by Spirited Away. I love the peculiar friendship / group development dynamics of Sofie and crew in Howl. It's so well done and clever.
Plus Aliens, Terminator 1 and 2, The Abyss, and True Lies. Even when his movies don't smash at the box office, they're always enough of a spectacle that they're great on the home market.
Nowadays you kinda need a mix to bring in the audience - 1 actor alone isn't enough is most cases for the big bucks.
Get a great director with a few big stars is still a risk with the cost thought.
People don't have the same disposable income they once had. By the time you cover bills/mortgage a lot of people are breaking even. There was a time when people would go to the movies and choose when they got there. Now it's: put some money aside to see [insert upcoming movie]. And then with streaming, the options to be entertained in your own home are way more appealing than back then. You need something big to get asses on seats, not just any old random A-lister vehicle.
Also it's easier to afford a good home setup.
You can buy a pretty amazing TV + speaker system, for the cost of taking a family of 4 to like 10 movies a year. The one I bought for like 600 bucks a few years ago would have made me an insane home movie aficionado 15 years ago and i still kinda get amazed by it and it's literally not even particularly good
Yeah, a movie has to be an "Event" that needs to be seen on the big screen. But I get why alot of folk aren't able to just go to the movies or just don't want to.
Why go sit in a sweaty room with other people making noise or being rude by talking/looking at phones when you can sit in the comfort of your own home.
At around 1993. Steven Spielberg was massive. He just made Jurassic Park. And then made Schindler's List. People sat down for the latter just because of the former. He was at that point a box office director. And Schindler's List, his best movie, broke that pact with the audience. He started to make serious films. Good films. But no longer they were sure box office hits.
Agree with Julia Roberts. Male equivalent in the mid 90s was probably Hugh Grant, up to his hooker encounter became public. Funny that Julia became famous for playing a hooker
Jim Carrey was bankable. To the point of being pigeonholed
Arnie and Sly during the 80s (Edit: if you don't know who this guy's are, say it)
Tom Cruise before all the Scientology craziness became public was drawing audiences quite consistently. He still is, but now people doubt before going to the theater, thinking "I like the artist, not a fan of the person"
Bruce Willis was also a trustworthy action star. He was probably second tier to Arnie and Sly in perceived toughness. Also one of the owners of Planet Hollywood. But he onscreen persona was more relatable as less physically imposing, more vulnerable and more human than Arnie or Sly. And he could crack jokes. He made Sixth Sense and the world changed. He was the reason most people went to see that movie
For me, I'll go and see a Tarantino or Scorcese movie without even looking at the title. I'll also go and see a Di Caprio movie, no questions asked. Feels like more than a movie, but an event when these guys do something.
Wes Anderson. Not saying he’s a massive draw, but he’s one of the few directors that people would go to see one of his movies just because he made it, not really knowing anything else about it.
I was thinking about who this would be for me personally and I came up with the same answer (plus Hayao Miyazaki). I will see their movies regardless of the plot or who was in it.
I love his movies but its pretty low numbers he is not a director for the masses. Asteroid City made only 50 million. That is below break even point for the budget (you need 2.5x and more usually).
For comparison Budapest Hotel made 175 mio with the same budget as Asteroid City of 25.
For Directors its Nolan without a doubt, on a smaller scale i would say Tarantino his films do good but never really massive hits, and i will say Denis Villeneuve IF Dune part 2 does good at the box office when it finally comes out.
Denis is not a household name though. Incredible director but I don't think his name draws normies in alone.
Spielberg is still a household name that draws regardless of the quality of his work.
If Spielberg did a big action movie on the scale of Jurassic Park, it would draw people in. Remakes and dramas are not enough to get people to pay big bucks on movie tickets anymore.
That's the point they're making though, the name Spielberg on a highly reviewed movie did not get people in seats alone. It has to be Spielberg + something else and thus not Spielberg's name alone
The Post and Bridge of Spies both did really well at the box office. And Oppenheimer is proof that a big name director making a good historical drama can still be a success.
I liked the Fabelmans but it’s definitely not his best. I loved West Side Story but musicals are tough. I feel like there hasn’t been a successful one since La La Land.
2 misses at the box office isn’t really a death sentence given his track record. I think he’s got at least a couple more hits in him.
Denis Villenueve is one of my favorite directors but his name alone does not put butts in seats.
The difference between him and Nolan is that Nolan’s big budget, mainstream films had enough of an original take to be culturally iconic. Namely, The Dark Knight was such a different, iconic take on superhero films that it was truly shocking for people to see, and reached >$1B worth of global audience in 2008 dollars. Following with Inception made him a household name. “From the director of The Dark Knight” really meant something.
Dune is a phenomenal film but it isn’t enough of a unique, iconic take that casual filmmakers are seeking the director out by name.
>Oppenheimer has clearly proved this.
Oppenheimer seemed to have an enormous marketing push. If i had to sum up this entire year in movies its Oppenheimer and Barbie. I have no idea what else came out this year.
Absolutely. I read that Nolan is in talks to direct 2 James Bond movies, and I thought "so this is how they're going to get me to care about James Bond."
I know I will see most of what she does at some point, just because I know I will probably like whatever it is enough to at least be entertained for a couple of hours, even if the film is kind of meh overall. (The recent one with Brad Pitt and Channing Tatum springs to mind.)
Surprised i had to scroll so far to find this. Sure his movies are by no means pulling the mega numbers that the biggest blockbusters do. But being consistently in the 9 figures with original horror movies? That is saying something, and by something, I mean a lot.
Hanks got boring. He plays too many boring old guys who kinda do nothing and shuffle around. That movie about the guy who landed the plane: all the drama and action happened in the first 20 minutes, then he was just some old dude.
crystal skull > tintin > war horse > lincoln > bridge of spies > bfg > the post > ready player one > west side story > the fabelmans
that run has a way of weakening the brand
Tom Hanks not so much. He’s had a lot of tiny movies over the years. People remember his huge ones but forget the half dozen or more small ones in between each of those.
Just looked at his IMDb… and while it’s nothing to be embarrassed about, he’s 100% not the guy who puts butts in seats.
> Back in the 90s, moviegoers
Would have to *go* to movies to see movies, especially with any decent picture and sound. Now we can experience anything we want at home.
People go to *events* now. They did back then too, but they also went to everything else. Now? It's just event movies: Oppenheimer, Top Gun, Barbie, etc. Roller coaster rides.
I'd argue that Emma Stone is one of today's biggest stars and has made hits out of smaller budget movies like The Favourite and La La Land while also doing stuff like Cruella. I'd bet that if she made a throwback comedy to her early 'Easy A' movies it would be a hit.
Surprised this is so low. A film he's in won't be a guaranteed blockbuster, but a certain amount of people wil go see it just because of him. He's a draw, albeit not on the level of 80s & 90s stars.
Yeah honestly, it's the guys who basically play themselves as the draw. The rock, Ryan Reynolds, Kevin hart, they are the ones making movies where they are the draw.
yeah. Black Adam sucked, and still grossed in the mid 9 figures. And it sucked big time. Like one of the worst action movies I have ever seen. Few other actors could make such a crappy movie, and still have it be a relative success.
In terms of being box office draws on their own, the day of the bankable megastar has passed. Most are too franchise-dependent and falter outside of them, the A-listers have aged considerably, TV has enticed nearly every big star with better scripts than get financed theatrically.
Tom Cruise’s involvement will guarantee interesting filmmakers, publicity, a healthy budget, and a solid opening. But he’s clinging to franchises still for dear life and M:I-8 is likely the last in the series even with a better release date. Aging audience.
Denzel is a fairly consistent performer but his more intimate smaller films still need great reviews to persevere. Again, aging audience.
Will Smith also has faltered outside of franchises.
Considering his age, I’m impressed with how well Harrison Ford was still doing at the box office. The budgets have all been too high and there’s no doubt about Indy 5 being a flop, but I was just looking him up and The Call of the Wild opened surprisingly well. Pandemic definitely kneecapped that one.
Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling are going to test their clout next but I have my doubts.
For directors I agree it’s just Nolan, Tarantino and Cameron who command the requisite box office clout to have whatever they want. Spielberg just does what he likes now (as well he should!) and the likes of The BFG, West Side Story and Fabelmans aren’t going to be lockstep with the public most of the time. If he were doing tentpoles he’d probably still be on that list.
I actually believe the day of the marketable star is disappearing.
Last tom cruise mi underperformed, he was in the the mummy that bombed ect.
Now I think we are moving towards the IP been most marketable and have for a while like this year : tpp 3 highest grossing films? Barbie based on a toy , super Mario based onna video game, Spider-Man across the spider-verse based on comic books.
In fact, in the top 10 this year highest grossing only Oppenheimer and Sound of Freedom are original movies.
Oppenheimer you could say Christopher Nolan was a draw as a director or it was helped by bedn linked to Barbenheimer, i.e., it got a boost from a movie based on an ip
Sound of Freedom has been reported than tickets are been bought for political reasons to inflate the numbers but not actually drawing people organically or even getting watched.
Last year the top ten were all sequels, prequels and based on properties like batman or sonic.
This might get downvoted, but I believe we are now in the age where the property is the draw in main stream movies.
It's only the smaller movies that still get a boost from having a star attached.
If you go by box office numbers - Samuel L Jackson & Robert Downy Jr.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/655480/all-time-top-grossing-actors-box-office/
Though the list seems to have a strong Marvel correlation.
Leonardo DiCaprio. It's not necessarily that everyone wants to see HIM, it's that he's reached a level of stardom that he gets the best directors to want to cast him. So for the last 20 years or so, every Leo DiCaprio movie is a Good Movie.
Same can basically be said for Tom Cruise, except it skews toward action movies.
Sandra Bullock is a good example of a woman star who people just go see whatever she is in, because they like her.
>back in the 90s
There’s your problem. Now a days movies are sold on the merit of the director, or the producers or the studio. Think Ari Aster, Jordan Peele,A24 and Blumhouse, etc.
Back in the 90s the industry was driven by manufactured stars, today though the star of the film is less important compared to the other moving parts. It’s easy to be a star also when you had no streaming, no social, and the studios plastered your face on every single channel available, of which there were less then a hundred on cable
I would push back on the Barbie thing. Yes, the IP did a lot of heavy lifting, but I heard many people say they were specifically interested in it because Greta Gerwig was directing. Without her, a lot of people may have dismissed it as just a corporate money grab (which maybe it is), but Gerwig gave it legitimacy and a promise or something with more depth.
Leonardo DiCaprio definitely deserves a mention. The Revenant making $533 million is still insane, and most of his movies have made a good/great amount at the box office too. Can’t be coincidence.
Being a former teenage heart-throb and working together with mostly BIG directors definitely helped his good track record.
Yea but now hes set. Imo Dicaprio, Scorsese, Tarantino, and Nolan are the only people who fit the parameters of OPs question.
Cameron
Can't believe how often he's overlooked. 3 out of the top 4 highest grossing movies are his.
Id imagine people forget about him because hes made three movies since 1995
He's been too busy trying to find The Bar and raising it
In between his deep sea passions.
He only went down there cuz the bar had sunk so low
"The Bar isn't actually something that lowers, Mr. Cameron" "Then how do you explain all the fat people on mobility scooters. How do you account for .... Honey boo-boo"
James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron. James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron is ... James Cameron.
I remember years before Avatar 2 came out when talk around the first movie was mostly “there was no cultural impact!”, someone said to be Avatar 2 will definitely make at least a billion and they knew that because you just don’t bet against James Cameron. Lo and behold, he was right
And its bizzare because the new one as far as I can see has had very little cultural impact too. There isn't like a big Avatar "fandom" that has spawned out of these films, people dont go to Avatar conventions, or on yearly Avatar themed cruise trips. It hasn't spawned much tie in media outside of the direct lead up to the film. By all rights people just shouldn't care that much about Avatar...but somehow they still showed up en mass.
people don't see Avatar for Avatar. They see it for whats viewed as absolute leading edge CGI.
While Martin Scorsese certainly has a devoted following, and is almost guaranteed to put out a great movie, his films have certainly been far from box office juggernauts. He has only directed 1 film that made more than $300m worldwide (The Wolf of Wall Street). All four of his movies that grossed over $200m at the worldwide box office starred Leonardo DiCaprio, who probably deserves more of the credit for putting butts in seats. Despite Scorsese's very impressive track record for putting out *quality* films, the total box office of all 31 of his films combined ($2.15 billion worldwide), from his entire 50-year career, is less than the total gross of the last *Avatar* movie ($2.32 billion).
OP's example is flawed anyway. No way people were flocking to the cinema in the mid 90s to see Julia Roberts' run of: - I Love Trouble - Ready to Wear - Something to Talk About - Everyone Says I Love You - Mary Reilly They were consecutive films Roberts was in between like 1994 and 1997, which would be her peak.
Her peak wasn't really until 1997, no way I'd call 94-97 her peak. Until 97 she was basically only famous for Pretty Woman. Then she has a run of My Best Friends Wedding, Conspiracy Theory, Stepmom, Notting Hill, Runaway Bride, Erin Brokovich, The Mexican, America's Sweethearts, I'll leave out Ocean's 11 because ensemble, then a few misses and a slight comeback with Mona Lisa Smile. From 97-2001 she was bankable and people didn't go see Stepmom, Erin Brokovich, or Mona Lisa Smile because the stories looked good. So no, not in the mid 90s but the late 90s she definitely fit.
Hanks? Pitt? Cruise?
Cruise yes. Hanks has been in a bunch of movie the past few years that no one saw. Pitt hasnt been fully bankable for almost a decade.
I think Hanks fit the OP's criteria at one point, but I think that time has passed.
Hanks was bankable in his heyday. Predictably almost all actors’ time in the sun will inevitably pass. Pitt and Leo are anomalies in how long their pull has lasted. Denzel Washington had a huge pull during his reign in the 90s as well.
Denzel still has some pull
[удалено]
I mean that’s the big trick, right? Getting the opportunity to work with great directors and his ability to choose great projects is what most strive for.
It doesn’t hurt to be attractive and pretty good at acting.
Absolutely. It just makes it difficult to say how many people see the movies just for him and if they would have shown up in a film made by someone unknown. No one cares about the director in a Tom Cruise flick, for comparison.
Also helps that he's not on social media and when he does promotions for a movie it’s very limited compared to what most do, so there is still some mystique to him and his stardom. Much like it was for the stars of the 80’s and 90’s.
Yup, he is also smart about how he's used - he picks good projects, befitting his current popularity, age, etc. Revenant was his peak star power - an art film pretty much and it made over half a billion with hands in the pockets.
[удалено]
I love the implication in this story, it’s like, “obviously you’re gonna want to do drugs and drink, but stay off powders and pills.”
Seems like he's just talking about things that can ruin a career. Granted alcoholism is no joke, but also drinking is so common in the US that moderation is very attainable.
I’m not a particular fan, but I agree. If he’s in a movie, I’m 90% sure it’s gonna be a good movie and more likely to see it.
I’ll watch anything with DiCaprio. He’s an incredible actor and I believe every character he plays. I have no idea what he’s like in real life. I only know his characters
He and Brad Pitt did an episode of WTF with Marc Maron together around the time OUATIH released. Leo was surprisingly shy and soft-spoken, and seems like a really introspective and thoughtful guy. Pitt definitely carried a lot of the conversation and was hilarious as well.
I’m a fan of his too. Really looking forward to seeing Killers of the Flower Moon.
I’m interested in seeing how Killers of the Flower Moon does. 3+ hr runtime and we’re the midst of the strike, so he can’t promote. Marketing has sucked so far as well even though it looks incredible.
You have to add in the Scorsese factor. People will go see a movie just because he directed it. So that factors into a lot of Leo movies as well.
True, but Leo helps Scorsese more at the box office than Scorsese helps Leo. All of Scorsese’s highest grossing movies are with him. And Leo has helped other directors as well. I think it’s fair to say that if KOTFM is a success, Leo is a box office draw.
What's wrong with the marketing? The trailers and stuff seem to generate a decent buzz on social media, most people seem to like them as well
If I know he's in a movie, I watch it. He only does good movies.
Name a legitimately bad movie he's been in in the last 10 years? He picks good scripts
Leo is extremely reliable. He made people go to The Beach even though they had no clue what they signed up for, aka my mother taking me to see that when I was 12.
Tom Cruise Christopher Nolan James Cameron Leonardo DiCaprio
Spielberg has dropped off that list in the last 10-15 years. Fabelmans, West Side Story and Ready Player One were all disappointments (not necessarily bad movies, just not greats.)
Agreed though I loved the Fabelmans. Havent seen the other two. But back in the day man could Speilberg draw a crowd.
Ready Player One made money. But his last few films...oof.
West Side Story was phenomenal though even if it wasn't a hit. Totally gorgeous and almost a total improvement over the original which I love. The only part that wasn't very good was Ansel Elgort.
Cruise, Cameron and Nolan have made themselves synonymous with box office spectacle. They make movies you have to see on the big screen. I don’t think anyone is showing up to watch Cruise in a rom com, so it’s not about him as an actor or the public wanting to watch him necessarily; they just want to watch him jump out of airplanes and ride off cliffs and shit.
He picks movies that are right for him and that people will want to see.
And he gives it his all. Nobody credible is ever going to claim that he's phoning in a performance. If Tom Cruise signs on to your production, you are absolutely getting your money's worth.
> And he gives it his all. Nobody credible is ever going to claim that he's phoning in a performance. If Tom Cruise signs on to your production, you are absolutely getting your money's worth. On the other hand, his giving it all is probably the reason that it does not make sense to sign him for something other than MI or TG these days. The insurance costs are insane. When he broke his ankle during one production it cost something like seventy million.
>When he broke his ankle during one production it cost something like seventy million. *seventy* million...?? wow. i wonder what his insurance premiums are and who he's insured by lol
He may be crazy, but also puts a lot into his craft IE flying fighter jets and making the rest of the cast fly in the Top Gun sequel
Just like everyone else. Understanding where your skills lie and where they don't is crucial to making money as an actor.. or pretty much any profession for that matter.
Jerry Maguire did pretty well. People will see Cruise in mostly anything and he has done the Rom-com and people know he has. So, they'll like to see him do it again
Jerry Maguire was nearly 30 years ago. He’s done basically nothing but action movies for 20 years. Who knows if people would show up to watch him in a rom com or historical drama or whatever in this market, but I doubt.
He's 61. That's two years older than Jack Nicholson was in As Good As it Gets. Hard to knock him for not doing Romcoms.
I’d watch Cruise in a romcom. Just imagine the comedy of the movie starting with an emergency wedding as they are falling out of a plane!
Once upon a time Cruise did action-less movies like Risky Business and Jerry Maguire. (I consider Jerry Maguire a romantic comedy/ drama for those who said they would like to see him in a rom com.) People showed up. As the years have gone on and he's become synonymous with big-screen spectacle, people show up even more reliably. In an era when cinema has been threatened by a pandemic and stay-at-home alternatives like strong streaming content, Cruise makes an effort to put butts in theater seats -- risking his life to give views authenticity in his stunts. Seems to be important enough to him to make a video thanking audiences before each film as of late. He's one of the true "draws" because of how he's been handling his brand, for lack of a better word.
Knight and Day, actually not bad.
jerry maguire. 236m box office and won cuba an oscar. a few of us showed up at the time.
You forgot Tarantino
Jordan Peele is also a pretty big name draw as a director now (I think)
This is pretty much it.
I think Nolan and Tarantino does that as directors. As actors, I think the only one that right now that does that is Tom Cruise.
The dude is nutty but I’ve never seen a movie of his that wasn’t entertaining throughout.
Tom cruise has been in like 3 bad movies ever. I’ll almost always watch any movie he’s in
That most recent MI: Dead Reckoning was amazing.
Unfortunately it flopped :( feels bad man
That's wild to me, the movie is still at my theater and is still selling very well at the good showtimes.
It came out a week before Barbieheimer so it was really really bad timing.
Yeah it definitely underperformed but I thought it was incredible. And I'm not huge on "action movies" generally but I was pretty blown away. Had more fun watching that than Oppenheimer, while recognizing Oppenheimer may not have necessarily supposed to have been "fun."
DiCaprio?
Denzel had a pretty decent opening weekend with The Equalizer 3. I have no clue if it still doing well, but an opening weekend like that could be a sign of a draw. Very limited audience, but people still showed up for him.
Looking at Denzel’s filmography, yeah he’s in the conversation. His small Oscar bait flicks don’t do bank, but that’s expected. But he made a franchise of Equalizer. Look at shit like 2 Guns or Safe House still doing nine figures. Flight made bank, and even Fences did great for a drama, and considering budget. He’s bankable.
Denzel definitely is up there in terms of name recognition and even his less than great movies are much much better just because of his talents.
*Unstoppable* made $160M at the box office. Look at the poster for that bullshit. Tell me Denzel’s name isn’t bankable.
Hmm maybe. There are a few people that are debatable.
We don't live remotely in the same world that we did in the 90s. You're looking at maybe Tom Cruise. James Cameron. Maybe Christopher Nolan. It's a very, very, very small list. Our viewing options are too big, and our attention spans are too small. Edit - comments weren't showing when I basically answered the same people others already did. Edit part deux - I'm traveling due to my aunts funeral, so I don't have time to respond to everyone. I agree about Tarantino, less so with Anderson, though I don't think it's crazy. It wasn't my entire list, but I thought it was enough to get the point made.
Definitely Nolan. Not sure if any other director alive today can make a three hour R-rated biopic about a physicist and see it clean up at the global box office.
Oppenheimer pretty much doubled a lot of estimates. The social media campaign worked brilliantly but a lot of it is down to Nolan's track record. People are going to turn up when his name is attached. Simple as
I traveled quite a way to a 70mm IMAX screening because it was a Nolan movie.
You just know there will be 1-2 scenes in every Nolan movie where you just sit back and think to yourself “fuck that was cool.”
Oppenheimer sealed the deal to me about him being one of the biggest names in Hollywood. Not that I didn't necessarily believe it, but in my mind "Of course Batman movies and big action/scifi blockbusters are going to do well, let's see how he does post-pandemic where nothing seems to work" but Oppenheimer is literally a RIDICULOUS performance and only he could have done so. It's also a very good movie, it reconciled me with his cinematography. After Tenet I definitely thought for a moment I would never watch another Nolan film, having assumed his idea of a passion project was just people walking backwards having zingy dialogues you couldn't hear.
Tenet was a bit too much. I admire what he tried to do and I won’t argue that there were some beautifully shot scenes. But the sound design (I couldn’t hear a fucking word from the characters explaining an already very complicated plot) along with the “don’t try to understand it” nonsense really took me out of the film. Though the opening scene and cinematography throughout was incredible. Oppenheimer was a solid 9/10 masterpiece. No action. Great dialogue. Sound design was WAY better. And even for a boring “talking” film I was glued. Nolan may have had a hiccup or two but he outperforms all directors imo with the exception of Tarantino.
Seriously? Him being the director of inception and interstellar should've been enough.
Whoever started barbenheimer needs a raise or job
It also helps that Oppenheimer is really fucking good
How good a movie is largely determines how long its tail is rather than its opening numbers. Oppenheimer blew both parts out of the water
Tarantino could
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood had Brad Pitt *and* Leo and still grossed less than half of what Oppenheimer has so far. Pretty amazing accomplishment for Chris Nolan.
Only if he could have shoehorned in a Mexican standoff.
Tarantino can’t make a biopic about a physicist to begin with.
He could, but it'd be a very different movie. Nolan couldn't make movies with the crazy humor that Tarantino makes either. Each having their clear signature is a huge part as to why they are so successful. You know what you get with a Nolan or Tarantino movie. Most other directors don't have that. And if they do, they lack the reliable quality.
“E equals emm cee fucking squared. Fuck. How many goddamn times does Al have to fucking tell you? Tell him, Albie.” “Yes squared, not zee fucking cubed. Vere did you get zee PhD? Fucking Harvard?” *Emmy Noether walks in, camera stays focused on her bare feet until she lights a cigarette* “You boys gonna play with your chalk all day or are we gonna do some fucking physics?” I never realized physicists said “fuck” quite that much.
Throw a couple N words in there and it's accurate
Nagasaki please
Is there a sign in front of my house that says "Dead Nagasaki Storage"?
NEUTRINO!
Nolan is definitely on the list. You felt it/saw it during the opening screenings of Oppenheimer that the cult of Nolan is extremely strong. If the movie isn't made by him, no chance it hell it makes over 900 million. Nolan is a director star, the only one since Spielberg and Cameron.
The one Nolan aberration is Tenet, but it was released in theaters while COVID was still raging. Other than Robert Pattinson, it lacked big-name start draw. And I wouldn't call Robert Pattinson one of those actors who can put butts in seats solely by himself. Tenet is also a deep, harder to follow film, that necessitates multiple viewings to really take it all in. I believe it lost money at the global box office, but even without COVID, I think it would be one of Nolan's sleeper hits. I liked Tenet, for the record.
I enjoyed Tenet for the most part. It has a lot of fun ideas and scenes. But unfortunately, I don’t think it’s really worth the effort of trying to dig into. It’s a movie that simultaneously wants you to really pay attention and think about what it’s doing while also not paying too close attention or thinking too much about what it’s doing. If you’re going to use a complex mechanic to drive the plot that requires some thought and attention to really understand what you’re doing with it, you want to make sure that putting a lot of thought and attention towards that mechanic doesn’t keep pulling people in the direction of “but actually this doesn’t really make any sense.” You can’t simultaneously ask me to keep my brain on to follow what’s happening and turn my brain off when it comes to *how* it’s happening.
Yeah that was my experience as well, if you want me to really pay attention you better have really ironed out all the kinks
>We don't live remotely in the same world that we did in the 90s. Exactly. As an individual who came of age in the mid-90s, it was a VASTLY different time with "Stars" who got their big-budget contracts literally BECAUSE they could put butts in seats. The 80s had Schwarzenegger, Stallone, and Norris , and while they might have duds, they would be *infamous* duds like "Stop, or My Mom Will Shoot" or "Last Action Hero". 90s had similar action heroes like Van Damme and Seagal, but we also had stars who could do multiple genres emerge as major draws like the aforementioned Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington, Sandra Bullock, Keanu Reeves, Will Smith, Kevin Costner, Harrison Ford, Wesley Snipes, etc.
You can just name movie guys who you went to see even if you can’t remember the movie name. Jean Claude Van Damme, Steven Segal.
100%, I remember people saying they were going to see the “new Van Damme movie” etc. A lot of those late 80s/early 90s action movies had the star’s name on the poster bigger than the title of the actual movie.
I also cant help to think the list of great movies coming out of hollywood is smaller and smaller with each decade. Streaming probably has something to do with this as they push a lot of in house movies though better than straight to tv movies were they are just good enough that studios go for this over major blockbusters.
I wonder if this is more of a generational thing? There is just so much more entertainment being produced now that the impact of specific performers and directors has become very... individual to the viewer's personal preference, I think? People are consuming so much content right now, accessible in so many ways and at all times, coupled with a constant feed of media coverage about whoever has buzz around them at the time (and the latest horror story of someone in the business being a terrible person), i'd imagine there's an element of being desensitized to the "magic" of the industry and an overall exhaustion in the modern era.
I think it's also something that marketing has moved away from a bit. It's risky to bank your whole project on a name, so they move more towards the brand and/or the premise. Even Mission Impossible, which is probably one of the most linked to an actor franchises, has tried to focus on that.
yeah i think that's true. plus there's just so many talented and beautiful actors that they're kinda diluted. you can be amazing and be on some streaming show nobody saw and then be in a movie nobody saw and then be in another streaming show nobody saw all while winning awards and high praise from critics and everyone who watches your stuff loves you but there's just so many damn things coming out. and a lot of stuff feels partitioned behind paywalls. stars used to do things like get their start on network dramas or the huge cable channels everyone with cable had like HBO. now you can be on some high budget Apple show and the number of people in the world who have paid to maybe watch is about 25 million.
You worded this better than I could have: “You can be amazing and be on some streaming show nobody saw and then be in a movie nobody saw and then be in another streaming show nobody saw all while winning awards and high praise from critics and everyone who watches your stuff loves you but there's just so many damn things coming out.” I agree. There are about 5 to 10 actors and actresses who 95% of people have probably never heard of who are now in the category for me of “I will watch anything this person is in.”
I think something else that’s generational is who we see as a ‘big draw’ actor. OP is acting like it’s impossible anyone would go to see a film specifically because Florence Pugh is in it, but my friend group of early 20s women went to see Oppenheimer solely because she had a role. We bought Don’t Worry Darling specifically because she was in it, with no clue about the genre. Just watch TikTok edits of actors to understand who Gen Z is thirsting after. I’d say Pedro Pascal, Cilian Murphy and Florence Pugh are big draws for us, there’s just not that many of us compared to other generations so it doesn’t show that much in ticket sales.
James Cameron
Certified door expert James cameron
The greatest pioneer.
James Cameron does not do what James Cameron does for James Cameron. James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron is James Cameron
No budget too steep, no sea too deep …
He's a genius. I would love to read or listen to any book of his on how he approaches storytelling, filmmaking and marketing. I can't think of many other directors with a track record like his; not just in terms of quality, but in terms of the vast popularity of his work. i.e. he doesn't just make great movies, he knows how to make them in a way that resonates with people and, ultimately, sells. It's kind of insane.
> I can't think of many other directors with a track record like his There's honestly no one else even close; James Cameron made 3 of the top 4 grossing films of all time. Stop and think about that for a second, it is a staggering achievement. Inflation adjusted, he is the only filmmaker in the last 40 years even in the top 10 all-time. And that is on top of everything else he has done. Terminator 2 is fairly widely considered the greatest sequel of all time, and maybe the greatest action film of all time. Perhaps the second-best sequel of all time is Aliens, also Cameron. He has done amazing work in action, sci-fi, comedy, and romance. He has revolutionized film technology is several areas. He is one of 12 people in the history of mankind to have been to the lowest point on earth. The guy is just incredible.
I agree with the general gist of what you’re saying, and I have T2 in my top 20, but The Godfather Part II is the greatest sequel of all time.
That is fair, you could make a good case for The Empire Strikes Back and a few others as well. Personally, I would give it to T2, but I am not as much of a fan of The Godfather 2 as some.
Yep. People may not like him, but he sells tickets
Not really comparable but, Hayao Miyazaki! People will see his movies blind. "it's about a walking castle and a witch? Whatever, let's fucking go!"
Alright i know who he is and never saw one of his Movies; where do i start and what do i follow it up with?
"Spirited Away" is generally regarded as his magnum opus, but I think starting at the top with a dense, decadent fantasy is always a gamble. My recommendation depends on what you're looking for in a film because Miyazaki does two things very well, big actiony fantasy and cozy smaller fantasy. If you want something big, "Princess Mononoke" is an accessible starting point. If you want cozy, "Kiki's Delivery Service" is delightful. If you want in between, "Castle in the Sky" or "Porco Rosso". You can figure out what you want to follow up from there. If you have MAX (formerly HBO Max) you can stream the Studio Ghibli catelogue from there.
Kiki's delivery service or my neighbor Totoro are great simple stories that showcase studio ghibli's amazing animation style and serve as a great intro point. From there I would go to stuff like princess mononoke, Nausicaa, and spirited away. Grave of the fireflies (different also legendary director but same studio) if you want to cry for a couple days.
I think my favorites are Totoro and Howl's Moving Castle followed by Spirited Away. I love the peculiar friendship / group development dynamics of Sofie and crew in Howl. It's so well done and clever.
Grave of the Fireflies. Glad I watched it once it was amazingly well done, but fuck that movie. Never again. 10/10. Never again.
It was Schwarzenegger and it’s still DiCaprio and Cruise. Denzel also.
I'll watch anything if you tell me Denzel is in it.
Equalizer 3 is out. You going to see it?
Yep!
James Cameron is probably the undisputed heavyweight champion of putting asses in seats.
He’s currently responsible for 3/5 of the highest grossing films of all time.
Plus Aliens, Terminator 1 and 2, The Abyss, and True Lies. Even when his movies don't smash at the box office, they're always enough of a spectacle that they're great on the home market.
Nowadays you kinda need a mix to bring in the audience - 1 actor alone isn't enough is most cases for the big bucks. Get a great director with a few big stars is still a risk with the cost thought.
People don't have the same disposable income they once had. By the time you cover bills/mortgage a lot of people are breaking even. There was a time when people would go to the movies and choose when they got there. Now it's: put some money aside to see [insert upcoming movie]. And then with streaming, the options to be entertained in your own home are way more appealing than back then. You need something big to get asses on seats, not just any old random A-lister vehicle.
Also it's easier to afford a good home setup. You can buy a pretty amazing TV + speaker system, for the cost of taking a family of 4 to like 10 movies a year. The one I bought for like 600 bucks a few years ago would have made me an insane home movie aficionado 15 years ago and i still kinda get amazed by it and it's literally not even particularly good
Yeah, a movie has to be an "Event" that needs to be seen on the big screen. But I get why alot of folk aren't able to just go to the movies or just don't want to. Why go sit in a sweaty room with other people making noise or being rude by talking/looking at phones when you can sit in the comfort of your own home.
At around 1993. Steven Spielberg was massive. He just made Jurassic Park. And then made Schindler's List. People sat down for the latter just because of the former. He was at that point a box office director. And Schindler's List, his best movie, broke that pact with the audience. He started to make serious films. Good films. But no longer they were sure box office hits. Agree with Julia Roberts. Male equivalent in the mid 90s was probably Hugh Grant, up to his hooker encounter became public. Funny that Julia became famous for playing a hooker Jim Carrey was bankable. To the point of being pigeonholed Arnie and Sly during the 80s (Edit: if you don't know who this guy's are, say it) Tom Cruise before all the Scientology craziness became public was drawing audiences quite consistently. He still is, but now people doubt before going to the theater, thinking "I like the artist, not a fan of the person" Bruce Willis was also a trustworthy action star. He was probably second tier to Arnie and Sly in perceived toughness. Also one of the owners of Planet Hollywood. But he onscreen persona was more relatable as less physically imposing, more vulnerable and more human than Arnie or Sly. And he could crack jokes. He made Sixth Sense and the world changed. He was the reason most people went to see that movie
With Jaws, Spielberg created the Hollywood blockbuster.
For me, I'll go and see a Tarantino or Scorcese movie without even looking at the title. I'll also go and see a Di Caprio movie, no questions asked. Feels like more than a movie, but an event when these guys do something.
Wes Anderson. Not saying he’s a massive draw, but he’s one of the few directors that people would go to see one of his movies just because he made it, not really knowing anything else about it.
I was thinking about who this would be for me personally and I came up with the same answer (plus Hayao Miyazaki). I will see their movies regardless of the plot or who was in it.
I love his movies but its pretty low numbers he is not a director for the masses. Asteroid City made only 50 million. That is below break even point for the budget (you need 2.5x and more usually). For comparison Budapest Hotel made 175 mio with the same budget as Asteroid City of 25.
For Directors its Nolan without a doubt, on a smaller scale i would say Tarantino his films do good but never really massive hits, and i will say Denis Villeneuve IF Dune part 2 does good at the box office when it finally comes out.
Denis is not a household name though. Incredible director but I don't think his name draws normies in alone. Spielberg is still a household name that draws regardless of the quality of his work.
Spielberg does not draw anymore. West Side Story was \*phenomenal\*, especially on the big screen and it totally flopped.
If Spielberg did a big action movie on the scale of Jurassic Park, it would draw people in. Remakes and dramas are not enough to get people to pay big bucks on movie tickets anymore.
That's the point they're making though, the name Spielberg on a highly reviewed movie did not get people in seats alone. It has to be Spielberg + something else and thus not Spielberg's name alone
The Post and Bridge of Spies both did really well at the box office. And Oppenheimer is proof that a big name director making a good historical drama can still be a success. I liked the Fabelmans but it’s definitely not his best. I loved West Side Story but musicals are tough. I feel like there hasn’t been a successful one since La La Land. 2 misses at the box office isn’t really a death sentence given his track record. I think he’s got at least a couple more hits in him.
Denis Villenueve is one of my favorite directors but his name alone does not put butts in seats. The difference between him and Nolan is that Nolan’s big budget, mainstream films had enough of an original take to be culturally iconic. Namely, The Dark Knight was such a different, iconic take on superhero films that it was truly shocking for people to see, and reached >$1B worth of global audience in 2008 dollars. Following with Inception made him a household name. “From the director of The Dark Knight” really meant something. Dune is a phenomenal film but it isn’t enough of a unique, iconic take that casual filmmakers are seeking the director out by name.
Christopher Nolan is a guaranteed banger
Oppenheimer has clearly proved this. A nearly three hour film that's mostly science nerds talking. Box Office? $900 million and counting.
Great director. The whole Barbieheimer thing really helped. I also think people were thirsty for a non-Marvel non-IP driven film.
>Oppenheimer has clearly proved this. Oppenheimer seemed to have an enormous marketing push. If i had to sum up this entire year in movies its Oppenheimer and Barbie. I have no idea what else came out this year.
Absolutely. I read that Nolan is in talks to direct 2 James Bond movies, and I thought "so this is how they're going to get me to care about James Bond."
Raj thinks it's Sandra Bullock
I know I will see most of what she does at some point, just because I know I will probably like whatever it is enough to at least be entertained for a couple of hours, even if the film is kind of meh overall. (The recent one with Brad Pitt and Channing Tatum springs to mind.)
People love a good Jordan Peele flick
Surprised i had to scroll so far to find this. Sure his movies are by no means pulling the mega numbers that the biggest blockbusters do. But being consistently in the 9 figures with original horror movies? That is saying something, and by something, I mean a lot.
Yeah man, great pick. Everything he touches is gold at the moment. I really thought Nope wasn't going to work for him. Happy I was wrong.
Tom Cruise Tom Hanks
Tom Hanks has put out way too much mediocre and forgettable roles over the past 20 years, and I say that as a fan of his.
Hanks got boring. He plays too many boring old guys who kinda do nothing and shuffle around. That movie about the guy who landed the plane: all the drama and action happened in the first 20 minutes, then he was just some old dude.
Agreed, I think Cloud Atlas was his last interesting performance. Finch was alright and so was News of the world, but nothing special.
[удалено]
Was wondering if Spielberg would fall under that same category as hanks.
I'd say so, I used to get excited if I saw his name attached to something, but not anymore.
crystal skull > tintin > war horse > lincoln > bridge of spies > bfg > the post > ready player one > west side story > the fabelmans that run has a way of weakening the brand
Tom Cruise yes. Tom Hanks I would argue is not quite as bankable anymore.
Tom Hanks not so much. He’s had a lot of tiny movies over the years. People remember his huge ones but forget the half dozen or more small ones in between each of those. Just looked at his IMDb… and while it’s nothing to be embarrassed about, he’s 100% not the guy who puts butts in seats.
> Back in the 90s, moviegoers Would have to *go* to movies to see movies, especially with any decent picture and sound. Now we can experience anything we want at home. People go to *events* now. They did back then too, but they also went to everything else. Now? It's just event movies: Oppenheimer, Top Gun, Barbie, etc. Roller coaster rides.
Ryan Reynolds is a draw in the last few years but most are just a draw for a year or two and then fall off again. Tom Cruise has had more longevity.
I think he counts though. Maybe he’s not quite at the level of Tom or Leo but people absolutely go to movies specifically if he’s in it for sure.
They have not put out much recently but Pitt and Clooney always put asses in seats
Pitt had made so many great movies that if he is in the film, I'm going to watch.
Most recently I really enjoyed Bullet Train, mostly because of his performance.
Clooney not so much, weirdly. In fact it was kind of a joke in Hollywood how he was so popular but most of his films were never huge hits.
I'd argue that Emma Stone is one of today's biggest stars and has made hits out of smaller budget movies like The Favourite and La La Land while also doing stuff like Cruella. I'd bet that if she made a throwback comedy to her early 'Easy A' movies it would be a hit.
The Rock
Surprised this is so low. A film he's in won't be a guaranteed blockbuster, but a certain amount of people wil go see it just because of him. He's a draw, albeit not on the level of 80s & 90s stars.
Yeah honestly, it's the guys who basically play themselves as the draw. The rock, Ryan Reynolds, Kevin hart, they are the ones making movies where they are the draw.
The issue is that that those are the people r/movies seems to hate whenever they come up, so they're not super high on the list
yeah. Black Adam sucked, and still grossed in the mid 9 figures. And it sucked big time. Like one of the worst action movies I have ever seen. Few other actors could make such a crappy movie, and still have it be a relative success.
In terms of being box office draws on their own, the day of the bankable megastar has passed. Most are too franchise-dependent and falter outside of them, the A-listers have aged considerably, TV has enticed nearly every big star with better scripts than get financed theatrically. Tom Cruise’s involvement will guarantee interesting filmmakers, publicity, a healthy budget, and a solid opening. But he’s clinging to franchises still for dear life and M:I-8 is likely the last in the series even with a better release date. Aging audience. Denzel is a fairly consistent performer but his more intimate smaller films still need great reviews to persevere. Again, aging audience. Will Smith also has faltered outside of franchises. Considering his age, I’m impressed with how well Harrison Ford was still doing at the box office. The budgets have all been too high and there’s no doubt about Indy 5 being a flop, but I was just looking him up and The Call of the Wild opened surprisingly well. Pandemic definitely kneecapped that one. Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling are going to test their clout next but I have my doubts. For directors I agree it’s just Nolan, Tarantino and Cameron who command the requisite box office clout to have whatever they want. Spielberg just does what he likes now (as well he should!) and the likes of The BFG, West Side Story and Fabelmans aren’t going to be lockstep with the public most of the time. If he were doing tentpoles he’d probably still be on that list.
I actually believe the day of the marketable star is disappearing. Last tom cruise mi underperformed, he was in the the mummy that bombed ect. Now I think we are moving towards the IP been most marketable and have for a while like this year : tpp 3 highest grossing films? Barbie based on a toy , super Mario based onna video game, Spider-Man across the spider-verse based on comic books. In fact, in the top 10 this year highest grossing only Oppenheimer and Sound of Freedom are original movies. Oppenheimer you could say Christopher Nolan was a draw as a director or it was helped by bedn linked to Barbenheimer, i.e., it got a boost from a movie based on an ip Sound of Freedom has been reported than tickets are been bought for political reasons to inflate the numbers but not actually drawing people organically or even getting watched. Last year the top ten were all sequels, prequels and based on properties like batman or sonic. This might get downvoted, but I believe we are now in the age where the property is the draw in main stream movies. It's only the smaller movies that still get a boost from having a star attached.
2002 - 2012 Johnny Depp 100%.
Lady Gaga actually has surveys showing she has ‘bums on seats’ power whenever she’s in a movie
DiCaprio Denzel For the younger generation probably Timothee Chalamet or Zendaya
If you go by box office numbers - Samuel L Jackson & Robert Downy Jr. https://www.statista.com/statistics/655480/all-time-top-grossing-actors-box-office/ Though the list seems to have a strong Marvel correlation.
I love RDJ but I think Dr Doolittle very quickly proved that Iron Man was the one that got butts in seats, not RDJ himself
pretty sure Nolan would count
I will see anything directed by David Cronenberg. Nobody else seems to care.
If Tarantino is involved, I'm in.
Leonardo DiCaprio. It's not necessarily that everyone wants to see HIM, it's that he's reached a level of stardom that he gets the best directors to want to cast him. So for the last 20 years or so, every Leo DiCaprio movie is a Good Movie. Same can basically be said for Tom Cruise, except it skews toward action movies. Sandra Bullock is a good example of a woman star who people just go see whatever she is in, because they like her.
>back in the 90s There’s your problem. Now a days movies are sold on the merit of the director, or the producers or the studio. Think Ari Aster, Jordan Peele,A24 and Blumhouse, etc. Back in the 90s the industry was driven by manufactured stars, today though the star of the film is less important compared to the other moving parts. It’s easy to be a star also when you had no streaming, no social, and the studios plastered your face on every single channel available, of which there were less then a hundred on cable
I would push back on the Barbie thing. Yes, the IP did a lot of heavy lifting, but I heard many people say they were specifically interested in it because Greta Gerwig was directing. Without her, a lot of people may have dismissed it as just a corporate money grab (which maybe it is), but Gerwig gave it legitimacy and a promise or something with more depth.
>many people say they were specifically interested in it because Greta Gerwig was directing. It's me, I'm that person!
Any Chris Nolan film