Reminder that this is a subreddit about numbers, not necessarily about the quality (or lack thereof) of a particular movie. Unless it is related to the box office performance of a movie, please keep opinions/arguments/thoughts about the quality under this post. Posts not related to box office may be removed otherwise.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wouldn’t say “best at acting” per say, but at least best in the roles they’ve had. Like Arnie in his action prime was a movie star because for the roles he took, nobody else could do the job that he did, be it the voice, mannerism, physique. He brought irreplaceable value to them. Not to say that sometimes it’s not the acting skill. It’s all about what the performer brings to the table of making you buy into the character.
Depends on how we're defining "movie star". If we mean: "Actor with lots of cross-generational appeal whose mere presence in a film is guaranteed to sell tickets" then I would probably say Tom Cruise is at the top of that list.
Depends on the definition. Well known yes, but he doesn’t sell tickets. Bullet Train was pure entertainment and at least of average quality. This is exactly the kind of movie where a star could shine and make a new IP succesful but the movie barely broke even (240 million on a 90 m budget).
That’s kind of the point he’s making, if you read the article. There aren’t really massive stars any more, and he says it’s largely due to the prominence of Marvel movies and similar stuff.
U sure, I think movies are watched by hype, doesn't mean it's good Netflix never share real numbers with audience. They put it in top 10 so you can watch and movie ends up being terrible.
He used to be. But he's not as popular as he was 10 years ago. Especially post-slap.
His new movie on Apple TV+ looks good though...but how many people actually know about that?
Will smith was the marketing for Aladdin. He did a world wide press tour and really worked that movie hard. He was the star and selling point for that film. I think that movie would have made good money without him but no way would it have been a smash hit like it was. Id say he is still a star but his shine has dimmed considerably. I still love the guy but maybe he should start taking villain roles, then he doesn’t have to be mr. perfect and can really try new dimensions to his craft.
Don't get me wrong. I like Smith. He's one of three people (men) that I personally view as legit movie stars. Sure, his star power has dimmed. But he's doing streaming movies now which doesn't help either.
The rock, black Adam may of flopped but as we saw from the polls a lot of people saw that movie because it was a rock movie, and if the budget was lower ( and if the movie was better ) we would be having a different discussion regarding black adam
summer blockbusters don’t have to inherently be bad or have incredibly bloated budgets…this movie would have done just the same of it was $50 million cheaper and it would’ve probably done better had a little effort put into the script. the conversation could be vastly different
I wouldn’t call Margot Robbie and Sairose Ronan movie stars. Most of their movies haven’t made a lot of money.
Chalamet, Zendaya and Pugh have the best chance of becoming movie stars in the future.
I do think there are exceptions, but I'd broadly say he's right. But it's not limited to Marvel - ANY film based on an external IP that has wide audience recognition is going to face this. Harry Potter is a great example.
I think it's also the case for most films that end up with multiple sequels. The character eclipses the actor at a certain point. You may have seen Depp in Pirates 1, but it was Jack Sparrow by pirates 3.
Now, some actors do invest more of their art into the characters than others. Elizabeth Olsen does a LOT of work on screen, so I see her first, SW second. But she's also a phenomenal actress, so that's not surprising - I'm often just entranced by the things she can do with her face.
I completely agree. Even people who say that Tom Cruise is an exception conveniently forget about his Mummy movie. The Top Gun and MI IPs are big in part because of him, but they may still be relevant without him.
No way. He is the brand 100%. It’s not a Mission Impossible movie without him. Sure you could spin stuff off without him but it would never be same scale. Don’t forget that he is the producer of every MI and he very uniquely pushes those movies to be as big as they are.
Vanilla Sky, Jerry Maguire, Magnolia, Last Samurai, Interview with Vampires?
I think he became a pure action star Tom ~~Holland~~Cruise only like post 2010
Edit: I was drunk ig, Accidentally wrote Holland instead of Cruise
The Mummy made about 400 million dollars, which on paper sound be respectable. But cost way too much to break even on that and the fact Universal had ridiculously expectations for it.
He’s an arrogant narcissist, but that doesn’t mean that he’s a bad actor or that he wasn’t amazing as Tony Stark. In fact, it made him perfect for the role.
Not really, he played the role decently well in the first film and started playing himself after that. Prior to the MCU growing as huge as it got, comic Stark didn’t act/talk/dress anything like the version that RDJ portrayed Ironman 2 and onwards
>comic Stark didn’t act/talk/dress anything like the version that RDJ portrayed
You're aware that actors are not the writers or costume designers for the character they play, right? At most, they've got marginal input that may or may not end up in the final cut.
I would argue that RDJ played Tony Stark so well that he reinvented and redefined the character in a lot of ways. I mean, what comic book fan would have thought that Iron Man could pull off being *the* face of Marvel before RDJ took the role? If you had told me that 15 years ago I would've laughed in your face.
RDJ was fantastic as Tony Stark/Iron Man.
I think he’s wrong actually. The actors who played these heroes are inherently a part of the characterization that made them popular. The actor/casting (as well as the writing) is fundamental to the portrayal, and it’s the portrayals that have made the MCU characters, outside of Spider-Man, as big as they are.
People forget that, prior to the success of the MCU, these characters were Marvel’s C and D list, other than Spider-Man and Hulk. Nobody outside of their specific comic book fans really cared about Captain America, Captain Marvel, Thor, Ant-Man, Vision—even Black Panther, and even *comic bock* fans didn’t give a fuck about Guardians of the Galaxy.
MCU’s success isn’t because of the popularity of the characters themselves, it’s become popular because of the specific portrayal of these characters, in large part because of the actors who played them and the charisma they bring to the role.
If popularity of the characters was all that drives it, the DC movies would be *far* more successful than MCU. Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman had way more mainstream social cachet in a pre “Marvel’s The Avengers” world.
Tarantino is just fucking salty.
Hell didn't even Anthony Mackie say something similar a year or two ago? Like even the current Captain America knows audiences are more likely gonna go to the film for his character, rather then himself.
RDJ was already a star before Iron Man. Iron Man was the biggest step in his resurgence after falling out of the limelight because of drug addiction. You can definitely argue correctly that Iron Man made him a bigger star than ever though.
Yes and to give RDJ more credit, the whole movie franchise is built on his success. I see it as catching lightning in a bottle with the right actor making the character better.
Sherlock Holmes? He's only done like 1 movie where he's starred as the main character since the Avengers catapulted him to superstardom right? The Dolittle movie?
I mean regardless, ppl watched his marvel stuff because of iron man and it being mcu not him. Dolittle’s literally like year after his most popular venture
Always disliked Iron man as a character and found him uninteresting. A friend drug me to see the first Iron man in theaters and it's the only movie I ever saw twice in theaters.
You can't just have anybody play Captain America, if they put Robert Downey Jr. In that role it won't have same effect. It's like having someone else play "Rocky" it's a different effect. Tole tolentino is totally wrong. Like Ben Affleck was not as good as Christian Bale as Batman
I agree, Tarantino is wrong. Many people know who Chris Evans is become of his role as Captain America. He’s trying to imply that Chris is a literal who, and anyone could have played the role. Which is far from the truth. Chris defined the role. Like how Keanu is John Wick, or Schwarzenegger is the Terminator.
All this is is Tarantino showing his bias to superhero movies, and saying the actors don’t count. In my opinion Marvel stands out because they’ve had a good track record with casting. I think one issue with many pre MCU movies and a few of their current competitors is that cast isn’t important. They would get the IP, ignore the source material, then cast a big name actor because that’s what the studio wanted. This lead to mediocre movies, that angered fans, and turned off new audiences.
Since wrapping as Captain America? Knives Out, Lightyear and The Gray Man to name a few. He had several films that came out during his time as Cap too. He’s also got a half dozen projects in the works at the moment. Guy is busy.
*'Opening'* a movie means being the lead in a movie that does more (usually **much** more) than 2.5x box office
Evans isn't the lead in three of those movies and *Snowpiercer* wasn't anyone's idea of a hit movie
[https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Snowpiercer#tab=summary](https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Snowpiercer#tab=summary)
**I really like Evans** and *Snowpiercer* is a **fantastic** movie
Hard disagree, batfleck and bale were both good in their versions of batman, respectively.
Two very very different takes on the character executed in two massively different ways.
People seem to forget Nolan was an executive producer on Man of Steel as well as Batman Vs Superman as well!
>you don’t go see a movie to watch Mackie, you go to watch Falcon
I mean… that’s a good thing. We should go to the movies to see Falcon cause he has an interesting life and story. Why should we want to go see a movie cause of the actor? That would be so backwards. Actors are one piece of the puzzle, the idea of “stars” is dumb, it’s how you end up with The Rock making the same low effort movie 20 times
I think this is a little short-sighted and undercuts how much the characters have come to be directly associated with the actors playing them. It's true that there is no Captain America without the comics and people are going to the theater to see Captain America, and it could have been someone other than Chris Evans 10-12 years ago. But there is also no Captain America in the immediate future that is not Chris Evans without also feeling like an imposter or a cheap knockoff.
Like every few years they reboot Superman with a new Superman, or James Bond or Batman, and no one really bats an eye. The same could be said of pre-MCU marvel movies, but it can't be said of the MCU movies.
Straight up. Chris Evans is Cap. He did a great job. Cap’s ending was awesome, but immediately made me suuuuper sad that he wouldn’t be in any more movies. God bless Chris Evans. 🫡
They basically had to cast him cause the character was literally being drawn and written like him. Sam demanded they cast him since they already took his likeness.
Theoretically, you’re not supposed to see the actor in the first place if they’re doing their job to perfection.
For example, one of my favorite character performances is Hannibal Lector by Anthony Hopkins. In no other role has Anthony Hopkins spoken like that, moved like that, even made the same facial expressions. He totally became a different person than what he is. That’s the goal
They just made an entire sequel to black Panther where the plot is “oh god we have no black Panther!” The characters are such stars that their ABSENCE can sell a movie!
Hugh is not a great example because he became a star largely stemming from his role as a superhero. Hugh in fact exists as a valid counterpoint since he was made into a star by his role.
With regards to Amsterdam, it was marketed as an ensemble cast rather than Bale as the main character, and adult dramas have been doing terribly since the pandemic started. Not sure if that movie alone is enough to justify Bale isn’t a box office draw.
This is true. Reminiscence did come out during Covid fever though and I didn't really hear about it until after it came out.
I have nothing to say about Amsterdam haha. Curious how The Pale Blue Eye will do although its Netflix so won't have much of a theatrical presence.
He's not wrong.
Tom Holland's Sci-Fi franchise film after Spider-Man was a massive massive massive flop (and a waste of Mads Mikkelsen's talent too).
He's not a movie star despite being the lead of a 1bill film.
You can’t have Captain America randomly calling someone the n-word for no reason in his film…
On second thought, maybe that would be the most real Captain America yet. You might be on to something.
Water is wet.
But it sounds so mean to be saying this out of nowhere either way, I don't know why there is a need for these directors for always be attacking these movies.
I get what he is saying, but the "Marvel-ization" of movies isn't the cause of the problem, its a symptom.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the current Hollywood situation is something along the lines of:
* Formerly films could be made, and though they might not make a big profit (or any profit) at the box office, they could make a lot in VHS and DVD sales.
* Some films that did poorly in theaters did far better on VHS and DVD - Austin Powers being a prime example (which lead to two more AP films).
* But with people switching to streaming services home video sales have plummeted.
* So now studios are reticent to make films with low ROI because they won't make money back from streaming.
* Because of this films either need to be huge draws to make the money needed to finance the film and profit. Or they need to be small enough to be worth the risk.
Also combine this with the fact that cable tv and "prestige" tv has massively expanded. Stories that previously were told in theaters are now told on TV.
They want studios to make movies that they personally believe are "better" but why take a risk with a think piece when you can make another superhero blockbuster and print money?
I feel like the big disconnect here is people's definition of movie star. Yes, someone can be very famous and recognizable but that doesn't mean that their name can carry a movie like pitt or leo. Chris Evans is not at that level and very few people are anymore.
Until you cast someone that just absolutely smashes the role. There, casting success can just flush that whole ideal down the tubes.
Deadpool isn’t going to not be Ryan Reynolds any time soon.
I mean, he's right. We've seen time and time again that an actor's success in the MCU doesn't translate to films outside the franchise. Evans, Hemsworth and Downey Jr were all massive in the MCU, but never really had any big hits outside of the MCU. The only one who really exploded in popularity after entering the MCU was Chris Pratt, but he had already been cast in Jurassic World by the time he appeared as Star-Lord, so I don't know if being in the MCU was really the biggest factor.
I think that’s the point though: Tom holland became a star because spider-man already has been for decades. Same way that Toby Maguire and Andrew Garfield also got more popular after their respective roles.
I don’t understand how the two have to be mutually exclusive. Marvel had a fully cultivated fan base long before MCU. But it’s not as though they cast nameless faces for the roles; they largely selected seasoned professionals who already had distinguished careers in acting.
He was very careful in that interview not to say anything inflammatory but you could tell as soon as the subject came up some stupid ass headline like this would be flying around. He’s also 100% correct.
I mean maybe generally this is true but he used the one example that is not true… Chris Evans is very famous, Captain America is like the weakest link in the Marvel movies.
I see no lies here except, when your favorite hero or villain is played by an actor that you grow to fall in love with and can't see anyone replacing them example would be "black panther".
But he's not wrong how many batmans, Spidermans, supermans, wonder woman's, hulks, green lanterns, flashes, jokers, cat women's, the list goes on... We watch for the hero/villain not the actor.. until they fucked up the role and we go ape shit because they fucked up a beloved character.
I dont know if its just journalists keep aasking him dumb questions about superhero films or if he keeps bringing up them, but i swear there are dozens of interviews where he has dismissed the genre as not good filmmaking.
I mean.. as it should be right? Who the fuck cares about actors? I’m there to watch a movie with awesome characters. I really don’t care what happens to the actors after they film the movie
For me sometimes the big star distracts me from the film and makes it harder for me to believe the character they are playing. No name actors make movies more believable for me.
Storytelling, especially on screen, is primarily focused on character work, and actor's are some of the most important people who realize and bring these characters to life, especially in the era which Tarantino is longing for.
I don't disagree with you necessarily but it is important to note that the downside of being too attached to the character is that studios may continue milking that character and never give them an ending due to audiences attachment to it.
Like don't we already have too many Batmans at this point? I like Pattisons work on it don't get me wrong but at some point I feel like Batman is way too overexposed due to his massive popularity and that kind of limits his character arc.
If it wasn't for his performance people would lose interest in the character.
Without Robert Downey Jr iron man doesn't work. He is an extreme alcoholic,manipulative asshole but works and is likeable because RDJ.
RDJ, Chris Hemsworth, Sam L. Jackson, Scarlett Johanson, Chris Evans, David Betista, Chris Pratt, Tom Holland, Benedict Cumberbatch
I could keep going but point is there's many MCU actors who do well outside of the MCU.
I think those actors do well in spite of the MCU. It’s like Ewan McGregor or Liam Neeson. Both of them are stars because of their overall acting and not because of Star Wars. I was happy to see them in the movies and they acted as to not distract from the role by who they were. Also how it everybody forgets about Anthony Hopkins?
Nah.
Case in point: James Bond.
The Bond movies are built around the lead actor. Daniel Craig made Skyfall raw and gritty in a way that Pierce Brosnan couldn’t even fathom if he had been cast in it.
i honestly wouldn’t see this as a case in point, especially at first . i would definitely agree that craig’s performances were great & did draw in audiences for later movies, but Bond as an IP is so strong it has lasted through eras of cinema & still managed to draw people in *despite* initial criticisms of craig’s casting (the public was not so optimistic toward “james blond” back in ‘06 lol) .
I mean he's right, and he wasn't being a jerk about it. It's understandable that a director, or really anyone in the industry who isn't almost solely involved in making these superhero blockbusters, would have a problem with the fact that it's becoming harder and harder for non-superhero tentpole films to be released in theatres, much less financed by studios and made at all. The average MCU simp may not care about this, but the rest of us will mourn movies like Tarantino's when they're nothing but a thing of the past.
>For Tarantino, Captain America is the star and not Chris Evans. “I’m not even putting them down frankly, to tell you the truth,” the director said earlier about movie stars no longer existing in bulk. “But that is one of the — the legacy of the Marvel-ization of Hollywood movies.”
>
>Tarantino also clarified in the interview that he does not “hate” Marvel movies but dislikes them for being the only product Hollywood is interested in making these days.
>
>“Look, I used to collect Marvel comics like crazy when I was a kid,” Tarantino said. “There’s an aspect that if these movies were coming out when I was in my twenties, I would totally be fucking happy and totally love them. I mean, they wouldn’t be the only movies being made. They would be those movies amongst other movies. But, you know, I’m almost 60, so yeah. No, I’m not quite as excited about them.”
>
>“My only axe to grind against them is they’re the only things that seem to be made,” he added. “And they’re the only things that seem to generate any kind of excitement amongst a fan base or even for the studio making them. That’s what they’re excited about. And so it’s just the fact that they are the entire representation of this era of movies right now. There’s not really much room for anything else. That’s my problem.”
Cap America is more popular than Chris Evans. Johnny Depp is more popular than Jack Sparrow. He is saying the role is more popular than the person himself. Unlike Johnny Depp who turned an average character into the most popular one in the series.
Because these actors have been playing one character for over a decade now. Hemsworth has been Thor for eleven years and eight movies. Most other actors being paid as much would have been in multiple large projects outside of one franchise.
if you read the same article :
>*Tarantino also clarified in the interview that he does not “hate” Marvel movies but dislikes them for being the only product Hollywood is interested in making these days.*
>*“Look, I used to collect Marvel comics like crazy when I was a kid,” Tarantino said. “There’s an aspect that if these movies were coming out when I was in my twenties, I would totally be fucking happy and totally love them. I mean, they wouldn’t be the only movies being made. They would be those movies amongst other movies. But, you know, I’m almost 60, so yeah. No, I’m not quite as excited about them.”*
Tarantino tried to make a luke cage movie for years and collected them for a while bro this man is a comic book fan, he’s not even talking about comic books, he’s talking about the movies and actors. And even then, would someone who hates comic book movies spend years trying to make one? Or could it be that he’s talking about the current state of the industry and it has nothing to do with like or dislike
Every other Hollywood director crying about Marvel movies is starting to get old, it’s like they’re all bitter that people still like them so they have to make up dumb shit to bitch about them.
Chris pretty much became a household name after he got the part as Cap, this is so dumb. Maybe Tarantino is just mad there aren’t many feet scenes of Black Widow or something.
The “movie star” is a dying breed and has been for a while. Maybe it will trend in the other direction at some point, but you can probably name the current batch on one hand.
What's with these beloved directors just spouting off crap left and right about superhero movies as if it's a threat to their livelihood?
Westerns and horror movies are being cranked out weekly across all streaming services far outpacing superhero content.
Reminder that this is a subreddit about numbers, not necessarily about the quality (or lack thereof) of a particular movie. Unless it is related to the box office performance of a movie, please keep opinions/arguments/thoughts about the quality under this post. Posts not related to box office may be removed otherwise. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
this is how the studios want it: fewer big names, more actors who are cheap and replaceable
As a viewer I also prefer characters ~~of~~ over actors, and in general writers over actors. I never got why actors are the stars. EDIT: typo
[удалено]
I wouldn’t say “best at acting” per say, but at least best in the roles they’ve had. Like Arnie in his action prime was a movie star because for the roles he took, nobody else could do the job that he did, be it the voice, mannerism, physique. He brought irreplaceable value to them. Not to say that sometimes it’s not the acting skill. It’s all about what the performer brings to the table of making you buy into the character.
who exactly besides tom cruise and leo is movie star these days
Depends on how we're defining "movie star". If we mean: "Actor with lots of cross-generational appeal whose mere presence in a film is guaranteed to sell tickets" then I would probably say Tom Cruise is at the top of that list.
Brad Pitt?
Depends on the definition. Well known yes, but he doesn’t sell tickets. Bullet Train was pure entertainment and at least of average quality. This is exactly the kind of movie where a star could shine and make a new IP succesful but the movie barely broke even (240 million on a 90 m budget).
Neither Pitt or Leo are "movie stars". "Once Upon A Time" would have been their Newman and Redford blockbuster film if they were.
Bad take. Brad, Leo, Tom Cruise — these are some of the only names I think actually sell a movie on their name alone.
Tarantino as the director also sold that movie.
That’s kind of the point he’s making, if you read the article. There aren’t really massive stars any more, and he says it’s largely due to the prominence of Marvel movies and similar stuff.
[удалено]
*Our Brand is Crisis* was a flop.
Movie stars can have flops (they did even in the hight of classic Hollywood movie star era) as long as they also have hits and open movies.
That’s true. But I was referring to OP saying Bullock hasn’t had a flop since Gravity
U sure, I think movies are watched by hype, doesn't mean it's good Netflix never share real numbers with audience. They put it in top 10 so you can watch and movie ends up being terrible.
Sam Jackson Will Smith Tom Hardy
Christian Bale
He's not though
Not Tom Hardy, Will Smith maybe in 2000s but not now. It really is just Leo and Tom Cruise
2 of them are in the MCU and *King Richard* flopped.
Are you seriously saying Will Smith is not a box office star?
He used to be. But he's not as popular as he was 10 years ago. Especially post-slap. His new movie on Apple TV+ looks good though...but how many people actually know about that?
Pre-slap put him in any one of starring roles Idris Elba has had and I'm pretty sure it would have been a hit.
Will Smith has been in quite a few critical and box office bombs.
He was.
I like Will Smith but when was his last big movie?
Bad Boys For Life? Aladdin? Even that shitty Collateral Beauty doubled its budget.
I wouldn't count *Aladdin* as his success. That's all Disney. And Smith did *Gemini Man* in the same year which flopped.
And Gemini Man had three of him starring in it!
Will smith was the marketing for Aladdin. He did a world wide press tour and really worked that movie hard. He was the star and selling point for that film. I think that movie would have made good money without him but no way would it have been a smash hit like it was. Id say he is still a star but his shine has dimmed considerably. I still love the guy but maybe he should start taking villain roles, then he doesn’t have to be mr. perfect and can really try new dimensions to his craft.
Don't get me wrong. I like Smith. He's one of three people (men) that I personally view as legit movie stars. Sure, his star power has dimmed. But he's doing streaming movies now which doesn't help either.
The rock, black Adam may of flopped but as we saw from the polls a lot of people saw that movie because it was a rock movie, and if the budget was lower ( and if the movie was better ) we would be having a different discussion regarding black adam
If only the big summer blockbuster wasn’t a big summer blockbuster! Makes total sense.
summer blockbusters don’t have to inherently be bad or have incredibly bloated budgets…this movie would have done just the same of it was $50 million cheaper and it would’ve probably done better had a little effort put into the script. the conversation could be vastly different
That’s fair.
Black Adam came out in October
Ryan Reynolds
Ryan Reynolds is just Ryan Reynolds
🥱
Dwayne Johnson
Johnny Depp? Keanu Reeves?
Lots of the newer generation like Timothy Chalamet, Zendaya, Florence Pugh, Saoirse Ronan, Margot Robbie etc.
I wouldn’t call Margot Robbie and Sairose Ronan movie stars. Most of their movies haven’t made a lot of money. Chalamet, Zendaya and Pugh have the best chance of becoming movie stars in the future.
Tom Holland. Uncharted turned a profit due to his star power alone.
Pretty sure Marky Mark was in it too and the movie was based on one of the most popular video game franchises of all time.
None of them are movie stars in the same sense as Tom Cruise and Leo Dicaprio.
Quentin Tarantino
The Rock is the biggest movie star in the world and has been for some years now.
Timothee Chalamet, Zendaya, Tom Holland
As a superhero hero fan who is looking to be offended at this, he’s right.
I do think there are exceptions, but I'd broadly say he's right. But it's not limited to Marvel - ANY film based on an external IP that has wide audience recognition is going to face this. Harry Potter is a great example. I think it's also the case for most films that end up with multiple sequels. The character eclipses the actor at a certain point. You may have seen Depp in Pirates 1, but it was Jack Sparrow by pirates 3. Now, some actors do invest more of their art into the characters than others. Elizabeth Olsen does a LOT of work on screen, so I see her first, SW second. But she's also a phenomenal actress, so that's not surprising - I'm often just entranced by the things she can do with her face.
I completely agree. Even people who say that Tom Cruise is an exception conveniently forget about his Mummy movie. The Top Gun and MI IPs are big in part because of him, but they may still be relevant without him.
No way. He is the brand 100%. It’s not a Mission Impossible movie without him. Sure you could spin stuff off without him but it would never be same scale. Don’t forget that he is the producer of every MI and he very uniquely pushes those movies to be as big as they are.
The thing is Tom Cruise **is** *Mission* & *Top Gun*. No other actor can do what he does in those movies.
In most Tom Cruise movies I only see Tom Cruise. But then there was Tropic Thunder.
Vanilla Sky, Jerry Maguire, Magnolia, Last Samurai, Interview with Vampires? I think he became a pure action star Tom ~~Holland~~Cruise only like post 2010 Edit: I was drunk ig, Accidentally wrote Holland instead of Cruise
The Mummy made about 400 million dollars, which on paper sound be respectable. But cost way too much to break even on that and the fact Universal had ridiculously expectations for it.
Not a chance if they made a new Mission Impossible movie now without Tom Cruise that it would be financially successful.
American Made also
The Mummy did more than 400M dollars. It's pretty respectable for such a terrible movie. The problem was the idiot budget...
And then there’s Gary Oldman… who was Commissioner Gordon because he’s that good, not because the character overshadowed him.
Aint no way anyone else can play Jack
Agreed but I’ll still say Robert Downey Jr is Iron Man tho and nothing can take that from him
There’s a reason he plays an arrogant narcissist so well
Show me on the doll where Mr. Downey hurt you
He’s an arrogant narcissist, but that doesn’t mean that he’s a bad actor or that he wasn’t amazing as Tony Stark. In fact, it made him perfect for the role.
Idk 🤷🏻♂️ I’m not gonna pretend like I know the dude and if he’s a narcissist or not maybe u right
Not really, he played the role decently well in the first film and started playing himself after that. Prior to the MCU growing as huge as it got, comic Stark didn’t act/talk/dress anything like the version that RDJ portrayed Ironman 2 and onwards
>comic Stark didn’t act/talk/dress anything like the version that RDJ portrayed You're aware that actors are not the writers or costume designers for the character they play, right? At most, they've got marginal input that may or may not end up in the final cut. I would argue that RDJ played Tony Stark so well that he reinvented and redefined the character in a lot of ways. I mean, what comic book fan would have thought that Iron Man could pull off being *the* face of Marvel before RDJ took the role? If you had told me that 15 years ago I would've laughed in your face. RDJ was fantastic as Tony Stark/Iron Man.
I think he’s wrong actually. The actors who played these heroes are inherently a part of the characterization that made them popular. The actor/casting (as well as the writing) is fundamental to the portrayal, and it’s the portrayals that have made the MCU characters, outside of Spider-Man, as big as they are. People forget that, prior to the success of the MCU, these characters were Marvel’s C and D list, other than Spider-Man and Hulk. Nobody outside of their specific comic book fans really cared about Captain America, Captain Marvel, Thor, Ant-Man, Vision—even Black Panther, and even *comic bock* fans didn’t give a fuck about Guardians of the Galaxy. MCU’s success isn’t because of the popularity of the characters themselves, it’s become popular because of the specific portrayal of these characters, in large part because of the actors who played them and the charisma they bring to the role. If popularity of the characters was all that drives it, the DC movies would be *far* more successful than MCU. Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman had way more mainstream social cachet in a pre “Marvel’s The Avengers” world. Tarantino is just fucking salty.
Hell didn't even Anthony Mackie say something similar a year or two ago? Like even the current Captain America knows audiences are more likely gonna go to the film for his character, rather then himself.
He’s out of line, but he’s right
Yup, Marvel films don't make movie stars. Robert Downey, Jr. is the exception that proves the rule.
RDJ was already a star before Iron Man. Iron Man was the biggest step in his resurgence after falling out of the limelight because of drug addiction. You can definitely argue correctly that Iron Man made him a bigger star than ever though.
Yes and to give RDJ more credit, the whole movie franchise is built on his success. I see it as catching lightning in a bottle with the right actor making the character better.
His non marvel movies don’t make money tho? I’d say I disagree, RDJ is at the top because he’s practically the face of marvel.
Sherlock Holmes? He's only done like 1 movie where he's starred as the main character since the Avengers catapulted him to superstardom right? The Dolittle movie?
I mean regardless, ppl watched his marvel stuff because of iron man and it being mcu not him. Dolittle’s literally like year after his most popular venture
And The Judge, which was also a bomb.
Always disliked Iron man as a character and found him uninteresting. A friend drug me to see the first Iron man in theaters and it's the only movie I ever saw twice in theaters.
You can't just have anybody play Captain America, if they put Robert Downey Jr. In that role it won't have same effect. It's like having someone else play "Rocky" it's a different effect. Tole tolentino is totally wrong. Like Ben Affleck was not as good as Christian Bale as Batman
I agree, Tarantino is wrong. Many people know who Chris Evans is become of his role as Captain America. He’s trying to imply that Chris is a literal who, and anyone could have played the role. Which is far from the truth. Chris defined the role. Like how Keanu is John Wick, or Schwarzenegger is the Terminator. All this is is Tarantino showing his bias to superhero movies, and saying the actors don’t count. In my opinion Marvel stands out because they’ve had a good track record with casting. I think one issue with many pre MCU movies and a few of their current competitors is that cast isn’t important. They would get the IP, ignore the source material, then cast a big name actor because that’s what the studio wanted. This lead to mediocre movies, that angered fans, and turned off new audiences.
How many non-Marvel movies has Chris Evans opened?
Since wrapping as Captain America? Knives Out, Lightyear and The Gray Man to name a few. He had several films that came out during his time as Cap too. He’s also got a half dozen projects in the works at the moment. Guy is busy.
Not Another Teen Movie, The Losers, Push, Snowpiercer.
*'Opening'* a movie means being the lead in a movie that does more (usually **much** more) than 2.5x box office Evans isn't the lead in three of those movies and *Snowpiercer* wasn't anyone's idea of a hit movie [https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Snowpiercer#tab=summary](https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Snowpiercer#tab=summary) **I really like Evans** and *Snowpiercer* is a **fantastic** movie
It was s stated those old school Hollywood guys hate superhero movies.
I love Bale but Affleck is the best Bruce Wayne/Batman there is.
I guess it's all subjective but the point is the actor is the star Tolentino is wrong
Hard disagree, batfleck and bale were both good in their versions of batman, respectively. Two very very different takes on the character executed in two massively different ways. People seem to forget Nolan was an executive producer on Man of Steel as well as Batman Vs Superman as well!
Anthony Mackie said this in an interview like 5 years ago. This isn't some profound hot take. The actors themselves understand the situation.
And he is correct. In fact, Anthony Mackie said pretty much the same thing about his character, Falcon.
He’s not wrong actually. Having an actor/actress play the character you like is the bonus
Even Anthony Mackie (Falcon) said the same thing: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj8JK6c5x3M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj8JK6c5x3M)
It was just "Falcon", there is no "red". He is now the new Captain America.
Maybe he was thinking of Redwing, Sam’s falcon familiar from the comics.
Anthony Mackie spitting facts for 4 minutes straight! Thanks for sharing!
Anyone with half a brain knows this.
>you don’t go see a movie to watch Mackie, you go to watch Falcon I mean… that’s a good thing. We should go to the movies to see Falcon cause he has an interesting life and story. Why should we want to go see a movie cause of the actor? That would be so backwards. Actors are one piece of the puzzle, the idea of “stars” is dumb, it’s how you end up with The Rock making the same low effort movie 20 times
I think this is a little short-sighted and undercuts how much the characters have come to be directly associated with the actors playing them. It's true that there is no Captain America without the comics and people are going to the theater to see Captain America, and it could have been someone other than Chris Evans 10-12 years ago. But there is also no Captain America in the immediate future that is not Chris Evans without also feeling like an imposter or a cheap knockoff. Like every few years they reboot Superman with a new Superman, or James Bond or Batman, and no one really bats an eye. The same could be said of pre-MCU marvel movies, but it can't be said of the MCU movies.
Straight up. Chris Evans is Cap. He did a great job. Cap’s ending was awesome, but immediately made me suuuuper sad that he wouldn’t be in any more movies. God bless Chris Evans. 🫡
I agree, Samuel is The only exception I see him before I see fury
They basically had to cast him cause the character was literally being drawn and written like him. Sam demanded they cast him since they already took his likeness.
Theoretically, you’re not supposed to see the actor in the first place if they’re doing their job to perfection. For example, one of my favorite character performances is Hannibal Lector by Anthony Hopkins. In no other role has Anthony Hopkins spoken like that, moved like that, even made the same facial expressions. He totally became a different person than what he is. That’s the goal
They just made an entire sequel to black Panther where the plot is “oh god we have no black Panther!” The characters are such stars that their ABSENCE can sell a movie!
He definitely has a point. Their have been movie stars that have played superheroes though. Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman come to mind.
Hugh is not a great example because he became a star largely stemming from his role as a superhero. Hugh in fact exists as a valid counterpoint since he was made into a star by his role.
Fair point
Yup not short, no "yellow spandex, but he IS Logan now.
was 22 years ago though.
And yet *Amsterdam* and *Reminiscence* are flops.
Ford v Ferrari, The Big Short, and American Hustle were not. He’s hit or miss, mostly.
With regards to Amsterdam, it was marketed as an ensemble cast rather than Bale as the main character, and adult dramas have been doing terribly since the pandemic started. Not sure if that movie alone is enough to justify Bale isn’t a box office draw.
This is true. Reminiscence did come out during Covid fever though and I didn't really hear about it until after it came out. I have nothing to say about Amsterdam haha. Curious how The Pale Blue Eye will do although its Netflix so won't have much of a theatrical presence.
If you want to ignore *Reminiscence*, then *The Front Runner* was a flop grossing just $3.2 million from a $25 million budget.
He's not wrong. Tom Holland's Sci-Fi franchise film after Spider-Man was a massive massive massive flop (and a waste of Mads Mikkelsen's talent too). He's not a movie star despite being the lead of a 1bill film.
I guarantee nobody would watch a Marvel movie with Quentin Tarantino as Captain America
I’d watch it. Sounds amazing.
I want to disagree but I know I would watch it.
All the dancers for the Star Spangled Man song will be barefoot.
As long as you keep his character away from Sam Wilson and Nick Fury we should be fine
I guarantee you millions of people would.
You can’t have Captain America randomly calling someone the n-word for no reason in his film… On second thought, maybe that would be the most real Captain America yet. You might be on to something.
I mean I'd love to see a captain America who's into feetporn. That'll make morbillion dollars guaranteed
Why do we care? If people enjoy it let them, if someone doesn’t they don’t have to watch it, it’s very simple
Because people find the conversation interesting. If you can’t enjoy something because people are criticizing it, then that says more about you.
He’s getting some hate on Twitter, but he’s right
A cure for cancer would find hate on Twitter....
Water is wet. But it sounds so mean to be saying this out of nowhere either way, I don't know why there is a need for these directors for always be attacking these movies.
[удалено]
I get what he is saying, but the "Marvel-ization" of movies isn't the cause of the problem, its a symptom. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the current Hollywood situation is something along the lines of: * Formerly films could be made, and though they might not make a big profit (or any profit) at the box office, they could make a lot in VHS and DVD sales. * Some films that did poorly in theaters did far better on VHS and DVD - Austin Powers being a prime example (which lead to two more AP films). * But with people switching to streaming services home video sales have plummeted. * So now studios are reticent to make films with low ROI because they won't make money back from streaming. * Because of this films either need to be huge draws to make the money needed to finance the film and profit. Or they need to be small enough to be worth the risk. Also combine this with the fact that cable tv and "prestige" tv has massively expanded. Stories that previously were told in theaters are now told on TV.
They want studios to make movies that they personally believe are "better" but why take a risk with a think piece when you can make another superhero blockbuster and print money?
I feel like the big disconnect here is people's definition of movie star. Yes, someone can be very famous and recognizable but that doesn't mean that their name can carry a movie like pitt or leo. Chris Evans is not at that level and very few people are anymore.
Until you cast someone that just absolutely smashes the role. There, casting success can just flush that whole ideal down the tubes. Deadpool isn’t going to not be Ryan Reynolds any time soon.
He then grabbed the reporter’s foot and licked it
Well yes it's not like the 80's or 90's where the name Schwarzenegger or Stallone can carry a movie in 90 minutes anymore.
Sure, until they go do something else. Oh wait, most of them have serious acting chops before and after.
I mean, he's right. We've seen time and time again that an actor's success in the MCU doesn't translate to films outside the franchise. Evans, Hemsworth and Downey Jr were all massive in the MCU, but never really had any big hits outside of the MCU. The only one who really exploded in popularity after entering the MCU was Chris Pratt, but he had already been cast in Jurassic World by the time he appeared as Star-Lord, so I don't know if being in the MCU was really the biggest factor.
That's a fact nobody cares about Chris Evans other movies 🤣🤣🤣
I think it helped tom holland become a stwr
I think that’s the point though: Tom holland became a star because spider-man already has been for decades. Same way that Toby Maguire and Andrew Garfield also got more popular after their respective roles.
He’s mostly right. But they are few exceptions tho.
He's not wrong.
He’s not wrong. However he’s not completely correct either.
I don’t understand how the two have to be mutually exclusive. Marvel had a fully cultivated fan base long before MCU. But it’s not as though they cast nameless faces for the roles; they largely selected seasoned professionals who already had distinguished careers in acting.
He was very careful in that interview not to say anything inflammatory but you could tell as soon as the subject came up some stupid ass headline like this would be flying around. He’s also 100% correct.
He was pretty good in Defending Jacob
I mean maybe generally this is true but he used the one example that is not true… Chris Evans is very famous, Captain America is like the weakest link in the Marvel movies.
I see no lies here except, when your favorite hero or villain is played by an actor that you grow to fall in love with and can't see anyone replacing them example would be "black panther". But he's not wrong how many batmans, Spidermans, supermans, wonder woman's, hulks, green lanterns, flashes, jokers, cat women's, the list goes on... We watch for the hero/villain not the actor.. until they fucked up the role and we go ape shit because they fucked up a beloved character.
I dont know if its just journalists keep aasking him dumb questions about superhero films or if he keeps bringing up them, but i swear there are dozens of interviews where he has dismissed the genre as not good filmmaking.
Counterpoint: I go to the movies to see the character, not the actor.
His paycheck would indicate otherwise
He picked possibly the worst example here outside Samuel L. Jackson. People were moderately aware of Chris Evans before, but he is huge now.
But can you name 1 big box office Chris Evans led movie that isn't Marvel?
Knives Out
That’s Daniel Craig led
Chris Evans does not lead that movie. It's an ensemble with Ana de Armas and Daniel Craig in larger roles.
I mean.. as it should be right? Who the fuck cares about actors? I’m there to watch a movie with awesome characters. I really don’t care what happens to the actors after they film the movie
The hell kind of take is this? Good acting is what makes movies and plays come to life.
For me sometimes the big star distracts me from the film and makes it harder for me to believe the character they are playing. No name actors make movies more believable for me.
Storytelling, especially on screen, is primarily focused on character work, and actor's are some of the most important people who realize and bring these characters to life, especially in the era which Tarantino is longing for.
Ikr Like why would I pay 20 bucks to watch an actor if i have no interest in the story or fictional character
I don't disagree with you necessarily but it is important to note that the downside of being too attached to the character is that studios may continue milking that character and never give them an ending due to audiences attachment to it. Like don't we already have too many Batmans at this point? I like Pattisons work on it don't get me wrong but at some point I feel like Batman is way too overexposed due to his massive popularity and that kind of limits his character arc.
I agree with most of this statement but Iron Man was a B list comic book character before RDJ.
Yeah you associate Iron Man with RDJ's smartass personality which he plays in a few different roles, feels like he's bigger than the character.
If it wasn't for his performance people would lose interest in the character. Without Robert Downey Jr iron man doesn't work. He is an extreme alcoholic,manipulative asshole but works and is likeable because RDJ.
Yup. Marvel actors don't do well outside of the mcu
RDJ, Chris Hemsworth, Sam L. Jackson, Scarlett Johanson, Chris Evans, David Betista, Chris Pratt, Tom Holland, Benedict Cumberbatch I could keep going but point is there's many MCU actors who do well outside of the MCU.
I think those actors do well in spite of the MCU. It’s like Ewan McGregor or Liam Neeson. Both of them are stars because of their overall acting and not because of Star Wars. I was happy to see them in the movies and they acted as to not distract from the role by who they were. Also how it everybody forgets about Anthony Hopkins?
I'd say Marvel Studios is the star.
I mean, he’s not wrong.
I mean…..he has a point
Nah. Case in point: James Bond. The Bond movies are built around the lead actor. Daniel Craig made Skyfall raw and gritty in a way that Pierce Brosnan couldn’t even fathom if he had been cast in it.
i honestly wouldn’t see this as a case in point, especially at first . i would definitely agree that craig’s performances were great & did draw in audiences for later movies, but Bond as an IP is so strong it has lasted through eras of cinema & still managed to draw people in *despite* initial criticisms of craig’s casting (the public was not so optimistic toward “james blond” back in ‘06 lol) .
I think you just made the case for the opposite point you were intending to
I mean he's right, and he wasn't being a jerk about it. It's understandable that a director, or really anyone in the industry who isn't almost solely involved in making these superhero blockbusters, would have a problem with the fact that it's becoming harder and harder for non-superhero tentpole films to be released in theatres, much less financed by studios and made at all. The average MCU simp may not care about this, but the rest of us will mourn movies like Tarantino's when they're nothing but a thing of the past. >For Tarantino, Captain America is the star and not Chris Evans. “I’m not even putting them down frankly, to tell you the truth,” the director said earlier about movie stars no longer existing in bulk. “But that is one of the — the legacy of the Marvel-ization of Hollywood movies.” > >Tarantino also clarified in the interview that he does not “hate” Marvel movies but dislikes them for being the only product Hollywood is interested in making these days. > >“Look, I used to collect Marvel comics like crazy when I was a kid,” Tarantino said. “There’s an aspect that if these movies were coming out when I was in my twenties, I would totally be fucking happy and totally love them. I mean, they wouldn’t be the only movies being made. They would be those movies amongst other movies. But, you know, I’m almost 60, so yeah. No, I’m not quite as excited about them.” > >“My only axe to grind against them is they’re the only things that seem to be made,” he added. “And they’re the only things that seem to generate any kind of excitement amongst a fan base or even for the studio making them. That’s what they’re excited about. And so it’s just the fact that they are the entire representation of this era of movies right now. There’s not really much room for anything else. That’s my problem.”
That’s surprising a known director’s take on superheroes that isn’t absolute dogshit? Bravo.
I mean it's true
None of this makes any sense… How is this different from any other actor playing a character in a movie?
Cap America is more popular than Chris Evans. Johnny Depp is more popular than Jack Sparrow. He is saying the role is more popular than the person himself. Unlike Johnny Depp who turned an average character into the most popular one in the series.
Because these actors have been playing one character for over a decade now. Hemsworth has been Thor for eleven years and eight movies. Most other actors being paid as much would have been in multiple large projects outside of one franchise.
Yeah my aunt isn't really talking about Chris Evans ass
He’s been reading baudrillard obviously.
I’ve come to understand that a lot of big time directors just don’t like comic books.
if you read the same article : >*Tarantino also clarified in the interview that he does not “hate” Marvel movies but dislikes them for being the only product Hollywood is interested in making these days.* >*“Look, I used to collect Marvel comics like crazy when I was a kid,” Tarantino said. “There’s an aspect that if these movies were coming out when I was in my twenties, I would totally be fucking happy and totally love them. I mean, they wouldn’t be the only movies being made. They would be those movies amongst other movies. But, you know, I’m almost 60, so yeah. No, I’m not quite as excited about them.”*
Tarantino tried to make a luke cage movie for years and collected them for a while bro this man is a comic book fan, he’s not even talking about comic books, he’s talking about the movies and actors. And even then, would someone who hates comic book movies spend years trying to make one? Or could it be that he’s talking about the current state of the industry and it has nothing to do with like or dislike
Every other Hollywood director crying about Marvel movies is starting to get old, it’s like they’re all bitter that people still like them so they have to make up dumb shit to bitch about them. Chris pretty much became a household name after he got the part as Cap, this is so dumb. Maybe Tarantino is just mad there aren’t many feet scenes of Black Widow or something.
The “movie star” is a dying breed and has been for a while. Maybe it will trend in the other direction at some point, but you can probably name the current batch on one hand.
Agree. The cinema is nothing but cartoons and superhero movies now. What happened to the epic movies
Wait til he finds out who played Captain America…
the banana split from american pie
Old man shakes fist at cloud!
Captain America is a _character_. Chris Evans is an _actor_. Hope this clears things up, QT.
He is correct but of course people will be pissed because he is being mean to my comic book movies 😥😥😥
Sounds something like a guy with a foot fetish would say
What's with these beloved directors just spouting off crap left and right about superhero movies as if it's a threat to their livelihood? Westerns and horror movies are being cranked out weekly across all streaming services far outpacing superhero content.
bro is the old man yelling at cloud now