[bold][italic]Inspired by "Ryan Reynolds is OVER!" … Who else cannot carry a film?[/italic][/bold]
Who else cannot carry a film?
|by Anonymous||reply 73||08/31/2013|
Anyone above the title of all of this summer's collection of duds. Start with Armie Hammer among the relative newcomers. And how to explain Johnny Depp in the same flop? The list is endless...
|by Anonymous||reply 1||07/28/2013|
Katherine Heigl OWNS this thread, so case closed and shut it down now.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||07/28/2013|
I think, rather inexplicably, we have an Armie Hammer Troll.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||07/28/2013|
Do most still go to the movies for the actor/actress?
|by Anonymous||reply 4||07/28/2013|
Nicole Kidman OWNS this thread!!! Yet she continues to get offers and big $$$$.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||07/28/2013|
Scarlett Johanssen and Kiera Knightley, yet they keep getting leading roles.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||07/28/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 7||07/28/2013|
Better question would be who [italic][bold]can[/italic][/bold] carry a film these days?
Regardless of the material, people will go see it because a particular actor/actress is in it?
There used to be a dozen or so dependable names.
I think those days are over - for now - anyway.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||07/28/2013|
This stupid question drives me up a wall. OF COURSE, whether a film is a hit or not depends on many things, of which the star is only one element. A huge star MIGHT be able to help a POS film do well in its first weekend, but not beyond that.
Prime example: Channing Tatum had a series of big hits and now has had a huge bomb with WHITE HOUSE DOWN. Does that mean he used to be able to carry a film (like, six months ago), but now he's not? What idiocy.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||07/28/2013|
I always thought "carry a film" referred strictly to the acting; can an actor fulfill a leading role, and keep the audience's attention throughout.
Some of you are confusing it with "open a film", which means butts are in the seats because viewers want to see a particular actor.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||07/28/2013|
The weekend grosses for Wolverine were disappointing. I'm not pointing any fingers at Hugh, but his days as a top adventure star might be numbered...
|by Anonymous||reply 11||07/29/2013|
I don't think any actor can carry a film. Actors will bring their fans in but no ONE actor has THAT many fans...not enough to carry a $100 million dollar film.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||07/29/2013|
What R12 says.
No one can always carry a film. Johnny Depp? Brad Pitt? Robert de Niro ? Leonardo ? Vin Diesel outside fast and furious ? Channing Tatum ? Daniel Craig ? Daniel Day Lewis ?
They all have had flops. Especially Brad Pitt in his first 10 years of stardom...
I always (or should I say, almost) feel sorry when a little starlet (man or woman), just starting in the business, gets destroyed because studios tried to shove them down our throat in a stupid, impossible to save movie. Each time, I think Meryl Streep and DDL couldn't save it either.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||07/29/2013|
Also, I wouldn't necesseraly watch a film because said actor is in it. It can help. Some did watch Gatsby for DiCaprio, or for Luhrmann visual excess. But there are some type of films that I won't watch no matter who plays in them. G.I. Joe ? Not even if Daniel Day Lewis was playing all the roles.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||07/29/2013|
Bradley Cooper. Michelle "Liver Lips" Williams.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||07/29/2013|
I never could stand Michelle Williams. I don't want to see her in anything.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||07/29/2013|
Danny Pino can carry a film.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||07/29/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 18||07/29/2013|
R18 - Did you see Donnie Darko?
|by Anonymous||reply 19||07/29/2013|
Colin Farrell owns this thread.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||07/29/2013|
r19 that was a long time ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||07/29/2013|
Denzel Washington can most often carry a film.
Matt Damon does pretty well too.
So can Melissa McCarthy at the moment.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||07/29/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 23||07/29/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 24||07/29/2013|
Celia Weston cannot carry a film!
|by Anonymous||reply 25||07/30/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 26||07/30/2013|
I think Directs are now more capable of carry movies than the stars, Chris Nolan & J.J. Abrams can incite an audience to fill the theaters rather than the stars.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||07/30/2013|
For a long while Tom Cruise could "carry a film".
For those misunderstanding the term it basically means is: which lead actor will appeal the most to the audience? In some circumstances the right lead actor can make or break a movie. In others he or she can add extra numbers to an audience. Basically for every 10 people who show up for the movie how many of those show up because they like the leading actor?
Look at Top Gun. This was a really appealing movie idea, bound to draw an audience. But it was important to get the leading man right. Imagine they had put Billy Crystal in the lead.Would it have been half as popular? Billy Crystal was popular in the 1980s, but he couldn't just turn up any movie and expect it to succeed. Gary Busey had starred in famous surf movie called Big Wednesday so imagine he'd been given the lead in Cocktail instead. Whats the likelihood people would have gone to see it?
Tom Cruise could play a party boy, a pool hustler, a fighter pilot, the romantic lead, a race car drive or a barman and people turned up in droves to his movies. For example Rolling Stone magazine said that although Days of Thunder was a pretty ordinary movie, it was saved by having Cruise in it, because most people who went to see it ONLY went along because he was in it. So for a really long time, as far as Hollywood was concerned, Tom Cruise could "carry a movie". In fact, even now that his fan base is halved and people no longer idolise him, no movie he has ever done, no matter how terrible, has ever gone straight to video.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||07/30/2013|
"They all have had flops. Especially Brad Pitt in his first 10 years of stardom"
Yeah, but they all had hits mixed in with the flops. I think OP is talking about people who have never proven that they can carry a film and yet Hollywood treats them like they are "big stars"
A good example is someone like Olivia Wilde, who gets magazine covers and tons of media attention despite the fact that her movies are usually big bombs. No one cares about her, except for the big shots who are trying to pass her off as the "next big thing."
|by Anonymous||reply 29||07/30/2013|
"Chris Nolan & J.J. Abrams can incite an audience to fill the theaters rather than the stars."
Fanboy alert. The average person on the street doesn't know who those guys are.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||07/30/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 31||07/30/2013|
There are more people who hate Tom then like him but I guess he usually makes action films, which people like. And even though he is a gross asshole, people will go see his films.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||07/30/2013|
[quote]Look at Top Gun. This was a really appealing movie idea, bound to draw an audience. But it was important to get the leading man right. Imagine they had put Billy Crystal in the lead.Would it have been half as popular?
OK, that is kind of a false analogy because it would never ever happen. The question is if you had put, say, Rob Lowe or Sean Penn or someone who was in Tom Cruise's group of peers at the time would it have still been a hit?
Hahaha, Billy Crystal in Top Gun!
|by Anonymous||reply 33||07/30/2013|
Stars cannot carry films simply because it is mainstream films themselves that cannot--and will not--carry stars. Hollywood films are so putrid and infantile right now that CGI could easily replace human actors completely. Actors require scripts, direction, and some vision or a narrative. Now all you need is a comic book, a video game, or children's toy. Movies are now cartoons drawn by CGI--who needs actors or stars for that?
|by Anonymous||reply 34||07/30/2013|
Well said, R34.
That is the sad truth. I am tired of all the super-hero comic-book franchises they keep making. I'm an indie-film junkie. I still prefer real, human characters and stories to fantasy / sci fi / action crap.
Movies are now being made for people who grew up playing video games.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||07/30/2013|
That's my point R33. Some people up thread were saying it didn't matter who the lead was if the story appealed to the audiences, but if that were true then stick Billy Crystal in Top Gun and see what happens. Youre right of course, Rob Lowe and Sean Penn would be far better choices than Billy Crystal, and the movie would have been hit anyway, but would either of them have drawn as many people as Tom Cruise? For every person who would have turned up to see Lowe as a fighter pilot, how many more turned up to see Cruise. He guaranteed a movies success no matter the premise. Rob Lowe never had that power, so Lowe may have succeeded in Top Gun but would he have also succeeded in Far and Away, which was another Tom Cruise movie that sucked but people went to see anyway because he was in it.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||07/30/2013|
I watched Argo last night and was reminded again how utterly wooden and charisma-free Ben Affleck is.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||07/30/2013|
I never had any desire to watch Top Gun and never did but I'm thinking it could have been a hit with someone else in lead.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||07/30/2013|
Eric Bana. Shoulda, coulda been a major star but something went wrong. What? Anyone understand why his career fizzled? I really liked him in the beginning.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||07/30/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 40||07/30/2013|
Jude Law nor Ewan McGregor could never, ever carry a film.
McCarthy carried Heat but Bullock will get the credit.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||07/30/2013|
"The question is if you had put, say, Rob Lowe or Sean Penn or someone who was in Tom Cruise's group of peers at the time would it have still been a hit?"
I don't think the movie would have been as much of a hit with Sean Penn or Rob Lowe in the lead (and I say that as someone who hates Tom Cruise)
|by Anonymous||reply 42||07/30/2013|
[quote]A good example is someone like Olivia Wilde, who gets magazine covers and tons of media attention despite the fact that her movies are usually big bombs. No one cares about her, except for the big shots who are trying to pass her off as the "next big thing."
I can't name a single thing she's been in and I'm a movie fan and follow celebrity gossip.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||07/30/2013|
I don't know what she's been in either.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||07/30/2013|
I only think of Olivia as the chick who dated Marissa on The O.C. Didn't know she was in movies too, so I guess that hasn't worked out for her so well.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||07/30/2013|
Oh, god. Please don't turn this into a thread about Olivia Wilde.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||07/30/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 47||07/30/2013|
Um...I wish I had a key lime pie!!
|by Anonymous||reply 48||07/30/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 49||07/30/2013|
There are still some stars that can carry a movie, but only if they play the persona that fans are in love with, which is why Brad Pitt can have big hits and misses. He'll be the handsome action star in hollywood vehicles, but he also likes to do more esoteric stuff like Tree of Life that has no box office potential whatsoever. Leo seems to have found a niche as a "serious actor with box office cred," but you wonder what kind of money a film of his could make if he occasionally did something more lowbrow every once in a while.
I must say, for all the invasion of Brit/Aussie actors, most of them seem incapable of carrying a movie and don't have that charisma that the few marketable actors still have. When they have hits, it's usually based on the material. Bale was great as Batman, but that last Terminator movie was a disappointment, so was that Western with Russell Crow, and he's probably not the reason The Fighter did pretty good box office (Mark Wahlberg and his mainsteam fan base probably deserve more credit). Eric Bana is gorgeous and a good actor, but he also seems to have been a blank slate for audiences. Ditto so many others, including Clive Owen, whose time also seems to have passed.
But we sometimes forget foreign box office, and it's importance, and a lot of actors do better overseas than domestic, and vice versa. I remember reading years ago, when Cruise was still hugely popular, that Brad Pitt was actually a bigger star internationally. Now, obviously, that's true both at home and abroad. I've also read that Hugh Jackman and Johnny Depp do better with international markets, which explains, I guess, why Hugh still gets so many offers, when few of his films have done well in North America. The last Pirates movie was so so in the States, but did big money elsewhere, and the same was true of The Tourist, so I guess Depp is lucky to have such a strong foreign fanbase.
Vulture (I think) had an article earlier this year about bankability, and there was a rather stunning bit about who foreign investors in Hollywood films wanted cast in roles. The actors mentioned as important to European investors? Michael Fassbender, James McEvoy, Carey Mulligan, Scarlett Johansson, and Zoe Saldana. I assume ScaJo and Saldana are based purely on sex appeal to European males, and Saldana has been in huge movies, though she has contributed really nothing to selling them, but Fassbender and McEvoy don't really seem like box office to me, and Mulligan even less so. Fassbender is everyone's popular choice for serious acting roles, but he's yet to sell a movie and Prometheus was considered a disappointment. X-Men did good box office, not great, and it was populated with other stars, including McAvoy, who really was in only a couple of other hits, and Wanted, certainly, was sold by Angelina Jolie. Mulligan, has anyone ever gone to a film because of her, even in England? She's an excellent young actress, but people went to Gatsby to see Leo, and everything else she's ever done is indie city and made little money. Stuff like this really explains a lot of bizarre casting decisions, especially Saldana as Nina Simone.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||07/30/2013|
No one can "carry" a film anymore. The days of people flocking to theaters just to see a popular star are long over in thanks to overblown movie prices and lackluster films.
The only actors that are still capable of bringing in the audiences are Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Matt Damon, & Sandra Bullock. Julia Roberts and Tom Cruise lost the majority of their fans, so their big box office days are behind them. Deep's only true Box office success is the POTC franchise & his costar Bloom has gone backwards- started off in huge block busters and now doing independent & foreign films. Leo never had real big box success except for Titanic.
There are no more true stars anymore.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||07/30/2013|
I don't go to the movies anymore, except on the rare occasion there's some " event" type movie. I avoid most commercial films, and I hate sitting in the dark with a lot of strangers in a filthy, roach infested auditorium, with smelly people stinking up the place, and pimply faced teenagers standing around the candy counter trying to sell me stale, tough, chewy popcorn that tastes like cardboard. So I'm sure my assessment of who can carry a movie differs from most people. When I sit at home watching my 60" screen in my comfy chair with everything I want at my fingertips, I prefer looking at good directors, not actors.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||07/30/2013|
[quote]Leo never had real big box success except for Titanic.
Inception was one of the biggest movies of 2010. Leo's movies consistently make money, usually over $100 million just in the US. I don't think The Great Gatsby would have been a hit without Leo and the Titanic crowd coming out to see him in another romantic role.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||07/30/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 54||07/30/2013|
Will Smith and Meryl are also big draws. Most of Meryl's films the past few years have gone over $100. To think she was considered box office poison as a young woman, LOL.
Will had a setback with After Earth, but that was his first misfire in ages. He's also the only black star who is a draw internationally. Denzel can open movies in the U.S., but he's never made as much money elsewhere.
Strangely, Liam Neeson has become something of a middle aged box office King, too. All these family in jeopardy action movies he's done the past few years have made a lot of bread.
Then there's Adam Sandler. Say what you will, but his crappy comedies usually make money. Melissa McCarthy seems to be developing into a comedic draw, too. She had help from Bullock with The Heat, but I doubt anyone went to that movie MM did with Jason Bateman to see him.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||07/30/2013|
[quote] There are no more true stars anymore.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||07/30/2013|
Back in the day, Gretchen Mol and Julia Ormond were considered the big female stars in Hollywood,
|by Anonymous||reply 57||07/30/2013|
Key Lime Pie
|by Anonymous||reply 58||07/30/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 59||07/30/2013|
r57. No. They were not.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||07/30/2013|
No. They certainly were not r57.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||07/30/2013|
Jude Law is a very stiff actor, it still baffles me to no end why he once was considered an A-lister.
Scarlett Johannson only can carry a movie if the main subject are her boobs, other than that she is awful.
Michelle Williams is amazing, never stops to amaze me. She completely disappears and can play any character she wants.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||07/30/2013|
I'm beginning to wonder if the day of the marquee name carrying the movie are fading away forever. The movies that lead at the box office are often movies with no discernible "stars."
Yes, we have Matt Damon, Leo, & Denzel Washington, and remarkably, Robert Downey, Jr., still grinding out hits, and Mark Wahlberg is pretty reliable, in terms of A-listers, but then you have the Vin Deisels and the Rock, and a lot of anonymous actors in horror fluff or random comedies, and teen garbage movies, and who's ever heard of any of them.
I know we think of Kellan Lutz as one of our poster boys, but honestly. Does anyone think Kellan Lutz or Ashley Green are ever going to be household names beyond the very limited shelf life of the Twilight garbage?
lot of these people are one hit wonders who don't know it yet. Channing Tatum is smart to grab everything he can. In five years or maybe two, he'll be over. Look at Ryan Reynolds. Look at Nic Cage.
We'll have two levels: Tent pole garbage costing hundreds of millions, and the cheap, poorly made garbage that performs well, and the more modestly budgeted, less commercial, semi indies that are financed around the $30-$60 million mark, where the good actors will hang out.
Guys like Hugh Jackman, Ryan Gosling, Will Smith, Matthew McConnaghey, Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, Bradley Cooper, are played out. They are all under performing.
I do have to ask this because he is such a glaring exception to most rational observations: Adam Sandler. How does he keep making movies, and who the hell goes to see him? I cannot stand to look at him. He is a reactionary, obnoxious ignorant pig.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||07/31/2013|
I can't even carry a thread on DL.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||07/31/2013|
After excluding There's Something About Mary, all of her movies where she was expected to ( at least partially ) carry the film were flops. They were eviscerated by the critics and audiences stayed away in droves.
Here are just a few:
My Sister's Keeper Bad Teacher (which I thought was hysterical but most hated it) Knight & Day The Invisible Circus Very Bad Things The Box A Life Less Ordinary The Sweetest Thing
(And several more could be added to this list)
She seems to really only thrive in ensemble pieces. Here are a few.
The Shrek movies Charlie's Angels Being John Malkovich My Best Friend's Wedding Vanilla Sky Gangs Of New York
|by Anonymous||reply 65||07/31/2013|
No one can anymore. The era of the big-budget star vehicle is over, thank god.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||07/31/2013|
You're right, r66. Because long, boring, CGI infested crapfests with bad writing and lousy storylines that are made specifically to sell products to straight white boys and make millions for nothing with some unknown loser is SUCH a better way of making a movie than a movie with a well known star.
I'll see a Nicole Kidman movie at Landmark Cinema over garbage like Henry Nobody in yet another comic book bastardization that was done less than an decade ago.
This thread proves how tacky and tasteless some of you are.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||07/31/2013|
^^^ It's all about you, isn't it dear?
|by Anonymous||reply 68||07/31/2013|
"I'll see a Nicole Kidman movie at Landmark Cinema over garbage like Henry Nobody in yet another comic book bastardization that was done less than an decade ago.
This thread proves how tacky and tasteless some of you are."
A Nicole Kidman fan is calling other people tacky? She's just a bimbo who got lucky by marrying Tom Cruise.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||07/31/2013|
r69 And she got those ugly adopted kids. The fat one is a vile nose picker.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||07/31/2013|
I don't think George Clooney can carry a movie. I guess maybe that bitch Tom Cruise still can, except Jack Reacher didn't make much.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||08/31/2013|
"Scarlett Johannson only can carry a movie if the main subject are her boobs, other than that she is awful."
Scarlett has lost those now.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||08/31/2013|
I think perhaps a combination of certain actors might carry a film successfully, for example the new movie with Clooney and Sandra Bullock. Both are popular with moviegoers and appealing on their own but perhaps not enough to "open" a film in the traditional sense; together though (along with a good story/concept and director) they might score big.
We'll wait and see what box office Gravity does.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||08/31/2013|