|
Post by wilcinema on Feb 15, 2021 13:14:50 GMT
I much prefer Hanks as an actor, and I think he has a better filmography. Denzel has had a much better theater career, and honestly I think the way he carved his own niche in a white-centric industry is impressive. He hasn't had that much of a chance to work with big, established auters and directors (just those two films with Ridley Scott, and only now he's making a film with the Coens), I don't know why, I have no idea whether he's difficult to work with or what, I just think we would think differently of him if he had worked more with high-profile directors. I dunno...He's made 4 movies with one of the most revered auteurs in the industry... Spike Lee. That's more than many can claim. Or does he only need to work with major white auteurs for that to be recognised as an accomplishment? (I regard Lee as a much more significant auteur than Ridley Scott by the way, whom he only made one film with). I never said that, and I agree that Spike Lee is a much more interesting director than Ridley Scott, who I don't consider an auteur. I probably took his long-time collaboration with Lee for granted in the same way I take De Niro and Scorsese for granted (and I shouldn't). I just hoped he would be able to work with more auteurs in general (and the fact that most of them are white is part of the problem), but what my point was is that opportunity hasn't really been given to him.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 15, 2021 13:48:06 GMT
I dunno...He's made 4 movies with one of the most revered auteurs in the industry... Spike Lee. That's more than many can claim. Or does he only need to work with major white auteurs for that to be recognised as an accomplishment? (I regard Lee as a much more significant auteur than Ridley Scott by the way, whom he only made one film with). I never said that, and I agree that Spike Lee is a much more interesting director than Ridley Scott, who I don't consider an auteur. I probably took his long-time collaboration with Lee for granted in the same way I take De Niro and Scorsese for granted (and I shouldn't). I just hoped he would be able to work with more auteurs in general (and the fact that most of them are white is part of the problem), but what my point was is that opportunity hasn't really been given to him. I would have liked him to have done something with Scorsese and I think the vibe of Tarantino would have suited him, but other than those two (and perhaps Michael Mann in his prime), I don't really think he's missed out on much in the auteur sweepstakes (not counting the Coens now, since it's done). There's nothing much in Spielberg's canon that he's missed out on (he actually turned down Spielberg for Amistad, as he didn't want to play a slave). I have never had any wish or urge to see him in a Woody Allen film. Or a Jason Reitman film. Or a Roman Polanski film. He's worked with some very good, major white directors who wanted him ( Jonathan Demme, Tony Scott, Edward Zwick, Kenneth Branagh, Richard Attenborough, Robert Zemeckis etc). And he has a great, endlessly watchable filmography, no matter what a few here like to claim. If I'm being honest, I'm more excited about him potentially working with the current crop of black auteurs, who all seem to revere him, than trying to fit into the specific worldview of white auteurs who don't neccesarily see a place for him in their worlds or interests. Paul Thomas Anderson is interested in stories about white people, so let him tell those stories. Denzel doesn't need to be in his movies to be validated. The likes of Barry Jenkins, Steve McQueen, Ryan Coogler, Jordan Peele, Shaka King, Boots Riley....there are plenty of interesting black auteurs or filmmakers out there that he may yet work with, who want to tell stories about people that look like him. And obviously, another collab with Lee.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 15, 2021 13:55:17 GMT
I dunno...He's made 4 movies with one of the most revered auteurs in the industry... Spike Lee. That's more than many can claim. Or does he only need to work with major white auteurs for that to be recognised as an accomplishment? (I regard Lee as a much more significant auteur than Ridley Scott by the way, whom he only made one film with). I never said that, and I agree that Spike Lee is a much more interesting director than Ridley Scott, who I don't consider an auteur. I probably took his long-time collaboration with Lee for granted in the same way I take De Niro and Scorsese for granted (and I shouldn't). I just hoped he would be able to work with more auteurs in general (and the fact that most of them are white is part of the problem), but what my point was is that opportunity hasn't really been given to him.Only partially true though..... I'd guess wil that a reason you didn't think of Lee might on some level also have been because none of his movies with Lee are that great - I like all of them to varying degrees and 2 of his 5 best performances ever are for Lee. BUT to use the Ridley Scott comparison - none of them are Alien, Gladiator, Thelma & Louise, Blade Runner as movies - those are no shit all-time classics .......Lee being a more interesting director than Scott is eyebrow raising to me .................but I can understand that POV since Scott doesn't write his films. But Denzel Washington being black maybe held him back in 1987 but not so much in 1997, 2007, 2017, or 2021.......he very much liked being the whole show and he JUST pursued that - I'm not sure how many doors were closed to him when Morgan Freeman existed in the same era, is in 3 Best Picture winners and starred in Se7en too. It's the Jessica Lange thing I said earlier .......very similar or as close to it as a male can be to a female.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Feb 15, 2021 16:50:20 GMT
I never said that, and I agree that Spike Lee is a much more interesting director than Ridley Scott, who I don't consider an auteur. I probably took his long-time collaboration with Lee for granted in the same way I take De Niro and Scorsese for granted (and I shouldn't). I just hoped he would be able to work with more auteurs in general (and the fact that most of them are white is part of the problem), but what my point was is that opportunity hasn't really been given to him.Only partially true though..... I'd guess wil that a reason you didn't think of Lee might on some level also have been because none of his movies with Lee are that great - I like all of them to varying degrees and 2 of his 5 best performances ever are for Lee. BUT to use the Ridley Scott comparison - none of them are Alien, Gladiator, Thelma & Louise, Blade Runner as movies - those are no shit all-time classics .......Lee being a more interesting director than Scott is eyebrow raising to me .................but I can understand that POV since Scott doesn't write his films. But Denzel Washington being black maybe held him back in 1987 but not so much in 1997, 2007, 2017, or 2021.......he very much liked being the whole show and he JUST pursued that - I'm not sure how many doors were closed to him when Morgan Freeman existed in the same era, is in 3 Best Picture winners and starred in Se7en too. It's the Jessica Lange thing I said earlier .......very similar or as close to it as a male can be to a female. I wouldn't consider them among my favorites but quite a few of Lee's movies I consider at least good, when not great. I always say he's hit-and-miss for me but most times he hits. Scott is a good director, but among those bonafide classics, the one I really love is Alien (although Thelma And Louise is an underrated classic).
The Freeman comparison doesn't really work. Freeman was okay being the more supporting character in many movies, even when he's at the very least a co-lead (Se7en, Shawshank), while as you say, Denzel had a legitimate aspiration to be a full leading man in Hollywood, as a previous Oscar winner and with multiple nominations, as a world-renowned movie star, but that never really happened. In the 2000s he started making all these action thrillers, some of them he even directed, while I could count on one hand the more ambitious, more prestige productions he was part of (American Gangster, Inside Man). I said this in another post, I'm not even a big fan of his because he too often verges on overacting for me (which is why Flight is one of my favorite performances he's given), but for a guy who has won 2 Oscars, played Shakespeare and Eugene O'Neill on stage, won a Tony award, his film career seems... underwhelming.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Feb 15, 2021 16:58:43 GMT
In terms of white auteurs/iconic filmmakers, he famously turned down working with David Fincher on Seven because he thought the script was too bleak, thus the role he was meant to play went to Brad Pitt. He hinted in several interviews that it's probably the movie he regrets the most having turned down alongside Michael Clayton.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Feb 15, 2021 17:12:20 GMT
He hinted in several interviews that it's probably the movie he regrets the most having turned It's a wrong he's tried to right many times since, with movies like Fallen, The Bone Collector, and now The Little Things, but none of them has really worked out for him.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Feb 15, 2021 17:15:36 GMT
In terms of white auteurs/iconic filmmakers, he famously turned working with David Fincher on Seven because he thought the script was too bleak, thus the role he was meant to play went to Brad Pitt. See, I didn't know this. Talk about a bad choice.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 15, 2021 17:18:03 GMT
Only partially true though..... I'd guess wil that a reason you didn't think of Lee might on some level also have been because none of his movies with Lee are that great - I like all of them to varying degrees and 2 of his 5 best performances ever are for Lee. BUT to use the Ridley Scott comparison - none of them are Alien, Gladiator, Thelma & Louise, Blade Runner as movies - those are no shit all-time classics .......Lee being a more interesting director than Scott is eyebrow raising to me .................but I can understand that POV since Scott doesn't write his films. But Denzel Washington being black maybe held him back in 1987 but not so much in 1997, 2007, 2017, or 2021.......he very much liked being the whole show and he JUST pursued that - I'm not sure how many doors were closed to him when Morgan Freeman existed in the same era, is in 3 Best Picture winners and starred in Se7en too. It's the Jessica Lange thing I said earlier .......very similar or as close to it as a male can be to a female. I wouldn't consider them among my favorites but quite a few of Lee's movies I consider at least good, when not great. I always say he's hit-and-miss for me but most times he hits. Scott is a good director, but among those bonafide classics, the one I really love is Alien (although Thelma And Louise is an underrated classic).
The Freeman comparison doesn't really work. Freeman was okay being the more supporting character in many movies, even when he's at the very least a co-lead (Se7en, Shawshank), while as you say, Denzel had a legitimate aspiration to be a full leading man in Hollywood, as a previous Oscar winner and with multiple nominations, as a world-renowned movie star, but that never really happened. In the 2000s he started making all these action thrillers, some of them he even directed, while I could count on one hand the more ambitious, more prestige productions he was part of (American Gangster, Inside Man). I said this in another post, I'm not even a big fan of his because he too often verges on overacting for me (which is why Flight is one of my favorite performances he's given), but for a guy who has won 2 Oscars, played Shakespeare and Eugene O'Neill on stage, won a Tony award, his film career seems... underwhelming.
I think you are mistaken again (like when you said he'd worked with Ridley Scott twice). He has never directed any of his action films. He's only directed serious dramas focusing on the African-American experience... Antwone Fisher and The Great Debaters (both in the 2000's) and Fences in the 2010's. And the upcoming Journal For Jordan which recently completed principal photography . Considering the consistency of his subject matter and interests, Denzel himself can possibly be argued as an auteur as a filmmaker. I'd also argue that The Manchurian Candidate remake, directed by Jonathan Demme and co-starring Meryl Streep was concieved as an ambitious and prestigous film in the 2000's, not an action film. He did what he's always done and mixed things up, and while it may not be to everyone's taste, it clearly worked out extremely well for him. Because a large swathe of his peers, audiences and the industry at large are calling him the GOAT today, and not Hanks with his purportedly more prestigious filmography.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Feb 15, 2021 17:28:26 GMT
I wouldn't consider them among my favorites but quite a few of Lee's movies I consider at least good, when not great. I always say he's hit-and-miss for me but most times he hits. Scott is a good director, but among those bonafide classics, the one I really love is Alien (although Thelma And Louise is an underrated classic).
The Freeman comparison doesn't really work. Freeman was okay being the more supporting character in many movies, even when he's at the very least a co-lead (Se7en, Shawshank), while as you say, Denzel had a legitimate aspiration to be a full leading man in Hollywood, as a previous Oscar winner and with multiple nominations, as a world-renowned movie star, but that never really happened. In the 2000s he started making all these action thrillers, some of them he even directed, while I could count on one hand the more ambitious, more prestige productions he was part of (American Gangster, Inside Man). I said this in another post, I'm not even a big fan of his because he too often verges on overacting for me (which is why Flight is one of my favorite performances he's given), but for a guy who has won 2 Oscars, played Shakespeare and Eugene O'Neill on stage, won a Tony award, his film career seems... underwhelming.
I think you are mistaken again (like when you said he'd worked with Ridley Scott twice). He has never directed any of his action films. He's only directed serious dramas focusing on the African-American experience... Antwone Fisher and The Great Debaters (both in the 2000's) and Fences in the 2010's. And the upcoming Journal For Jordan which recently completed principal photography . Considering the consistency of his subject matter and interests, Denzel himself can possibly be argued as an auteur as a filmmaker. I'd also argue that The Manchurian Candidate remake, directed by Jonathan Demme and co-starring Meryl Streep was concieved as an ambitious and prestigous film in the 2000's, not an action film. He did what he's always done and mixed things up, and while it may not be to everyone's taste, it clearly worked out extremely well for him. Because a large swathe of his peers, audiences and the industry at large are calling him the GOAT today, and not Hanks with his purportedly more prestigious filmography. Okay but you should have read that post more carefully because I wasn't attacking him. I said that, while I can't consider myself a big fan, it's weird that an actor of his caliber doesn't have a more prestigious filmography, and I thought it was due to a certain lack of offers.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 15, 2021 17:47:36 GMT
I think you are mistaken again (like when you said he'd worked with Ridley Scott twice). He has never directed any of his action films. He's only directed serious dramas focusing on the African-American experience... Antwone Fisher and The Great Debaters (both in the 2000's) and Fences in the 2010's. And the upcoming Journal For Jordan which recently completed principal photography . Considering the consistency of his subject matter and interests, Denzel himself can possibly be argued as an auteur as a filmmaker. I'd also argue that The Manchurian Candidate remake, directed by Jonathan Demme and co-starring Meryl Streep was concieved as an ambitious and prestigous film in the 2000's, not an action film. He did what he's always done and mixed things up, and while it may not be to everyone's taste, it clearly worked out extremely well for him. Because a large swathe of his peers, audiences and the industry at large are calling him the GOAT today, and not Hanks with his purportedly more prestigious filmography. Okay but you should have read that post more carefully because I wasn't attacking him. I said that, while I can't consider myself a big fan, it's weird that an actor of his caliber doesn't have a more prestigious filmography, and I thought it was due to a certain lack of offers. I don't think you are attacking him . I just think you are aren't fully cognizant that Denzel's film career was a deliberate strategy that worked for him big time. Sure, he had some limitations, but he was still in a position to turn down the likes of Spielberg, Eastwood and Fincher (the only one he regrets). Washington is not a cinephile, so he's not really trying to impress a minority of film buffs with his choice of films or collaboraters. Even if the script passes his desk, he isnt going to make The Lobster. He likes making action films and thrillers that audiences will see. If he wanted to do nothing but prestige after prestige Oscarbait, he probably could have, but he would have gotten bored and likely so would his audience. I think his filmography is one of the great balancing acts for a star of his magnitude. He has a shit load of Awardsbait and serious drama in there, but also popcorn flicks and thrillers to keep people satisfied and entertained. He did what he wanted, and as I said, it's seen him hailed as the greatest actor in the world/this century, so it ultimately hard to say he wasn't smart about how he approached building his filmography (I also think there is a lot more prestige in there than you give it credit for).
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Feb 15, 2021 18:21:18 GMT
There is nothing "purported" about Tom Hanks having the more prestigious filmography of the two. It's basically a fact, with his filmography comprising of 9 Best Picture nominees and 1 Best Picture winner. Denzel Washington, on the other hand, has 2 Best Picture nominees. More damningly, he has led a grand total of zero top-5 Best Picture nominees.
For all this talk about Washington mixing it up with action films and thrillers to keep audiences engaged, none of his movies has commanded even half the audience as Hanks's prestige films like Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, and Cast Away. And when Hanks ventured into the Thriller genre with The Da Vinci Code, his audience was 3 times as large as any Actioner/Thriller Washington was a part of.
Washington is probably more respected as an actor in America (though he's not quite as beloved), but Hanks is probably the more respected actor overseas. Washington, infamously, has 0 BAFTA nominations (and hasn't even managed a single mention from the London critics) while Hanks has 5 BAFTA nominations. Even something like the Golden Globes (voted for by foreign journalists) has given Hanks a couple more trophies.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 15, 2021 18:25:29 GMT
This might as well go here as well, since it obviously inspired the resuscitation of this thread
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Feb 15, 2021 18:37:29 GMT
There is nothing "purported" about Tom Hanks having the more prestigious filmography of the two. It's basically a fact, with his filmography comprising of 9 Best Picture nominees and 1 Best Picture winner. Denzel Washington, on the other hand, has 2 Best Picture nominees. More damningly, he has led a grand total of zero top-5 Best Picture nominees. For all this talk about Washington mixing it up with action films and thrillers to keep audiences engaged, none of his movies has commanded even half the audience as Hanks's prestige films like Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, and Cast Away. And when Hanks ventured into the Thriller genre with The Da Vinci Code, his audience was 3 times as large as any Actioner/Thriller Washington was a part of. Washington is probably more respected as an actor in America (though he's not quite as beloved), but Hanks is probably the more respected actor overseas. Washington, infamously, has 0 BAFTA nominations (and hasn't even managed a single mention from the London critics) while Hanks has 5 BAFTA nominations. Even something like the Golden Globes (voted for by foreign journalists) has given Hanks a couple more trophies. Yes, I don't think anyone would really dispute Hanks being the bigger movie star, although I'm not keeping up with the walls of quoted text. Denzel is good at opening his action movies an consistently getting them to solid 100 mil domestic grosses but he does not have the kind of mega hits Hanks has had over the years. The awards tally is pretty much even with Denzel having a couple more nods. Those are pretty much the two metrics of "career" which is why I voted for Hanks in the poll when it started. Whose acting you personally prefer is obviously a different matter.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Feb 15, 2021 18:38:45 GMT
This might as well go here as well, since it obviously inspired the resuscitation of this thread 1. That's a boneheaded way to compare filmography. Having The Godfather (98%) and Misconduct (22%) on your filmography is way better than having The Pelican Brief (61%) and The Equalizer 2 (61%) on your filmography. But according to that video, The Pelican Brief and The Equalizer 2 beat The Godfather 2. Even his data is wrong. I didn't do the numbers for everything, but the Audience Score Average for Washington is actually 69%, not 70%, if you consider only his feature films, and even less if you consider his TV movies as well. So he used wrong data in dumb ways to arrive at a stupid conclusion. I can see now why you gravitated toward it
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Feb 15, 2021 19:01:59 GMT
There is nothing "purported" about Tom Hanks having the more prestigious filmography of the two. It's basically a fact, with his filmography comprising of 9 Best Picture nominees and 1 Best Picture winner. Denzel Washington, on the other hand, has 2 Best Picture nominees. More damningly, he has led a grand total of zero top-5 Best Picture nominees. For all this talk about Washington mixing it up with action films and thrillers to keep audiences engaged, none of his movies has commanded even half the audience as Hanks's prestige films like Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, and Cast Away. And when Hanks ventured into the Thriller genre with The Da Vinci Code, his audience was 3 times as large as any Actioner/Thriller Washington was a part of. Washington is probably more respected as an actor in America (though he's not quite as beloved), but Hanks is probably the more respected actor overseas. Washington, infamously, has 0 BAFTA nominations (and hasn't even managed a single mention from the London critics) while Hanks has 5 BAFTA nominations. Even something like the Golden Globes (voted for by foreign journalists) has given Hanks a couple more trophies. Yes, I don't think anyone would really dispute Hanks being the bigger movie star, although I'm not keeping up with the walls of quoted text. Denzel is good at opening his action movies an consistently getting them to solid 100 mil domestic grosses but he does not have the kind of mega hits Hanks has had over the years. The awards tally is pretty much even with Denzel having a couple more nods. Those are pretty much the two metrics of "career" which is why I voted for Hanks in the poll when it started. Whose acting you personally prefer is obviously a different matter. Hanks has undisputably the bigger hits, but Denzel had/has the star power to sell tickets for films that Hanks would have never sold.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Feb 15, 2021 19:13:53 GMT
Yes, I don't think anyone would really dispute Hanks being the bigger movie star, although I'm not keeping up with the walls of quoted text. Denzel is good at opening his action movies an consistently getting them to solid 100 mil domestic grosses but he does not have the kind of mega hits Hanks has had over the years. The awards tally is pretty much even with Denzel having a couple more nods. Those are pretty much the two metrics of "career" which is why I voted for Hanks in the poll when it started. Whose acting you personally prefer is obviously a different matter. Hanks has undisputably the bigger hits, but Denzel had/has the star power to sell tickets for films that Hanks would have never sold. I don't know about that. It's not like Hanks is overly dependent on franchises or anything either. Forrest Gump and Cast Away are pretty much just straight star vehicles for Hanks that were sold on his name.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Feb 15, 2021 19:28:01 GMT
Hanks has undisputably the bigger hits, but Denzel had/has the star power to sell tickets for films that Hanks would have never sold. Like what? As countjohn mentioned, Tom Hanks has huge hits that Washington doesn't even come close to sniffing. Cast Away, for instance, was sold entirely on Tom Hanks, and it made $430M at the box-office in 2000. It's 2021, and Washington is yet to have a movie make even half of that with outright top-billing. On the Quigley Poll, which is a poll of movie theater owners who were asked to name who they felt were the previous year's top 10 money-making stars, Hanks made 17 appearances and Washington made 9. And that's just domestically. Hanks is even bigger overseas. As box-office stars, it's not even close, and practically everything bears that out.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Feb 15, 2021 19:39:15 GMT
Cast Away and Forrest Gump were big studio releases when studio releases that weren't franchises monopolized the market, and they were directed by Zemeckis who had made one of the most successful film trilogies ever, plus Roger Rabbit (plus Forrest Gump, in the case of Cast Away).
That's not really like selling The Equalizer.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Feb 15, 2021 19:49:56 GMT
Hanks no doubt had a mighty incredible box office run from 1992 to 2002 scoring 10 / 11 100m live-action grossers, only Philadelphia (irony) fell sort (it adjusts to well over 100m however), and even that was a huge hit. Washington can't compare on that front. Denzel's own "smaller" run however shouldn't be overlooked either, especially if you're looking at it from a consistency standpoint. All of his off the bat wide-released films from The Siege to The Equalizer 2 excluding The Great Debaters (which was in only 1,290 theaters), averaged an incredibly smooth per screen average of over $2000, and a opening weekend rate of at least 24m. Just like Hanks has his own audience maybe makes up 15m opening weekend a picture nowadays (I haven't kept stats), Denzel has his audience that has faithfully attended all of his movies over a twenty-year span. As far actor runs are concerned, that’s not bad at all.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Feb 15, 2021 20:01:12 GMT
Cast Away and Forrest Gump were studio releases when studio releases that weren't franchises monopolized the market, and they were directed by Zemeckis who had made one of the most successful film trilogies ever, plus Roger Rabbit (plus Forrest Gump, in the case of Cast Away). How do you explain Apollo 13, which made $360M in 1995? How do you explain The Green Mile, which made $287M in 1999? How do you explain Sleepless in Seattle, which made $276M in 1993? How do you explain Big, which made $252M in 1988? How do you explain A League of their Own, which made $233M in 1992? These are all movies that made much more money (adjusted for inflation) than any Washington movie ever. The Equalizer was based on popular pre-existing material, and it's a generic action movie. It's way easier to sell those than straight dramas like Sully (which made much more money) or even Flight (which made less money). Even as generic action movies go, while The Equalizer movies did well, similar movies with lesser stars made even more money. And what's more, some of them weren't even based on popular pre-existing material. The Equalizer - $192M The Equalizer 2 - $190M Taken - $227M Taken 2 - $376M Taken 3 - $326M John Wick 3 - $327M Wanted - $341M Salt - $293M I don't think The Equalizer's success is all that, let alone comparable to the insane box-office powers that Tom Hanks wielded in the '90s.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Feb 15, 2021 20:11:45 GMT
Cast Away and Forrest Gump were studio releases when studio releases that weren't franchises monopolized the market, and they were directed by Zemeckis who had made one of the most successful film trilogies ever, plus Roger Rabbit (plus Forrest Gump, in the case of Cast Away). How do you explain Apollo 13, which made $360M in 1995? How do you explain The Green Mile, which made $287M in 1999? How do you explain Sleepless in Seattle, which made $276M in 1993? How do you explain Big, which made $252M in 1988? How do you explain A League of their Own, which made $233M in 1992? These are all movies that made much more money (adjusted for inflation) than any Washington movie ever. You keep mentioning studio releases. Like, you seriously think Apollo 13 made all that money because Hanks was in it? And I'm not saying he couldn't sell a movie, I'm saying he couldn't sell some of the movies that Denzel has sold in his career.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 15, 2021 20:12:57 GMT
How do you explain Apollo 13, which made $360M in 1995? How do you explain The Green Mile, which made $287M in 1999? How do you explain Sleepless in Seattle, which made $276M in 1993? How do you explain Big, which made $252M in 1988? How do you explain A League of their Own, which made $233M in 1992? These are all movies that made much more money (adjusted for inflation) than any Washington movie ever. You keep mentioning studio releases. Like, you seriously think Apollo 13 made all that money because Hanks was in it? And I'm not saying he couldn't sell a movie, I'm saying he couldn't sell some of the movies that Denzel has sold in his career. Hanks was coming off the back of consecutive Oscar wins and that was also the year he was in Toy Story. The subject matter obviously had a fair amount to do with it, but there's a reason Hanks was considered the box-office king at that time.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Feb 15, 2021 20:19:24 GMT
You keep mentioning studio releases. Like, you seriously think Apollo 13 made all that money because Hanks was in it? And I'm not saying he couldn't sell a movie, I'm saying he couldn't sell some of the movies that Denzel has sold in his career. You're acting like Washington is out there doing independent films when studio releases are all that he has done his entire career, so I don't even know what your point is. Why hasn't even one of Washington's studio releases done anywhere near as well as any of those movies? Why did no other actor (except Tom Cruise) sell studio movies in the '90s the way Hanks did? And we're also doing that thing where we zero in on the best-performing Washington movie and pretend that's the rule. Let's not forget that almost half of Washington's action movies flop at the box-office. The Magnificent Seven flopped Unstoppable flopped The Book of Eli flopped The Taking of Pelham 123 flopped Tom Hanks is so obviously a bigger draw than Washington (over the course of their entire careers) that it shouldn't even be a debate.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Feb 15, 2021 22:14:37 GMT
Cast Away and Forrest Gump were big studio releases when studio releases that weren't franchises monopolized the market, and they were directed by Zemeckis who had made one of the most successful film trilogies ever, plus Roger Rabbit (plus Forrest Gump, in the case of Cast Away). That's not really like selling The Equalizer. If Hanks wanted to make a Taken or Equalizer like film it’d be a mega success.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Feb 15, 2021 22:55:34 GMT
Cast Away and Forrest Gump were big studio releases when studio releases that weren't franchises monopolized the market, and they were directed by Zemeckis who had made one of the most successful film trilogies ever, plus Roger Rabbit (plus Forrest Gump, in the case of Cast Away). That's not really like selling The Equalizer. If Hanks wanted to make a Taken or Equalizer like film it’d be a mega success. The boomer dads would come out in force to watch Tom Hanks go rogue and kick a little ass.
|
|