|
Post by futuretrunks on Jun 21, 2020 0:58:19 GMT
How do we compare fame levels between people everybody knows? Is Tom Cruise more famous than Brad Pitt? How would we even measure that, when everyone who's heard of one has heard of the other?
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 21, 2020 1:01:01 GMT
Great study. This goes to what I'm saying. Leo is famous, but he's not as famous as we all think. He's not Top 10 in fame in 2020. Top 10 in my opinion:John Wayne Harrison Ford Tom Cruise Brad Pitt Johnny Depp Julia Roberts Angelina Jolie Clint Eastwood Denzel Washington Will Smith J-Law? I feel like that's debatable since she's so new, but the demographic is exactly as accurate like the polls indicates. She's the queen of twitter and 16/17 year old rich-ass California suburbs. Big Little Lies style. Also, I'm willing to bet that outside of Depp, most young girls take Lawrence over any of the others.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jun 21, 2020 1:01:31 GMT
How do we compare fame levels between people everybody knows? Is Tom Cruise more famous than Brad Pitt? How would we even measure that, when everyone who's heard of one has heard of the other? I know of people who've heard of Cruise and not Pitt, but not the other way around. But that's just anecdotal.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jun 21, 2020 1:14:16 GMT
How do we compare fame levels between people everybody knows? Is Tom Cruise more famous than Brad Pitt? How would we even measure that, when everyone who's heard of one has heard of the other? I know of people who've heard of Cruise and not Pitt, but not the other way around. But that's just anecdotal. I've never met anybody (let's say teens onward) who I think has never heard of Brad Pitt or watched him in something. I get that Cruise might feel a bit more famous, but I can't really justify it when I think hard about it. This isn't a hard analogy, but think of Federer and Nadal. Do you know anybody who's heard of Federer who's never heard of Nadal? And I grant that that isn't equal to Pitt/Cruise, as Federer is still bigger than Nadal in certain ways. I'm trying to think of a scenario where you have Spielberg and someone like Hitchcock as a contemporary.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jun 21, 2020 1:18:52 GMT
Wayne and Eastwood's continued presence on those lists are the most interesting thing. Guess a lot of middle aged men still love those westerns. If there were going to be dead stars on the list I would have thought Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, or Audrey Hepburn would be the most likely candidates, but I suppose their presence in iconography does not necessarily translate to younger people going back to watch their movies. When it comes time for people to put their money where their mouth is and vote with their wallet, however, it seems DiCaprio is the one people want to part with their hard-earned cash to go watch a movie for. At 39 years of age, DiCaprio had 9 appearances on the Quigley Poll for the Top Money Making Stars. At the same age, Tom Hanks had 5 appearances and Denzel Washington was neck and neck with Jeff Bridges at 0 appearances. And that's just American audiences voting! I think we all know how much bigger DiCaprio is overseas than he is domestically. The highest grossing movie where Denzel Washington is the outright top-billed lead is Crimson Tide, which made $264M in today's money. For reference, that's less than the $287M that The Man in the Iron Mask made, which was a critical bomb made by a nobody. I don't know who is voting for Washington on the Harris Poll, but they're clearly not coming out to watch his movies like they are for Hanks and DiCaprio. Their box-office records and Quigley Poll listings demonstrate that. While I do think Leo is a bigger draw than Denzel and the biggest star right now, he generally stars in true A-list projects that probably could have still been hits without him, albeit not as big hits. Denzel consistently gets 150-200 mil grosses out of uber generic action movies where he is pretty much the only draw, much like Cruise does these days although Cruise is a lot bigger internationally.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 21, 2020 1:25:04 GMT
How do we compare fame levels between people everybody knows? Is Tom Cruise more famous than Brad Pitt? How would we even measure that, when everyone who's heard of one has heard of the other? Everybody has heard of EVERYBODY when you're talking about names that big dude. I'm just debating who is more bigger than the other. Leo's films don't appeal to people outside of the film savvy community. Apart from Titanic, they don't go see the films for him. They go see it because he does movies with Nolan, Tarantino, AGI, and Scorsese... those movies always create a loud echo on film sites... that's why it feels like there's a lot of discussion about them. But if you go outside avid film sites, his wattage is lesser. Not saying he suddenly becomes obscure, but he's just passed by in favor of the other names (like in that Top 10). He's the guy that a smaller sample of young male cinephiles really like. I do think he's #1 among film buffs though... currently speaking.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jun 21, 2020 1:25:40 GMT
DiCaprio is not Wayne or Pitt or Depp or Hanks in all time name recognition. Lots of people still refer to him as the Titanic guy. Or "whatever movie" guy. Everybody refers to Wayne, Depp, or Pitt by name. You have pop songs written about Wayne, Pitt or Depp but not DiCaprio. Some people do call Hanks..."him" a lot but for the most part hes definitely more well known than DiCaprio. Ehhh.... This doesn't feel credible to me. DiCaprio is super famous (especially in America, where the Harris Poll is conducted). I guess it maybe suggests that he's not quite as beloved/respected by American audiences as we might think, despite being a huge movie star. I can understand that concept. I used to be up for watching Tom Cruise movies all the time, despite not really loving him as an actor. But I always knew for the most part, that Cruise made good movies, so I'd often pay for a ticket to his films. Leo may have that going for him. He's a huge star because people know he makes quality films, but come time for the Harris Poll survey, they have more regard for other actors. I think there's a difference between being the biggest and the favorite. Tom Cruise wasn't on either one of those lists either because a lot of people hate him. But he's indisputably big, people see his movies even if they don't like him. Leo's not as polarizing as Cruise but it might be the same type deal, some people still might resent the pretty boy rep from Titanic, the womanizing might put some people off, he's guarded and isn't funny in interviews and stuff. But his movies are still events and everyone goes to see them.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jun 21, 2020 1:35:07 GMT
I've never met anybody (let's say teens onward) who I think has never heard of Brad Pitt or watched him in something. I get that Cruise might feel a bit more famous, but I can't really justify it when I think hard about it. This isn't a hard analogy, but think of Federer and Nadal. Do you know anybody who's heard of Federer who's never heard of Nadal? And I grant that that isn't equal to Pitt/Cruise, as Federer is still bigger than Nadal in certain ways. I'm trying to think of a scenario where you have Spielberg and someone like Hitchcock as a contemporary. The people I know that have heard of Cruise and not of Pitt tend to be foreign-born middle-aged people that don't watch Hollywood movies. It might be because Cruise was so massive in the '90s that people all over the world have heard of him, while that is not quite the case for Pitt. But it's just like 2 or 3 people, so it's not a big deal and it's anecdotal anyway. This is just a myth. I just cited The Man in the Iron Mask, which was by no means an A-list project, that was ravaged by critics and still made more money (adjusted for inflation) than literally any Washington movie where he had outright top-billing. And that was when DiCaprio was 24 years old and not even close to the star he would become in the 2010s. Even The Beach (a weird R-rated movie ravaged by critics with DiCaprio as the only draw) made an inflation-adjusted $214M. That's more than the inflation-adjusted $208M that The Equalizer (a popcorn action movie with mainstream appeal and decent reviews) made during the peak of Washington's stardom. A lot of these A-list movies that you claim would have been hits without DiCaprio wouldn't even have been made without him, because those kinds of movies just don't make money anymore. There is a reason DiCaprio has almost a monopoly on R-rated movies with $100M budgets, and that is that he is basically the only one left that can sell them.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 21, 2020 1:38:17 GMT
Ehhh.... This doesn't feel credible to me. DiCaprio is super famous (especially in America, where the Harris Poll is conducted). I guess it maybe suggests that he's not quite as beloved/respected by American audiences as we might think, despite being a huge movie star. I can understand that concept. I used to be up for watching Tom Cruise movies all the time, despite not really loving him as an actor. But I always knew for the most part, that Cruise made good movies, so I'd often pay for a ticket to his films. Leo may have that going for him. He's a huge star because people know he makes quality films, but come time for the Harris Poll survey, they have more regard for other actors. I think there's a difference between being the biggest and the favorite. Tom Cruise wasn't on either one of those lists either because a lot of people hate him. But he's indisputably big, people see his movies even if they don't like him. Leo's not as polarizing as Cruise but it might be the same type deal, some people still might resent the pretty boy rep from Titanic, the womanizing might put some people off, he's guarded and isn't funny in interviews and stuff. But his movies are still events and everyone goes to see them. I think the reason Cruise doesn't make the list is because the people who still likes him are mostly the women in the 80s and 90s who are now like 58 years old now. It's a smaller demographic than Denzel who appeals to pretty much any demographic from teenagers to 60 year olds. Cruise is mostly in blockbusters now. Those are not the films that his dearest films remember him for. Those aren't the best demonstrations of his "charisma." Something like Rain Man, Jerry Maguire, and A Few Good Men are what's in the hearts of his fondest fans.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 21, 2020 1:38:45 GMT
How do we compare fame levels between people everybody knows? Is Tom Cruise more famous than Brad Pitt? How would we even measure that, when everyone who's heard of one has heard of the other? Leo's films don't appeal to people outside of the film savvy community. Apart from Titanic, they don't go see the films for him. They go see it because he does movies with Nolan, Tarantino, AGI, and Scorsese... those movies always create a loud echo on film sites... that's why it feels like there's a lot of discussion about them. You may make a very good point here. If you look at the Exit Survey for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, the audience listed the cast (so that would include DiCaprio, Pitt and Robbie) as 37% of the reason they watched the movie. Quentin Tarantino was said to be the main draw by 47% of the audience answering the exit poll. Even with two A-list actors in tow, DiCaprio wasn't considered the biggest reason to watch the movie. I don't think you ever get that with Washington. He's always the main reason given for people showing up to his movies. deadline.com/2019/07/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-quentin-tarantino-box-office-lion-king-weekend-1202654606/
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jun 21, 2020 1:51:56 GMT
Wouldn't it be great instead of (yet another) conspiracy theories that the reason DiCap maybe caught up is because I posted how he smokes all of these actors in factual film metrics already at age 45 (which he does - except maybe Hanks)? Not saying that makes him better (it doesn't) or that he should be winning this poll (not advocating for anyone in my own poll) but maybe, just maybe a good honest debate and dialog went into a poll of ours for once? Well I don't see how he "beats" Hanks at the moment since Hanks has 2 wins/6 nods to 1 win/5 nods. Leo is just doing it at a much greater pace. That said, IDK why anyone should care about awards in something like this. You did acknowledge it doesn't matter, but there seems to be a real current on here lately to cite awards as some kind of objective thing that decides the best actor. If Pacino gave the same performances but for some reason didn't get a single nod, he'd still be the exact same actor, so if he's the best actor with the nods he'd be the best actor without them. This hasn't bled over into any other discussions besides acting either. No one acts like it's a blight on Citizen Kane that it didn't win BP/BD or says it's "objectively" not as good as Green Book or Crash because they did. No one says Will Wyler is the objective best director of all time and better than Kubrick or Hitchcock who didn't win at all. No reason that standard should be applied to acting either. It also seems to be applied inconsistently. In terms of actors Jack pretty clearly has the most awards success for instance with 3 wins and 12 nods. The only other person you could argue for is DDL because he is the only one with three Lead Actor wins but Jack still has three wins and twice as many nods. Yet I don't think very many people on here would put him ahead of DePac, DDL, or Brando despite them not having as good of an awards resume. The Oscars also make terrible decisions all the time. I'm sure we can all cite things we think suck that won awards. So it doesn't really matter who the old farts at AMPAS decide to give their little gold statues to. Again, I know you weren't suggesting it mattered, but that attitude seems to always end up pervading the replies to threads like this.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jun 21, 2020 2:00:39 GMT
Leo's films don't appeal to people outside of the film savvy community. Apart from Titanic, they don't go see the films for him. They go see it because he does movies with Nolan, Tarantino, AGI, and Scorsese... those movies always create a loud echo on film sites... that's why it feels like there's a lot of discussion about them. LOL. PTA movies also make a loud echo on film sites. Then they go out into the world and bomb. 1. Inception is still the highest grossing non-Batman movie for Nolan. And even Dunkirk (a PG-13 war movie) made less money than The Revenant (an R-rated drama). 2. The Revenant literally made more money than all of Inarritu's other movies combined. Crediting its $533M gross to him is ridiculous. 3. Scorsese's highest grossing movies, adjusted for inflation: - The Wolf of Wall Street: $431M - The Departed: $370M - Shutter Island: $346M- Cape Fear: $343M - The Aviator: $290M - Gangs of New York: $276M- Hugo: $212M - Casino: $195M Funny how 5 of Scorsese's 6 highest grossing movies have DiCaprio as the top-billed lead. That DiCaprio is one lucky bugger, lucking his way into all those hits. Like, The Man in the Iron Mask made more money (inflation-adjusted) than any movie that Washington has outright top-billing in. Was Randall Wallace the star draw for that one?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 2:04:36 GMT
Good God - I'd add too that DiCaprio headlined (along with Claire Danes) what remains the highest grossing Shakespearean film of all time - before Titanic.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jun 21, 2020 2:13:48 GMT
Oh, I almost forgot there was a thread on this. Tom Hanks is arguably one of the 5 biggest movie stars of all time. Leonardo DiCaprio is already in the top 20 and well on his way to finishing in the top 5, where he will join Hanks. Denzel Washington will possibly finish in the top 30, and Jeff Bridges might not factor into the top 100.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 21, 2020 2:26:39 GMT
My guess is these 6 guys down there in bold (who I've rarely seen on this board) got called up by a Leo dude, and decided to chip in to any effort they can to prop up their guy. It's no surprise a thread with Leo and Denzel in it is the most viewed and posted thread on the Polls section. I'm actually kinda surprised no crazies came out during the Watts, Kidman, Winslet thread which was the most viewed a few weeks ago. A thread with those names is guaranteed to bring out the zombies, just sayin'. Leo really has the most unstable fanboys. Hey man, they rigged the poll and finally got people talking about Leo on the thread . Gotta give 'em credit for having a method to their madness
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jun 21, 2020 2:28:29 GMT
Well I don't see how he "beats" Hanks at the moment since Hanks has 2 wins/6 nods to 1 win/5 nods. Leo is just doing it at a much greater pace. That said, IDK why anyone should care about awards in something like this. You did acknowledge it doesn't matter, but there seems to be a real current on here lately to cite awards as some kind of objective thing that decides the best actor. If Pacino gave the same performances but for some reason didn't get a single nod, he'd still be the exact same actor, so if he's the best actor with the nods he'd be the best actor without them. This hasn't bled over into any other discussions besides acting either. No one acts like it's a blight on Citizen Kane that it didn't win BP/BD or says it's "objectively" not as good as Green Book or Crash because they did. No one says Will Wyler is the objective best director of all time and better than Kubrick or Hitchcock who didn't win at all. No reason that standard should be applied to acting either. It also seems to be applied inconsistently. In terms of actors Jack pretty clearly has the most awards success for instance with 3 wins and 12 nods. The only other person you could argue for is DDL because he is the only one with three Lead Actor wins but Jack still has three wins and twice as many nods. Yet I don't think very many people on here would put him ahead of DePac, DDL, or Brando despite them not having as good of an awards resume. The Oscars also make terrible decisions all the time. I'm sure we can all cite things we think suck that won awards. So it doesn't really matter who the old farts at AMPAS decide to give their little gold statues to. Again, I know you weren't suggesting it mattered, but that attitude seems to always end up pervading the replies to threads like this. Yeah, I don't really see anybody calling Nicholson the GOAT because of his awards haul. And Nicholson is, beyond dispute, the most decorated English-language actor of all time. If someone makes the argument that Nicholson is more acclaimed actor than De Niro because of the accolades he's received, that's one thing and can be justified. But to make the argument that Nicholson is a better actor than De Niro because of his accolades is something else and doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 21, 2020 2:29:36 GMT
Leo's films don't appeal to people outside of the film savvy community. Apart from Titanic, they don't go see the films for him. They go see it because he does movies with Nolan, Tarantino, AGI, and Scorsese... those movies always create a loud echo on film sites... that's why it feels like there's a lot of discussion about them. LOL. PTA movies also make a loud echo on film sites. Then they go out into the world and bomb. 1. Inception is still the highest grossing non-Batman movie for Nolan. And even Dunkirk (a PG-13 war movie) made less money than The Revenant (an R-rated drama). 2. The Revenant literally made more money than all of Inarritu's other movies combined. Crediting its $533M gross to him is ridiculous. 3. Scorsese's highest grossing movies, adjusted for inflation: - The Wolf of Wall Street: $431M - The Departed: $370M - Shutter Island: $346M- Cape Fear: $343M - The Aviator: $290M - Gangs of New York: $276M- Hugo: $212M - Casino: $195M Funny how 5 of Scorsese's 6 highest grossing movies have DiCaprio as the top-billed lead. That DiCaprio is one lucky bugger, lucking his way into all those hits. Like, The Man in the Iron Mask made more money (inflation-adjusted) than any movie that Washington has outright top-billing in. Was Randall Wallace the star draw for that one? Don't understand the PTA comparison. But sure, if you wanna go there....... here's the pecking order in the real world. Denzel > Leo > PTA. Way more people like Denzel than Leo and way more people like Leo than PTA. It's not hard to understand degrees of fandom, doesn't mean Leo or PTA is obscure, just means they're lesser, and among just comparing Leo and PTA - PTA is even lesser than Leo. The Revenant had appeal beyond both AGI and Leo - I'm not crediting the Revenant to AGI at all. Leo had a part in the overall gross, but the mythical wilderness backdrop was the main appeal. Not to mention that movie was advertised as a really great film (hardly a generic survival film) so the expectation was a prestige film with enough high entertainment values to be a box office hit. Sounds exactly like the type that would do well in the box office, reminds me of Mel Gibson movies which are always box office hits. Isn't it telling that the highest grossing Scorsese films are his most recent? I mean, it's like picking from his post Goodfellas filmography essentially. Crediting Leo with The Man in the Iron Mask is....just..... ehhhh. That movie was a hit in the 90s. It had the Pirates of the Caribbean appeal. Swashbuckling, monarchy era backdrop laden with today's pop culture elements, a famous writer with high pop culture values to his books, an all-star cast some more well known than Leo at the time, not to mention can be seen somewhat as an adventure/action film. Leo was the last thing on my mind or anyone's minds about that movie. It's like saying the money Batman made is because of Keaton. Leo is not Denzel in the real world. It's not even close in fact.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 21, 2020 2:35:09 GMT
Wouldn't it be great instead of (yet another) conspiracy theories that the reason DiCap maybe caught up is because I posted how he smokes all of these actors in factual film metrics already at age 45 (which he does - except maybe Hanks)? Not saying that makes him better (it doesn't) or that he should be winning this poll (not advocating for anyone in my own poll) but maybe, just maybe a good honest debate and dialog went into a poll of ours for once? Well I don't see how he "beats" Hanks at the moment since Hanks has 2 wins/6 nods to 1 win/5 nods. Leo is just doing it at a much greater pace. That said, IDK why anyone should care about awards in something like this. You did acknowledge it doesn't matter, but there seems to be a real current on here lately to cite awards as some kind of objective thing that decides the best actor. If Pacino gave the same performances but for some reason didn't get a single nod, he'd still be the exact same actorWhat is in bold above is absolutely true ............but awards and metrics (which are not just awards) are part of a conversation and give an overview/starting point too in how the actors have been perceived/acclaimed - that is all I'm saying. Pace matters and can't be dismissed the way you did above imo and there's more than Oscars at play too...... I laid these out in my post but will do it again quickly: Hanks has 6 nods at 63 - he didn't have 6 at 45 (he had 5) .........DiCap beats him in GG nods already, ties for him in BAFTA nods atm and leads in wins, has more BP nodded films (I think?) has almost as many Globe wins atm, and has more SAG nods already too. Again he's comparable with Hanks and exceeds Washington/Bridges by a lot already .......so yes it doesn't "make" him better we can agree but when you look at all of that in totality with his filmography/major directors, types of material (comic and drama), playing ensembles or leads........well it couldn't be more impressive. In a poll like this many people would say "well not Leo, not yet" and I'm just saying on a factual basis that isn't necessarily the case and it IS applied consistently: I mean DDL also doesn't beat DiCap for these metrics at 45 either really does he - maybe ties at BAFTA only at best? (although I do get he worked less and has a "percentage advantage" .............but he had the opportunity to work more anyway - age is age and affects everyone equally). Just food for thought .......but that's all it is ..........just part of a discussion......that is true.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jun 21, 2020 2:40:39 GMT
Don't understand the PTA comparison. But sure, if you wanna go there....... here's the pecking order in the real world. Denzel > Leo > PTA. Way more people like Denzel than Leo and way more people like Leo than PTA. It's not hard to understand degrees of fandom, doesn't mean Leo or PTA is obscure, just means they're lesser, and among just comparing Leo and PTA - PTA is even lesser than Leo. And yet, in the real world: 1. DiCaprio has 8 movies that have made more money than any Washington movie, ever. 2. Theater Owners, that have skin in the game, had listed DiCaprio among the Top Money Making Stars 9 times at the age of 39. Washington, on the other hand, was listed 0 times at the same age. You sure you're not talking about your fantasy world? Mel Gibson was also a huge star. Bigger than Washington, anyway. Unlike Washington, Gibson could actually headline a movie past the $300M mark. Yes, because most of his recent movies star DiCaprio. His two movies before Gangs of New York bombed at the box-office, and so did his two non-DiCaprio movies since Gangs of New York. I wonder why LOL, what's this idiocy? You're saying the likes of Jeremy Irons and John Malkovich were more well-known than a post-Titanic DiCaprio? You're a clown. You're right. DiCaprio has TEN movies that grossed more than $275M. Washington has ZERO. Not even close
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 21, 2020 3:35:01 GMT
You continue to elude the concept that not all films are made the same.
You're not taking into account the fact that a great majority of Washington's films are not worth seeing apart from him. So of course they're going to be lesser seen in the cinemas overall due to the fact that there's no other stakes involved. If you go to a wildlife park and the only thing to do is horseback riding, that's not gonna attract as many people than a wildlife park where you can ride horses, feed the animals, take pictures with them, and let you race with the baby horses, or everything else. There's just more to do in the latter park. If you divide the gross of Inception by every aspect that people see it for, I'm sure Leo can claim only a small portion of the overall gross where you can credit Denzel with pretty much everything in a great majority of his movies. Because he works with a cast of nobodies and nobody directors. What else was remotely appealing about Flight and Equalizer 2? Ok, the naked woman aside, but still.... there were nobodies involved in the entire cast and crew.
If you put Denzel in Inception in place of Leo, does that movie still not gross $300 million? Da fuck man; get out. And I guess you'll go change your tune now.
Well we can argue that, but yeah.... Gibson was big. Washington, tho, has gotten way bigger through time because his movies are always on TV. I think Gibson stopped his steam after a certain point though.
In 1998, was Leo that big? He had Titanic, sure. But it was only a year old at that point. They knew who he was, but I don't think one movie (maybe you can add Romeo and Juliet but.... meh.... ) can make you automatically a household name. I don't know how to factor Malkovich or Irons into the discussion, but if you think heartthrob Leo can propel a film in 1998 to gross $200 million dollars without Cameron, a $200 million budget, or the most ambitious film in the century behind him, I don't know what to tell you man.
I already addressed this point. Everyone says Denzel is way bigger than the position you put him at. It says something about you, dude. I'm not even saying Leo is not big, I'm just saying he's not Top 10. Where Denzel is clearly Top 10. Putting Denzel outside of that is like putting Kubrick, Hitchcock, or PTA outside of the Top 10 based on army mass numbers. We all know their fanboys are gonna all come barging in whenever a thread with them in the title is posted.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jun 21, 2020 3:53:04 GMT
You continue to allude the concept that not all films are made the same. You're not taking into account the fact that a great majority of Washington's films are not worth seeing apart from him. So of course they're going to be lesser seen in the cinemas overall due to the fact that's no other stakes involved. It's just math. If you go to a wildlife park and the only thing to do is horseback riding, that's not gonna attract as many people than a wildlife park where you can ride horses, feed the animals, take pictures with them, and let you race with the baby horses, or something. There's more to do in the latter park. If you divide the gross of Inception by every aspect that people see it for, I'm sure Leo only can claim only a small portion of the overall gross where you can credit Denzel with pretty much everything. because he works with a cast of nobodies and nobody directors. What else was remotely appealing about Flight and Equalizer 2? Ok, the naked woman aside, but still.... there were nobodies involved in the entire cast and crew. If you put Denzel in Inception in place with Leo, does that movie still not gross $300 million? Da fuck man; get out. And I guess you'll go change your tune now. Of course not all movies are made the same, but you followed that up with a load of BS. According to the Quigley Poll, a poll of movie theater owners that were asked to name who they felt were the previous year's top 10 moneymaking stars, DiCaprio was among the 10 biggest moneymaking stars 9 times at the age of 39. Washington, at the same age, had appeared 0 times. How do you explain theater owners, the guys that actually make their livelihoods on this, rating DiCaprio as a way bigger moneymaker than Washington? I mean, it's not even close. He may have stopped, but we're talking overall and not at the moment, right? Gibson became a huge star at a younger age and was a way bigger star during his peak than Washington ever was. Washington may go on to surpass him at some point, but that's not the case right now. You're entitled to your, frankly, asinine opinions, but your disagreement is, once again, with the theater owners. They ranked DiCaprio as the 3rd biggest moneymaker in both 1997 and 1998. Irons and Malkovich have never made the list. Clearly, the guys that were selling those tickets thought that DiCaprio was the primary force behind why people were buying those tickets. Who is everyone? It's not me putting Washington at that position. It's his numbers and the evaluation of theater owners. Once again, Washington doesn't even come close to Tom Hanks and Leonardo DiCaprio as a star. He may one day surpass Mel Gibson, but that's about it. They're not even on the same playing field.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 21, 2020 4:07:41 GMT
You continue to allude the concept that not all films are made the same. You're not taking into account the fact that a great majority of Washington's films are not worth seeing apart from him. So of course they're going to be lesser seen in the cinemas overall due to the fact that's no other stakes involved. It's just math. Not my fight and I could care less about box-office but: Observation: people sure are quick to blow off my acclaim metrics while talking a whole lot about "popularity" like it has anything to do with "best" at all - kidding, kidding....... But the part in bold is always a fall back position for DW in so many ways for years and like I said in this thread earlier - it's a huge pro and a huge con - it's great to be better than your films - that's impressive but that comes at a cost too - he rarely interacted with big name co-stars which calls into question generosity/chemistry, his son is likely going to tie him for being in BP films this year, his filmography is well you know , ........I mean who knows what Se7en would have made with him in it and I'm sorry he turned down Michael Clayton or whatever but that not worth seeing apart from him has a lot of twisty implications about box office, protecting your "brand" (maybe too much), filmography, and available roles to play that just gets totally missed in the discussion. DW gets rewarded in a back-handed way by that statement without taking the downsides into account too.......on the other hand Jeff Bridges gets to be exempt from this BO discussion entirely and may be the best actor of the 4 - I could make a case for all 4 of these guys anyway......and he gets to be seen just on his work it seems to me (like Willem Dafoe who may be winning this stupid poll if he was in it ........... )
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 21, 2020 4:12:33 GMT
Sounds like this study was based on raw numbers, which I already said before.... not all movies are made the same. Yes I get that overall Leo has a LOT of films that grossed more than Denzel's films, but again if this study is just based on raw numbers....... you even agreed not all movies are made the same so let's stop getting pressed on raw numbers.
You tell me.... put Denzel in Inception and The Departed do they still not gross $300 million?
Sure, but Denzel has sustained himself longer so if you add all those years up they may overtake Gibson's relatively shorter peak, even if that peak was larger than Denzel's. Long sustaining career matters in the overall scheme of overall popularity.
Well I'm not talking about Malkovich and Irons, so you can have that one. I was alive in 1998, dude and I don't get the impression he was the 3rd biggest moneymaker. He might've been the biggest or one of the biggest NEW stars, but certainly not one of 3 biggest overall stars. So yeah, I knew who he was but nobody much gave a damn about him in 1998. So while his name circulated around the media a lot in 1998 (although not in the same vein as now obviously), he was mostly just a pop culture icon that was there, but not anybody that attracted the masses despite heavy media on him. Hardly like he was Tom Hanks in 1998 or anything.
Well, if you take so much heed to box office numbers and that Quigley Poll, how do you explain the poll pupdurcs posted? The Harris poll that has Denzel at #1 or #2 for majority of the years? I mean... polls are polls right? They're based on facts in the study, you can't just pick which one you feel like discrediting or we can discredit the Quigley Poll too.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jun 21, 2020 4:29:01 GMT
Sounds like this study was based on raw numbers, which I already said before.... not all movies are made the same. Yes I get that overall Leo has a LOT of films that grossed more than Denzel's films, but again if this study is just based on raw numbers....... you even agreed not all movies are made the same so let's stop getting pressed on raw numbers. Wrong. It's not based on raw numbers. It's based on who the biggest moneymaking stars were. Daniel Radcliffe, for instance, never made the list despite leading 8 movies that grossed $500M+. Even Kate Winslet and Sam Worthington never made the list, despite leading all-time grossers like Titanic and Avatar. So I ask you again: How do you explain theater owners rating DiCaprio as a way bigger star than Washington? Inception, probably. The Departed, absolutely not. Gibson's peak wasn't short. He made the Quigley List a total of 13 times (more than Washington's total), so that's a pretty sustained peak. Gibson is still, over their entire careers, a bigger movie star than Washington. It doesn't really matter what you think, though. Theater owners, when asked to rank the biggest moneymaking stars, ranked DiCaprio 3rd for the year The Man in the Iron Mask came out. You can't just wave it away because it doesn't suit you. I've already explained my stance on that in a previous post: "When it comes time for people to put their money where their mouth is and vote with their wallet, however, it seems DiCaprio is the one people want to part with their hard-earned cash to go watch a movie for. I don't know who is voting for Washington on the Harris Poll, but they're clearly not coming out to watch his movies like they are for Hanks and DiCaprio. Their box-office records and Quigley Poll listings demonstrate that." You can keep repeating your fantasy-land opinions, but basically every metric has DiCaprio as a bigger star than Washington. Even in America. If you go overseas, the gap only widens.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 21, 2020 4:32:40 GMT
You continue to allude the concept that not all films are made the same. You're not taking into account the fact that a great majority of Washington's films are not worth seeing apart from him. So of course they're going to be lesser seen in the cinemas overall due to the fact that's no other stakes involved. It's just math. Not my fight and I could care less about box-office but: Observation: people sure are quick to blow off my acclaim metrics while talking a whole lot about "popularity" like it has anything to do with "best" at all - kidding, kidding....... But the part in bold is always a fall back position for DW in so many ways for years and like I said in this thread earlier - it's a huge pro and a huge con - it's great to be better than your films - that's impressive but that comes at a cost too - he rarely interacted with big name co-stars which calls into question generosity/chemistry, his son is likely going to tie him for being in BP films this year, his filmography is well you know , ........I mean who knows what Se7en would have made with him in it and I'm sorry he turned down Michael Clayton or whatever but that not worth seeing apart from him has a lot of twisty implications about box office, protecting your "brand" (maybe too much), filmography, and available roles to play that just gets totally missed in the discussion. DW gets rewarded in a back-handed way by that statement without taking the downsides into account too.......on the other hand Jeff Bridges gets to be exempt from this BO discussion entirely and may be the best actor of the 4 - I could make a case for all 4 of these guys anyway......and he gets to be seen just on his work it seems to me (like Willem Dafoe who may be winning this stupid poll if he was in it ........... ) If I understand what you're saying.... do you mean that Denzel gets a lot of credit for being the one good thing in a pile of poo? Like if everything else around him is horrible, and you're the one star that shines, you get propped up for essentially being one healthy teeth among a bunch of rotten teeth? Well I guess film buffs have credited lots of people for superficial things all through history. Like how Kubrick has a "perfect" filmography or DDL has no lowpoints because he picks so carefully and fail-safely. And this is nothing more than a popularity discussion. We're not discussing quality of work. We all know that if we discuss quality of work, De Pac's name gets thrown back to the front again, due to their mythical involvements in the 70s with Coppola and Scorsese and then a revitalization in the 90s with some of the new auteurs like Mann for instance. Dafoe is a newbie. Though I've always liked him. The Last Temptation of Christ and Shadow of a Vampire destroys his newer stuff, ya damn newbie film buffs who haven't bothered to watch those films. Kidding, kidding... This is like 2008 all over again when people thought The Wrestler is the only thing worth seeing about Mickey Rourke? Dudes haven't seen Barfly.
|
|