|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 21, 2020 4:45:21 GMT
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 in 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. Yes on paragraph 1 (more or less - it is impressive while opening problems at the same time) and paragraph 2 is so on point I can only nod in agreement.............yessssssssssssssssssss. It's ok if it just becomes a popularity discussion I guess - I like to do polls on "best" but you know you can't control the poll once it's out there which is alright. I'm still waiting for one person to explain to me how Nicole Kidman who is fine and can be great even but is not in my universe the 8th best actress in the world right now but finished 8th all time in our GOAT poll.........that one bothered me a lot..........but my therapist says I'm doing better handling that and with my medication I'll be as good as new.......one day
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,825
Likes: 2,354
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 21, 2020 4:47:31 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. 1) there are more ways to watch movies besides the cinemas. Television is huge. The cinema favors certain films, like Transformers for instance. But what does that movie's overall gross really tell us? 2) you're getting pressed with one study. I can easily get pressed on another study. 3) you're the guy who said Winslet has a distinct advantage over Kidman because she was in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Titanic. I don't think anyone thinks Winslet > Kidman in any metric (popularity/fame/acclaim/filmography/general talent). You can call them equals if you choose, but to state that there is some factual basis for Winslet > Kidman just because of Titanic and Eternal Sunshine..... I can honestly say I have never once heard that before. Seems like you're in the la la land, man. 4) And the Departed is truly going to suffer in the box office without Leo. Putting Denzel in place of Leo would've made that BIG a difference. Not like it didn't have Scorsese, an all-star cast, Damon, Nicholson, not to mention a clear path to the Oscars with the talk around town all year long being that it was finally Scorsese's moment to get an Oscar. Da fuq are you kidding yourself, man.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jun 21, 2020 4:56:28 GMT
1) there are more ways to watch movies besides the cinemas. Television is huge. The cinema favors certain films, like Transformers for instance. But what does that movie's overall gross really tell us? I know there are more ways to watch movies besides the cinemas, but it's quite a leap to go from there to suggesting that Washington's filmography is more popular on TV than DiCaprio's filmography when DiCaprio's filmography is better regarded by virtually everyone. You're free to get pressed on anything you like. Doesn't change the fact that DiCaprio is a way bigger movie star than Washington. That was just one of the factors I mentioned. I also presented evidence that clearly demonstrates that Winslet has more movie acclaim than Kidman. I'd suggest you go back to that thread and actually read my post again. You could have presented a counterargument if there was anything wrong with my argument, but none was forthcoming. You're coming off as an ignorant idiot right now. The Departed made just $291.5M with DiCaprio in it. If Washington, who was a lesser star, replaced DiCaprio in the movie, it stands to reason that it would make less money, not more.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jun 21, 2020 5:00:36 GMT
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. ??? This is trolling. Clown behavior.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 21, 2020 5:00:38 GMT
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. 1) there are more ways to watch movies besides the cinemas. Television is huge. The cinema favors certain films, like Transformers for instance. But what does that movie's overall gross really tell us? 2) you're getting pressed with one study. I can easily get pressed on another study. 3) you're the guy who said Winslet has a distinct advantage over Kidman because she was in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Titanic. I don't think anyone thinks Winslet > Kidman in any metric (popularity/fame/acclaim/filmography/general talent). You can call them equals if you choose, but to state that there is some factual basis for Winslet > Kidman just because of Titanic and Eternal Sunshine..... I can honestly say I have never once heard that before. Seems like you're in the la la land, man. 4) And the Departed is truly going to suffer in the box office without Leo. Putting Denzel in place of Leo would've made that BIG a difference. Not like it didn't have Scorsese, an all-star cast, Damon, Nicholson, not to mention a clear path to the Oscars with the talk around town all year long being that it was finally Scorsese's moment to get an Oscar. Da fuq are you kidding yourself, man. Denzel in The Departed with Scorsese, Damon, Nicholson and the attendent Oscar buzz and success....I think it'd have been as big as the DiCaprio version, if not bigger.In fact, I'm almost certain if you replaced Leo with Denzel in The Departed, the hype would have led to bigger grosses. Look how much buzz and money Denzel generated when people saw he was doing a prestigious gangster movie with Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott (who is no Scorsese to audiences in that genre) in American Gangster. Mostly thanks to the hype around Denzel doing it, American Gangster grossed 266 million dollars worldwide. The Departed grossed 291 million worldwide. Not much of a difference...and I think DiCaprio had by far the bigger assists in terms of cast and crew and Awards run. DiCaprio made the thriller Body Of Lies with Denzel's American Gangster collaborators Crowe and Scott the next year, and it made 118 million dollars. Quite a dip from their collab with Denzel.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jun 21, 2020 5:07:45 GMT
Denzel in The Departed with Scorsese, Damon, Nicholson and the attendent Oscar buzz and success....I think it'd have been as big as the DiCaprio version, if not bigger. Look how much buzz and money Denzel generated when people saw he was doing a prestigious gangster movie with Russell Crowe and Ridley (who is no Scorsese to audiences in that genre) in American Gangster. Mostly thanks to the hype around Denzel doing it, American Gangster grossed 266 million dollars worldwide. The Departed grossed 291 million worldwide. Not much of a difference...and I think DiCaprio had by far the bigger assists in terms of cast and crew. Classic cherry-picking. 1. American Gangster is Washington's highest grossing movie. The Departed in not even among DiCaprio's top 5. 2. Washington actually had a huge assist from Crowe, who was billed over Washington in international markets where Washington is a limited draw. 3. DiCaprio had no assist from anyone on The Revenant. A movie that made almost twice as much as American Gangster, where Washington had an assist from Crowe. Try an actual argument instead of a cherry-picked comparison between Washington's best ever box-office performance to an average performance from DiCaprio. In 2006, theater owners ranked DiCaprio (#2) as a bigger moneymaker than Washington (#4). Seems like a bit of a stretch to argue that Washington would have done better than DiCaprio on The Departed. Funny how Washington is this huge box-office behemoth in imagined hypotheticals, but has never actually led a movie to $300M in reality It's telling that most of his biggest movies needed to be led by bigger stars like Hanks and Roberts to manage the grosses that they did. Even on American Gangster, Crowe had to carry the overseas load for it to do as well as it did.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 21, 2020 5:16:01 GMT
DiCaprio got an assist from Crowe/Scott the very next year with Body Of Lies after American Gangster, and it "only" grossed 118 million dollars worldwide. Less than half of American Gangster
Why didn't Body Of Lies do American Gangster numbers ?It has the same team, except for Denzel. And Leo supposedly makes everything huge at the box office by himself.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jun 21, 2020 5:25:53 GMT
DiCaprio got an assist from Crowe/Scott the very next year with Body Of Lies after American Gangster, and it "only" grossed 118 million dollars worldwide. Less than half of American Gangster Why didn't Body Of Lies do American Gangster numbers ?It has the same team, except for Denzel. And Leo supposedly makes everything huge at the box office by himself. Rotten Tomatoes:American Gangster - 80% Body of Lies - 55% Budget: American Gangster - $100M Body of Lies - $67.5M Ever since DiCaprio became the biggest star in the world in 2010, he has had 0 flops. List of Washington's flops since 2010: The Book of Eli Unstoppable The Magnificent Seven Roman J. Israel, Esq. How come Washington has had 4 flops in the time DiCaprio has had 0?
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 21, 2020 5:30:12 GMT
^^^^ I'm not going to have a back and forth with you. It's never productive, and always turns antagonistic. I'm cutting that shit off before it gets there. I made the point I wanted to make.
If someone else wants to argue with you, though, I'll gladly eat my popcorn and watch.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jun 21, 2020 5:36:53 GMT
^^^^ I'm not going to have a back and forth with you. It's never productive, and always turns antagonistic. I'm cutting that shit off before it gets there. I made the point I wanted to make. If someone else wants to argue with you, though, I'll gladly eat my popcorn and watch. Of course you won't, because you don't like your behind handed to you like I always do Shutter Island, which is again not one of DiCaprio's highest grossers, made more money than American Gangster, which is Washington's highest grosser. And DiCaprio didn't have Russell Crowe billed over him and helping him out in international markets. You can try and cherry-pick your way out of reality, but it's not going to work.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 21, 2020 5:42:44 GMT
Denzel in The Departed with Scorsese, Damon, Nicholson and the attendent Oscar buzz and success....I think it'd have been as big as the DiCaprio version, if not bigger. Look how much buzz and money Denzel generated when people saw he was doing a prestigious gangster movie with Russell Crowe and Ridley (who is no Scorsese to audiences in that genre) in American Gangster. Mostly thanks to the hype around Denzel doing it, American Gangster grossed 266 million dollars worldwide. The Departed grossed 291 million worldwide. Not much of a difference...and I think DiCaprio had by far the bigger assists in terms of cast and crew. Classic cherry-picking.1. American Gangster is Washington's highest grossing movie. The Departed in not even among DiCaprio's top 5. 2. Washington actually had a huge assist from Crowe, who was billed over Washington in international markets where Washington is a limited draw. 3. DiCaprio had no assist from anyone on The Revenant. A movie that made almost twice as much as American Gangster, where Washington had an assist from Crowe. Even got a de facto bump (maybe) from Jay Z's huge AG album which is not tied to the film but was a big deal as a cross-promo and released close to simultaneously. Side note: I saw that movie early at a sneak peak a full week (or more) in advance......... went on IMDB and posted that it was good but not great but DW was very good but incomplete in his portrayal - a ~7.5 film or so and that I didn't really think DW would get nodded (in a weak year too) and the film wouldn't get a lot of nods either was my guess.............proceeded to get my head absolutely torn off by the Zelbots who are STILL here (in some cases not all) 59 years later .............. I got called a "hater" (I'm not, never was) got told "you didn't see it" (I had) and all I said was it was good ....................and where did we end up..........yeah around a ~7.5 with 2 Oscar nods. Possibly my finest call ever and I've had a lot of good (some bad) calls over the years .........never forget.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 21, 2020 5:51:22 GMT
^^^^ I'm not going to have a back and forth with you. It's never productive, and always turns antagonistic. I'm cutting that shit off before it gets there. I made the point I wanted to make. If someone else wants to argue with you, though, I'll gladly eat my popcorn and watch. Of course you won't, because you don't like your behind handed to you like I always do No, I just don't see any point arguing with someone who enjoys playing the troll. I know Awardsworthy just permanently banned you (under your name there Kingpin) for harassing mattfincher about DiCaprio, so why the fuck would I want to encourage you to do the same here. I'm ok. You can find other people to argue about Leo with.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jun 21, 2020 5:55:27 GMT
No, I just don't see any point arguing with someone who enjoys playing the troll. I know Awardsworthy just permanently banned you (under your name their Kingpin) for harassing mattfincher about DiCaprio, so why the fuck would I want to encourage you to do the same here. Why indeed, when you always get owned, just like Matt did back on IMDb? It's all right, you're free to go lick your wounds. Just as well you quit before I asked you why America's (alleged) favorite movie star only managed a $13M worldwide gross with Roman J. Israel
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,825
Likes: 2,354
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 21, 2020 6:43:08 GMT
Denzel has 22 films that's grossed over $100 million in the box office worldwide, and that's for someone who has much less wattage internationally than in the U.S. If we were to take into account inflation, then The Hurricane and The Manchurian Candidate would've surely counted.... giving him 24 overall films that has grossed over $100 million. *beep* 24 films. Count that again. TWENTY FUCKING FOUR. How is he not a box office behemoth again? I mean sure, counted among those are The Pelican Brief (Roberts was definitely the engine there) and Philadelphia where Hanks was top, and maybe you can argue Crimson Tide had Hackman and terrific reviews and was 1995, but what about the other 21 films? That's also not counting the fact that those films are generally considered bad, with relatively no help from a nobody cast, no IMDB masses to prop them up like Leo with Shutter Island and The Departed (both 1,000,000 votes and an IMDB rating of 8.1+ and in the IMDB top 250), low rottentomato scores, no Oscar push (apart from The Hurricane - and even that had much lower perception than The Departed,)...... and Denzel is not internationally as big as Leo. Even with those conditions, Denzel is still the most consistent box office force. But sure... let's go cherry pick Roman Israel, one outlier that's grossed $13 million. I'm not at a pupdurcs' level fanboyism with Denzel, but to say he's not a box office behemoth has to be slightly comical and living in a world that I obviously don't know. Find me someone this consistently strong in the box office. No wonder he's voted #1. It kind of all adds up. The problem when you use simple box office figures and numbers to do all the talking for you is that people can throw it right back at you and point out how fallacious you are with your misrepresentation of facts.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jun 21, 2020 7:32:26 GMT
Denzel has 22 films that's grossed over $100 million in the box office worldwide, and that's for someone who has much less wattage internationally than in the U.S. If we were to take into account inflation, then The Hurricane and The Manchurian Candidate would've surely counted.... giving him 24 overall films that has grossed over $100 million. Inflation adjusted figures: Denzel Washington (47 movies): $300M+ grossers (3/47) = 6.5% $200M+ grossers (10/47) = 21% $100M+ grossers (24/47) = 51% Sub-$100M grossers (23/47) = 49% Leonardo DiCaprio (26 movies): $300M+ grossers (10/26) = 38.5% $200M+ grossers (16/26) = 61.5% $100M+ grossers (17/26) = 65.5% Sub-$100M grossers (9/26) = 34.5% Who has been more consistent? Washington is obviously a major star. He's just no Hanks or DiCaprio, and virtually everything bears that out. Like you say, Washington was not even the outright primary draw of any of his 3 highest grossing movies. Philadelphia had Hanks, who was a bigger star at the time (and in general). The Pelican Brief had Roberts, who was a bigger star at the time (and arguably in general as well). American Gangster had Crowe being top-billed in international markets, where he pulled his weight. Without these 3 movies, Washington would have no movie with an inflation-adjusted gross of $300M+. Why are you trying to spin negatives into positives? That Washington's movies are poorly rated is a mark against him, not a point in his favor in box-office discussions. But if we're actually going to contextualize this, Washington routinely makes popcorn entertainment movies that are much easier sells to the general public. A lot of actors do that, including Will Smith and Dwayne Johnson who have done it better. DiCaprio, on the other hand, is unique in headlining $100M+ budgeted R-rated movies and often leading them to box-office success. He's literally the only actor that does that on a consistent basis. I think DiCaprio's movies are often harder sells than Washington's. The two times he did PG-13 action movies, they became two of the highest grossing original live-action movies of all time. Imagine what his box-office would look like if that's all he did. What's fallacious about it? 1. The last time a DiCaprio movie failed to make more than $50M at the box-office was 22 years ago, and his was just a cameo in that movie. Washington, on the other hand, has had a resounding bomb with Roman J. Israel just 3 years ago. 2. The last time a DiCaprio movie flopped at the box-office was 12 years ago. In the same span of time, Washington has had 5 box-office flops. DiCaprio has a much more consistent box-office record than Washington. I've given you facts and numbers demonstrating this. But you seem to live in a clown world where Washington is a bigger star than DiCaprio, so I wouldn't be surprised if facts and numbers don't sway you
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jun 21, 2020 8:17:39 GMT
Not to insert myself into an argument but I just wanted to add a little bit of international perspective solely about DiCaprio - to me the assertion that audiences don't go see his movies for him is bewildering as he's literally the most popular American actor here in Russia right now and is the definition of a household name. Pretty much all the coverage about "The Revenant" here was solely concentrated on him and not on AGI or the 'mythical wilderness backdrop' - it's a bit insane to me that anyone could claim that THAT was the main reason for people to see the flick and not DiCaprio. This is a 150-minute grim and morose film which made 530 million bucks worldwide...I cannot believe someone could claim that it wasn't due to DiCaprio's butts-in-the-seats power and more because of the mythical wilderness Or "The Wolf of Wall Street" - a three-hour long hard R which made 392 mil worldwide and became Scorsese's biggest worldwide success. You simply cannot state that it wasn't due to DiCaprio's insane international appeal. This is just an incidental anecdote but I think it's indicative of how it all happened: one of my good friends told me that when he went to see "Wolf" in the theatres some older man showed up there with a bunch of his daughters who were eager to see a new Leo movie obviously without knowing of its nature. The father rushed them out of the theatre within five minutes when Leo had a straw up a hooker's asshole Literally all of Scorsese's movies that were successful internationally had one uniting factor - they starred DiCaprio. He's a total household name in Russia and general audiences see his movies for him. Heck, there's even been a very popular miniseries here literally entitled "Call DiCaprio", and its plot had zero to do with DiCaprio at all I just wanted to further stress that I wasn't trying to compare DiCaprio's status to anybody else's - I was solely talking about him.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,825
Likes: 2,354
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 21, 2020 9:14:36 GMT
Good God I can't just look at numbers with these things. It's not possible for me to do that. As I've already said before, there's more to it than the cinema numbers. This is the problem when you bring numbers and you're holding onto that one lifeline. I believe more people love Denzel in the real world. IN AMERICA. That Harris poll reflects that. And most polls I've seen have Denzel over Leo. And most people I've talked to all my life (not just a few sample anecdotes) always takes Denzel over Leo. Now that might've been before the 2010s, maybe I'm under a rock a little having ignored the last 10 years, but from my general longtime perception, Denzel is generally more liked. What's the next argument you'll make? Are you gonna try to say Leo is bigger than Will Smith? Pray tell me, who's bigger.... Will or Leo? Like Leo never got any help. If you wanna take those 3 out of Denzel's filmography, you can take The Departed, Inception, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood out. He had way more help in those films than an average Denzel film has. Sure, you can claim that but given the conditions, he still grosses over $100 million in 24 films over several decades, and sustaining it tells me more clearly that he's the box office magnet. I don't care if he's in a few movies like Roman Israel - those are a couple of outliers. Most of his sub-$100 million grossing films were when he was younger, 90s or before where he wasn't as big. That, to me, is a John Wayne type of box office power, imo. Only a small percentage of actors has that type of power. So yeah, I definitely think Denzel dominates the box office more when you take everything as equal, but you still refuse to do so there's no point debating this with you anymore. Does Leo also have that type of power? Based on what it looks like.... yeah he's getting there, but again...... I still don't think he's Top 10. JangoB That's fascinating. But it's Russia. You don't have the American experience, mentality, or mind. So you really can't comment on a discussion that's primarily based on the world of America. The Revenant grossed 533 million worldwide, but only $180 million in the U.S. 2/3 of the money it made was from overseas. It's obvious Leo has more international power than Denzel.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jun 21, 2020 9:39:10 GMT
I dunno mate, you seem to be underestimating these numbers - you say "only" 180 million in US like it's a bad thing! For a movie of this kind it's a terrific sum, it seems to me.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jun 21, 2020 9:43:38 GMT
I can't just look at numbers with these things. It's not possible for me to do that. As I've already said before, there's more to it than the cinema numbers. This is the problem when you bring numbers and you're holding onto that one lifeline. Dude, you presented numbers ("24" and "$100M") and I countered those numbers. If you don't like dealing with facts and numbers, why even bring them up? Ah, of course. Anecdotal evidence. Despite all the facts and numbers showing otherwise. Yes, I think DiCaprio has surpassed Smith over the past decade. The Quigley Poll bears that out, too. I didn't think this would be a controversial opinion to hold. You really do have your head deep in the sand when it comes to DiCaprio's stardom and iconicism. That should have been obvious to me and everyone else when you said that DiCaprio wasn't a major star in 1998, right after Titanic. DiCaprio was the top-billed lead in all of those movies. But, sure, take them out. That still leaves 5 more DiCaprio movies that made more money than any Washington movie, ever. You continue to demonstrate your ignorance. Comparing Washington to Wayne is a joke and, yes, DiCaprio has that type of power and more. It's not even a contest. Wait, who said this was primarily based on the "world of America"? There is a "world" outside of America, too, and it matters more than America alone. Either way, I'm American, and I think it's obvious that DiCaprio is a bigger star than Washington even here. I can present countless anecdotes to support that, but that would be a stupid thing to do when I can just point to his box-office record and Quigley Poll listings. And LOL at "only $180M" That's more than any Washington movie has grossed in America, even adjusted for inflation.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,825
Likes: 2,354
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 21, 2020 10:14:19 GMT
But isn't that what you just did under there a little? By saying "I'm American and I even feel like Leo > Denzel." I'm not a Denzel fanboy or anything, but I can guarantee you I'm not alone here. I've always perceived Denzel to be stronger. Leo's high rise has been relatively new though. It's not hard to see how anyone could think that Denzel's wattage is stronger. And between Smith vs Leo, there's no question to me, but you even think he's surpassed Smith, so OK! But apparently we live in different world, so to each his own, ok? You don't have my perspective, I obviously don't have yours. And you can say "you have your head in the sand" but I'm probably way older than you, so..... I somehow doubt you were alive or more than 3 in 1998. You do agree you can't talk about perception if you weren't there right? I didn't say he wasn't a big star in 1998. People did talk about him in The Man With the Iron Mask, and the media did talk about his success post-Titanic, but if you take 1998 into relative account........ Cameron Diaz and Sarah Michelle Gellar's bubbles were much bigger in my teenage suburban world of 1998. Nobody talked about Leo at my school. Or anywhere outside of that in the real life world. And I wasn't in a bubble or anything if that's what you're gonna say next. I was like 13. I had firsthand experience. Michelle Kwan and Kylie Minogue had more people talking about them. Ah... so Leo is comparable to King Wayne, but Denzel isn't. I see! You seem like a know-it-all, the king of culture despite being 10 years younger than me, probably I'm not saying it's a bad gross. Just saying given relative percentage amount overall, it's only 1/3 of what it entirely made.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,825
Likes: 2,354
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 21, 2020 10:29:26 GMT
^^^^ I'm not going to have a back and forth with you. It's never productive, and always turns antagonistic. I'm cutting that shit off before it gets there. I made the point I wanted to make. If someone else wants to argue with you, though, I'll gladly eat my popcorn and watch. He really is adamant and staunchly pro-Leo. He's not a bad guy though as he doesn't get personal, so I enjoy having a good debate, but clearly me and you see eye-to-eye here and only one of us is a Denzel fanboy, so hopefully I've not lost my mind in the last 10 years. I didn't think I was alone. Or maybe I am getting too old - 85% of this site is 25 and under.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jun 21, 2020 10:32:18 GMT
But isn't that what you just did under there a little? By saying "I'm American and I even feel like Leo > Denzel." I'm not a Denzel fanboy or anything, but I can guarantee you I'm not alone here. I've always perceived Denzel to be stronger. Leo's high rise has been relatively new though. It's not hard to see how anyone could think that Denzel's wattage is stronger. And between Smith vs Leo, there's to question to me. But apparently we live in different world, so to each his own, ok? You don't have my perspective, I obviously don't have yours. And you can say "you have your head in the sand" but I'm probably way older than you, so..... I did that in response to you dismissing all facts and numbers and continually repeating your opinion as if it meant anything. When it comes to facts and numbers, I am the only one that has a case here. When it comes to anecdotal evidence, I can come up with an anecdote to counter every one of yours, and that's a silly way to argue things anyway. You have no clue what my age is, so I don't know why you think you're older than I am. Wow. I think you lived in a bubble of, like, 5 people and didn't really talk to anybody else. Titanic and DiCaprio were all everybody was talking about for the first half of 1998. It was #1 at the box-office for 15 consecutive weeks and the only movie that challenged its spot during that time was The Man in the Iron Mask. I was alive and at a more-than-cognizant age at the time, so that doesn't really fly with me. I mean, Jesus Christ, stars like Susan Sarandon were lining up to get an autograph from DiCaprio and you're talking about him as if he was small-time. He was the talk of the town and was literally plastered across every media imaginable. I'm starting to wonder if you're even American or are lying about your age. 1. I didn't compare DiCaprio to Wayne. Wayne is, overall, a bigger movie star than DiCaprio. If we're limiting to America alone, DiCaprio doesn't even come close to Wayne. 2. Why are you assuming you're 10 years older than I am? If you were 13 at the time Titanic came out, that is not even close to being true. That just demonstrates how much bigger DiCaprio is than Washington, overseas.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 21, 2020 10:39:25 GMT
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. As an aside, if box office and topping The Quigley Poll automatically meant audiences had long term respect and adulation for you, Burt Reynolds would probably be considered the greatest movie star of all time Reynolds topped the Quigley Poll 5 times in a row (from 1978 to 1982), something no modern movie star had ever accomplished. Yet nobody really cares about him today. Reynolds movies being popular in his day didn't mean he himself was going to be a truly beloved or iconic star.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,825
Likes: 2,354
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 21, 2020 10:41:59 GMT
How old are you? I really am curious.
The only place in my world that talked about Leo was the media. He wasn't small time (I never said that), because I knew he was in Titanic and The Man in the Iron Mask, but none of my friends talked about him much. They knew Hanks and Pitt, but they had to be reminded who Leo was. Keep in mind, Leo was a newbie in 1998, it takes a while for him to get into people's consciousness. You're acting like everyone is current with the world, and that's not the case. Lots of people didn't even know Britney Spears until like 2003, because she was so new in the late 90s.
Yeah... I was about 13. My mind is heavily late-90s/early 00s oriented. I'm not lying about my age or my American growth. Nobody talked about newbie Leo in 1998. What he was doing flew by lots of people because people generally have a general tendency to ignore the new guys. It happens.
Seems like that's the only thing we do agree with! It's been cool chatting with you, and I don't think you're a bad guy at all. You don't get personal, and it is quarantine at all and I have the time..... but we're never gonna agree here, so let's just agree to disagree. Cool?
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jun 21, 2020 10:43:54 GMT
As an aside, if box office and topping The Quigley Poll automatically meant audiences had long term respect and adulation for you, Burt Reynolds would probably be considered the greatest movie star of all time Reynolds topped the Quigley Poll 5 times in a row (from 1978 to 1982), something no modern movie star had ever accomplished. Yet nobody really cares about him today. Reynolds movies being popular in his day didn't mean he himself was going to be a truly beloved or iconic star. Nice try at misrepresenting the facts, but there are 12 actors with more appearances on the Quigley Poll than Reynolds, with both Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise having as many or more #1 placements. So, no, by no stretch of the imagination is Reynolds even among the top 5 domestic movie stars of all time.
|
|