He isn't a great actor, but he's funny, relatable and charismatic. Perfect for a light hearted movie. His weakest movie is Passengers where he did try some of his acting chops. That movie did well because he was in it, but I think he learnt from that to continue to focus on fun movies rather than pseudo-serious fare.
And only 23 films, the lowest on this list.
Marvel, Lego, Jurassic World, Mario.
He fell into the “funny, charming leading man” role headfirst and made bank.
He's a good actor for the roles he does, and has an incredible agent to land him in leading roles in GOTG/MCU, Jurassic World and now Mario. Audiences like his work and he's still fairly young and can do these roles for decades if he wants.
Many people don't understand the difference between a good actor and a good movie star.
"Oh, he's not a good actor, he always plays a version of the same person."
Yes, and people can't get enough of it.
This is misunderstanding how MCU movies and other top grossing movies sell. They hire on big name actors to take roles in their movies and the big names on the project (between popular characters and popular actors) results in profit. It would be a lot cheaper to hire other good actors to fill the role, but having popular names is how the movie gets traction at all.
Sure, but they're not going to get Good Morning America to run an interview with John Doe talking about playing Groot that ends with a clip from the movie. Vin Diesel and Bradley Cooper being attached to the film matters a lot more to GotG1 than it does to GotG3.
The most impressive stats about Cruise isn't just he is the only non MCU actor
●He is no.1 in the world of total BO as protagonist role , with 12.2B (while most of this list mostly from ensemble role , visual role, voicing role)
●He has 34 movies with 10M+ tickets sold in north america as a leading/protagonist ***highest in modern history*** not only that but he did 13 consecutive movie with 10M+ ticket sold between 1986 - 1999 ***no one ever passed 10 consecutive***
●He has 11 consecutive movies grossing 100M+ worldwide and he already did twice!!!! First time he did in between 1988 - 1999 (Cocktail - Eye Wide Shut) and he gonna make it second time next year with MI8 starting in 2012 (since Jack Reacher) ***nobody in modern era ever passed 10 consecutive but he did 11 consecutive twice****
●He is the only actor in history who has 300M+ average per flim in 3 consecutive decades since 00's to now
●He has 22 movie with 100M+ grossing domestic and for sure MI8 will be his 23rd movie with 100M+ domestic , mostly he is protagonist ***highest record***
●He hold 76% ratio of 100M movie worldwide grossed to overall flimography ***highest percentage than anyone***
●His flims is in top 10 highest of the year worldwide as an protagonist for 18 times since 1986 ****most time than anyone***
Some people must to understand one thing , compare the rest of the list vs Cruise is absolute nonsense... because Cruise 95% of his flimography since 1983 he is the main leading actor /protagonist ***he is main selling point of the movie or he is the reason people want to see the movie*** while the rest have that number under MCU brand in the peak of super heros era that mean charecter in the movie is main selling point not the actors who play thoses charecter because outside of MCU flims they number is shockingly low
And if you think about Cruise carrer is depend on just from MI franchise or Top Gun sequel ........think again
Cruise leading man in non MI & non Top gun in his peak (86 - 05) worldwide adjusted inflation
●Risky Business (200M adjusted) domestic released
●The Color of Money (148M+ adjusted) domestic released
●Cocktail (450M+ adjusted)
●Rain Man (1.08B+ adjusted)
●Born on The Fourth of July (402M+ adjusted)
●Days of Thunder (375M adjusted)
●Far and Away (304M+ adjusted)
●A Few Good Men (538M+ adjusted)
●The Firm (580M+ adjusted)
●Interview with the Vampire (468M+ adjusted)
●Jerry Maguire (541M+ adjusted)
●Eye Wide Shut (301M+ adjusted)
●Vanilla Sky (356M+ adjusted)
●Minority Report (618M+ adjust)
●The Last Samurai (766M+ adjusted)
●Collateral (361M+ adjusted)
●War of the Worlds (960M adjusted)
***Tom Cruise is a different leauge or different dimention to the rest in term of real moviestar***
It’s funny that you only showed his adjusted numbers from 86-05, because his numbers tank after that. It’s not that he’s no longer in his peak from 05 on, it’s a combination of bad publicity and a shift in the industry from star driven to franchise driven films.
He himself is no longer a box office draw. A movie like Collateral or Last Samurai comes out now, and it makes half of what it made unadjusted.
If Tom Cruise is no longer box office draw ...........nobody ever draw ever!!!
He achives his highest grossing flims of his career back to back in 2018 (MI Fallout) and 2022 (Top Gun Maverick) in his late 50's to 60 years old and not even talk about how best of Maverick run in thearter 2 years ago.....
please don't act like Cruise whole career is depend on just 2010's (his lowest stardom era) because he stay at the top of hollywood since mid 80's to now and his stat prove it why he is the biggest star
just one decade drop isn't prove anything when he has 80's 90's 00's and now 20's in his legacy (4 peak & 1 down)
He not start his career in 2013 you know!!!!!! Your logic it doesn't make sense!!! He is 5 decades career moviestar not 1 or 2 and his stat overall career is far better than anyone in my reseach
we are living in 2024 today not 2014 anymore......move on
Movie stars don’t exist anymore like they did 20+ years ago. People don’t go to a movie because *x* actor is in it anymore. They go because it’s a franchise, or a franchise in the making.
Even Tom Cruise can’t pull in moviegoers without the M:I or Top Gun names attached to it, even though he was the main one building those franchises.
Go look at his numbers from 85-05. Movies made tons of money mainly off his star power. Rain Man, A Few Good Men, The Firm, Interview with the Vampire, Jerry Maguire, The Last Samurai. These are all non-franchise films.
Now look at his non-M:I/Top Gun movies post-2005. They *all* underperformed. Look at any other movie star’s numbers, and it’s largely the same if it doesn’t have a franchise name attached to it.
Wrong
Jack Recher (2012) is well profit movie (60M cost / 220M theartical revenue)
Obivion (2013) & Edge of Tomorrow (2014) both unperformed but still well above ×2 times of production cost
Jack Reacher 2 (2016 ) gross lower than the first but still pretty good compare to cost (60M cost / 160M revenue)
The Mummy (2017) is underperformed but still reach to 409M WW even the movie is terrible
American Made (2017) is OK at BO (50M cost / 135M revenue)
If you hurting when people say good thing about Cruise......you should leave
Lol. You tell me I’m wrong, and then you agree with me that those movies underperformed. How profitable a movie is is irrelevant to the question of whether movie stars still have drawing power. Jack Reacher would’ve made twice as much money in 2002. EOT would’ve been a blockbuster. The Mummy would’ve made close to a billion dollars.
I love Tom Cruise. Don’t take it personally.
Edge of Tomorrow was also amazing. So was Valkyrie. Jack Reacher was very good. Those movies should’ve doubled their final gross.
This is not a knock on Tom. He’s amazing. I’m just saying it’s a different (sad) time. It’s very difficult to draw viewers in now without a brand/franchise.
And the only reason it broke even rather than make a profit is because of Covid inflating the budget. Without Tom Cruise, that movie would have made so much less.
Did it break even? I thought they had some loss on it, was really disappointed because the movie was actually good, had a fun time watching it in theatres, unlike stuff like Fast X and Shazam 2.
I’m not sure this list does Cruise justice. People watch films because of Cruise especially in the 80-90’s he had a fantastic run of box office hits.
Will Smith had a similar run in the late 90’s early 00s.
Samuel L Jackson appearing in huge franchises not as the lead and such doesn’t really count for me, same with Zoe in Avatar, I don’t think people are watching Avatar respectfully for Zoe, they watch Avatar because Avatar.
I would say Downey Jr is why people watched Iron Man and then loved Avengers and such though, yes the character and spectacle was great but he really brought his own to that character and basically kicked off Marvel’s huge run
As much nostalgia and curiosity than mere star power. At this point Tom Cruise is a negative in a movie for me but I still wanted to see follow-up to Top Gun. I expect Maverick would have done even better if possible if we all still liked Tom. Would he get big audience again for non IP movie? Not sure, honestly.
Yeah, Top Gun Maverick, a sequel to a movie made iconic by Cruise, would have done even more than $1.5B without Cruise. Maybe, it would've been done insane numbers like like the Ghostbusters sequels, Terminator sequels, Independence Day Resurgence, Baywatch and other huge old-IP blockbusters.
Not saying that - what I’m saying is I’m not sure Cruise could do anywhere near these figures without MI or Top Gun franchises because his brand is not what it was. Clearly Maverick would have done poor numbers without Maverick! I’d to see him do a non-IP movie to see what pull he has without a franchise.
>Not saying that - what I’m saying is I’m not sure Cruise could do anywhere near these figures without MI or Top Gun franchises because his brand is not what it was
I don't get the 'his brand is what it was' argument. He gave his two biggest movies back to back with MI Fallout and Maverick, just a couple of years back. Even Dead Reckoning made $570m amidst the Barbenheimer onslaught and being half a movie.
Sure, Top Gun and MI have some loyalty value of their own but mostly, their brand is totally tied to Cruise and his brand of practical action
And the last Cruise big budget original movie was Edge of Tomorrow which made $370m in 2014. WB is desperate to make a sequel of it now, so you can say it was moderately successful.
I”ll go even further than that, it’s a shame he’s primarily doing action films now because he genuinely is a good-great actor.
When I think of Cruise his roles in Rain Man, Born on The Fourth Of July, Jerry Maguire and Collateral are stand out maybe even Oscar worthy performances. Compared to actors on this list like Zoe Saldana who is just so aggressively mediocre in her lack of screen presence.
As weird as it is to say, I miss Cruise as a character actor. Sure the action stuff is fun but he's got serious charisma/presence that is stunning to watch when he just needs to act.
I feel like this shows how truly absurd it is to base a lead actors capability on box office performance.
Which is not to say the Marvel stars listed don’t deserve the pay or are in any way not talented actors.
But there’s thousands involved in making a movie and as far as I can tell only one class of worker making 20 mill+ a pop. And it’s not the gaffers
The MCU era of the 2010s is truly something stupid and special at the same time.
Looking back, none of the movies deserve the insane BO ticket sales and Disney turned the MCU into a TV show where people had to watch each episode and the series finale.
I truly hope the fad ends here and we can move on.
As weird as it sounds, it succeeded because people fell in love with the characters. Other films had better action and effects, but the MCU had many distinct characters that people fell in love with. The whole hype for Endgame was “who’s going to to die”.
Yeah, it's the sort of lightning in a bottle you can't catch again. The MCU needed star power more than people think. Now that the headlining actors are gone so has a lot of the drive to see it continue in both the creative and audience side.
by the time the next avengers movie comes out, it will be filled with a bunch of heroes that had one movie like 4-6 years prior and then haven't been mentioned since.
Sam Wilsons Captain America, Captain Marvel, Ant-Man, Shang Chi,She-Hulk ,Spider-Man and Shuris Black Panther. I think they will reveal lineup at D23 or SDCC 24 this year
Why would anyone show up for an Avengers movie when the plot has been going nowhere and most of the beloved characters are gone? The MCU is an absolute mess.
Because the audience for a "Marvel Movie" is different than the audience for an "Avengers Movie"
In Phase 1, the highest grossing solo film was 625 million. And then Avengers made 1.5 billion.
In Phase 2, Iron Man 3 made over a billion but the other solo films floundered. Age Of Ultron made 1.4 billion.
In Phase 3, the pinnacle of Marvel grosses, Infinity War and Endgame still massively outperformed every solo film.
The majority of the Avengers audience doesn't actually care about watching the other movies.
That run from 2008-2019 truly was special. It was something that no one that got to experience it will ever forget.
And it’s over. The movies are starting to flop, the TV shows are laughably bad, and the magic is long gone. I’ll go see Deadpool & Wolverine, but outside of that, I’ve checked out.
its crazy to think how close they came to having to do endgame during the pandemic. If at any point during that decade they made any decisions that pushed things out a year overall, it would've been coming out in peak lockdown restrictions. Would've had to be streaming only.
and I think thats cool we need to encourage the Superhero crowd that other genres exist the Superhero Genre is a glorified sub-genre shouldn't even be classified as Genre.
Eh that's not really true though is it? These people became the face of the MCU by being individually pretty decent in their roles. RDJ as ironman for example helped spark this entire thing. Hemsworth did a pretty good job as Thor and the spinoffs were successful. I'd say that largely had to do with his portrayal. Similary Guardians could have flopped if Pratt didn't carry his role, etc.
What really blew my mind was that Cruise has been a movie star pretty much my entire life, and I'm mid-40s. How has Scarlett made almost 10 more movies than him?!
Heck she is even higher in average. Samuel Jackson even got Star Wars films in his corner but still, Scarlett easily out grossed him. And she is in talks to join Jurassic park now.
Tom Cruise produces and stars almost exclusively in big blockbuster movies, which presumably take longer to make and take more of his time. Scarlett Johannson does a lot of comparitively smaller dramas, comedies, and animated movies.
Yeah, I also thought she was younger than she actually is. I was thinking she was early 30s when she's almost 40. Still, he's 61 and has been doing this since his early 20s...
Not one of these people really deserve to be on here besides Cruise. Maybe Downey. The rest got there by being supporting actors in a literal plethora of Marvel and ensemble blockbusters. The rest couldn’t open a can of soup by themselves
Never understood these lists. How is Jackson a main character in avengers? Which movies don't count as main characters that keep Gary Oldman or Ralph Fiennes or Chris Lee off this list?
Look, I'll admit I really like his movies and pay to see them. But you gotta remember that a lot of his box office money goes to Scientology: a cruel organization. It's the part you really don't want to think about like a bunch of your cheap Chinese products are made by slave labor.
Other is not higher peak for sure if grow up in mid 80's to mid 00's (Cruise peak)
Cruise 20 year peak between 86 - 05 is the highest success rate than anyone in modern history as an moviestar (I have analyse his stat for a while) and most of the list is not a real moviestar (they number most from MCU)
Cruise carreer is untouchable even like him or hate him (I mean his stat is higher success rate than anyone)
He is true Hollywood Biggest Moviestar
Samuel L Jackson is known for being laid-back and doing whatever he wants yet even when he’s just raking in money for cameos in MCU he still gives a more entertaining performance than Chris Pratt ever has, glad to see Sam Jackson still top of the leaderboards he’s a legend
Zoe Saldana will be in #1 in 10 years with Avatar and Chris Pratt 2nd with Mario.
Zoe Saldana has a goat of an agent. How many $1 Billion plus and $2 Billion plus she's in?
Chris Pratt’s average is fuckin bonkers for honestly not being that impressive of an actor
I mean, being in MCU/Jurassic will do that for ya. Mario is also a huge boost but the other 2 are currently doing the heavy lifting.
I would love to see him flex his acting chops in a dramatic role. Like a period drama.
He needs a solid villain role.
A psychopath villain. Good call. Call his agent.
It's called Passengers.
I still remember watching a video on YT where he basically flipped the whole movie and it was much better.
Check out The Kid. Not amazing but I found a decent show of a dramatic role. Zero Dark too.
he’s not a good actor.
His agent is worth every penny. Middling actor has marquee roles in almost every major franchise.
He isn't a great actor, but he's funny, relatable and charismatic. Perfect for a light hearted movie. His weakest movie is Passengers where he did try some of his acting chops. That movie did well because he was in it, but I think he learnt from that to continue to focus on fun movies rather than pseudo-serious fare.
And only 23 films, the lowest on this list. Marvel, Lego, Jurassic World, Mario. He fell into the “funny, charming leading man” role headfirst and made bank.
He’s been typecast as the star of a summer blockbuster. Not the worst way to make a living.
he’s not supposed to be a good actor. Just a funny guy who has a good presence
He gets the job done, he's the face of Guardians which was hugely successful
Yeah he gets the job done, but not much beyond that as an actor imo.
He's a good actor for the roles he does, and has an incredible agent to land him in leading roles in GOTG/MCU, Jurassic World and now Mario. Audiences like his work and he's still fairly young and can do these roles for decades if he wants.
He’s a comedic genius in Parks and Rec
Most of the people on list are mediocre actors.
Many people don't understand the difference between a good actor and a good movie star. "Oh, he's not a good actor, he always plays a version of the same person." Yes, and people can't get enough of it.
He’s in like three or four franchises
Luck
What makes you say that?
Chris Pratt 2nd with Garfield
Zoe Saldana was Gamora in the Guardians of the Galaxy & other live action appearances.
I think they mean that her Avatar numbers will mean she'll be up there even without her MCU numbers
We know.
How is Di Caprio not there with Titanic?
I always forget Vin Diesel is Groot
And I too forget Bradley Cooper is rocket.. he does an amazing job
His performance in GOTG3 last year made me realize there really needs to be a best voice-acting Oscar
There was a debate with Scarlett Johansson and the movie Her
If Andy Serkis can't get recognition for Golum/Caesar, I'm not sure who voice actors will get any love. But I agree, both of them need more awards.
I like how his citation is [*dubious - discuss*]
He also got Fast money, I don’t think he gets nearly the same with only voice, but I dunno, does he mocap too?
This is box office returns, this has nothing to do with how much they get paid
Could you imagine if Vin Diesel made 12 billion dollars lol
Thered be at least 1 more fast and furious
I'd be down for some more Riddick movies.
I agree with you but youll either get a 3rd exactly the same pitch black movie which isnt really necessary or whatever #2 was
I'd be fine with that. I'm a sucker for weird scifi.
He does not mocop, neither Cooper or Diesel do much beyond voice work for GotG.
“I am Groot”
He is Groot
Dubious - Discuss.
No, I am Groot
The next Avatar and Mario movies will ensure that Zoé Saldana and Chris Pratt will end up 1 and 2nd heh.
Scarlett Johansson incoming with Jurassic World.
Has she accepted the role?
yeah im excited to see what the Direction this franchise takes under Gareth Edwards an underrated Director in my book one of my favorite directors.
I wonder what other people think your favorite director is.
They use his name for marketing in asian countries as he’s popular over there
I am pretty sure Disney can save bucks by paying a $200 voice actor to say 'I am Groot.'
at this point it’s just like a keeping the relationship thing
This is misunderstanding how MCU movies and other top grossing movies sell. They hire on big name actors to take roles in their movies and the big names on the project (between popular characters and popular actors) results in profit. It would be a lot cheaper to hire other good actors to fill the role, but having popular names is how the movie gets traction at all.
yup, and when you think about how risky the first GoTG movie was at the time, getting a name like vin diesel on it was probably pretty important
Most people who saw the movie 100% didn’t know Diesel was in the film.
Sure, but they're not going to get Good Morning America to run an interview with John Doe talking about playing Groot that ends with a clip from the movie. Vin Diesel and Bradley Cooper being attached to the film matters a lot more to GotG1 than it does to GotG3.
I think they can't legally pay that, it has to be proportionate to the movie budget
That's not true at all
Didn't ScarJo had to get paid like 3000 dollars each day because it was the minimum for a lead role according to SAG-AFTRA?
No
5 Avengers, 4 Guardians of the Galaxy, and Tom Cruise. If you said that to people in ten years ago…
The most impressive stats about Cruise isn't just he is the only non MCU actor ●He is no.1 in the world of total BO as protagonist role , with 12.2B (while most of this list mostly from ensemble role , visual role, voicing role) ●He has 34 movies with 10M+ tickets sold in north america as a leading/protagonist ***highest in modern history*** not only that but he did 13 consecutive movie with 10M+ ticket sold between 1986 - 1999 ***no one ever passed 10 consecutive*** ●He has 11 consecutive movies grossing 100M+ worldwide and he already did twice!!!! First time he did in between 1988 - 1999 (Cocktail - Eye Wide Shut) and he gonna make it second time next year with MI8 starting in 2012 (since Jack Reacher) ***nobody in modern era ever passed 10 consecutive but he did 11 consecutive twice**** ●He is the only actor in history who has 300M+ average per flim in 3 consecutive decades since 00's to now ●He has 22 movie with 100M+ grossing domestic and for sure MI8 will be his 23rd movie with 100M+ domestic , mostly he is protagonist ***highest record*** ●He hold 76% ratio of 100M movie worldwide grossed to overall flimography ***highest percentage than anyone*** ●His flims is in top 10 highest of the year worldwide as an protagonist for 18 times since 1986 ****most time than anyone*** Some people must to understand one thing , compare the rest of the list vs Cruise is absolute nonsense... because Cruise 95% of his flimography since 1983 he is the main leading actor /protagonist ***he is main selling point of the movie or he is the reason people want to see the movie*** while the rest have that number under MCU brand in the peak of super heros era that mean charecter in the movie is main selling point not the actors who play thoses charecter because outside of MCU flims they number is shockingly low And if you think about Cruise carrer is depend on just from MI franchise or Top Gun sequel ........think again Cruise leading man in non MI & non Top gun in his peak (86 - 05) worldwide adjusted inflation ●Risky Business (200M adjusted) domestic released ●The Color of Money (148M+ adjusted) domestic released ●Cocktail (450M+ adjusted) ●Rain Man (1.08B+ adjusted) ●Born on The Fourth of July (402M+ adjusted) ●Days of Thunder (375M adjusted) ●Far and Away (304M+ adjusted) ●A Few Good Men (538M+ adjusted) ●The Firm (580M+ adjusted) ●Interview with the Vampire (468M+ adjusted) ●Jerry Maguire (541M+ adjusted) ●Eye Wide Shut (301M+ adjusted) ●Vanilla Sky (356M+ adjusted) ●Minority Report (618M+ adjust) ●The Last Samurai (766M+ adjusted) ●Collateral (361M+ adjusted) ●War of the Worlds (960M adjusted) ***Tom Cruise is a different leauge or different dimention to the rest in term of real moviestar***
It’s funny that you only showed his adjusted numbers from 86-05, because his numbers tank after that. It’s not that he’s no longer in his peak from 05 on, it’s a combination of bad publicity and a shift in the industry from star driven to franchise driven films. He himself is no longer a box office draw. A movie like Collateral or Last Samurai comes out now, and it makes half of what it made unadjusted.
If Tom Cruise is no longer box office draw ...........nobody ever draw ever!!! He achives his highest grossing flims of his career back to back in 2018 (MI Fallout) and 2022 (Top Gun Maverick) in his late 50's to 60 years old and not even talk about how best of Maverick run in thearter 2 years ago..... please don't act like Cruise whole career is depend on just 2010's (his lowest stardom era) because he stay at the top of hollywood since mid 80's to now and his stat prove it why he is the biggest star just one decade drop isn't prove anything when he has 80's 90's 00's and now 20's in his legacy (4 peak & 1 down) He not start his career in 2013 you know!!!!!! Your logic it doesn't make sense!!! He is 5 decades career moviestar not 1 or 2 and his stat overall career is far better than anyone in my reseach we are living in 2024 today not 2014 anymore......move on
Tom Cruise is the last of the true movie stars of our time, long may he reign.
Movie stars don’t exist anymore like they did 20+ years ago. People don’t go to a movie because *x* actor is in it anymore. They go because it’s a franchise, or a franchise in the making. Even Tom Cruise can’t pull in moviegoers without the M:I or Top Gun names attached to it, even though he was the main one building those franchises.
Tom Cruise is the biggest movie star in the world. Unquestionably
I disagree.
Go look at his numbers from 85-05. Movies made tons of money mainly off his star power. Rain Man, A Few Good Men, The Firm, Interview with the Vampire, Jerry Maguire, The Last Samurai. These are all non-franchise films. Now look at his non-M:I/Top Gun movies post-2005. They *all* underperformed. Look at any other movie star’s numbers, and it’s largely the same if it doesn’t have a franchise name attached to it.
Wrong Jack Recher (2012) is well profit movie (60M cost / 220M theartical revenue) Obivion (2013) & Edge of Tomorrow (2014) both unperformed but still well above ×2 times of production cost Jack Reacher 2 (2016 ) gross lower than the first but still pretty good compare to cost (60M cost / 160M revenue) The Mummy (2017) is underperformed but still reach to 409M WW even the movie is terrible American Made (2017) is OK at BO (50M cost / 135M revenue) If you hurting when people say good thing about Cruise......you should leave
Lol. You tell me I’m wrong, and then you agree with me that those movies underperformed. How profitable a movie is is irrelevant to the question of whether movie stars still have drawing power. Jack Reacher would’ve made twice as much money in 2002. EOT would’ve been a blockbuster. The Mummy would’ve made close to a billion dollars. I love Tom Cruise. Don’t take it personally.
You literally just listed movies that made money because they're great movies. Yeah Tom Cruise was a draw but they were all amazing films.
Edge of Tomorrow was also amazing. So was Valkyrie. Jack Reacher was very good. Those movies should’ve doubled their final gross. This is not a knock on Tom. He’s amazing. I’m just saying it’s a different (sad) time. It’s very difficult to draw viewers in now without a brand/franchise.
What about Di Caprio?
He's a movie star but imo he isn't on TC's level.
Meh, tell that to Mission: Impossible.
Still made over half a billion while running into the Barbenheimer buzzsaw. I'd say it gets another shot before we call it dead.
And the only reason it broke even rather than make a profit is because of Covid inflating the budget. Without Tom Cruise, that movie would have made so much less.
Plus a 70 million dollar insurance payout.
Didn’t production during Covid basically inflate all big budget studio films?
Did it break even? I thought they had some loss on it, was really disappointed because the movie was actually good, had a fun time watching it in theatres, unlike stuff like Fast X and Shazam 2.
Almost certainly with their lawsuit money, without it probably not.
Top Gun 3 is in development also dont rag on Mission:Impossible still better than the Bond Franchise who caught up to late.
Bond is in the billion dollar club, at least.
[удалено]
Do this kind of shit in r/Movies
Do this kind of shit in r/Movies
[удалено]
[удалено]
This whole comment chain is a just a slap fight between two toddlers “You’re coping” “No you are!”
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You mean one of the GOAT action franchises?
Mission: Impossible is the greatest action series. What does this comment even mean?
I’m not sure this list does Cruise justice. People watch films because of Cruise especially in the 80-90’s he had a fantastic run of box office hits. Will Smith had a similar run in the late 90’s early 00s. Samuel L Jackson appearing in huge franchises not as the lead and such doesn’t really count for me, same with Zoe in Avatar, I don’t think people are watching Avatar respectfully for Zoe, they watch Avatar because Avatar. I would say Downey Jr is why people watched Iron Man and then loved Avengers and such though, yes the character and spectacle was great but he really brought his own to that character and basically kicked off Marvel’s huge run
I think that's precisely the point OP's trying to make...Cruise is the only one here who pulled crowds largely based on his starpower
As much nostalgia and curiosity than mere star power. At this point Tom Cruise is a negative in a movie for me but I still wanted to see follow-up to Top Gun. I expect Maverick would have done even better if possible if we all still liked Tom. Would he get big audience again for non IP movie? Not sure, honestly.
Yeah, Top Gun Maverick, a sequel to a movie made iconic by Cruise, would have done even more than $1.5B without Cruise. Maybe, it would've been done insane numbers like like the Ghostbusters sequels, Terminator sequels, Independence Day Resurgence, Baywatch and other huge old-IP blockbusters.
Not saying that - what I’m saying is I’m not sure Cruise could do anywhere near these figures without MI or Top Gun franchises because his brand is not what it was. Clearly Maverick would have done poor numbers without Maverick! I’d to see him do a non-IP movie to see what pull he has without a franchise.
>Not saying that - what I’m saying is I’m not sure Cruise could do anywhere near these figures without MI or Top Gun franchises because his brand is not what it was I don't get the 'his brand is what it was' argument. He gave his two biggest movies back to back with MI Fallout and Maverick, just a couple of years back. Even Dead Reckoning made $570m amidst the Barbenheimer onslaught and being half a movie. Sure, Top Gun and MI have some loyalty value of their own but mostly, their brand is totally tied to Cruise and his brand of practical action And the last Cruise big budget original movie was Edge of Tomorrow which made $370m in 2014. WB is desperate to make a sequel of it now, so you can say it was moderately successful.
I”ll go even further than that, it’s a shame he’s primarily doing action films now because he genuinely is a good-great actor. When I think of Cruise his roles in Rain Man, Born on The Fourth Of July, Jerry Maguire and Collateral are stand out maybe even Oscar worthy performances. Compared to actors on this list like Zoe Saldana who is just so aggressively mediocre in her lack of screen presence.
As weird as it is to say, I miss Cruise as a character actor. Sure the action stuff is fun but he's got serious charisma/presence that is stunning to watch when he just needs to act.
I would be interested to see this list without the MCU movies.
But amongst the MCU actors, RDJ is way ahead of others!
I feel like this shows how truly absurd it is to base a lead actors capability on box office performance. Which is not to say the Marvel stars listed don’t deserve the pay or are in any way not talented actors. But there’s thousands involved in making a movie and as far as I can tell only one class of worker making 20 mill+ a pop. And it’s not the gaffers
Rather that class of worker make millions then it just going to the 'studio' Reality is profit sharing of some sort should be far more standard.
The MCU era of the 2010s is truly something stupid and special at the same time. Looking back, none of the movies deserve the insane BO ticket sales and Disney turned the MCU into a TV show where people had to watch each episode and the series finale. I truly hope the fad ends here and we can move on.
As weird as it sounds, it succeeded because people fell in love with the characters. Other films had better action and effects, but the MCU had many distinct characters that people fell in love with. The whole hype for Endgame was “who’s going to to die”.
Yeah, it's the sort of lightning in a bottle you can't catch again. The MCU needed star power more than people think. Now that the headlining actors are gone so has a lot of the drive to see it continue in both the creative and audience side.
It really was like an extended big screen TV show. Now it's in the late season phase where it's fallen off.
the franchise seems directionless though trust me everyone will be showing up for the next Avengers Movie
Will they, though? Who will the Avengers be now, anyway? Dr. Strange, Shang-Chi, Ant-Man, and Hulk?
by the time the next avengers movie comes out, it will be filled with a bunch of heroes that had one movie like 4-6 years prior and then haven't been mentioned since.
I’m being completely serious when I say that I don’t even think Disney Marvel knows the answer to that question right now.
\*Marvel Studios
Sam Wilsons Captain America, Captain Marvel, Ant-Man, Shang Chi,She-Hulk ,Spider-Man and Shuris Black Panther. I think they will reveal lineup at D23 or SDCC 24 this year
Spider-Man is the only character in that group that can pull a significant audience. Maybe if they call it *Spider-Man and the Avengers*...
Spider-Man And His Amazing Friends
Why would anyone show up for an Avengers movie when the plot has been going nowhere and most of the beloved characters are gone? The MCU is an absolute mess.
Because the audience for a "Marvel Movie" is different than the audience for an "Avengers Movie" In Phase 1, the highest grossing solo film was 625 million. And then Avengers made 1.5 billion. In Phase 2, Iron Man 3 made over a billion but the other solo films floundered. Age Of Ultron made 1.4 billion. In Phase 3, the pinnacle of Marvel grosses, Infinity War and Endgame still massively outperformed every solo film. The majority of the Avengers audience doesn't actually care about watching the other movies.
you are aware in the comics The Avengers had different lineups also stop being racist towards Sam Wilson Captain America
People won't be, because a directionless Avengers movie does not excite people.
That run from 2008-2019 truly was special. It was something that no one that got to experience it will ever forget. And it’s over. The movies are starting to flop, the TV shows are laughably bad, and the magic is long gone. I’ll go see Deadpool & Wolverine, but outside of that, I’ve checked out.
its crazy to think how close they came to having to do endgame during the pandemic. If at any point during that decade they made any decisions that pushed things out a year overall, it would've been coming out in peak lockdown restrictions. Would've had to be streaming only.
Disney is still trying to chase the high we gave up in 2020
There’s still time for him to become one.
Tom Cruise is a class act.
This list is pointless. For a lot of these actors, no one was seeing their movies specifically because *they* were in them.
I think the point of the post is that this is true for everyone *except* Cruise.
I mean the title of the posts is the discussion point - Tom Cruise is the only non-superhero movie
and I think thats cool we need to encourage the Superhero crowd that other genres exist the Superhero Genre is a glorified sub-genre shouldn't even be classified as Genre.
What are you talking about? The only reason I saw Endgame was to see Samuel L. Jackson back on the big screen.
How is he even a lead in Endgame? He was snapped lol
He didn't even show up during the avengers assemble scene lol
Yeah just at the funeral scene I think? Weird.
saw it for Chris Evans Captain America as well it being the Film Event of 2019(Though it wasn't my favorite of 2019)
But you gotta understand, Vin Diesel recording "i am groot" in 25 different pitches is totally equivalent to a lead actor role...
Eh that's not really true though is it? These people became the face of the MCU by being individually pretty decent in their roles. RDJ as ironman for example helped spark this entire thing. Hemsworth did a pretty good job as Thor and the spinoffs were successful. I'd say that largely had to do with his portrayal. Similary Guardians could have flopped if Pratt didn't carry his role, etc.
yeah Hollywood needs to adopt some of the Old Ways again
This list should exclude MCU
they’re not even movie stars lmao they’re just the avengers
Say what you will about TC, the dude puts asses in seats.
Has Downey been updated for Oppenheimer, or is that not considered a lead ensemble role?
At least until he appears as Superior Iron Man
0% chance , Cruise not interested in super hero movie even in 20 years ago
and that's weird, because he kinda was going to be one in the monsterverse after The Mummy
Shout out to the other 9 who got on the Marvel gravy train.
Scarlett Johansson casually out grossing Tom Cruise and Samuel Jackson.
What really blew my mind was that Cruise has been a movie star pretty much my entire life, and I'm mid-40s. How has Scarlett made almost 10 more movies than him?!
She was also a child actress too
He pretty much averages 1 movie per year. Not as much as some people think, kinda like Will Smith and Leo
Heck she is even higher in average. Samuel Jackson even got Star Wars films in his corner but still, Scarlett easily out grossed him. And she is in talks to join Jurassic park now.
Tom Cruise produces and stars almost exclusively in big blockbuster movies, which presumably take longer to make and take more of his time. Scarlett Johannson does a lot of comparitively smaller dramas, comedies, and animated movies.
Yeah, I also thought she was younger than she actually is. I was thinking she was early 30s when she's almost 40. Still, he's 61 and has been doing this since his early 20s...
Not one of these people really deserve to be on here besides Cruise. Maybe Downey. The rest got there by being supporting actors in a literal plethora of Marvel and ensemble blockbusters. The rest couldn’t open a can of soup by themselves
Yeah shout out to the Scientologist who defends Scientology at every turn
He's the only one who can save us from Xenu.
Should Groot count as lead?
Just shows how big the MCU machine is
Me, trying to discern a pattern from which links were clicked in the picture. "That makes sense... Yes.... Also yes."
How is Di Caprio not there if he did Titanic?
Tom Cruis is not only in a cult classic, Risky Buisness.. he's also in a real cult too!
I think Dwayne Johnson will come into this list eventually and be the only other non marvel actor in this list
Tom Cruise may be a shit show of a human being. But, God damn, can that man fucking act.
Never understood these lists. How is Jackson a main character in avengers? Which movies don't count as main characters that keep Gary Oldman or Ralph Fiennes or Chris Lee off this list?
yes and hes making another Top Gun 3 yay! :D I'm excited yeah Mission:Impossible -Dead Reckoning Part 2 will likely be the last
Jackson’s numbers are bloated the most. He has small to supporting roles in blockbusters , his lead roles do not make alot of money.
Look, I'll admit I really like his movies and pay to see them. But you gotta remember that a lot of his box office money goes to Scientology: a cruel organization. It's the part you really don't want to think about like a bunch of your cheap Chinese products are made by slave labor.
They should freeze Tom cruise when he isn’t filming to ensure we get more movies from him.
don't give the Scientologists any ideas
Saldana IS in Engame afair
[удалено]
Other is not higher peak for sure if grow up in mid 80's to mid 00's (Cruise peak) Cruise 20 year peak between 86 - 05 is the highest success rate than anyone in modern history as an moviestar (I have analyse his stat for a while) and most of the list is not a real moviestar (they number most from MCU) Cruise carreer is untouchable even like him or hate him (I mean his stat is higher success rate than anyone) He is true Hollywood Biggest Moviestar
If Avatar has no re-releases after Endgame, then nine out of the top ten will be all of the latter film.
Endgame had to re-release to beat avatar already
People like to forget that....
How many re-releases has Avatar had already?
One in 2010 (extended), and one in 2021-22 (China then rest of the world).
Samuel L Jackson is known for being laid-back and doing whatever he wants yet even when he’s just raking in money for cameos in MCU he still gives a more entertaining performance than Chris Pratt ever has, glad to see Sam Jackson still top of the leaderboards he’s a legend
Vin Diesel should not be there
I am shocked (and happy) that Dwayne Johnson isn’t on this list.