HorrorMovieFans.com

Headhunter wrote:Looking at these lists, Brad Pitt's filmography is much more impressive.

Pretty sure I'd agree, and even DiCaprio's today. But they weren't the blockbusters Cruise had in his hey-day.

Headhunter wrote:Looking at these lists, Brad Pitt's filmography is much more impressive.

i definitely prefer pitt to cruise. but he's probably more successful as a movie star. enh.

Reign in Blood wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Looking at these lists, Brad Pitt's filmography is much more impressive.

Pretty sure I'd agree, and even DiCaprio's today. But they weren't the blockbusters Cruise had in his hey-day.

While mostly true, I think DiCaprio's can argue "Titanic, muthafucka!" when it comes to box office

According to Box Office Mojo, DiCaprio films gross 100 million on average, Cruise films 98 million on average, Pitt films 65 million on average. Congrats to Will Smith whose turkeys gross 129 million on average, good lord.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Looking at these lists, Brad Pitt's filmography is much more impressive.

Pretty sure I'd agree, and even DiCaprio's today. But they weren't the blockbusters Cruise had in his hey-day.

While mostly true, I think DiCaprio's can argue "Titanic, muthafucka!" when it comes to box office

Well yeah, he's got one that torpedoes the fuck out of shit. But no one is talking Sam Worthington, ever, even if the next 18 Avatars are more successful than the last. Also, not sure Titanic would make many top 10 DiCaprio lists.

Jesus, 17 of 38 Cruise movies crossed 100 million. Inflation in mind, that easily outpaces DiCaprio.

Tom Hanks is another candidate.

Headhunter wrote:Jesus, 17 of 38 Cruise movies crossed 100 million. Inflation in mind, that easily outpaces DiCaprio.

What about Will Smith when thinking about inflation?

Harrison Ford's got an average of 118 million, and 14 out of 41 crossed 100 million (most of which old enough where inflation gets even bigger).

Headhunter wrote:Tom Hanks is another candidate.

Not sure I agree, at least for top 3-5. Top 10, let's talk, but most of his huge money-makers were never around his own star prowess to be bankable. There were times just attaching the name Tom Cruise or Will Smith to a movie, you knew you were in for or around 100 million. Voice acting work don't count, especially for Toy Story where kids don't give a fuck. Forrest Gump was far from a sure thing and a huge surprise. The Da Vinci Code had the book as it's main claim. Saving Private Ryan was a Spielberg deal. What did he really sell, Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail with Meg Ryan? I'll give you that sold a lot of those tickets.

After inflation it becomes 22/41 with an average of 240 million (for Harrison Ford). Cruise's goes up to 24/37 with an average of 166 million.

After inflation, Smith only goes up to 188 Million.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Harrison Ford's got an average of 118 million, and 14 out of 41 crossed 100 million (most of which old enough where inflation gets even bigger).

I will go to the well, that granted I just started, again that Harrison's star prowess played zero into the bank-ability of Star Wars and at least Raiders.

I guess the Firm is kind of a good example. I've seen it maybe twice, thought it properly boring, don't know anyone who really likes it, but that fucker made over 100 mil because they fucking threw Cruise in it in his hey-dey.

Well, since he was there for ground zero for Star Wars, and it was predicted to bomb hard, you can't really say it banked on just being Star Wars Everyone loved Han, lol. It made him a star. I don't think the Indiana Jones series would've taken off like it did with Tom Selleck in the lead either like originally planned.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Well, since he was there for ground zero for Star Wars, and it was predicted to bomb hard, you can't really say it banked on just being Star Wars Everyone loved Han, lol. It made him a star. I don't think the Indiana Jones series would've taken off like it did with Tom Selleck in the lead either like originally planned.

One thing about Star Wars is that the "Jedi" invoked in the title of them is not him.

Foo wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Well, since he was there for ground zero for Star Wars, and it was predicted to bomb hard, you can't really say it banked on just being Star Wars Everyone loved Han, lol. It made him a star. I don't think the Indiana Jones series would've taken off like it did with Tom Selleck in the lead either like originally planned.

One thing about Star Wars is that the "Jedi" invoked in the title of them is not him.

'jedi" was only used in a title, after two films were already successful.

Think of the Tom Cruise cultural phenomenons as well. Risky Business could have been just another teen sex movie of that era, yet Cruise sliding into the frame in his socks and underwear is an enduring image of that decade.

People quoting Top Gun. Parodies, etc. Again, a movie that might just be another jingoistic Cold War military flick is iconic.

Jerry Maguire was quoted for like two years.

His scene with Nicholson in a Few Good Men.

His stuff with Hoffman in Rain Man. With Newman in The Color of Money.

Who else makes Cocktail into a hit movie?

Has any star of his magnitude ever had a small part like Cruise did in Tropic Thunder? By that, I mean added so much with little time and without recognizability?

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Well, since he was there for ground zero for Star Wars, and it was predicted to bomb hard, you can't really say it banked on just being Star Wars Everyone loved Han, lol. It made him a star. I don't think the Indiana Jones series would've taken off like it did with Tom Selleck in the lead either like originally planned.

One thing about Star Wars is that the "Jedi" invoked in the title of them is not him.

'jedi" was only used in a title, after two films were already successful.

Even then, Han is still the most popular protagonist in the series, even when he wasn't written to be the main hero. That has everything to do with the Ford mojo, which is weird because off screen the dude is boring as fuck.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Well, since he was there for ground zero for Star Wars, and it was predicted to bomb hard, you can't really say it banked on just being Star Wars Everyone loved Han, lol. It made him a star. I don't think the Indiana Jones series would've taken off like it did with Tom Selleck in the lead either like originally planned.

One thing about Star Wars is that the "Jedi" invoked in the title of them is not him.

'jedi" was only used in a title, after two films were already successful.

Just saying he is more 1a than 1 in those movies. Would be like giving Bruce Willis too much credit for Pulp Fiction. He is certainly part, but production and other actors certainly pull a lot of the load.

Foo wrote:
Has any star of his magnitude ever had a small part like Cruise did in Tropic Thunder? By that, I mean added so much with little time and without recognizability?

My dad didn't even know it was him until the end credits, lol.