• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

How YouTube and Internet Journalism Destroyed Tom Cruise, Our Last Real Movie Star

The data pretty clearly show that movies starring Hanks do much better at the box office than Clooney. Not saying that's the end-all, be-all of that argument, but that specific point is not debatable.
 
That doesn't mean substituting one for the other would increase sales.
 
Yeah, Tom Hanks is just totally unbelievable as an astronaut.

apollo13_1850521i.jpg

That movie was made twenty years ago. Terrible analogy.
 
The data pretty clearly show that movies starring Hanks do much better at the box office than Clooney. Not saying that's the end-all, be-all of that argument, but that specific point is not debatable.

That doesn't mean substituting one for the other would increase sales.

if i were to offer you a bet on which movie would do better, without any other info other than "Tom Hanks is the lead" or "George Clooney" is the lead, who would you pick, RJ?

George Clooney.

...
 
That movie was made twenty years ago. Terrible analogy.

So Hanks isn't believable as an older astronaut because he played a younger astronaut twenty years ago?

Or Hanks and Bullock couldn't possibly have chemistry in a move in 2013 because they made a movie together in 2011 (Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close).

Or Hanks and Bullock couldn't even possibly be friendly:

 
So Hanks isn't believable as an older astronaut because he played a younger astronaut twenty years ago?

Or Hanks and Bullock couldn't possibly have chemistry in a move in 2013 because they made a movie together in 2011 (Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close).

Or Hanks and Bullock couldn't even possibly be friendly:



Let's use your comparison.

Hanks/Bullock - Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close - $55.25M box office
Clooney/Bullock- Gravity - $274M US Gross

My bad using Box Office doesn't count if it doesn't prove what you want it to prove.
 
Let's use your comparison.

Hanks/Bullock - Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close - $55.25M box office
Clooney/Bullock- Gravity - $274M US Gross

My bad using Box Office doesn't count if it doesn't prove what you want it to prove.

#nuance

#density
 
Let's use your comparison.

Hanks/Bullock - Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close - $55.25M box office
Clooney/Bullock- Gravity - $274M US Gross

My bad using Box Office doesn't count if it doesn't prove what you want it to prove.

I'd be interested in the number of people that went to Gravity for the actors vs the crazy ass SFX
 
i mean, what are your criteria? TC demolishes Clooney in box office receipts ver their last 10 films, over 1.5x $$$ as much per movie. Clooney does have more awards.

Because Clooney actually cares about making good non-blockbuster movies. Up In the Air, The Descendants, The Ides Of March.

Tom Cruise makes action flicks that sell lots of tickets. That's about it.

To argue that Clooney, Pitt, Depp aren't on the level of Tom Cruise is dumber than that sports thread where FckVwls is arguing that a 29% 3-point shooter is good.
 
Because Clooney actually cares about making good non-blockbuster movies. Up In the Air, The Descendants, The Ides Of March.

Tom Cruise makes action flicks that sell lots of tickets. That's about it.

To argue that Clooney, Pitt, Depp aren't on the level of Tom Cruise is dumber than that sports thread where FckVwls is arguing that a 29% 3-point shooter is good.

Incorrect. In fact not close. If you added the caveat of post-Mission Impossible, you'd be closer. But no. No. Not even close, no.
 
Because Clooney actually cares about making good non-blockbuster movies. Up In the Air, The Descendants, The Ides Of March.

Tom Cruise makes action flicks that sell lots of tickets. That's about it.

To argue that Clooney, Pitt, Depp aren't on the level of Tom Cruise is dumber than that sports thread where FckVwls is arguing that a 29% 3-point shooter is good.

womp, wrong
 
It's like some people didn't even bother reading the damn article.. so much #density.
 
I'm not even sure exactly what I'm arguing about, as rj is typically a moving target, but the idea that Clooney made Gravity a movie that made a lot of money and that's something that Tom Hanks couldn't do is just plain stupid.
 
womp, wrong

I can't believe it's even arguable that Clooney's output as a creative artist does not surpass Cruise's when you tally up the full range of movie making (acting, directing, writing). Good lord.

You could make the argument that Cruise did more varied roles when he was younger, but at this point, he's an action star.
 
Yeah, the whole Cruise genre presently revolves around him doing his own stunts.
 
i mean, if we just pick and choose which roles and movies we're going to highlight, then sure. you win.
 
Well he clearly didn't read the article, that much is certain.

But top 5 Cruise roles > top 5 Clooney roles.

Cocktail, Top Gun, Jerry Maguire, Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia

vs

I guess Thin Red Line, Perfect Storm, O Brother Where Art Thou, Ocean's 11, Michael Clayton? And two of those are ensemble casts.

And overall ouevre, I'd still probably go Cruise, even with some recent stinkers. And let's not act like Clooney hasn't done movies just for the cash. Spy Kids? Spy Kids 3D?

His best roles are in ensemble casts.
 
I can't believe it's even arguable that Clooney's output as a creative artist does not surpass Cruise's when you tally up the full range of movie making (acting, directing, writing). Good lord.

You could make the argument that Cruise did more varied roles when he was younger, but at this point, he's an action star.

They're talking about being a movie star and worldwide fame. "output as a creative artist" has next to nothing to do with that stuff
 
Back
Top