GMMichael
Guide of Modos
That should buy him about 37 of the Compleat v.5.5 gift sets.
Top Grossing. Because I hope we all know that the top 18 Artistic films were made at least ten years ago.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D Movie/TV Chris Pine is making $11.5 million for D&D movie
- Thread starter Henadic Theologian
- Start date
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Can you provide some support for this claim? Because Hollywood is rather good at making money - it's one of the reasons they favor sequels and reboot because they have an expected minimum audience - and Hollywood is still spending big money on actors.
I don't want anecdotes of movies that do well without big name actors - that's always happened when everything aligns and in no way removes the star power of name recognition and the attraction to the audience. I want to see support for "the age of superstars has ended".
Enevhar Aldarion
Hero
The main problem with that being Artistic = Boring for the vast majority of the movie-attending audience. Some of the movies considered the top classics of all time are also boring. I can't even imagine what an artsy-fartsy D&D movie would look like. lol
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I'm sure you do.
I don't think you are oblivious to the concept of "celebrity", where some people are well known and others want to know more about them just because they are well known. Especially telling details, like making millions of dollars.
I'm also sure you're aware than many fans are watching the movie project, and the amount he's getting paid is also information about the project that gives them some insight. It's like when D&D players examine UA material to make guesses about what books are coming out next.
Henadic Theologian
Legend
It gives a broader view of what they are willing to spend on this movie. If Chris Pine gets 11.5 million dollars, and he's not the only big name in the movie, far from it, then this movie might have a larger budget then the expected $100 million dollar price tag, maybe even $160 million like Spiderman No Way Home. Which given the general rule is a movie needs to make double its budget (to account for advertizing and other expenses) in revenue before its profitable, would mean it needs to make say 320 million dollars instead of more then 200 million dollars to become profitable.
Also remember this movie will likely have a very high FX budget on top of high cast costs.
jmartkdr2
Hero
Someone thought $11 million for one actor made sense for the budget, which implies a large-ish budget. So if it sucks it won't be for lack of resources.
jmartkdr2
Hero
The evidence there is negative: Plenty of well-known actors for major hit movies can't draw people to see movies not in a big franchise. IE Chris Helmsworth's biggest non-Marvel movie is MiB: International, which grossed $254 million worldwide. That's half of the floor for a Marvel movie. Tom Holland starred in Chaos Walking with a worldwide gross of $26 million - I didn't leave off a digit there. Franchises have replaced actors as the main brand to draw audiences.
Not that there are no more starts (ScarJo can sell tickets on name alone), but star power is no longer the main driver of box office results.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Got it - you are positing that the trend that "movies might flop even with talent" is something new and changing the status quo.
Hint: It's not.
Michael Caine was in the 1987 movie Jaws: Revenge. It stank on ice. When asked about it he has a rather famous quote: " I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific."
Half of the floor of a Marvel movie - wow, your calibration is so off that you need to do Marvel level numbers to be a successful movie?
Okay, let's take a look at Chaos Walking. What was the advertising budget of Chaos Walking, because I never heard of it. It released MARCH 2021, cinema only. There's this thing called a pandemic that's been reducing cinema attendees, and a theatric-only release before common vaccination is the kiss of death. Critical respons according to wikipedia was "poor execution and conventional, underdeveloped characters." - sounds like it was released at a ti9me people weren't going to theaters, without much advertising, and wasn't well done. If that's one of your poster children to show how star power is dead - well, you cherry picked an example of everything wrong and tried to blame it on one factor.
Franchises is a separate point, and I already talked about the trend towards sequels and reboots - I should have included franchises in there. But those have existed for a long time in tandem with star power.
