For example. Brad Pitt is an A lister right? So is Tom Cruise?
But Brad Pitt is NOT a movie star anywhere near the same calibre of Cruise
Sure, he has name recognition and his name is basically a synonym for “attractive man” but his movies have NEVER been major successes on Cruises level
For example. In Brad Pitt’s entire career. His highest grossing film EVER was World War Z (2013) And that made 540 million. Overall his films only ever do ok. For whatever reason, his name doesn’t bring people to the theatre.
Tom Cruise meanwhile. Made as much money at the box office as World War Z.... in the Last Samurai. A historical epic, not some crowd pleasing zombie movie.
Every single Mission Impossible movie since 2 has made more than Brad Pitt’s highest grossing movie ever.
Obviously there’s also the fact Cruise is somehow making MORE at the box office as he gets older. Top Gun Maverick was his first billion dollar movie. Brad Pitt has never had a billion dollar movie. And World War Z is 10 years old. He has never replicated anywhere near half that success.
Tom Cruise clearly just draws box office support in a way Brad Pitt doesn’t.
Brad Pitt’s latest blockbuster was Bullet Train. Very fun movie.... made 240 million. That’s just average. And that movie has an ensemble cast. It isn’t just Pitt
Cruise meanwhile is often the sole star in his movies, and they all made way more than Bullet Train. In genres that have far less mass appeal.
I can’t think of any true movie star on Cruises level. Actors used to be the big box office draw from the start of Hollywood up to around 2010. But other than Cruise nobody can reliably get major money at the box office any more just because they’re supposedly an A lister.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Pitt picks weird roles. He's either a supporting cast member, or if he's the lead then it's something artsy like Benjamin Button or The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.
>all that redditspacing
Not a thing
Plus there’s the whole way actors make money
Generally speaking, the only way to make REALLY good money as a big actor these days isn’t just to take jobs. But to also own your own production company that helps make the film. Both Cruise and Pitt have done this.
Often big actors will take a small pay check with some contract that guarantees some percentage of profits. Or take a smaller pay check in order to work with big talent directors. Pitt with Fincher for example. Or Cruise with Kubrick.
However Cruise has a staggering amount of power in working with studios compared to literally every other major actor I have read about.
Clearest examples of this
>On August 22, 2006, Paramount Pictures announced it was ending its 14-year relationship with Cruise. In The Wall Street Journal, chairman of Viacom (Paramount's parent company) Sumner Redstone cited the economic damage to Cruise's value as an actor and producer from his controversial public behavior and views.[79][80] Cruise/Wagner Productions responded that Paramount's announcement was a face-saving move after the production company had successfully sought alternative financing from private equity firms.[81]
>Industry analysts such as Edward Jay Epstein commented that the real reason for the split was most likely Paramount's discontent over Cruise/Wagner's exceptionally large share of DVD sales from the Mission: Impossible franchise
Paramount tried to take Cruises big money maker in DVD’s. Which is pretty much how every other studio works and owns. Cruise told them to frick off because he didn’t need them.
Then when he returned to Paramount, they were submissive to his demands.
Top Gun Maverick was made with Cruises production team and with Paramount. COVID happened. No theatres for years. Paramount wants to sell it to streaming
Tom Cruise tells them frick no. And forces an entire massive studio to shelve a massive budget movie for YEARS just because he said so. And he was right of course.
Way to prove
wrong.
i mean, cruise was pretty controversial in the late 2000s with the whole scientology thing, being anti-pharma, and his marriage with katie holmes seemingly arranged by the church. it definitely did have a big part in paramount wanting to disassociate themselves from him.
cruise is smart for not airing his dirty laundry anymore these days though
The numbers and details don’t match. Cruise ended his production companies relationship. They then did a very unusual move of making a press release shitting on him. Impartial industry analysts called it right over the DVD profits thing
How many other actors do you know who own the lions share of home media sales? It’s unheard of
Your entire argument is flawed because you only compare this through the lense of profitability.
You basically claim that Anthony Hopkins or William Dafoe are not A-listers.
Downey jr. took 60 millions for his roles in later MCU movies, and yet he bombs outside of it. Is he A-lister? Isn't he?
I can flip your argument on your head and just say that Sam Worthington is the biggest A-lister star in history, since his movies made consecutively almost $3 billion dollars.
>Downey jr. took 60 millions for his roles in later MCU movies, and yet he bombs outside of it. Is he A-lister? Isn't he?
No, he isn’t, Iron Man is. Clearly.
Hollywood is a business. The ONLY way to look at it in terms of A listers is money. A list doesn’t mean they’re the best actors. It means they’re the top actors in terms of drawing crowds.
Anthony Hopkins is a prestigious amazing actor. But he is not some big box office draw.
Even if you think of it only in terms of awards or critics. Consider this. Movies that make a lot of money will always warp how awards are given out.
Critics thought Joker was mid and generally acted like it was bad and for incels etc. Yet it made a billion dollars on a shoestring budget. Do you really think Joaquin Phoenix would’ve been given his academy award for that role if it didn’t make a billion and surprise people?
Same with Everything Everywhere All At Once. If it just made the expected indie money of 20 million or whatever instead of being a surprise hit. Would it have gotten so many awards?
Maybe you just have a different definition of A list to me. But no, Willem DaFoe and Anthony Hopkins are not A listers
Your definition is meaningless headcanon though.
Pitt is a relatively limited actor and as he's gotten older his role is harder and harder to incorporate into movies. Cruise, for being stupid scientologist, is actually a great actor that can play multiple different types (see, Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut, etc)
Both of those movies were in the nineties. As Cruise has gotten older he’s now only making movies with very limited range
>fun action man with a heart of gold
Literally every Cruise movie since... 2008. When he made Valkyrie. That was the last time he tried to play something other than an action hero
Except Barry Seal I guess. But I didn’t think that was good
>A-lister
>most of the general public know the face and name of a celebrity
>B-lister
>less than half of the general public recognize either the face or name of a celebrity
>C-lister
>most people have no idea who somebody is
So Mel Gibson is an A Lister? Even though he hasn’t been a star of a big box office successful movie for decades?
it's in reference to their position in the industry, so you can go down and eventually retire into obscurity
Idk about Mel specifically. I think of it as the bigger recognition somebody has, the higher up they are on the list. Your 90 year-old Grandma or 5 year-old cousin could see a picture of Dwayne Johnson and recognize him right away, so he's A-list. Mel might be more of a B-list guy now given that most people under 30 probably don't know who he is
For what it's worth people in Greece recognize Mel Gibson and know his name still
He's a big name for sure, but idk how much of the zoomer generation knows who he is (especially women)
It's easy, who decides who is and isn't an 'A Lister' is critics, which is partly why the age of the movie star is dead
>who decides who is and isn't an 'A Lister' is critics
no it isn't. no amount of shilling e.g., zendaya is ever going to make her an a-lister. you can put her in every blockbuster for the next decade, and everyone would still understand that she was only in them because of some weird hollywood nepotism
the age of the movie star is dead because actors don't have charisma anymore. and they don't have charisma because the studios explicitly select against it, because actors with agency and self-determination is bad for everyone who isn't that actor.
Not really. Joaquin Phoenix biggest success was in a movie critics hated
Ayo izzat paperboy? Wuz good muh homie
Brad kind stopped being picky after his divorce with Angelina and all the shit happening with their kids which lead him to just take any role sort of the opposite of what Tom did after his divorce.
your moronic Scientology is a billion dollar "religion" you dont think that has a part in cruise's success
If that’s why he’s a success. Why aren’t... all the other actors in Scientology anywhere near his level?
John Travolta is a Scientologist. Meanwhile he made this shit while Cruise is making billions in critically acclaimed movies
Tom Cruise and Shah Rukh Khan are unironically the list living movie stars.
good morning saar
Bullet Train was absolute dogshit.
The difference is that Tom Cruise would never allow himself to be attached to dogshit like that. It wouldn’t matter to him if the MCU came knocking offering 200m for a Tony Stark cameo, he’d tell them to walk because he’s already rich as frick and seems to care about projects he’s attached to.
>The difference is that Tom Cruise would never allow himself to be attached to dogshit like that. It wouldn’t matter to him if the MCU came knocking offering 200m for a Tony Stark cameo, he’d tell them to walk because he’s already rich as frick and seems to care about projects he’s attached to.
Explain Knight and Day
It’s a very watchable caper.
MI2
Knight and Day
Jack Reacher 2
3 terrible Cruise flicks. Not bad considering how much stuff he has done
How did Reacher 2 end up being so bad despite Reacher 1 being cinema kino?
>His highest grossing film EVER was World War Z (2013) And that made 540 million
540M in 2013 is like 1.5B in 2023
By this logic Cruise still wins because he was making that much at the box office 10 years earlier. So it would be equivalent to 2.5 billion now
More people saw movies back then tho. For reference, World War Z had just the 12th highest domestic that year.
Pitt and decaprio are serious actors, they generally do great acting roles in various differing parts.
Tom cruise is a movie star, he generally plays generic good guy/hero roles in big budget action flicks, which coincidently are the most generic and like flicks by a general demographic, hence why he puts asses in seats and makes money for the companies.
Its not easy to get women to go see an anime copy like bullet train, or get children to go and see a drama like twelve years a slave but everyone would watch edge of tomorrow.
>Brad Pitt
>serious actor
He has done some excellent roles and great acting range and yes benjimin button is one of them, he is great in it.
Not that tome cruise has not done some good acting either but on a differing scale.
Cruises great acting roles are under double digits where pitts bad acting roles are under double digits.
They are both just on a different scale.
Pitt is more into the acting/thespian style of acting, where cruise is about being a movie star.
As an example, when guy richie made lock stock, pitt rang him and said he wants to be in the next movie, which richie said yes but I mean you cant get paid more than others and what you are used to in hollywood.
Pitt probably took a relatively small paycheck just to be in the movie of an up and coming director he liked.
Cruise is more business and selling his likeness than taking roles that test his range.
Cruise literally got picked by Stanley Kubrick. Also took a pay cut to make Magnolia.
There’s no real comparison in his acting to Pitt. Pitt is just not as good an actor. He’s charismatic and handsome. But look at a movie like Meet Joe Black and he comes off as a caricature
Both of those movies are almost 25 years old. It's been a long time since Cruise has shown his acting prowess or starred in something narratively risky.
>Magnolia
Not watched it, and I watched eyes wide shut as a teen but its not the type of movies I would watch.
Still that isn't exactly a high bar, kubrick was seen as one of the best director in the industry, any actor would take a role, plus also that was probably for his wife too, she needed and wanted the work.
Same as any actor would say yes if offered to work with spielberg or nolan or scott. As they are the best directors in the business.
>Meet Joe Black and he comes off as a caricature
That is the point, he is supposed to be an emotionless angel in the body of a dead man. Who starts "feeling" emotions for the woman.
>he’s SUPPOSED to be a caricature
Then why was he also one when he was meant to be the normal dude
The point is he is supposed to be the generic person, he is like the back drop behind the story of the dying man.
Hence why his fricking name is "joe black", its not a name that sticks out.
Its like "joe bloggs" or "dave smith" or fricking muhammed, just a name that is indistinguishable in any sense.
The angel was there to do a job and carry the guy to death, not be a raze-ma-taz stand out guy making noise.
I think you completely missed the point of the movie.
Pleb take
Its a shit movie anyway, I am not into chick flicks.
Brad Pitts roles are generic as frick. He is literally the generic good guy. I'll give you bullet train, it stands out as very ungeneric and un Brad Pitt
>12 monkeys
>fight club
>benjimin button
>war machine
>ad astra
>kalifornia
>7 years in tibet
>moneyball
All differing roles
List goes on but the point is his range is on a different scale to tom cruse.
I mean what can you say for cruise.
>Interview with the vampire
>collateral
>tropic thunder
>Vanilla sky
Then the countless action flicks, the 90s romance flicks, the one movie in the 80s where he plays a young hoodlum, then maybe risky business.
Everything he has done in all that dime are minor derivatives of those roles.
Up to 90s it was romance shit, after that action shit.
Thing is tom cruise is entertaining. Despite him just being generic action movie guy in every roll, he is fun to watch.
Brad pitt is nearly different in every fricking role he does, same with decaprio, as they are serious actors.
What a load of horse shit. If you use your own standards Brad Pitt has even less range, he plays the handsome wienery guy or the handsome romantic guy. That's Brad Pitts range. Only Benjamin Button stands out in that regard.
>gave examples of 7 completely different versatile roles
>ughhhh you are bullshit
Fricking pleb
Tom Cruise has far more versatile roles. Risky Business, mission impossible, wienertail, top gun, eyes wide shut to name a few, he plays a completely different character. Far more different than for example fight club vs seven or Joe Black vs Ad Astra vs 12 years a slave vs once upon a time.
to be fair war machine, ad astra and moneyball are just all about some stoic guy
>Pitt
>serious actor
>Its not easy to get women to go see an anime copy like bullet train,
my 60 year old mom got intrigued by it when she saw the trailer so we went and watched it.
Same. She wanted Pitt, I was interested in Jojo King's big fat breasts and how Quick-Ass works as an actor since I haven't seen him in shit since Ultron.
Joey King has a big distracting beak.
>he generally plays generic good guy/hero roles in big budget action flicks
only for the last decade or so. he used to do much more than just action movies
Cruise turned himself into a brand while Brad collects a paycheck half enthused. I would say they were on a similar level back in the 90s
Comparing franchise films to original films isn’t a good comparison.
>last samurai
>minority report
>Collateral
What franchise are these. They all did better than Pitt’s movies
more like bullet troony
Pitt films in the last 10 years
Babylon - oscar bait
Bullet Train - anime action
The Lost City - 'action-adventure comedy' (literally never heard of this flick)
Ad Astra - elevated sci-fi
OUATIH - Tarantino
War Machine - satirical war comedy
Allied - historic oscar bait
The Big Short - oscar bait
By The Sea - romantic drama Angelina made him do
Fury - war action
The Counselor - oscar bait
12 Years a Slave - oscar bait
World War Z - zombie action
So about 50-50 serious films vs action/comedy
Does Tom Cruise do serious films anymore?
I don't know how anyone can watch the Assassination of Jesse James, Moneyball, or Once Upon a Time and claim Pitt can't act
>handsome cool guy plays a handsome cool character
>wow. He’s an amazing actor
If you think that's all the character was then there's no point discussing this any further with you
>hard man™ cowboy
>hard man™ sports
>hard man™ showbiz
Fight Club as well.
Brad has been in so many shitty movies honestly
Ad Astra is great
it sucks
How does it suck?
the vacuum of space
it tries to be a sci-fi without being serious, it tries to be smart while operating on action movie logic (i.e., none), but in spite of that it's dour and depressing, it pretends like it has a message but delivers it so inarticulately that nobody gets it. it's just boring and stupid, like a lot of artsy projects by low iq people who make themselves hard to understand on purpose because they are insecure cowards who know that if you could see more than the shadow of their idea you'd laugh at it. even the name is pretentious. the only way it could've been salvaged is if it was played as a straight satire mocking itself.
But Brad Pitt is in every new role. Brad Pitt also runs PLAN B which produces a lot of movies every year. He is in front of and around the camera. Yes Tom Cruise helms movies too and is apart of block busters but those are his films. Brad Pitt takes roles from leading men and has a huge responsibility leading Hollywood movies like this. He is an actor's actor
Pitt has a far more impressive filmography than Cruise.
>Every single Mission Impossible movie since 2 has made more than Brad Pitt’s highest grossing movie ever.
genuinely surprising to me
I assumed they were the same caliber of actor
>But Brad Pitt is NOT a movie star anywhere near the same calibre of Cruise
Those are choices Pitt makes. I don't think he is as driven as Cruise, has always been more laid back
The definition of "A-lister" is pretty subjective. OP seems to think it's based on the financial success of the movies the actor appears in. I would argue that it's based more on brand recognition. Doing more arthouse-type movies is part of Brad Pitt's brand. It's definitely not part of Tom Cruise's brand. If Brad Pitt did a series of mindless formulaic action movies like The Rock, it would probably hurt his brand more than it would help it.
Also, Tom Cruise's marketability is limited by his association with Scientology, his relatively short stature, and his lack of charisma. In my view, all this takes him down a peg.
Brad Pitt, on the other hand, is an undeniably charismatic and attractive guy. Even while going through a messy divorce, his image hasn't really suffered much.
So there's a lot to consider but it's ultimately an arbitrary definition.
>Reddit spacing
THE
THREAD
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/