Monday Morning Quarterback Part III
By BOP Staff
December 31, 2008
BoxOfficeProphets.com
David Mumpower: Valkyrie and Benjamin Button stars Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt have been linked since their roles as disgruntled lovers in Interview with the Vampire. Who do you think has had the better career since 1994 and who do you expect to have the better career over the next decade?
Scott Lumley: If you base this strictly on box office results, Cruise is the clear winner with multiple films finishing well over $100 million (The Mission: Impossible series, War of the Worlds, Jerry Maguire, Minority Report). Yet, his off the wall behavior has lately seemed to alienate his fanbase and his totals seem to be dropping. Pitt, on the other hand, has put together an eclectic resume where he continuously stretches himself and tries new roles, something Cruise has been reluctant to do with the exception of roles in Tropic Thunder and Goldmember. Pitt seems poised to seriously dominate the box office for the next decade whereas Cruise seems to be in damage control mode.
Whatever happens, I'm pretty certain that both of them could crush us all to death with their wallets. Success on their level is very, very rare.
Joel Corcoran: This is an interesting question, and I don't necessarily agree with Scott's assessment on pure economics. Tom Cruise might've had more blockbuster openers, but I would bet that Brad Pitt's movies have done better at the box office overall. Pitt's career has been a record of consistent success (at least since Thelma and Louise), regardless of what types of movies he's done - big tentpole releases, art house films, romances, action films, and comedies. He's been in a few movies that didn't do quite as well (Meet Joe Black for one), but I can't think of a single movie he's been in that bombed at the box office. Cruise, on the other hand, has been a more typical movie star focusing almost primarily on blockbuster action movies and sweeping romances. Magnolia and Vanilla Sky are about the only movies that he's done outside those categories. Since 1994, Tom Cruise has appeared in 16 movies, while Brad Pitt has appeared in 30 movies plus a couple TV shows (notably "Friends). In terms of depth and breadth of career, I think Brad Pitt clearly has had the better career, which has made him a more well-rounded actor better prepared for the future.
Pitt should have the better acting career, though I think Tom Cruise has much more potential to expand his career in Hollywood. Since taking over United Artists two years ago, Cruise can expand into bigger roles as a producer (or even director) that Pitt will have a much harder time reaching.
Sean Collier: I don't want to go on Internet Tom Cruise Rant #365413 here, but at some point, Scientology will (rightfully) derail his career permanently. Pitt is building a nice, diverse career, and will continue to do so, I think - he takes on a wide variety of roles with a wide variety of expectations, and has very rarely missed with anything.
Daron Aldridge: I agree with Joel that Pitt has a longer shelf life than Cruise, simply because I think he is more talented and is getting more reliable at the box office. In terms of grosses, let's not overstate Pitt's post-Interview career. After Interview in 1994 and Se7en in 1995, Pitt didn't star in another $100 million earner until Ocean's 11 in 2001. Those six years were littered with unspectacular box office. During that time, 1997's Devil's Own with Harrison Ford ($80 million budget and $42 million gross , 1997's Seven Years in Tibet ($70 million budget and $38 million gross), 1998's Meet Joe Black ($90 million budget and $45 million gross), 1999's Fight Club ($63 million budget and $37 million gross), and 2001's Spy Game with Robert Redford ($92 million budget and $62 million gross). All of these came up at least $25 million short. Granted, he has been more reliable since Ocean's 11. Between Interview and Valkyrie, Cruise has done 13 movies in either a starring or legitimate supporting role (excluding Goldmember) and only three failed to cross $100 million. Those were Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia and Lions for Lambs. Therefore, in terms of box office, Cruise is still stronger but I would argue that they are heading the opposite direction. Pitt's box office numbers are rising and Cruise are diminishing.
Pete Kilmer: I think Pitt will have the longer career in terms of quality compared to Cruise. While I am fan of a lot of Cruise's movies in the past, he got in a rut with his blockbusters. And I give him points for trying to do different things like Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia and Tropic Thunder with varying degrees of success. Tom really has a tough road ahead if he wants to branch out into different roles. I do think he could do something with the Mission: Impossible franchise to broaden his acting appeal, because he was excellent in MI:3.
Jamie Ruccio: I respect Brad Pitt's career choices far more than I do Tom Cruise's. He's managed to remain a reliable box office draw while taking wide range of roles and maintains a pleasant public persona. His choices for roles is where he clearly outclasses Cruise - from Se7en to 12 Monkeys to Meet Joe Black to one of my personal favorites Snatch, all show distinctly different characters. I think he's far more talented than people give him credit for.
I think when all is said and done Cruise will perhaps limp along while Pitt quietly puts together a fairly impressive resume.
Ben Farrow: When do we get a Butch and Sundance redux?
Kim Hollis: I'm going to diverge from everyone else's opinion here (I feel like the lone voice of reason this week, people!) and say that Tom Cruise will continue to evolve and re-invent himself in ways that will surprise us. I really think that much as I actually like him, Pitt is very limited as an actor. Sure, the movies he has been in have been diverse, but I don't think he has been particularly distinguished in them.
Cruise, on the other hand, has *something* that draws people to him. Even if he's jumping on couches and spouting off about Scientology, he continues to be a magnetic and powerful force in Hollywood. I would go so far as to say that his only true "stumble" to date has been Lions for Lambs. Sure, you might want to lump Eyes Wide Shut in there, but if you consider what that movie actually is, $56 million is a ridiculous amount of money and it can pretty much be attributed to his presence (with slight credit to being Kubrick's last). As he did with Tropic Thunder this year, I'd expect to see Cruise continue to do the sorts of things that will re-ingratiate him with audiences. He's a smart, smart businessperson on top of everything else. Pitt just doesn't seem that...savvy, though I'm sure he has great people giving him advice.
Coming soon...the G&dd&mn Movie Business, from Frank Miller
David Mumpower: The Spirit, Frank Miller's interpretation of the classic Will Eisner comic strip character, earned $10.4 million over its first four days. Why do you feel this Lionsgate release failed to strike a chord with consumers?
Joel Corcoran: I think The Spirit's near-complete failure was a combination of at least three significant factors going against it. The Spirit is a comic-book movie without a present-day fanbase. DC Comics brought the series back to life about two years ago, but there simply isn't a critical mass of fans familiar with The Spirit like the fanbase that exists for Batman, Iron Man, The X-Men, or even The Avengers. The visual style is something we've already seen before - in Sin City and, to a certain extent 300 - so what might have been a unique draw five years ago, now looks like a worn out film-making technique. The advertising behind this film was atrocious. The movie posters were ugly and misshapen (and what the hell does "My City Screams" mean anyway?), the television commercials were dull at best (and confusing at worst), and nothing in the whole marketing campaign - absolutely nothing - created a "hook" to draw viewers into the theater. And on top of everything else, you had a horrible director at the helm in Frank Miller, which led to some scathing early reviews that unanimously panned the film.
Scott Lumley: Remember when the Matrix came out, and suddenly EVERY film had to have a bullet time effect in it? Remember the titanic yawns that all that emulation brought forth? The Spirit looked like a poor man's copy of Sin City with cheesier acting, a sanitized plot and a character few people even knew existed. Coupled with the very poor marketing campaign and some very weird casting (who in the Hell is Gabriel Macht anyways?) this film seemed doomed to failure from the get go. I'm probably going to watch this at some point, but that point probably occurs when I see it in a bargain bin and I need a new subject for Stealth Entertainment.
Joel Corcoran: Based on the numbers, The Spirit looks like an abject loss. Sin City had a $29.1 million opening weekend on a budget of $40 million and earned $74.1 million in the U.S. In contrast, 300 had a slightly higher estimated budget of $65 million, had an opening of $70.9 million, and went on to earn $210.6 million in the domestic box office. Figure that The Spirit had a budget somewhere around Sin City's, perhaps $45 million. If so, then the Spirit would need an internal multiplier of 4.33 just to break even. And at a more realistic ratio of around 2.0 (slightly better than Sin City's 1.9), The Spirit would hit within striking distance of $21 million, which would still be an abject loss at the domestic box office.
Sean Collier: The Spirit was only ever serving as the warm-up band for Watchmen. The abysmal early reviews kept the crowds from showing up early.
Reagen Sulewski: I would hate to have been the exec looking at the first dailies for this. Would you start typing up your resume right then? Note to Frank Miller: learn a new trick.
Daron Aldridge: I gave this the benefit of the doubt with the teaser earlier this year because it intrigued me enough to want more but then as I saw more, that intrigue gave way to boredom. Apparently, I was not alone in my newfound apathy toward it.
Pete Kilmer: Boy...The Spirit...I don't know.
A character the mass audience has zero clue about, a cinematic look that we just saw in Sin City and expect in Sin City 2 and the Looney Tunes aspect that Miller chose to use just didn't work. I think Frank has an eye for scenes and could develop into a pretty solid director. Clearly, a lot of the actors loved him on the set. But he needs someone to really help him with editing and dialogue. Lionsgate really needs to stop with the super hero movies as they have ZERO idea on how to do them. I mean ZERO idea. The Punisher War Zone was a complete disaster and The Spirit is going to be one.
Jamie Ruccio: As mentioned, without any intense following this looked like a rip-off of Sin City, 300 and maybe even Watchmen - which makes me fearful for Watchmen. As the only man in his late 30s who didn't read this 20 years ago, it looks pretty similar to all the rest of the films mentioned. I'll probably be taken out back and roughed up for this but I wonder if these previous films, all with a similar feel and look, don't damage its potential. We've all seen pop culture iconic material fail at the box office. I write this for posterity in case I am right. If not, let's just forget I ever mentioned it.
Scott Lumley: I've got bad feelings about Watchmen as well, but my feelings have a lot more to do with the rather tepid trailers and that surprising court verdict rather than a faint resemblance to a not very well thought out superhero flick.
As for Jamie, I will advise you that part of the greatness of Watchmen was watching superheroes being treated like ordinary people with foibles, failings, flaws and character defects that we all have. Twenty-odd years later, this is less of a thrill than it used to be. (See Knight, Dark and Man, Iron) Still, Rorschach is a classic character that has me deeply enthused about this film and Zack Snyder's apparent letter-perfect interpretation of this graphic novel. Let's hope that he can carry through on the promise that the initial Watchmen trailer brought.
Kim Hollis: Throwing Watchmen aside, since it doesn't have a lot to do with Frank Miller, I think we can just safely say he's kind of lost it a little bit. Between All-Star Batman & Robin and this effort at directing a movie alone, he's definitely alienating the fan base he had and not adding any new ones. The Spirit is certainly a disappointment, but I'm not sure what Lionsgate was ever going to do to market it. The best thing that could have been done was to go back in time and decide not to greenlight it.