Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
April 24, 2013
BoxOfficeProphets.com

Soccer image used to surprise all!

Kim Hollis: What do you believe is the current state of Tom Cruise's career? How many more years do you think he has as a leading man?

Jay Barney: This is a very interesting question, and I am solidly on the side of the spectrum that believes there are plenty of more projects in Cruise's career. I should state for the record that I find the Scientology beliefs a bit creepy, but that should not take anything away from the guy's acting accomplishments. You can't have this discussion without comparing him to the other actors of his generation, and how many other acting careers even come close to his? Tom Hanks is probably bigger, Harrison Ford, Jack Nicholson... how many others? Even if you come up with three or four more other names, my point is clear. Cruise is still a leading actor, he is only 50-years-old, and he is one of the highest paid actors in the business.

Sure he is nearly three decades removed from Top Gun, two decades removed from A Few Good Men and Jerry Maguire, and a decade removed from Minority Report and War of the Worlds, but doesn't his resume prove this actor's credibility? Each of the films listed above was either one of the biggest films of the year released, or earned Cruise considerable attention because of the characters he played. And this list doesn't even include The Firm, Born on the 4th of July, or Rain Man.

Just two and a half years ago, audiences embraced the fourth in the Mission Impossible series, making it one of the most beloved recent action films in years. That project brought in some serious coin, too. Made for $145 million, it made over $600 million worldwide.

Oblivion may not be on his "A" list, but usually, over time, everything reverts back to the mean. If you were to take the average Cruise film, it would still be pretty good.

My guess is the guy still has a couple of mega hits left in him.

Felix Quinonez: I think that Tom Cruise definitely still has potential to be a leading man for a few years but because his star has faded within the last decade I think he is at a point where he has to be more careful about the projects he takes. I think the days when his name alone could sell a movie are gone. Yes, MI4 was huge but Rock of Ages flopped and Jack Reacher only did OK. I think Oblivion is a pretty safe vehicle as far as box office goes and he could safely keep going with movies like this for a few years to diminishing returns. But no matter how much money your movies made in the past eventually studios will ask "what have you done for me lately?" And if your movie can convincingly described as both a hit and a disappointment you are not doing a great job as a leading man.


Max Braden: I think to start with, considering how intense he is in every role, and some of the chaos in his personal life, it's remarkable he's performed at a such a high level for so long. Among the other leading men who can trace their stardom to movies in the ‘80s - Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Gibson, Murphy, Willis, and even Gere, Quaid, and Costner - Cruise is still the one you want to call first when making a big budget movie. To date, when paired with the right concept (such as Mission Impossible), he's been a huge success. When he's acted in unexpected and potentially laughable roles, like in Tropic Thunder and Rock of Ages, he's come out unscathed. Jack Reacher showed some recent weakness, but I'd blame that as much on the material as any waning stardom. Cruise has been able to hold on to his youthful appearance for so long that it will be interesting to see if that just extends his prime years, or if his aging process will lose some of his fan base and make it difficult to succeed in non-action roles. I think that if he picks projects well, he'll still have another strong decade ahead of him, putting him in company with long-career leading men like Sean Connery and Clint Eastwood.

Brett Ballard-Beach: I saw him on The Daily Show and for the first time, I saw a hint of an older Cruise not so much in the face but in the eyes (he and Jon Stewart were joking about the fact that they're the same age). It was startling (but not in a horrible kind of way, more like a different kind of handsome way) and suggested to me the kinds of roles that he could begin taking on in coming years. Hollywood is too fickle for me to ever accord with certainty a superstar's sell-by date, particularly for someone like Cruise who has given great performances in a myriad of genres but is seen primarily as a commercial presence who will take the pretty boy tag with him to the grave. Since he still has the power to pick and create projects, I think he's solid, from a commercial standpoint, for at least the next decade.

Edwin Davies: I think he's on a downward slide, but it's an incredibly gradual one that has been going for quite some time now. Looking back at his filmography, it seems that the golden period for him was from 1992, the year A Few Good Men came out, to 2005 with the release of War of the Worlds. During that time, he was in 14 films that earned at least $100 million domestically (and in 13 of them he was the lead or co-lead, with Austin Powers in Goldmember being an exception because he's only in it for about 30 seconds) with only smaller films like Magnolia and Eyes Wide Shut falling below that number, though neither was expected to do that sort of business. Even seemingly non-commercial films like Vanilla Sky and Collateral became huge with his involvement. He had a magic touch almost unparalleled.

Since 2005, he's only been in three films that managed the same feat; Mission: Impossible III, which was great but underperformed compared to its predecessors and budget, Tropic Thunder, which again was in a cameo appearance, and Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, which is the only unqualified hit on his CV from the last seven years. The rest is made of flops like Knight & Day and Rock of Ages and middling results like Jack Reacher and Valkyrie. What this demonstrates to me is that while he can still draw a crowd in his signature role as Ethan Hunt, he's definitely entered a new phase of his career, one in which he is no longer able to make every film a smash, at least domestically.

Internationally, he's still a draw and that will probably keep him in leading roles for another decade or so, but there's going to come a point where films in which he tries to be the Tom Cruise of the '90s begin to look kind of sad and pathetic. Cruise has always been a very savvy actor who knows when to shift gears, so I wouldn't be surprised if we see him move into more low-key stuff before he reaches that point. I do think that Oblivion, the mooted sixth Mission: Impossible film and All You Need is Kill will represent the beginning of the end for him as a headliner of huge blockbuster action films, though.

David Mumpower: Max touched upon the thought process I have had about Cruise as he ages. I absolutely agree with Brett that Cruise's age is beginning to reveal itself in his appearance. There is no escaping that aspect of humanity, at least not until science advances to the point where we can microwave the wrinkles away or whatever. What we have seen with some of the biggest celebrities such as the two Max named, however, is that icons continue to anchor projects independent of age.

A pair of great historical examples are Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant. The latter gentleman was about to turn 60 when Charade was released, and that movie is one of the best romances of the 1960s. With respect to Connery, he was 68 when Entrapment was released. Catherine Zeta-Jones was (supposedly) 30 in that film, meaning that she wasn't in the "half your age plus seven" category...also I secretly suspect she is a few years older than Connery.

My point is that we phase out our famous lead actors gradually. Rarely are they put out to pasture completely. If Clint Eastwood can portray the romantic lead in The Bridges of Madison County when he is 65, I am not sure why Cruise should be ready to retire. His reputation and name recognition still garner respect despite the Scientology nonsense.

Kim Hollis: As we prepare to enter the lucrative summer box office campaign, do you believe we're through the worst or do you think we'll see continued box office deflation over the summer?

Jay Barney: Interesting question. I have not taken a serious look at the numbers, but the question begs for a couple of things to be defined. If you are measuring things against last year, well yes, we may not get the same numbers. The amount of money must be taken into account, though, and I think 2012 may have been a bit of an enigma. 2012 saw Avengers make over $650 million. The Dark Knight and Hunger Games both drew in audiences for over $400 million, and two films, The Hobbit and Skyfall, both were over $300 million.

If you compare those numbers against 2011 you will find that only two films even attained the $300 million figure. Only one of those, the last of the Harry Potters, was even remotely close to $400 million.

2010 had one $400 million earner in Toy Story 3, and three $300 million dollar earners.

2009 saw Avatar explode for over $700 million, but even that year only two films crossed the $300 hundred million mark. Transformers made $400 million and The Half Blood Prince made $300 million.

I'm not saying the question is flawed, I am just pointing out that last year saw an awful lot of money flow into movie theaters. It is not unreasonable for things to come back down to earth this year.

There are a few other things to take into account as well. Ticket price inflation over the years plays havoc with the real amount of money earned or tickets sold. Global box office matters a lot more than it used to.

It is not like this year won't see films push or exceed the $300 million mark. Even before tickets are sold, Iron Man 3 is probably a lock to do so. There is an awful lot of buzz for the next Star Trek movie. The next Hunger Games film is slated for the holiday season and it will be enormous. Also there is the second of the Hobbit movies. There may be a couple of surprises in there yet.

Matthew Huntley: Save for matching the behemoth that was The Avengers, I think summer 2013 stands a good chance of being a very lucrative season. If you think about all the high-profile sequels (Iron Man 3, Star Trek into Darkness, Fast and Furious 6), promising reboots (Man of Steel), and original movies (Pacific Rim), it's a varied assortment, and even though most of them will be targeting the same audience, I think that audience is large and excited. Not every year can bring us a Hunger Games or Avengers, so I honestly think the year-to-year comparisons are unnecessary and people are still going to the movies.

Felix Quinonez: I think the summer will be just fine there are plenty of movies that have the potential to be do great. I don't see any movie matching The Avengers this year but it doesn't have to be a record breaker to be a good summer.

Max Braden: I think in previous years we had some complaints about the number of sequels and remakes flooding the market, and there were only a couple that audiences really supported. This year, although we still have plenty of established material coming up, I think the energy level is much higher for each project. Instead of peaks and valleys, I'm expecting a more constant stream of solid performers. That's going to create strong demand every weekend, which should keep the box office humming.

Brett Ballard-Beach: From a standpoint of the public at large (and not necessarily what I might choose to see) I think this summer will perform phenomenally. And to punctuate that point, I look at May as both a microcosm of and generator for what's to follow: Out of the nine wide releases, there are four that will be anywhere from smash to uber-smash: Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness, The Hangover Part III and Fast and Furious 6, three that should perform solidly and/or could break out: The Great Gatsby, After Earth, and Epic, and two smaller-ish ones (Peeples and Now You See Me). The good vibes from that month (in conjunction with well-placed trailers) should carry forth and I think there is enough diversity in what follows, carrying through June, July, and most of August, that this could be one of the most crowd-pleasing summers in the last decade, where the pleasures are abundant and spread across the board.

Kim Hollis: I think we have some good titles coming this summer - particularly in May, but I'm starting to wonder if we're not starting to see a trend where it really takes a special film to get audiences in theaters. With the prevalent availability of movies on DVD and streaming not too terribly long after theatrical release, we're starting to see a lot of projects that are viewed as disappointments (I'm thinking of movies like the latest Die Hard, Jack the Giant Slayer, and others along those lines) relative to budget and domestic gross. Entertainment is becoming so fragmented, and it is truly tough for studios to compete for their share of the dollars available.