Right, but the thing to worry about is that Crawdads scored big at the box office and STILL doesn’t have any movie stars in it. Did it really generate any momentum outside of itself? Is it Daisy Edgar-Jones’s A River Runs Through It moment, or is it a financially successful one-off that mined some coin out of some popular source material…
Right, but the thing to worry about is that Crawdads scored big at the box office and STILL doesn’t have any movie stars in it. Did it really generate any momentum outside of itself? Is it Daisy Edgar-Jones’s A River Runs Through It moment, or is it a financially successful one-off that mined some coin out of some popular source material before evaporating from the popular consciousness?
I’m not saying Bullet Train’s receipts are attributable solely to Pitt--he’s surprisingly inconsistent as a pure box office draw, all-told--but rather that Bullet Train (or Babylon, or Ad Astra) exists in the first place because of his well-earned cachet, which is an increasingly rare commodity in film.
You’re 100% right that people saw it because it looked fun, but it troubles me that despite best practices being followed by all involved and a killer trailer it only managed 100 million domestic. It’s a break-even proposition that will be marginally profitable after the last bean is counted, which is not really what Hollywood does anymore.
I think the prevailing theme here is the collapse of the star system. A movie like Ticket To Paradise certainly benefited from old stars likes Clooney/Roberts-- god knows, it had nothing much to offer besides that-- but Daisy Edgar-Jones isn't a bankable star (or even known by many people who saw Crawdads, I bet) and even Pitt's success is movie-dependent. Few are going to see a film like Babylon on faith, but they'll turn out for Bullet Train because it looks like a bunch of badasses fighting on a fast-moving train.
Clooney is also the most obvious analogue to Pitt as someone who can get a movie with a decent budget made (or at least up until recently could) based far more on Clout than on consistent box office.
I do think that we're not in some sort of 'never again' movie star scenario though - it'll work differently than it has in the past but fully believe there is a generational switchover which will eventually lead us to a whole lot of new gen. top draws.
Side thought - do we consider Daniel Craig to be a Pitt-level star at this point? With all that Bond boost, he certainly helped make the first Knives Out a big success.
Re: stars, I would be interested to see one of the Stranger Things kids headline a major studio release to see if their Netflix popularity carries over. David Harbour did all right with the admittedly high concept Violent Night.
Harbour in Violent Night is an interesting case. He clearly has the attention and loyalty of his audience and he was able to leverage it to bring extra eyes to a Blumhouse-style potboiler. I bet Jon Hamm
Right, but the thing to worry about is that Crawdads scored big at the box office and STILL doesn’t have any movie stars in it. Did it really generate any momentum outside of itself? Is it Daisy Edgar-Jones’s A River Runs Through It moment, or is it a financially successful one-off that mined some coin out of some popular source material before evaporating from the popular consciousness?
I’m not saying Bullet Train’s receipts are attributable solely to Pitt--he’s surprisingly inconsistent as a pure box office draw, all-told--but rather that Bullet Train (or Babylon, or Ad Astra) exists in the first place because of his well-earned cachet, which is an increasingly rare commodity in film.
You’re 100% right that people saw it because it looked fun, but it troubles me that despite best practices being followed by all involved and a killer trailer it only managed 100 million domestic. It’s a break-even proposition that will be marginally profitable after the last bean is counted, which is not really what Hollywood does anymore.
I think the prevailing theme here is the collapse of the star system. A movie like Ticket To Paradise certainly benefited from old stars likes Clooney/Roberts-- god knows, it had nothing much to offer besides that-- but Daisy Edgar-Jones isn't a bankable star (or even known by many people who saw Crawdads, I bet) and even Pitt's success is movie-dependent. Few are going to see a film like Babylon on faith, but they'll turn out for Bullet Train because it looks like a bunch of badasses fighting on a fast-moving train.
Clooney is also the most obvious analogue to Pitt as someone who can get a movie with a decent budget made (or at least up until recently could) based far more on Clout than on consistent box office.
I do think that we're not in some sort of 'never again' movie star scenario though - it'll work differently than it has in the past but fully believe there is a generational switchover which will eventually lead us to a whole lot of new gen. top draws.
Side thought - do we consider Daniel Craig to be a Pitt-level star at this point? With all that Bond boost, he certainly helped make the first Knives Out a big success.
Re: stars, I would be interested to see one of the Stranger Things kids headline a major studio release to see if their Netflix popularity carries over. David Harbour did all right with the admittedly high concept Violent Night.
Harbour in Violent Night is an interesting case. He clearly has the attention and loyalty of his audience and he was able to leverage it to bring extra eyes to a Blumhouse-style potboiler. I bet Jon Hamm