Comments on: Discuss: Why Are There So Few Reliable Leading Men, And Who Might Yet Become One?

By: Gubarletto

Gubarletto — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:25 +0000

Ryan Gosling? Ryan Gosling? Ryan Gosling? Ryan Gosling?

By: Huffy

Huffy — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:25 +0000

A big problem with these guys is that most of them don't have a consistent screen-persona. While a lot of people like to complain about Denzel and Cruise essentially playing variants of themselves in every movie it's hard to argue that it works. It's what made the Golden Age stars so incredibly consistent. With the exception of Brad Pitt every one of those A-listers has a very distinct persona that the public associates with them even if they do change it up every once in a while. Of the guys listed I think Jackman has the potential to be the biggest star as he has charisma to spare. The problem is that he broke out with the wrong role. I think he's very good as Wolverine but now that's all the public thinks of him as, which is unfortunate because I think he could be a huge draw in non-actiony roles.

By: Liz

Liz — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:25 +0000

*ahem* Mark Whalberg was never a member of NKOTB, that was his brother. I think you mean Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch.

That's all I have to contribute.

By: Oogle monster

Oogle monster — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:25 +0000

2 words, one man: BABY GOOSE. Also, Clooney is definitely a leading man and should be on the list alongside Smith, DiCaprio, and Pitt. If you think about it- DiCaprio has really only had 2 solid blockbusters besides "Titantic"- "Shutter Island" and "Inception" (which was probably sold more on "the director of The Dark Knight" and its mind boggling concept/intense secrecy)… I'm not sure how "Catch Me If You Can" did financially but that was also probably semi-sold on Tom Hanks and the Spielberg pedigree. "The Departed" was an ensemble and I'm sure DiCaprio's presence helped tremendously but factor in the likes of Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg, Jack Nicholson, and Scorsese- and there's a whole lot of allure. Most of DiCaprio's passion projects have performed poorly at the box office i.e. "Revolutionary Road", "Blood Diamond", "The Beach", "J. Edgar" etc.

By: Christian

Christian — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:25 +0000

You got Crowe's Oscar win wrong: He won for Gladiator, not A Beautiful Mind 😉 No hard feelings

By: amanda

amanda — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:25 +0000

Depp and RDJ are odd ones. RDJ movies only tend to do well if they are Iron man or SH, his others dont do well at the box office. Depp does just does crappy movies that a lot of people see for some reason. When he does a straight drama-ish movie like Rum Diary is does nothing. Depp is pretty consistent with is big money leading man roles making money but I wouldnt put RDJ in a higher position than someone like Damon. The thing I like about Clooney and Damon is that they both could be making big money doing the movies that they have been pigeon holed into but choose to shy away from the easy work/pay day. I would take that career over someone like Depps or Washingtons anyday.

By: Ray H

Ray H — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:25 +0000

Clooney is definitely A-list, he just chooses not to make those big budget films. Nobody watches Leo, Johnny Depp or Robert Downey, Jr. films either unless they're perceived as big, tentpoles.

Jake Gyllenhaal is another actor that studios keep thinking will break out but never does.

By: a

Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:25 +0000

Here is a list of actors, followed by naming movies they were in that were successful and some that were not.

hopefully deadline can break some news for you to post.

By: imaslapya

imaslapya — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:25 +0000

The future for Colin Farrell, i dunno why didn't you mention Seven Psychopaths. Also, Clooney not being a huge box-office draw ? i dont get it, you just said he can take a comedy-drama like "The Descendants" to $80m domestic, thats not a box office draw ? $80m domestic for a fucking indie drama , definitely an a lister !

By: bunty

bunty — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:25 +0000

Hmm… I think a number of the guys on here can be classed as A-list. I assumed the article would more about the true next generation – Gosling, Pine, Hemsworth, etc. I think Matt Damon's proved he's a leading man by now.

By: Gian

Gian — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:25 +0000

He may not have the longevity of those already on your list but regardless you're going to have to add Channing Tatum to that list. He's front lined huge hits in action, romance and now well on his way with comedy. Regardless of what anyone may think of his talent, he's choosing a good mix of smart projects and commercial fare and he clearly has resonated with the 'Average American Moviegoer'. In terms of "reliability", he may already have leaped over most of the others mentioned above.

By: SoulHonky

SoulHonky — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:25 +0000

The idea that this is the same list as ten years ago isn't really true.
Ten years ago, "experts" were questioning Will Smith's staying power as he was coming off of two bombs in Wild Wild West and The Legend of Bagger Vance, and the underperforming Ali.
Similarly, Brad Pitt was fresh off Ocean's 11's success but there were questions about whether he could carry a film on his own since he hadn't seen 100 million since Se7en and had a half decade of disappointing earners {Spy Game, The Mexican, Snatch, Fight Club, Meet Joe Black (which actually made more than Fight Club, surprisingly}, Seven Years in Tibet, The Devil's Own, and Sleepers)
Jack Sparrow hadn't blessed Johnny Depp's box office fortunes yet and while Sleepy Hollow and Chocolat did well, he was hardly seen as a safe bet with From Hell, Blow, The Ninth Gate, and The Astronaut's Wife tanking.
And I'm sure that in 2002, entertainment writers were wondering why these new guys couldn't deliver like 90's holdovers Tom Hanks, Mel Gibson, and Bruce Willis, who were TRUE leading men.

By: roy

roy — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:25 +0000

Russell Crowe won an academy award for Gladiator, not A Beautiful Mind. I don't blame you for your mistake because his performance in A Beautiful Mind was terrific and Denzel Washington played Denzel Washington in Training Day. A very upsetting loss.

By: HG

HG — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:25 +0000

what about RDJ

Iron Man – 585 Million WW – 140 Million Budget
Iron Man 2 – 623 Million WW – 200 Million Budget
Sherlock Holmes – 524 million WW – 90 Million Budget
Sherlock Holmes 2 – 528 Million WW – 125 Million Budget
Due Date – 211 Million WW – 65 Million Budget

and i am sure The Avengers is gonna do huge business

By: Akim

Akim — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:25 +0000

What about idris Elba??? I think he has a ton of leading man potential. He's about to star in Promethius and he's got a starring role as Nelson Mandela lined up!

By: Megan

Megan — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:25 +0000

I'm not really sure that this is a problem. What you call "problems" for Bale and Clooney I see as the exact opposite. You're talking about 2 great actors who make smart choices based on what they want to do – they might not always pick blockbusters, but they've had a lot of success going for more thoughtful, character driven pieces. Maybe it's time for Hollywood to stop focusing on multi-million dollar blockbusters and spend more time producing smart character-driven projects that don't break the bank. With a list of reliable actors this big (and potentially longer – I think you're right to bring up Fassbender, Hardy and Gordon-Levitt at the end) we'll potentially have more films to see with great actors! Maybe if character becomes more of the focus we could even add some color to this pasty list.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:25 +0000

Mark Wahlberg was NOT a member of the New Kids on the Block. That was his brother Donnie.

Wahlberg was Marky Mark, as in "Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch."

By: boxofficemojo.com

boxofficemojo.com — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:24 +0000

Average Domestic per movie, CURRENTLY BANKABLE: Tom Cruise: $99,375,829; Leonardo DiCaprio: $88,203,435; Adam Sandler: $81,864,417;
Ben Stiller: $76,349,802; Johnny Depp: $76,348,727; Brad Pitt: $68,372,815; Denzel Washington: $48,999,790; Robert Downey Jr.: $41,898,184; POTENTIAL: Hugh Jackman: $95,434,790; Matt Damon: $74,803,721; Dwayne Johnson: $73,587,647; Mark Wahlberg: $57,397,565; George Clooney: $53,834,172; Christian Bale: $48,638,168; Daniel Craig: $47,910,545; Russell Crowe: $45,333,144; Ryan Reynolds: $41,461,514; Colin Farrell: $32,305,701;

By: Angelica

Angelica — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:24 +0000

I will just comment that there are very few names mentioned who are international stars and bankable. The foreign box office has become important and the movie must perform well worldwide.

RDJ is involved in too many franchises and is trying to get bankability that way where you have Johnny Depp, Tom Cruise (my favorite), Leonardo DiCaprio who have been ruling the box office for decades. There's that desire to see how they perform next or how they act in this certain movie. Although I'm kind of unsure of Depp because of Rum Diary and when DiCaprio was lead in J. Edgar, they did not perform well. I can only safely say that among them Cruise leading a movie guarantees at least 200M worldwide regardless of what the movie is even about. Adam Sandler is also very bankable even if his movies lack quality.

People on the "potential" list are not quite household names with the exception of Dwayne Johnson because people know him from WWE too.

By: Oogle monster

Oogle monster — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:24 +0000

Can we discuss the women now?

By: Trish

Trish — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:24 +0000

I wholeheartedly agree with RY; Channing Tatum shouldn't have even been mentioned in this list. Tatum does show versatility in his leading roles, but none of his performances were memorable, save Step Up, which was geared more toward teenaged audiences (as are most of his movies). He's just not a very good actor, he even said so himself. Successful, but not good. Just a handsome face.
'21 Jump Street' was pretty funny though, so sticking to comedy might actually be good
for him.
I do vote Tom Hardy, his acting abilities are absolutely spectacular. I'm sure he'll do awonderful job as Bane. Can't wait to see that.
I would love to see Giovanni Ribisi on a list like this one in the future. He's really underrated. He needs more leading roles.

By: Xavier

Xavier — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:24 +0000

Yeah I thought this list would discuss the next generation of leading men. The men listed quite honestly already seem like leading men. But my two cents: Cole Hauser, Ciaran Hinds, Alfred Molina, and Fred Ward. You're welcome.

By: ry

ry — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:24 +0000

ok, firstly….where is Ryan Gosling? Everyone knows he is the go to guy right now. aside of that, all that you mentioned are A-listers, especially clooney! damon, bale and the rest are major A-listers too. If we are doing this on purely box office success then the only A-listers would be Will Smith, Tom Cruise, and Johnny Depp….but even Depp did Rum Diary and the Libertine (which were great) that no one saw… i think you guys need to use the ol' noggin a little more and not troll with pointless posts….especially when you think of Channing Tatum over Ryan Gosling as the next big star…which is absurd and well…they both are considered A-listers…

By: Carson Wells

Carson Wells — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:24 +0000

Maybe more and more people are becoming like me – they watch movies based on things like the story or the director rather than who stars in them. Or maybe I'm in fantasy land. I mean, really, film stars don't contribute much to the quality of a film. They are well behind the writer and director in terms of determining quality. Replace Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible or Christian Bale in Batman and do you have worse films? Unlikely. I'm not saying good actors aren't required. I just question why well known actors should be required. When I see Tom Cruise in a movie all I see it Tom Cruise. Surely a movie connects more if you aren't familiar with the actor.

By: Dudi

Dudi — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:24 +0000

I think you're wrong about Pitt, he has seen the passing of 100 mark, on his own- more then once since SE7EN (THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUtTON; TROY(even thou it was a domestic disappointment, it made around 130 M.) domesticaly this movies were campaign on his name, also INGLORIOUS BASTARDS and Mr. and Mrs. SMITH had him first billed… and Depp also had his BURTON- Colaborations that turned out to be blockbusters (Alice In Wonderland and Charlie and The Chocolate Factory). And you made a good point about those 90's dudes (Willis,Hanks etc etc) they were more of a safe bet then this other dudes on 00's. But now the game has changed… if you make a movie with a 100+ production budget, you surely will have to put another 100 $ on marketing….