millarworld.tv Comics Creators

Is Ryan Reynolds now a major movie star after Deadpool?


#21

But that’s TV.

Looking at his film resume…

The Marvel movies were his biggest hits and he wasn’t even the lead. He is a very talented actor who needs someone to help him pick his films.


#22

Tom H isn’t an actor I think audiences would have carrying a big international movie. He’s a great actor, but -like Fassbender - audiences want to see him IN a movie, not carrying it.

It’s no bad thing. Incredibly few male actors can carry a movie. They all got replaced by cartoon characters fifteen years ago. Way more actresses are bankable as they weren’t replaced by corporate brands in the same way.

MM


#23

He’s an “Actor”, not a “Star”?


#24

…you see since his Thor success is an indie Brit film and a country and western biopic. If he’s failed at Transformers 6 then fair enough but he seems more interested in character parts and hasn’t put himself forward as an action lead.

I’ll add that my current view is actors are important but stars are completely irrelevant in ‘Hollywood’.


#25

Some folks, like horses, actually need to be led to their projects. Ryan did good with Deadpool, will do well as big fish in smaller movies. Do not give him his head and let him run! Instead, go re-write a bit of Nemesis, every bit as evil but with more snark, and dangle it in front of him. Make sure to assure him he will have face time, it is not a plot to keep him hooded forever!

He would have done such a good young Hank Pym!


#26

I honestly don’t think he’s a good enough actor to be a genuine movie star. He’s got the sly/sardonic action hero thing down I suppose, but unless he’s starring in a Deadpool film, I think his leading-man big-headliner ship has sailed. I imagine his career will now follow a similar path to someone like Johnny Depp, in that he will become huge simply based on his portrayal of one character, he and the studio will flog that horse into hamburger, audiences will become bored of the schtick and move on in like, 6-8 years. Until then, I think he will continue to make himself extremely wealthy with the character, and will pop up in ensemble pieces or in movies where he will have to co-headline with another actor/actress of about the same level of notoriety (see the upcoming “Life” with Jake Gyllenhaal.) I don’t picture him as a successful leading man without Deadpool or a co-star to boost him up. This isn’t a knock on him, mind you. I really like the guy, and I totally admire his dedication to making Deadpool happen. He’s paid his dues, worked hard, and earned his success.

To be fair, I think the days of “leading men” are kind of reaching their end. Clooney, Pitt, Smith, Hanks, (and to a lesser extent guys like Wahlberg, Reeves and the like) etc. used to be able to open movies based on their star-power alone. Now, it seems audiences are more into the concept of a film than by who happens to be in it. I don’t people are in a rush to see “the new Ryan Reynolds movie,” so much as they are in a rush to see “the new Deadpool movie.”


#27

He needs some re-branding. Ryan sure painted himself into a corner by being good at something! Problem with a serious role (for a good while) is that people are more aware of Reynolds than the character, and even the character is very much Reynolds. Hopefully he does not want to “be an AC-tor!” and “put my own mark on the role”. (Those lot need therapy.)


#28

I liked Central Intelligence, though the plot was a bit too predictable. It’s the first thing I’ve like Kevin Hart in ages. I’ll watch the sequel.


#29

I don’t know if Mr. Reynolds much cares about re-branding at this point. He’s going to make a fortune after the next 2 Deadpool films. He’s tried his hand at ACT-ing!! before, and he’s been fine, but I would think that he’s been scratching at that particular itch every now and again for 2 decades, and now that he stands to make some real megabucks, he’ll probably focus on that.

Then again, I’ve never me the guy, so what the hell do I know. Watch, now that I’ve said all this, he’s going to win an Oscar in 3 years for his portrayal of a gay, wheelchair-bound Hollywood Director who sings.


#30

Nobody saw it, but he had a good “serious” role in Mississippi Grind in 2015, opposite Ben Mendelsohn.


#31

Have you seen Real Husbands?

It’s fantastic and the only good thing he’s ever done IMO


#32

I have a provocative question. Did it ever matter?

As much as we love it now and Ford made huge money out of Star Wars and Indiana Jones, Blade Runner was not a box office hit, barely anything else he did in the 80s outside those franchises was. That says it was Lucas and Spielberg that made the hits.

To go back further the question came to me listening to the excellent ‘You Must Remember This’ podcast that looks into the classic Hollywood studio system over many decades. Their strike rate seemed no better, you just get the 'next 3 Clark Gable films flopped but he recovered with…".

Is there any mathematical evidence of stars ever mattering that much? Did the star studio system die because it was a fundamental mistake?


#33

I’ve heard of it, but I’ve never seen an episode.


#34

I’m not a Kevin Hart fan, his stand ups are okay…eh with everything else.

If you have any sorta knowledge of UPN-era black actors or 80’s-90’s black comedy actors, then it’s awesome.


#35

It wasn’t in the dollars so much as it was in what films were being made. Certainly John Wayne, Steve McQueen and Clint Eastwood got a lot of movies made and so did Arnold and Stallone. With a lot of them though, they pretty much embodied the types of movies that general audiences wanted to see. John Wayne for Westerns and Arnold for Action Movies. Maybe it was the genre more than the actors or brands that drove ticket sales then.


#36

Well that’s my chicken and the egg question. There’s no doubt studios acted differently then in regard to stars but did they have any reason to do it?

Even Arnie’s stint as box office action gold barely lasts 5 years and a fair chunk of them did okay, not great.

With westerns it was observed they were never that popular, they made a lot of them because they were cheap from the initial Hollywood base in an undeveloped California.


#37

I think “star power”, while not guaranteeing success, helped give certain movies a bigger edge over others. I also think that certain performers at certain times just intersect with the zeitgeist.


#38

If the studios had only known back then what they know now, they would’ve forgotten concentrating on the stars and gone for sequels and prequels.

BEN HURDER!
BEFORE THE WIND!
ADOLESCENCE OF A NATION!


#39

I shall pass this along to Tim. It’s one of his babies. (Not Tim here, my brother-from-another-mother Tim Gibbons. Also produced Curb Your Enthusiasm, Ripley’s Believe It Or Not and suchlike. Busy lad.)


#40

You ‘think’ and I ‘think’ but do we know?

As I said the documentaries looking at 40s and 50s films say the huge stars had 3 or 4 duds in a row. That’s within a star system designed to make the key but it’s a bad example if it can’t support it works, and if it does why would they let it die? Maybe it’s just an evolution where they figured out it doesn’t.