Youth N Asia 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2004 1 Man on Fire $23,000,000/$23,039,905 2 13 Going on 30 $22,000,000/$22,000,000 3 Kill Bill Vol. 2 $10,411,156/$42,962,801 4 The Punisher $6,100,000/$24,000,000 5 Home on the Range $3,470,000/$42,455,000 6 Johnson Family Vacation $3,150,000/$25,095,162 7 Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed $3,135,000/$76,513,000 8 Hellboy $3,000,000/$54,691,000 9 Ella Enchanted $2,709,487/$17,220,887 10 Walking Tall $2,650,000/$40,520,000 11 The Passion of The Christ $2,117,855/$364,316,385 12 The Alamo $2,000,000/$19,682,000 --------------------- Johnson Family...still only on 1,200 screens. Per screen count it's still doing great. Alamo, currently $80+ million in the hole. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mik 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2004 Choken One was saying something last week? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest OctoberBlood Report post Posted April 25, 2004 Awesome. Everyone should go see Man on Fire. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Youth N Asia 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2004 I know the story of Man on Fire, and it sounds decient...but the previews I see on tv don't make it look that good. I though 13 Going On 30 would be #1 this week. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheOriginalOrangeGoblin 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2004 What does this all prove? Denzel owns you all and is, arguably, the biggest drawing actor today(Hanks & Gibson might pose competition). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Banders Kennany Report post Posted April 25, 2004 Out of Time did bad in theaters though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
razazteca 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2004 I think Gibson, Cruise, Hanks are to upper elite of the major draw actors today. So did the Tom Hanks southern criminal movie bomb because of Shawn/Marlyn Wayans? It has been a very long time since Hanks had a bomb........hell I think his last one was what Joe versus the vocano? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mik 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2004 Yeah, Denzel is definitely not the top drawing actor. Not even close. He's not even in the top 100 of all time gross. Here are the grosses from www.the-numbers.com 1 Harrison Ford 33 $3,255,038,801 $98,637,539 2 Samuel L. Jackson 59 $3,031,113,680 $51,374,808 3 Tom Hanks 31 $2,842,166,284 $91,682,783 4 Tom Cruise 27 $2,566,844,575 $95,068,318 5 Eddie Murphy 29 $2,480,021,588 $85,517,986 6 Bruce Willis 43 $2,356,499,883 $54,802,323 7 James Earl Jones 40 $2,343,822,050 $58,595,551 8 Mel Gibson 34 $2,300,893,723 $67,673,345 9 Jim Cummings 26 $2,253,349,139 $86,667,275 10 Gene Hackman 59 $2,246,177,460 $38,070,804 11 Robin Williams 41 $2,230,250,633 $54,396,357 129 Denzel Washington 32 $1,147,305,027 $35,853,282 As you can see, Denzel is nowhere near these people in total gross and only compares to Gene Hackman in per movie gross. He's made 1 more movie than Tom Hanks and 5 more than Tom Cruise and still trails both by almost $2 billion in revenue. He's got a lot of catching up to do. And per picture average? Forget about it. He'd need to make about 5 movies in a row that generated Titanic type money to even approach Hanks, Cruise, Harrison Ford. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Youth N Asia 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2004 Credit www.the-numbers.com BASED ON US GROSS ONLY Washington's gone over $100+ million twice (and the first time you can credit Julia Roberts), and $70+ million twice. His average boxoffice is $35,853,282. Adam Sandelr is a 5 time $100+ million movie guy. And 2 of those (50 First Dates, and Anger Management) are back to back. Average boxoffice movie is $57,157,613. Jim Carrey. 8 movies over $100+ million. 2 of those are $200+ million. Average gross: $84,969,307. Tom Hanks...13 TIMES OVER $100+ MILLION! 3 times $200+ million and once $300+ million. Average Gross: $91,682,783 So while I'd put Washington near the top, he's not at the top. And if you go worldwide it gap widens Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mik 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2004 The chart makes it easier to read. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest OctoberBlood Report post Posted April 25, 2004 I'd say Star Wars helped Jacksons' and Fords' numbers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2004 Least Punisher still has a small chance to make back its money. Although I think LGF still plans on using it as a franchise considering the kind of movie that was made. "13 going on 30" cost more to make than "The Punisher". Now that one I can't figure out at all. What in that movie cost so much? Jennifer Garner? And "Man on Fire" looked like a return to Denzel's 'Training Day' character so I knew that would do good. Denzel as a bad ass killer does much better than Denzel as a police officer in a crappy shirt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shanghai Kid 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2004 I think early in his career Denzel wasn't a big draw. He was still a good actor, and even underrated with great performances in Malcom X and Philadelphia, but his choice of roles wasn't too great. He flirted with trying to be an action hero in Virtousity and Pelican Brief, and I'm not sure if those roles were right for him. But, in the last 5-6 years, Denzel has chosen his roles perfectly. He deserved an Oscar for his performance in the Hurricane. Remember the Titans is a huge fan favorite. But people admitedly got a little tired of seeing Denzel as a good guy. And Training Day...well that pretty much made everybody catch on. His character was popular with all ages, and he won an Oscar for it. Now everything he does has a chance of being gold. John Q wasn't great, but opened up #1 because of Denzel. Out of Time wasn't great, but it did decent because of Denzel. Antoine Fisher, a great movie, directed by Denzel. And now Man of Fire....it looks edgy just like Training Day, so how can anybody not expect it to do great at the box office. Denzel is in his prime, he's easily a top 5 actor going today. He can make a bad movie decent, and a good movie great. So yes, he owns you all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shanghai Kid 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2004 I think Gibson, Cruise, Hanks are to upper elite of the major draw actors today. So did the Tom Hanks southern criminal movie bomb because of Shawn/Marlyn Wayans? It has been a very long time since Hanks had a bomb........hell I think his last one was what Joe versus the vocano? I think that's pretty dumb to say that the Tom Hanks movie bombed because of Marlayn Wayans. Did the first Scary Movie bomb? How about Senseless? He's proven to be a great actor as shown in Reqiuem for a Dream, and has carried some movies on his back. The fact is, Tom Hanks is a box office draw for the reason that he's usually in great movies. Put him in a bad movie, and he's not going to make it a hit. I would say Mel Gibson is the biggest box office draw. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2004 I think Gibson, Cruise, Hanks are to upper elite of the major draw actors today. So did the Tom Hanks southern criminal movie bomb because of Shawn/Marlyn Wayans? It has been a very long time since Hanks had a bomb........hell I think his last one was what Joe versus the vocano? I think that's pretty dumb to say that the Tom Hanks movie bombed because of Marlayn Wayans. Did the first Scary Movie bomb? How about Senseless? He's proven to be a great actor as shown in Reqiuem for a Dream, and has carried some movies on his back. The fact is, Tom Hanks is a box office draw for the reason that he's usually in great movies. Put him in a bad movie, and he's not going to make it a hit. I would say Mel Gibson is the biggest box office draw. Actually, the fact "The Ladykillers" even got the 14 million dollar weekend has to go 100% to Hanks. If you headline that with anyone else and that film makes 5 million or less opening. Hanks is just a draw god right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest OctoberBlood Report post Posted April 25, 2004 I know the story of Man on Fire, and it sounds decient...but the previews I see on tv don't make it look that good. Well, it's a damn good movie with great performances. Dakota is wonderful. I can't believe how talented, yet so young she is. She's gonna be a star. It's not a typical action movie, not even close. I highly suggest it, infact - I rate it as my 4th best movie of 2004 (1. Eternal Sunshine, 2. Kill Bill Volume 2, 3. The Passion, 4. Man On Fire, 5. Big Fish). Check it out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2004 Choken One was saying something last week? Yup, well done Choken. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2004 I know the story of Man on Fire, and it sounds decient...but the previews I see on tv don't make it look that good. Well, it's a damn good movie with great performances. Dakota is wonderful. I can't believe how talented, yet so young she is. She's gonna be a star. It's not a typical action movie, not even close. I highly suggest it, infact - I rate it as my 4th best movie of 2004 (1. Eternal Sunshine, 2. Kill Bill Volume 2, 3. The Passion, 4. Man On Fire, 5. Big Fish). Check it out. Big Fish is a 2003 movie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest OctoberBlood Report post Posted April 25, 2004 I know the story of Man on Fire, and it sounds decient...but the previews I see on tv don't make it look that good. Well, it's a damn good movie with great performances. Dakota is wonderful. I can't believe how talented, yet so young she is. She's gonna be a star. It's not a typical action movie, not even close. I highly suggest it, infact - I rate it as my 4th best movie of 2004 (1. Eternal Sunshine, 2. Kill Bill Volume 2, 3. The Passion, 4. Man On Fire, 5. Big Fish). Check it out. Big Fish is a 2003 movie. Nah. It's wide release was in 2004. It only got a limited and select city release in 2003. So, it's a 2004 movie on my book. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Youth N Asia 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2004 I think early in his career Denzel wasn't a big draw. Same can be said for just about any actor though Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted April 26, 2004 What does this all prove? Denzel owns you all and is, arguably, the biggest drawing actor today(Hanks & Gibson might pose competition). Not really. When's his last blockbuster? It's not arguable, he is NOT the biggest draw in film right now. You could make a better case for a half dozen actors, hell even Pierce Brosnan who's had four huge grossers over the last nine years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted April 26, 2004 Denzel isn't as big as Gibson or Hanks, and this is coming from a huge Denzel mark... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted April 26, 2004 What does this all prove? Denzel owns you all and is, arguably, the biggest drawing actor today(Hanks & Gibson might pose competition). You could make a better case for a half dozen actors, hell even Pierce Brosnan who's had four huge grossers over the last nine years. Four huge grossers? Goldeneye - $106 million gross, $80 million budget. Tomorrow Never Dies - $125 million gross, $110 million budget. The World Is Not Enough - $126 million gross, $135 million budget. Die Another Day - $161 million gross, $142 million budget. Die Another Day is the only movie I would call close to huge. A huge gross is atleast a $200 million gross. But he is the most sucsessful Bond. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted April 26, 2004 What does this all prove? Denzel owns you all and is, arguably, the biggest drawing actor today(Hanks & Gibson might pose competition). You could make a better case for a half dozen actors, hell even Pierce Brosnan who's had four huge grossers over the last nine years. Four huge grossers? Goldeneye - $106 million gross, $80 million budget. Tomorrow Never Dies - $125 million gross, $110 million budget. The World Is Not Enough - $126 million gross, $135 million budget. Die Another Day - $161 million gross, $142 million budget. Die Another Day is the only movie I would call close to huge. A huge gross is atleast a $200 million gross. But he is the most sucsessful Bond. Not really. In terms of actual gross he is, but for the time the Connery Bonds, especially Goldfinger ($399,789,000 in today's funds) & Thunderball ($451,044,000) were more successful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted April 26, 2004 What does this all prove? Denzel owns you all and is, arguably, the biggest drawing actor today(Hanks & Gibson might pose competition). You could make a better case for a half dozen actors, hell even Pierce Brosnan who's had four huge grossers over the last nine years. Four huge grossers? Goldeneye - $106 million gross, $80 million budget. Tomorrow Never Dies - $125 million gross, $110 million budget. The World Is Not Enough - $126 million gross, $135 million budget. Die Another Day - $161 million gross, $142 million budget. Die Another Day is the only movie I would call close to huge. A huge gross is atleast a $200 million gross. But he is the most sucsessful Bond. Kahran already covered it, TB and GF are both two of the high grossing films of all time when adjusted for inflation. And yes Mole, those are big grosses, especially when you consider that with Bonds the international grosses are a lot bigger than the US ones. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SamoaRowe 0 Report post Posted April 26, 2004 Very disappointing second week for Kill Bill Vol. 2. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted April 27, 2004 So Brosnan is a huge draw cause he can step into the role of James Bond and make money? Hanks is easily #1, Gibson holds well when he makes action or some crappy women movie about a man admitting men are morons (wow, thanks Mel). Hanks seems to be the only one now who can carry anything. The Ladykillers didn't do huge but it would have been much worse without Hanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted April 27, 2004 Considering Timothy Dalton's crappy run as Bond at the box office I'd say Brosnan drawing money as Bond is actually a decent feat. I dunno if we're just talking male stars here, but here's someone whose drawing power is a bit startling: Sandra Bullock. Most people would consider her a fairly big star but it seems like every piece of crap vehicle she's in make about 90 million. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
