George is not a moviestar

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 

New York Post


KYLE SMITH


ENTERTAINMENT


A string of box-office beatings prove George Clooney is not a star


By Kyle Smith


May 27, 2015 | 11:41pm


With his under-performing film “Tomorrowland,” George Clooney has once again taken a hit at the box office.Photo: NY Post photo composite


It’s time for Hollywood to face facts: George Clooney is not a star.


If you matched them up head-to-head,Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson would crush him — and I don’t just mean literally.


Clooney’s latest is the gargantuan flop“Tomorrowland” — a $190 million bomb(not including $100 million or so in worldwide marketing costs) that looks like it’s going to gross a little more than half of that at the North American box office.


It’s delicately being referred to as an underperformer because no one in Hollywood wants to hurt the fragile petals of Clooney’s feelings.


The failure of this supposed tentpole release is yet another sign that Clooney, who has been headlining movies for 19 years, just doesn’t sell tickets. If his movies took in a dollar’s profit for every magazine cover and breathless infotainment tidbit on him, they’d earn more money than they actually do at the box office.


Stars like Johnson get fans excited enough to actually go to the movies. Clooney doesn’t.


One role for which he was perfect — Danny Ocean — has created a lot of value for movie studios. Apart from the three “Ocean’s” movies, the only other time he ever toplined a major hit was “The Perfect Storm” in 2000 — a movie whose star was a wave. Clooney wasn’t pictured on the poster of that one and barely featured in the ads.


Except in those four films, audience interest has been sparse.


From “One Fine Day” (1996) to “Batman & Robin” (1997) to “Solaris” (2002) to “Intolerable Cruelty” (2003) to “The Good German” (2006) to “Leatherheads” (2008) to “The Men Who Stare at Goats” (2009) to “The Ides of March” (2011) to “The Monuments Men” (2014), if Clooney was the main attraction, the movie was somewhere between a disappointment and a flop.


A couple of his Oscar-bait movies, “Up in the Air” and “The Descendants,” maybe broke even. It’s hard to say. Running a simultaneous Oscar campaign and general publicity campaign is so expensive that it might have eaten up most or all of the apparent profit on these seemingly modestly budgeted films.


Of his 25 starring movies, four made a significant amount of money — that’s a .160 batting average.


That ain’t cleanup hitter. That isn’t even big-league. If Clooney were a shortstop, his only prayer of staying on the team would be if he were the owner’s son.


OF CLOONEY’S 25 STARRING MOVIES, FOUR MADE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY — THAT’S A .160 BATTING AVERAGE. THAT AIN’T A CLEANUP HITTER. THAT ISN’T EVEN BIG-LEAGUE.


It’s not like Hollywood lacks for stars, defined as “people who actually sell tickets.” Again, look at Johnson: His notorious flop “Hercules,” from last year, still managed to gross $73 million in North America, $243 worldwide.


That’s better than any of Clooney’s movies has done since “Ocean’s Thirteen” eight years ago.


Johnson’s “Journey 2: The Mysterious Island” didn’t land him on the cover of GQ — but so what? It banked $335 million worldwide. Clooney has only starred in two movies that did better than that in his entire career (the first two “Ocean’s” films).


By contrast, Johnson’s three “Fast and Furious” films are by far the three highest-grossing entries in that seven-film series. Hell, even Johnson’s dumb “Tooth Fairy” movie did better than most of Clooney’s.


If the success of “Gravity,” which grossed more than Clooney’s five preceding live-action star vehicles combined, is any indication, any producer hiring the actor for his movie would be best advised to kill him off in the first 20 minutes. (Sandra Bullock, on the other hand, has top-lined four hugely profitable films in just the past six years.)


Clooney isn’t “America’s Leading Man” (Vanity Fair, in 2006, breathlessly promoting his flop “The Good German”) or “The Last Movie Star” (Time magazine, 2008, breathlessly promoting his flop “Michael Clayton”).


Clooney isn’t even a movie star. He’s just a guy who keeps getting highly paid to make movies nobody wants to see.

I don't like most of Johnson's films-they're silly and bad films! Seeing journey 2 in theater was a nightmare!
Nevertheless, many bad films do sell.
George's interest is in those small films with depth in social issues. He gets to direct and produce the films he wants to make. That is the definition of star power.

Weird article. George is without a doubt a film star, in a way that 'the rock' could only ever dream of being.

It's odd to say that film stars are only measured on their earnings - being a star means reaching a level of fame that transcends pretty much everything. Yes, obviously an actor has to have had a lot of hit films in order to have achieved that level of fame but it certainly isn't all about headlining Hollywood blockbusters. By that measure Elijah Wood is a film star. So is Sam Worthington. And the cast of Harry Potter, Transformers and so on and so on.

George has rarely strayed into the field of box office block busters - I'd say his last attempt was Gravity which didn't do too badly and The Perfect Storm/Batman. Other than that, he's gone for mid-level films that have all been successful but were never meant to rake in the billions.

Yes, it looks like Tomorrowland isn't going to be the next Avatar but I think it's way too early to call this a flop.

quality is as bankable ?


how many still famous
known
interesting movies
weren't a box office hit ?

do movie makers look for money only
or message too ?


but
at the end
the result is the equipe job
in good and bad

How many awards has Johnson acquired for acting, producing and directing?  Think this article misses the point of how George sees himself in the movie industry and the impact he wants to have on the quality of filmmaking.

Katiedot wrote:Weird article.  George is without a doubt a film star, in a way that 'the rock' could only ever dream of being.  

It's odd to say that film stars are only measured on their earnings - being a star means reaching a level of fame that transcends pretty much everything.  Yes, obviously an actor has to have had a lot of hit films in order to have achieved that level of fame but it certainly isn't all about headlining Hollywood blockbusters.  By that measure Elijah Wood is a film star.  So is Sam Worthington. And the cast of Harry Potter, Transformers and so on and so on.

George has rarely strayed into the field of box office block busters - I'd say his last attempt was Gravity which didn't do too badly and The Perfect Storm/Batman.  Other than that, he's gone for mid-level films that have all been successful but were never meant to rake in the billions.  

Yes, it looks like Tomorrowland isn't going to be the next Avatar but I think it's way too early to call this a flop.

You are right, but also he s not offered roles offered to stars Tom Hank Liam Neeson Tom Cruise.Studio know George won't do it!!! don't ask.He lose lose by making himself specialised.  

Could be just run bad bad luck.

Kyle Smith hasn't said a nice thing about anyone or anything since the day he was born. He's the NY Post's smug, obnoxious prince of snark who disses everyone and everything that comes his way. IMO he's a jealous little no-talent whose column makes a perfect bird cage liner.

(Not my favorite person. Can you tell? )

YAY Lizzy....glad to hear your opinion.  

Donnamarie wrote:  Think this article misses the point of how George sees himself in the movie industry and the impact he wants to have on the quality of filmmaking.

Exactly. They're judging him by a measure that he doesn't consider all that important. What's that expression about how a fish will always consider itself to be a loser when compared to a bird because it can't fly? Something like that, anyway. I'd bet a lot of money that George would rather become a regular cast member of the Kardashians tv show than have 'the rock''s Hollywood career!

Alisonfan wrote: You are right, but also he s not offered roles offered to stars Tom Hank Liam Neeson Tom Cruise.Studio know George won't do it!!! don't ask.He lose lose by making himself specialised.  

Do you really think he's losing out? It's not something he's interested in doing - and doesn't need to do.

LizzyNY wrote:Kyle Smith hasn't said a nice thing about anyone or anything since the day he was born. He's the NY Post's smug, obnoxious prince of snark who disses everyone and everything that comes his way. IMO he's a jealous little no-talent whose column makes a perfect bird cage liner.

Oooh! Does he post in the Amal Clooney threads a lot?

I do not agree on the article, George is definitely a moviestar but I also think that got it a few films in addition to the three Ocean that were funny movies but certainly not masterpieces. I own all his films in DVD and occasionally about them but not about them because the film is so beautiful, intense and deep, but simply because he's there, because he's handsome, charming, funny and act well. If instead about "Invictus" is not about why Matt Damon is handsome, nice etc. but because the film moves me always. There is no film of George I from emotion if not him.

LizzyNY wrote:Kyle Smith hasn't said a nice thing about anyone or anything since the day he was born. ...

But it sounds like he wants to have Dwayne Johnson's babies.

But if I remember correctly there has been other articles in the NY Post dissing G. I think the last one was written by a woman.

Katiedot wrote:

LizzyNY wrote:Kyle Smith hasn't said a nice thing about anyone or anything since the day he was born. He's the NY Post's smug, obnoxious prince of snark who disses everyone and everything that comes his way. IMO he's a jealous little no-talent whose column makes a perfect bird cage liner.

Oooh!  Does he post in the Amal Clooney threads a lot?  

Sorry, Katie, but that's probably me on my cranky days!

Way2Old - I don't what his deal is with The Rock, but you're 100% right. I think he's in looove!
I think he picks on George because he hates the fact that if he lived to be a million he could never be half the man that George is. That, and the fact that he probably couldn't follow the plot of any of George's movies without a grown-up sitting there explaining it to him!