WrestlingClassics.com Message Board Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» WrestlingClassics.com Message Board » Professional Wrestling & General Discussion 2010 - Current » Justin Bieber vs Tom Cruise : who would win in a shoot? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Justin Bieber vs Tom Cruise : who would win in a shoot?
Matt Farmer from WA
Member
Member # 1177

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Matt Farmer from WA     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why would you take out blockbusters where actors played the same character multiple times? To me that's impressive for an actor to bring a character back.

If you take away the Marvel movies, then you'd have to take away the Mission Impossible franchise for Cruise.

IP: Logged
Gov't Mule
Member
Member # 2440

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gov't Mule     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Farmer from WA:
Why would you take out blockbusters where actors played the same character multiple times? To me that's impressive for an actor to bring a character back.

If you take away the Marvel movies, then you'd have to take away the Mission Impossible franchise for Cruise.

I'm not necessarily taking away Marvel movies, just subtracting names that don't have much more than those on the top of their money list. I like RDJ as an actor better than Cruise, but TC has a much wider list of roles that cashed in.
IP: Logged
John_WIlliamson
Member
Member # 129137

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John_WIlliamson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I certainly wouldn't discount actors who played the same role.

Also, I much prefer Tom Cruise to RDJ as an actor. I actually think Cruise's superstardom and his scientology mean a lot of people forget how good of an actor he really is. Last thing I saw him in was American Made- its hugely enjoyable and he's great in it, carries the whole movie.

IP: Logged
evensout
Member
Member # 5985

Icon 1 posted      Profile for evensout     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
bieber... tom would find out that this ain't the movies.. an actual punch to the kisser hurts...
IP: Logged
King Francis
Member
Member # 24068

Icon 1 posted      Profile for King Francis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Shaving Weezie Jefferson:
quote:
Originally posted by King Francis:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaving Weezie Jefferson:
It's just so weird and random. Do those guys even know each other? Do they "have beef?"

I feel bad for Bieb in a way. Sorta the Michael Jackson thing. Robbed of his childhood and whatnot. But his "fix" is becoming that wacko Stephen Baldwin's son in law and hanging around Jesus nutters.

Cruise is trapped in Scientology. He's supposedly tried to escape several times but they won't let him because he's like their "Pope" at this point. I've seen Katie & Suri riding the train in NYC. Trying their damnedest to be "normal" after all that. At this point though, Cruise is easily the greatest pure movie star who ever lived. I'll debate anyone who says otherwise.

I just don't get this challenge though.

It'd be like me challenging Bob Newhart to step into the Octagon

interested in hearing why Cruise is the GOAT
Pure longevity and box office. No one comes close. Not John Wayne. Not Harrison Ford.
for me Cruise isnt ranked that high but to each as they say.. could be an interesting thread, not derail this one

--------------------
When I said that was the most ignorant thing I ever heard, I didn't realize you were still talking.

IP: Logged
Shaving Weezie Jefferson
Member
Member # 126638

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shaving Weezie Jefferson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gov't Mule:
Here's a list off of the below link (Can't vouch for it's accuracy). If you discount Marvel blockbuster actors that played the same role multiple times, voice actors and people who weren't a lead actor in many of their films (Jackson), it kind of comes down to Cruise, Hanks and Ford. Hanks has a worse average as he was in more films than Cruise or Ford.

https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-star-records/domestic/lifetime-acting/top-grossing-stars

[Rank] [Name] [Dom. Box Office] [#Movies] [Average]

1 Stan Lee $11,884,870,808 48 $247,601,475
2 Samuel L. Jackson $10,456,778,172 134 $78,035,658
3 Frank Welker $7,138,100,360 110 $64,891,821
4 John Ratzenberger $6,590,969,091 48 $137,311,856
5 Bob Bergen $6,285,871,010 59 $106,540,187
6 Robert Downey, Jr. $5,985,870,486 66 $90,695,007
7 Warwick Davis $5,929,438,299 24 $247,059,929
8 Scarlett Johansson $5,331,940,340 48 $111,082,090
9 Andy Serkis $5,162,386,784 32 $161,324,587
10 Harrison Ford $5,089,196,376 53 $96,022,573
11 Morgan Freeman $5,046,399,734 85 $59,369,409
12 Bradley Cooper $4,828,640,383 35 $137,961,154
13 Alan Tudyk $4,797,834,162 35 $137,080,976
14 Tom Hanks $4,788,871,191 62 $77,239,858
15 Paul Bettany $4,775,284,966 31 $154,041,451
16 Gwyneth Paltrow $4,724,350,955 45 $104,985,577
17 Don Cheadle $4,703,891,281 44 $106,906,620
18 Jon Favreau $4,652,877,314 40 $116,321,933
19 Zoe Saldana $4,564,649,350 41 $111,332,911
20 Tom Cruise $4,445,911,540 48 $92,623,157
21 Chris Evans $4,437,340,398 34 $130,510,012
22 Stanley Tucci $4,388,607,336 81 $54,180,337
23 Bill Hader $4,367,388,023 41 $106,521,659
24 Elizabeth Banks $4,342,921,343 52 $83,517,718
25 Chris Pratt $4,294,509,333 28 $153,375,333

I think these are outdated numbers. Cruise is right around 9 billion dollars now, almost always the number one guy on the call sheet. Hanks' drawing power has waned a bit in recent years (and a good chunk of that was from the Toy Story films, which were ensembles).

Sam Jackson is great but he wasn't the main event when it came to the Star Wars and Marvel films he was in. Bob Holly was on a lot of profitable WrestleManias and SummerSlams too but I wouldn't put him on lists with Hogan, Austin, Cena, etc.

Ford's biggest box offices wins were Star Wars and Indiana Jones but he wasn't the sole draw. The gimmick was initially the draw on Star Wars, then himself, Spielberg, and Lucas teaming up was the draw for Indy. Not discounting his box office power but his window of opening a picture solely on it being "a Harrison Ford movie" was brief, and now he generally appears in blockbusters as a major supporter character (think Ender's Game, Cowboys & Aliens, the Jackie Robinson biopic, etc).

Most of Cruise's films from the get-go until today have been greenlighted on the basis that they were "Tom Cruise vehicles." Even Mission Impossible. It was launched not because anyone was longing to reboot a 25 year old (at the time) Peter Graves TV show but because Cruise wanted it made. He and his manager were even handed an entire film studio to run because everything he touched turned to gold.

[ 06-12-2019, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Shaving Weezie Jefferson ]

--------------------
This post isn't about wrestling. It is intended only to mock and criticize Richard Wallner.

IP: Logged
Shaving Weezie Jefferson
Member
Member # 126638

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shaving Weezie Jefferson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Btw Bieber told TMZ he was just joking (I bielieb him) and that Cruise would kick his ass if they fought.

--------------------
This post isn't about wrestling. It is intended only to mock and criticize Richard Wallner.

IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
Shaving Weezie Jefferson
Member
Member # 126638

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shaving Weezie Jefferson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We live in magical times.

--------------------
This post isn't about wrestling. It is intended only to mock and criticize Richard Wallner.

IP: Logged
Shaving Weezie Jefferson
Member
Member # 126638

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shaving Weezie Jefferson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Celebrity boxing promoter Damon Feldman says he just signed Bieber to do a fight. Not with Cruise but a TBA opponent.

--------------------
This post isn't about wrestling. It is intended only to mock and criticize Richard Wallner.

IP: Logged
Wrestling Perspective
Member
Member # 1487

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wrestling Perspective   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gov't Mule:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Farmer from WA:
Why would you take out blockbusters where actors played the same character multiple times? To me that's impressive for an actor to bring a character back.

If you take away the Marvel movies, then you'd have to take away the Mission Impossible franchise for Cruise.

I'm not necessarily taking away Marvel movies, just subtracting names that don't have much more than those on the top of their money list. I like RDJ as an actor better than Cruise, but TC has a much wider list of roles that cashed in.
I don't disagree there are more blockbusters on Cruise's resume, but the current epic Marvel franchise began with Iron Man. That movie's success was in large part due to Robert Downey, Jr. who made the role work in a way few could have conceived.

As for acting chops, obviously it's Downey. But, I think Cruise is sometimes underrated on that front.

--------------------
Fake ... Working Through Wrestling's Past

Check Out Our Book: Olympic Television: Broadcasting The Biggest Show On Earth

IP: Logged
John_WIlliamson
Member
Member # 129137

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John_WIlliamson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wrestling Perspective:


As for acting chops, obviously it's Downey. But, I think Cruise is sometimes underrated on that front. [/QB]

Why is it 'obviously Downey'? I'm really curious on this, and I like Downey in lots of stuff but don't understand why this is is so obvious.

Five performances , not exhaustive and not in any order

-Rain Man
-The Color of Money
-Magnolia
-Risky Business
-A Few Good Men


That's as top level as it gets.

IP: Logged
Steve Yohe
Member
Member # 302

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Yohe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Base this stuff on tickets sold, and then you'll know something. Before TV, people went to the movies 3 or 4 times a week. And they were double features.

I haven't played around with actual statistics. Maybe it would be better to judge stars by the classic movies they made.

If that is the case, don't count out Jimmy Steward...or Gary Grant. Chuck Heston made huge films in the 1950's & 60's. Charley Chaplin? Douglas Fairbanks?

Basing stardom on the grosses of today, doesn't work for me. I care more about good films, than boxoffice numbers.---Yohe

IP: Logged
Happ Hazzard
Member
Member # 4893

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Happ Hazzard     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cruise has more longevity as a top star than just about anyone though. Including those from the golden age of Hollywood.
IP: Logged
John_WIlliamson
Member
Member # 129137

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John_WIlliamson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cruise is around 35 years at the top. Would John Wayne be close? 30 years surely for him?
IP: Logged
John_WIlliamson
Member
Member # 129137

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John_WIlliamson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Yohe:
Base this stuff on tickets sold, and then you'll know something. Before TV, people went to the movies 3 or 4 times a week. And they were double features.

I haven't played around with actual statistics. Maybe it would be better to judge stars by the classic movies they made.

If that is the case, don't count out Jimmy Steward...or Gary Grant. Chuck Heston made huge films in the 1950's & 60's. Charley Chaplin? Douglas Fairbanks?

Basing stardom on the grosses of today, doesn't work for me. I care more about good films, than boxoffice numbers.---Yohe

I agree somewhat but then it's who says something is a classic and how long do you have to wait to classify it as one?

Good topic though

IP: Logged
King Francis
Member
Member # 24068

Icon 1 posted      Profile for King Francis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John_WIlliamson:
Cruise is around 35 years at the top. Would John Wayne be close? 30 years surely for him?

he had some movies in the late 1920's tho not billed in alot of them.. but from 1930 or so till 1976..

--------------------
When I said that was the most ignorant thing I ever heard, I didn't realize you were still talking.

IP: Logged
King Francis
Member
Member # 24068

Icon 1 posted      Profile for King Francis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Yohe:
Base this stuff on tickets sold, and then you'll know something. Before TV, people went to the movies 3 or 4 times a week. And they were double features.

I haven't played around with actual statistics. Maybe it would be better to judge stars by the classic movies they made.

If that is the case, don't count out Jimmy Steward...or Gary Grant. Chuck Heston made huge films in the 1950's & 60's. Charley Chaplin? Douglas Fairbanks?

Basing stardom on the grosses of today, doesn't work for me. I care more about good films, than boxoffice numbers.---Yohe

thats the only way to view them, by the movies they made IMO

--------------------
When I said that was the most ignorant thing I ever heard, I didn't realize you were still talking.

IP: Logged
Gov't Mule
Member
Member # 2440

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gov't Mule     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John_WIlliamson:
I certainly wouldn't discount actors who played the same role.

Neither would I, but you're looking to pare down to a singular box office champ, I would value multiple money roles over one or two
IP: Logged
Gov't Mule
Member
Member # 2440

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gov't Mule     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Yohe:
Base this stuff on tickets sold, and then you'll know something. Before TV, people went to the movies 3 or 4 times a week. And they were double features.

I haven't played around with actual statistics. Maybe it would be better to judge stars by the classic movies they made.

If that is the case, don't count out Jimmy Steward...or Gary Grant. Chuck Heston made huge films in the 1950's & 60's. Charley Chaplin? Douglas Fairbanks?

Basing stardom on the grosses of today, doesn't work for me. I care more about good films, than boxoffice numbers.---Yohe

Well stardom and box office kind of go hand in hand and that's more of the discussion we're having. Best actor and quality films is maybe a separate conversation.

Agree on tickets sold. If someone can find a list like that, I'd love to see it. Or even a $$$ list adjusted for inflation.

[ 06-13-2019, 06:06 AM: Message edited by: Gov't Mule ]

IP: Logged
Kilroy
Member
Member # 53

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kilroy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bieber would kill him.
IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's Business Insider's list of top draws from a year ago, but it's suspect since it has no-one from before the 1970s (pre-1980 actors included Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Robert DeNiro, Harrison Ford, Michael Caine and Robin Williams). Cruise is #9, RDJ #3 and Samuel L. Jackson at the #1 spot. They also used Box Office Mojo's figures, which are not adjusted for inflation.

IMdB's list is different again, but also not adjusted for inflation.

And nearly all the lists I've found are based on the gross of whatever movies the actors were in. Which makes it less of a surprise to see Jackson at the top (or just under it), since he's made more movies than any of the usual suspects on the list (including Caine and DeNiro), at 77 listed.

Interesting to see Stellan Skarsgård so high on the list, but those MCU movies sure helped (he's done over 45 movies in his career). Anthony Daniels makes most lists with a total of 9 films total....and you can guess which ones those were....


ULtimate Movie Rankings do have a "film by ticket sales" listing, so that can help a bit in the discussions (will it surprise anyone to see Gone With The Wind topping the list?).

But for actors? My Google-Fu is pretty good, but I've yet to find anything using ticket sales; it's all about the gross.

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
Shaving Weezie Jefferson
Member
Member # 126638

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shaving Weezie Jefferson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by King Francis:
quote:
Originally posted by John_WIlliamson:
Cruise is around 35 years at the top. Would John Wayne be close? 30 years surely for him?

he had some movies in the late 1920's tho not billed in alot of them.. but from 1930 or so till 1976..
The stuff in the '20s was glorified extra/day player work and I wouldn't count his work in the '30s as "being on top." He was doing low budget B-lister stuff until about 1939.

I'd say his status from 1939 until 1976 is comparable to Cruise. But Wayne dominated in a time in which there was no cable TV, no internet, no video games, fewer big league sports franchises, fewer multiplex cinemas. He was sort of like the rasslin' territories. Protected. Cruise built his career in a field with far more competition, which I find much more impressive honestly.

--------------------
This post isn't about wrestling. It is intended only to mock and criticize Richard Wallner.

IP: Logged
Shaving Weezie Jefferson
Member
Member # 126638

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shaving Weezie Jefferson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John_WIlliamson:
quote:
Originally posted by Wrestling Perspective:


As for acting chops, obviously it's Downey. But, I think Cruise is sometimes underrated on that front.

Why is it 'obviously Downey'? I'm really curious on this, and I like Downey in lots of stuff but don't understand why this is is so obvious.

Five performances , not exhaustive and not in any order

-Rain Man
-The Color of Money
-Magnolia
-Risky Business
-A Few Good Men


That's as top level as it gets. [/QB]

As I've argued many, many times: Dustin Hoffman (who's brilliant always) won an Oscar for Rainman but Cruise carried his ass in that film. The role of Raymond was the easy one. EYE could have played that role and I can't act for sh*it. Cruise deserved the Oscar there.

--------------------
This post isn't about wrestling. It is intended only to mock and criticize Richard Wallner.

IP: Logged
John_WIlliamson
Member
Member # 129137

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John_WIlliamson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Shaving Weezie Jefferson:
quote:
Originally posted by John_WIlliamson:
quote:
Originally posted by Wrestling Perspective:


As for acting chops, obviously it's Downey. But, I think Cruise is sometimes underrated on that front.

Why is it 'obviously Downey'? I'm really curious on this, and I like Downey in lots of stuff but don't understand why this is is so obvious.

Five performances , not exhaustive and not in any order

-Rain Man
-The Color of Money
-Magnolia
-Risky Business
-A Few Good Men


That's as top level as it gets.

As I've argued many, many times: Dustin Hoffman (who's brilliant always) won an Oscar for Rainman but Cruise carried his ass in that film. The role of Raymond was the easy one. EYE could have played that role and I can't act for sh*it. Cruise deserved the Oscar there. [/QB]
Yes, totally agree. He's brilliant in it. He won Best Supporting Actor for Magnolia did he?
IP: Logged
John_WIlliamson
Member
Member # 129137

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John_WIlliamson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The fact that there is more alternatives now than during John Wayne's time also means that Wayne was probably perceived as a bigger star then than Cruise (or any actor) is now.
IP: Logged
Gov't Mule
Member
Member # 2440

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gov't Mule     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John_WIlliamson:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaving Weezie Jefferson:
quote:
Originally posted by John_WIlliamson:
quote:
Originally posted by Wrestling Perspective:


As for acting chops, obviously it's Downey. But, I think Cruise is sometimes underrated on that front.

Why is it 'obviously Downey'? I'm really curious on this, and I like Downey in lots of stuff but don't understand why this is is so obvious.

Five performances , not exhaustive and not in any order

-Rain Man
-The Color of Money
-Magnolia
-Risky Business
-A Few Good Men


That's as top level as it gets.

As I've argued many, many times: Dustin Hoffman (who's brilliant always) won an Oscar for Rainman but Cruise carried his ass in that film. The role of Raymond was the easy one. EYE could have played that role and I can't act for sh*it. Cruise deserved the Oscar there.

Yes, totally agree. He's brilliant in it. He won Best Supporting Actor for Magnolia did he? [/QB]
Nope, only nominated. He did win the Globe.
IP: Logged
John_WIlliamson
Member
Member # 129137

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John_WIlliamson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh OK. Nearly everyone in that could have won an Oscar.

Just checked and see Michael Caine won that year for Cider House Rules.

IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John_WIlliamson:
The fact that there is more alternatives now than during John Wayne's time also means that Wayne was probably perceived as a bigger star then than Cruise (or any actor) is now.

Eh, you can make a reasonable argument in either direction, really. There were more movies being made in "the old days" by the studios, and MGM's old saw of "more stars than are in the heavens" wasn't just wind being blown up anyone's skirts/kilts.

In the 50s, Wayne had competition from Cary Grant, Rock Hudson, Gary Cooper, Charlton Heston and Jimmy Stewart, among a few others. But his box-office gross for that decade (adjusted for inflation) was less than that of Hudson, Sinatra, William Holden, Stewart or Lancaster.

Wayne apparently has a better ranking for the 1940s, but even there, he took a back seat to Bing Crosby, Van Johnson and Walter Brennan! He did, however, beat out Bogie, Tracy, Cooper and Cary Grant....

Now, in the 60s, Wayne was the #2 draw by gross, second only behind Julie Andrews (who, let's face it, had the magic touch that decade). The #3, Paul Newman was (in today's money), over $200,000,000 behind him.

But during the 60s, there probably wasn't a "bigger name", even if the $$$ don't necessarily support it. The Duke was known by then, and was at the very height of his popularity (in the 50s he'd almost certainly have come second to Gable). And it wasn't that there weren't as many stars then doing big numbers: Paul Newman, Richard Burton, Sean Connery, Omar Sharif, Sydney Poitier and Henry Fonda weren't all hiding in the shadows, there.

The gross doesn't always really show an actor's popularity, nor does longevity (or number of films) necessarily make up for how one can (should?) be judged as "the greatest pure movie star". Is it Cruise? Eastwood? Wayne? Gable? Chaplin?

Maybe we need to define "pure movie star" first....

[ 06-13-2019, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Travlr ]

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
Shaving Weezie Jefferson
Member
Member # 126638

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shaving Weezie Jefferson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If Cruise hangs on as a major box office draw for another 5-10 years, I don't even think there will be a credible debate.

--------------------
This post isn't about wrestling. It is intended only to mock and criticize Richard Wallner.

IP: Logged
John_WIlliamson
Member
Member # 129137

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John_WIlliamson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by John_WIlliamson:
The fact that there is more alternatives now than during John Wayne's time also means that Wayne was probably perceived as a bigger star then than Cruise (or any actor) is now.

Eh, you can make a reasonable argument in either direction, really. There were more movies being made in "the old days" by the studios, and MGM's old saw of "more stars than are in the heavens" wasn't just wind being blown up anyone's skirts/kilts.

I don't disagree. My point is that if we had a definite definition for what a movie star is and there was x amount in, say, the 1950s, they *seemed* like bigger stars back then.

Partly because there were less alternatives and fewer means of communication. They seemed out of reach to most people and larger than life. They don't anymore.
That's all I meant and it might not be hugely relevant to the question we are discussing.

And I agree, if Cruise sticks around at the top another ten years then yes. And I don't see why he shouldn't, he looks great now and seems to be in perfect health too.



EDIT: Fixed a format problem. Trav.

[ 06-13-2019, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Travlr ]

IP: Logged
Shaving Weezie Jefferson
Member
Member # 126638

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shaving Weezie Jefferson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Piracy wasn't an issue in Wayne's day either.

Anybody with a cell phone can watch a Tom Cruise movie for free, yet he's still drawing billions in ticket sales.

[ 06-13-2019, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Shaving Weezie Jefferson ]

--------------------
This post isn't about wrestling. It is intended only to mock and criticize Richard Wallner.

IP: Logged
John_WIlliamson
Member
Member # 129137

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John_WIlliamson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep, true too.
IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John_WIlliamson:
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by John_WIlliamson:
The fact that there is more alternatives now than during John Wayne's time also means that Wayne was probably perceived as a bigger star then than Cruise (or any actor) is now.

Eh, you can make a reasonable argument in either direction, really. There were more movies being made in "the old days" by the studios, and MGM's old saw of "more stars than are in the heavens" wasn't just wind being blown up anyone's skirts/kilts.

I don't disagree. My point is that if we had a definite definition for what a movie star is and there was x amount in, say, the 1950s, they *seemed* like bigger stars back then.

Partly because there were less alternatives and fewer means of communication. They seemed out of reach to most people and larger than life. They don't anymore.
That's all I meant and it might not be hugely relevant to the question we are discussing.

I'll agree up to a point. Remember that back in the late 30s and on up to the late60s-early 70s, there were a dozen or more magazines expressly for movie fans about the stars (Photoplay, Modern Screen, Confidential, etc.). These sold millions of copies, and were the print version of what we might think of TMZ or E! today. And they were everywhere.

And another aspect that tends to get neglected today was the impact of the gossip columnist. Not nearly as big a thing today as it was, but Louella Parsons, Walter Winchell, Hedda Hopper kept names in the news with their newspaper columns and radio shows. Ed Sullivan, too (folks tend to forget that his first claim to fame was as a radio and newspaper gossip columnist). And this continued well into the 1960s and 1970s with Rona Barrett and Rex Reed. And they were very pervasive in their day: If you didn't read their column, you heard their radio show and if you didn't do either, you might have seen them on the big screen or at least followed one of their lines of gossip at the water cooler or over a cup of coffee at the neighbour's.

And while Perez Hilton wishes he had the clout of a Parsons or a Hopper, he and his peers of today can't hold a candle to the star-making (and -breaking) ability that they had.

As pervasive as the 'net today and social media? Hard to say; newspapers and radio obviously aren't what they were, nor are the magazines (THR and Variety, which are mostly trade journals, today), regardless of what People and US and even The National Enquirer might try to make us believe.

quote:
And I agree, if Cruise sticks around at the top another ten years then yes. And I don't see why he shouldn't, he looks great now and seems to be in perfect health too.
Given Cruise hit the big time with Risky Business at age 21, and he's 56 or 57 now, he could conceivably keep going for another 20-25 years without much problem. Barring a major scandal or injury (which is not exactly *ahem* impossible for him) he could take the title of longest "at-the-top" movie star in history.

Greatest? Well....let's grab a couple of wet ones and find ourselves a table in the corner.....


EDIT: So many typos...... [Roll Eyes]

[ 06-13-2019, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Travlr ]

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
John_WIlliamson
Member
Member # 129137

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John_WIlliamson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greatest to me will always be Newman. I will watch anything with him and his quality control was pretty exceptional too.

I think he ticks all the boxes.

There's very, very few famous people I would have any interest in meeting but he was one.

Anyway, that's for another day, and it's gonna be a more personal thing than this anyway.

Cruise is great and would beat Bieber.

IP: Logged
John_WIlliamson
Member
Member # 129137

Icon 1 posted      Profile for John_WIlliamson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, I hope 'wet ones' means beer?
IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John_WIlliamson:
Also, I hope 'wet ones' means beer?

Beer, liquor, wine, pop, coffee....whatever whets one's whitsle.....

((Sorry, old navy term, generally meaning "booze", but I'm a bit more inclusive in my old age...))

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WrestlingClassics.com Home Page

Click here to see the WCMB Rules and Regulations

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3