Thor: Ragnarok The Official News and Speculation Thread - Part 1

[Mike Murdock]

Once again, I never said that Portman's name is enough to make up for a movie not being good. Also, the Thor movies would probably still have made a good amount even without her. But having her there is still a bonus for the studio. And I would argue that Portman is still a much bigger name than either Hemsworth or Hiddleston overall, since neither of them have much of an established body of work outside the MCU (yet).

The question is whether not bringing her back would hurt viewership numbers. The only way that would make sense is if there are people who wouldn't have otherwise seen the movie, but Portman's name makes up for it.

I'd also argue that having an established body of work outside of the MCU is irrelevant since we are talking about the MCU. This is especially true of Hiddleston. There are people who are definitely more interested in Loki than Thor. I suspect there would be people who would skip the movie if Hiddleston wasn't back.

 

[Fosterson]

The question is whether not bringing her back would hurt viewership numbers.The only way that would make sense is if there are people who wouldn't have otherwise seen the movie, but Portman's name makes up for it.

I'd also argue that having an established body of work outside of the MCU is irrelevant since we are talking about the MCU. This is especially true of Hiddleston. There are people who are definitely more interested in Loki than Thor. I suspect there would be people who would skip the movie if Hiddleston wasn't back.

Well, there are a lot of people (more than you would think) that love Jane and would be gutted if she wasn't back in Ragnarok.

Also, I think that the people who would skip Ragnarok if Hiddleston wasn't in it would be negligible. Just like the number of people who would skip Civil War if Bucky wasn't in it would be negligible. Thor is still an immensely popular character in his own right and the recent news that Hulk will be in Ragnarok is only going to be more of an incentive for folks to go see this movie.

I ask again, why should a female character's worthiness to be in a major franchise be based around the *allegations* that her actor is box-office poison, when the same criteria are never applied to male characters?

 

[Mike Murdock]

Bucky doesn't have the same popularity as Hiddleston, particularly among the female audience. I know people who saw TDW because of him and I suspect Marvel saw that it would happen (which is why they made his role bigger at the expense of Malekith).

 

[JtheDreamer]

Well, there are a lot of people (more than you would think) that love Jane and would be gutted if she wasn't back in Ragnarok.

Also, I think that the people who would skip Ragnarok if Hiddleston wasn't in it would be negligible. Just like the number of people who would skip Civil War if Bucky wasn't in it would be negligible. Thor is still an immensely popular character in his own right and the recent news that Hulk will be in Ragnarok is only going to be more of an incentive for folks to go see this movie.

I ask again, why should a female character's worthiness to be in a major franchise be based around the *allegations* that her actor is box-office poison, when the same criteria are never applied to male characters?

Who are these people who have this unabashed love for Portman's Jane? She's a very forgettable character in the MCU based on the material she's been given.

IMO only people who'd miss her are the fanboys with crushes. Other than that, the franchise wouldn't miss a beat without her.

 

[JtheDreamer]

But then I ask the question again: Why bother hiring high profile actors in a movie when they could get a cheaper cast for it?

Continuity perhaps.

She only grossed $6million in 2015. To put that in perspective, Jennifer Lawrence made $52 million.

http://www.newsday.com/entertainmen...rld-s-highest-paid-actress-of-2015-1.10759403

High profile? Not so much anymore. This franchise is driven by Hiddleston/Hemsworth and it could be argued that Hiddleston is sneakily the top dog.

 

[HunBoy]

Mark Ruffalo on his role in Thor: Ragnarok:

I play Dr. Bruce Banner, and occasionally I turn into a big green, mean monster. I am excited to keep coming back to this role. I see a lot of space for it to grow. I feel like there’s a lot of cool stuff to explore still, especially the relationship between Banner and Hulk. Hopefully, we’ll see the two of them in a scene together. That would be cool!

 

[take3]

that would be cool indeed

 

[ImSGirl95]

Тhor 3 will be a blast!
This info definitelly reminds me of the "Hulk vs Thor" animated movie.

 

[TheVision]

No Jane please. That stuff should be left out of Ragnarok. I want to see a Thor movie focused on Thor, not his little goofy scientist gang.

 

[chamber-music]

People put way too much stock in actors 'draw' with audiences.

This isn't the 20th century where people would flock to see 'movie stars'.

These days the franchise is the draw. People like actors in particular roles but it doesn't mean they turn out for any movie they appear in.

Just because people liked RDJ as Iron Man or Hugh Jackman as Wolverine it doesn't mean they turn out for whatever else movie they put out.

 

[Dr. Evil]

People put way too much stock in actors 'draw' with audiences.

This isn't the 20th century where people would flock to see 'movie stars'.

These days the franchise is the draw. People like actors in particular roles but it doesn't mean they turn out for any movie they appear in.

Just because people liked RDJ as Iron Man or Hugh Jackman as Wolverine it doesn't mean they turn out for whatever else movie they put out.

Case in point: The Judge and Pan

 

[Mjölnir]

People put way too much stock in actors 'draw' with audiences.

This isn't the 20th century where people would flock to see 'movie stars'.

These days the franchise is the draw. People like actors in particular roles but it doesn't mean they turn out for any movie they appear in.

Just because people liked RDJ as Iron Man or Hugh Jackman as Wolverine it doesn't mean they turn out for whatever else movie they put out.

I haven't seen the discussion as saying that the stars are the main draws, I saw a discussion going around that someone said that Portman doesn't draw anyone. That's a significant difference.

While movie stars are not what they were in terms of getting people in the seats their drawing power is still relevant. If it wasn't no studio would ever pay the big money for a big star when they could get a cheaper actor with the same acting chops (it's rarely pure acting prowess that makes you a big earner) and make the same amount of money. That's just basic business. The Big Short is using the actor names as the main selling point (Bale, Carell, Gosling and Pitt) because it's a special thing to get that many famous

 

[chamber-music]

I didn't say name recognition doesn't help draw in an audience. I said it isn't the force it once was and people over emphasise the value of it.

In terms of the business, actors and actresses always have their agents demand what they think they are worth (usually the most amount of money they think they can get). Just because Hollywood pays actors a lot of money it doesn't mean they are worth it. Adam Sandler is one of the highest paid actors in Hollywood but he also makes the list of the actors who make the least amount of return on that investment.

Also few actors rarely get paid the high multi-million dollar per movie paycheck that they used to. Actors get a small salary but back end deals such as a certain percent of the movie gross.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/19550482/brad-pitt-says-big-hollywood-salaries-dont-work-now
http://screenrant.com/robert-downey-jr-avengers-salary-50-million-niall-172173/

Actors essentially get a movie performance related bonus that bumps up their salary.

The Big Short isn't out yet so who knows how that will do at the box office. Obviously they are marketing the film on the actors because despite being on the best-seller list the book isn't a household name.

 

[Mjölnir]

I didn't say name recognition doesn't help draw in an audience. I said it isn't the force it once was and people over emphasise the value of it.

In terms of the business, actors and actresses always have their agents demand what they think they are worth (usually the most amount of money they think they can get). Just because Hollywood pays actors a lot of money it doesn't mean they are worth it. Adam Sandler is one of the highest paid actors in Hollywood but he also makes the list of the actors who make the least amount of return on that investment.

Also few actors rarely get paid the high multi-million dollar per movie paycheck that they used to. Actors get a small salary but back end deals such as a certain percent of the movie gross.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/19550482/brad-pitt-says-big-hollywood-salaries-dont-work-now
http://screenrant.com/robert-downey-jr-avengers-salary-50-million-niall-172173/

Actors essentially get a movie performance related bonus that bumps up their salary.

The Big Short isn't out yet so who knows how that will do at the box office. Obviously they are marketing the film on the actors because despite being on the best-seller list the book isn't a household name.

I know, I just pointed out that I didn't think that was what people had been discussing. I certainly agree that the day of the movie star dominating the box office is gone.

As for Adam Sandler, that probably has a lot to do with that he produces all his movies.

I'm not expecting The Big Short to be a box office juggernaut, I was just using it as an example of that actors still have some worth, even though it isn't what it once was.

 

[rashad]

Case in point: The Judge and Pan

*cough* Blackhat

Total Domestic Gross - $7,889,395
Budget - $70M

 

[terry78]

Yeah, there are only a handful of actors right now that people will go see simply because they're in it. Tom Cruise, Denzel Washington, Tom Hanks....people will go to their stuff.There are a lot of thespians in the game now, but they ain't opening a movie on their name. It will be due to the subject matter.

 

[Thorne]

All the old stalwarts have had the myth of their stardom cracked if not outright broken. Will Smith was the last one considered to really draw an audience, and even he has had some failures. The right stars can help, but even a great combination of actors might not draw any audience at all (Aloha is a prime example). Bradley Cooper has stared in a slew of the biggest movies of the last several years but no audience comes just to see him.

 

[chamber-music]

Yeah, there are only a handful of actors right now that people will go see simply because they're in it. Tom Cruise, Denzel Washington, Tom Hanks....people will go to their stuff.There are a lot of thespians in the game now, but they ain't opening a movie on their name. It will be due to the subject matter.

Even Denzel's star power has been waning.

Washington made Forbes top ten most overpaid stars list last year.

Denzel's movies in recent years have done fine but not outstanding. It helps that most of his recent movies have been mid budget films. The last movie he was in that cost over $100 million dollars was The Taking of Pelham 123 and that bombed.

Kind of justified that producer in the leaked Sony Emails that said Denzel's tepid box office overseas returns suggests he should not be cast in big-budget movies - or, at least, be paid less.

Denzel and Hanks are 60. The leading man roles are probably going to dry up for them over the next ten years. Cruise is 53 but can pass for a decade younger so he will be around for a while.

 

[Lilbaz]

Tom Hardy draws in crowds. There are a few films that i've watched simply because he was in them. Although i might be biassed as i'm english and loved him in the series the take.

 

[TheVision]

In Hollywood Youre only as good as your last film. Denzel seems to do only forgettable junk these days. So hes choosing those projects, its his fault.

The Marvel actors really shine in these movies but I havent seen many lately where they pick great non MCU movies.

The Judge? Lucy? Blackhat? Foxcatcher? mehhhhh all forgettable

 

[BoredGuy]

Actors don't draw in s**t

good marketing and good timing are pretty much all that sell movies these days

Tom Cruise, Denzel, JLaw, Tom Hanks, RDJ, Scarlett Johansson, Chris Evans, doesn't matter who, they've all had their movies that make jacks***t in between their huge blockbusters; I'd say $10mil plus or minus would be the max difference an actor's name can make on Box Office totals

the sole exception?: Chris Pratt
Apparently, people will go see a s**ty CGI fest of a third sequel to a 20 year old movie as long as his adorable-yet-smelly-lookin-ass is in it

 

[TheVision]

More like Jurassic Fart!! I dont care about that franchise.

I havent seen too many movies worth getting excited about these days. Its basically Marvel and Star Wars right now for me. Hateful Eight is up on my list too. DCs stuff is in limbo, it could go either way.

 

[terry78]

You do a movie for a few reasons: a paycheck gig, you want to work with the cast and crew behind it, or you're gunning for awards bait. And there are those actors that are fans of a property and are chomping at the bit to be in it.

 

[terry78]

Tom Hardy draws in crowds. There are a few films that i've watched simply because he was in them. Although i might be biassed as i'm english and loved him in the series the take.

We'll see how Legend does this Christmas. Hardy has a somewhat recognizable face, but there are still a lot of folks over here that don't know his name.

 

[chamber-music]

Hardy changes up his appearance/accent in movies a lot and isn't that into interviews. Hardy is one of those actors who really isn't interested in the fame or celebrity side of the business. Christian Bale is the same.

Tom Hardy is one of the guys who people are probably only going to know from watching his movies as he won't be in the tabloids or doing talk shows or hosting SNL every week