Pre-Order Horizon: An American Saga Chapter 1 (4k UHD) (Blu-ray) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

Who then?

Almost no one. In general, audiences seem to be more driven by subject matter and underlying IP than a specific star.

It probably shouldn’t be as surprising as I sometimes find it to be. The era of movie stars existed when most stars played similar variations on the same persona, we knew little of their personal lives and readily assumed they were playing versions of themselves, and their projects tended to be variations on a theme. If you were going to see a Cary Grant movie, it wasn’t just the actor but the type of movie Grant made. Now, with the popularity of method acting and disappearing into a role, there’s really very little similarity built into projects. If you like one Christian Bale film, it’s entirely possible that none of his other performances or films are anything like what you liked in the one you saw, so the name alone doesn’t mean as much anymore.

 

[Tino]

Christopher Nolan.

Not an actor.

 

[Tino]

Almost no one

I agree. But name an actor other than Cruise that can “open” a film better than him. There are none that I can think of. In my opinion, his name alone builds interest in general audiences.

And that’s quite a feat to do that for going on 5 decades.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I agree. But name an actor other than Cruise that can “open” a film better than him. There are none that I can think of. In my opinion, his name alone builds interest in general audiences.

And that’s quite a feat to do that for going on 5 decades.

My point was simply the industry has changed so much even over the last two or three years that even Cruise can’t open a film as he used to. It’s through no fault of his own, and I’d agree that he was the last movie star standing, but with the most recent Mission Impossible movie having lost money, I think that’s over for him.

It’s now pretty much entirely based on what the underlying IP is, not who is in it.

 

[Jake Lipson]

but with the most recent Mission Impossible movie having lost money, I think that’s over for him.

Dead Reckoning made $566 million worldwide. That would easily have been enough to make money if the production budget hadn't been $290 million. I would say Cruise is still a star, but I also think all the studios really need to look at how much money they're spending to make these movies. Fallout was the highest-grossing M:I movie and was extremely well-received critically, so making Dead Reckoning was a no-brainer. Spending much as they did to do so was the problem. (Of course, the stops and starts due to COVID increased its budget, but I don't think COVID can be blamed for all of it.)

 

[Wayne Klein]

Dead Reckoning made $566 million worldwide. That would easily have been enough to make money if the production budget hadn't been $290 million. I would say Cruise is still a star, but I also think all the studios really need to look at how much money they're spending to make these movies. Fallout was the highest-grossing M:I movie and was extremely well-received critically, so making Dead Reckoning was a no-brainer. Spending much as they did to do so was the problem. (Of course, the stops and starts due to COVID increased its budget, but I don't think COVID can be blamed for all of it.)

May have been the biggest grossing but it was like a collection of set pieces with a virtually (pardon the pun) non-existent plot.

 

[Wayne Klein]

A western epic seems like a hard sell today.

 

[Tino]

My point was simply the industry has changed so much even over the last two or three years that even Cruise can’t open a film as he used to.

And I agree Josh. But my point is he is the only actor that can still open a film. Even if it’s not like he used to.

Put it this way. If you had to choose an actor to open a film. Who would you choose? Is there anyone currently more bankable than Cruise?

Edit: sorry for going off topic a bit.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

And I agree Josh. But my point is he is the only actor that can still open a film. Even if it’s not like he used to.

Put it this way. If you had to choose an actor to open a film. Who would you choose? Is there anyone currently more bankable than Cruise?

Edit: sorry for going off topic a bit.

I guess i disagree that his name can open a film. Look at The Mummy, look at American Made, look at the last Mission Impossible film, look at Oblivion and look at Edge of Tomorrow. It’s not that I don’t like Cruise of those films but that’s a list of stuff over the past decade that either just barely broke even or lost money.

If I were greenlighting a big budget project, I would be looking solely at the IP involved. The only exception I’d make is if it was a Christopher Nolan film - he’s been able to successfully brand himself as equivalent to a franchise and he’s the only one I’d risk a $200 million budget on if the underlying property wasn’t already a sure thing.

I’d take chances on more modestly budgeted projects with Zendaya, Timothee Chalamet, maybe Emma Stone.

But if it’s me I’m just not making commitments to individuals on huge budget affairs until the theatrical marketplace stabilizes and we get a better understanding of what people are willing to pay to see.

 

[Malcolm R]

Internet and social media also allows us to know more about "stars" personalities and politics than anyone ever used to which can affect their popularity and bankability if there are things revealed that offend people or they disagree with. Most stars of yesteryear were mostly known only by their movies or occasional interviews in media.

Cruise has been around long enough that we know lots about his personality, relationships, and opinions on various issues. There's a certain percentage of the movie-going audience that will simply not watch any of his films no matter the subject or reviews. That can affect any modern celebrity or older actors with lengthy careers.

The messy departure from Yellowstone got lots of press before Horizon was released and may have led fans of that show to turn their back on Costner. That likely would not have happened 25 years ago.

 

[Bryan^H]

We are also in an era of "influencers"-- YouTube, TikTok, and Twitch streaming "stars". They can be viewed as direct competition (especially for younger people) of the modern movie actor.
It is unprecedented, and in my honest opinion sort of sad. Mainly because the mystique of big movie stars is pretty much gone, and some big name Youtube personalities working out of their bedroom have more mystery to them.

 

[Tino]

I guess i disagree that his name can open a film

And I guess I disagree with your disagreement. Cheers.

 

[TravisR]

deleted

 

[Robert Crawford]

Can we get back to "Horizon: An American Saga"! Enough with the star power conversation.

 

[Robert Harris]

I guess i disagree that his name can open a film. Look at The Mummy, look at American Made, look at the last Mission Impossible film, look at Oblivion and look at Edge of Tomorrow. It’s not that I don’t like Cruise of those films but that’s a list of stuff over the past decade that either just barely broke even or lost money.

If I were greenlighting a big budget project, I would be looking solely at the IP involved. The only exception I’d make is if it was a Christopher Nolan film - he’s been able to successfully brand himself as equivalent to a franchise and he’s the only one I’d risk a $200 million budget on if the underlying property wasn’t already a sure thing.

I’d take chances on more modestly budgeted projects with Zendaya, Timothee Chalamet, maybe Emma Stone.

But if it’s me I’m just not making commitments to individuals on huge budget affairs until the theatrical marketplace stabilizes and we get a better understanding of what people are willing to pay to see.

I believe these actors are all over-exposed, which will help neither the actors or their films.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Who then?

That's the question. It does seem that what opens well in cinemas does not have to do much with the star. I think if they put a bunch of stars, or well known actors in something that helps, but mostly it seems the content has to be well known franchise content or some sort of IP. Is the content known and does it resonate with the public somehow, and then does it generate buzz that causes people to feel they have to see it to be part of the public discourse about it.

Barbie to me was an interesting case. There were a couple stars in it, both did a good job in the film but in all honestly, I think the film could have hit with other actors. It did not have to do with Robbie and Gosling, it somehow just had to do with how the film generated buzz that caused people to flock to the theater for it. I don't think it was really buzz from the marketing either, it was just organic buzz from people that somehow turned the film into an event picture.

Even the story in the film, had I read that, I would have said "This is not a hit!" because it was this oddball story about women aging, what happens to their bodies, how they get treated poorly in the world, the depression that sets in from this, leading to thoughts of death and a grand finale visit to the genecologist. I mean really?

I saw it with a bunch of women that wanted to go to it, in a packed theater with females ranging from 5 to probably 75 and while I was impressed with the film and performances, the audience in the theater did not react much to the film. There were small scattered bits of laughter and a lot of head scratching. The women I was with rated it from barely mediocre to terrible. I, not really the audience for this film, was the only one that was impressed with it. Mainly because it was in no way what I was expecting.

So, yeah, how do you predict what will cause a film to hit? Basically, I see people do this and they predict the obvious big franchise stuff will hit and the stuff that is not connected to a franchise will flop. Well, that's not hard to do. Of course, a giant franchise film that has massive promotion is more likely to hit, it's got the huge advantage of being wildly promoted. It already has a built-in audience.

I think Costner literally took the Field of Dreams approach to this film. If he built it, they will come...they in this case being fans of Yellowstone. However, what attracted people to Yellowstone? Was it Costner or was it whatever the story was? I've never watched Yellowstone, I saw a few minutes of it at one point, it looked kind of soapy to me, and I turned it off. I've never seen a full episode.

I've heard the Western genre has made a bit of a comeback, maybe it has, I have no idea, but I think Costner thought it had. Maybe if he had packed the film with many more stars it would have attracted a wider audience. I do think now you can't bank as much on one star, you need a bunch. He could have done that, because the film had plenty of parts to fill out.

Would that have helped? Maybe.

I think what happened here was sort of the opposite of what Costner expected. Instead of the audience that watches Yellowstone coming out to see this, they mostly decided they would wait until it is streaming to watch it. I think the size of the project made them feel like this would be better to watch at home. Costner, like it or not for him, is not a big movie star anymore, he's a TV star now. Maybe he could succeed with another series, people expect to see him on TV, but he is not a draw to get people into a cinema now.

I think some of us go because we love Westerns and trust Costner to make a good one...but let's be honest, the audience that feels that way about this film is probably small. We are not a group as large as the fanbase for something like Harry Potter.

 

[Keith Cobby]

I think with the odd exception like Oppenheimer where Nolan's body of work continues to make him a big draw, the only films doing good theatrical business are family movies. Westerns appeal mainly (overwhelmingly) to men and this audience is small. Cinema has changed for good, a few films will do well but most won't cover their costs and the industry will continue to shrink.

 

[JoshZ]

I think he did something that other rich artists should do more often, which is to invest in the projects they believe in, where the project itself is the reward, and where it doesn’t really matter if they make their money back or not. Costner was a rich movie star before he made Horizon and he’ll still be one when he finishes making Horizon. What is the point of making more money than you can spend in a lifetime if you can’t use it to pursue your passions? This shouldn’t be controversial or a mark of scorn. More people should do this. Studios lose money on movies they don’t even believe in all the time - it shouldn’t be abnormal or a negative thing if an artist chooses to embark on a project that might not make a profit, particularly when no one is harmed in the process.

Believing in a project and being smart about how you make it are two different things. As I said earlier, had Costner made Horizon as a TV series, it probably would have been successful. He could've gotten his passion project made and seen by an appreciative audience.

But because he was stuck in his head that this had to be a four-part theatrical event, which was a next-to-impossible sell for something not based on an existing IP (e.g. a popular book series like Harry Potter, Hunger Games, etc.), he lost the audience and risks not being able to complete the story as planned.

 

[Garysb]

Anyone care to dispute what has been said in articles about this film series appealing more to older movie goers and they have not returned to theaters nearly as much as other movie goers since Covid? That seems a pretty simple explanation.

 

[Malcolm R]

I don't know that there's anything to dispute about the age of the audience. Opening weekend reports said that nearly half of the audience for Horizon was aged 55+. The only dispute might be that these older people are unwilling to go to a theater. They just may not be interested in this film. Just because you're over 50 doesn't mean you want to see every western that comes along.

The film is also doing almost no business internationally. It's opened in a dozen countries or more and hasn't cleared $500,000 in any of them.