Iron Man 3 vs Man of Steel

Originally posted by Golgo13
The poster wasn't talking about house hold names, but movie stardom. Patrick Stewart and Anthony Hopkings aren't really box office draws. Sure, they are house hold names, but who do you honestly think makes more money? Hopkins or Crowe in their prime? I say Crowe and his box office numbers prove this.

Besides Liam Neeson, those guys aren't bigger than Crowe.

Crowe made one or two great movies. Hopkins and Stewart add a legitimacy to a movie just by being in it, and appeal to a wider audience than Crowe does, especially when you take in to account their careers.

If you really think Crowe will affect MOS' draw that heavily, then I can't help but think that you're wrong, especially with how small his role is.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Crowe made one or two great movies. Hopkins and Stewart add a legitimacy to a movie just by being in it, and appeal to a wider audience than Crowe does, especially when you take in to account their careers.

If you really think Crowe will affect MOS' draw that heavily, then I can't help but think that you're wrong, especially with how small his role is.

Nobody is saying Crowe will affect MOS BO heavily, he's just part of the piece to get some draw. Just like his movies in the past. And judging by his BO past, I say he's right. Russell crowe has a good average.

And I don't think he's right, but that's me.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are decent actors for their roles.

But don't compare them to Tommy Lee, Hopkins and Gary Oldman and Patrick Stewart. Just don't.

Russell maybe because of Les Miserables. But not the other two.

Diane Lane has been nominated for an Oscar and Globes. Patrick Stewart has not. Kevin Costner has won similar awards and in his prime was a super star.

Currently Hopkins isn't a big draw. And Gary Oldman isn't in the same league as a draw as Crowe. The number support this. Gary Oldman isn't a leading man, similar to Crowe, so they can't be compared.

Lets not hold our arguments behind accomplishments in regards to rewards in cinematic accolades.

Because as far as the public is concerned those are full of shit.

Patrick Stewart is higher compared to Diane Lane to the general intellectual public in regards to who is the better actor.....admit it.

Kevin Costner? Compared to Anthony Hopkins????? cmon!

Originally posted by the ninjak
Lets not hold our arguments behind accomplishments in regards to rewards in cinematic accolades.

Because as far as the public is concerned those are full of shit.

Patrick Stewart is higher compared to Diane Lane to the general intellectual public in regards to who is the better actor.....admit it.

Kevin Costner? Compared to Anthony Hopkins????? cmon!

I never said Diane Lane> Stewart or Costner> Hopkins. We're talking Russell Crowe. In his PRIME, Kevin Costner was a bigger draw than Hopkins. I'm simply going by NUMBERS. Look it up on Boxofficemojo. Both Crowe and Costner had HUGE numbers at the box office compared to your guys lists. It's simply fact.

And how is it at all relevant to MOS, even if it's true?

Look, I think the chosen actors are great for their roles.
Unless they cheese it up too much (which personally Costner and Lane tend to do).

The argument of who has the most accolades and who is a box office draw just brings me out.

Originally posted by -Pr-
And how is it at all relevant to MOS, even if it's true?

Because like u said it will help the box office.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Look, I think the chosen actors are great for their roles.
Unless they cheese it up too much (which personally Costner and Lane tend to do).

The argument of who has the most accolades and who is a box office draw just brings me out.

You forgot amy adams who is one of the biggest actresses today.

Originally posted by Golgo13
Because like u said it will help the box office.

I honestly don't see how Costner or Crowe would do any more to help a box office draw than Neeson, Stewart or Hopkins.

Sure, they used to be massive stars, but that ship has long since sailed. They'll assist, sure, but not in any really large way.

I wouldn't put Nesson and Stewart in the same category as Costner.

Originally posted by Golgo13
You forgot amy adams who is one of the biggest actresses today.

I'll admit that Amy is a fascinating choice for Lois Lane.

She is an enchanting actress. For them to choose a Redhead for a character famous throughout the years as being a brunette shows their faith in her representation.

I trust Amy Adams a hell of a lot more than I ever trusted Bosworth.

Having CAN ad appeal. Not all the time, but it can. Besides russell crow just came off of a hit and costner us back wiyh respect with that tv show he is in.

lol @ some of the arguments.... as far as I know Crowe is only in this maybe 5-10 minutes, Costner most likely early in the beginning but then we all know he dies.. Amy Adams seems in the wrong place but will judge after I see Man of Steel.. MOS will clearly rise and fall on the shoulders of Henry Cavil who WB/DC liken to an unknown actor by the name of Chris Hemsworth , of course we all know that Chris's star power is over the roof ...

after one week Iron Man 3 $680 million worldwide ( $175.3 here/$504.8 foreign).. clearly Iron Man 3 will be the bigger money maker as I have said that I believe Man of Steel will make $400-600 million worldwide which may not help the film to be a success as I have found out that it cost $200 to make but that isn't including marketing..

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/movies/iron-man-3-delivers-a-punch-at-the-box-office.html?ref=arts&_r=0

I'm guessing MOS will end up around 600-700 million worldwide.

I still think MOS could flop, sadly. However, if its a good movie with good WOM, I say 7 or 800m. And it could be the superior film.

I'm thinking Man of Steel will do Batman Begins numbers, it's not going to top TDK or TDKR, let alone Iron Man 3.