Are Chris Pratt And Jennifer Lawrence Movie Stars?

[jimmy olsen]

If Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence aren't movie stars, than movie stars no longer exist.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/06/17/are-jennifer-lawrence-and-chris-pratt-movie-stars/

6/17/2015 @ 10:00AM 11,147 views
Are Chris Pratt And Jennifer Lawrence Movie Stars?

After much behind the scenes rumblings and a handful of cast changes, Sony finally went and greenlit the original sci-fi drama Passengers yesterday.  Obviously the film crossed the finish line thanks to the blockbuster success of Universal/Comcast Corp.'s  Jurassic World, as Sony's new chief Tom Rothman was initially nervous about greenlighting a franchise-unfriendly original at that $90m price, even with Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt involved. Jennifer Lawrence is getting $20 million plus 30% of the profits once it breaks even (which is a crazy good deal that will remind you of the mid-90′s) while Pratt will have to settle for a mere $12m, or a $2m raise because Rothman and friends waited until Jurassic World made $524m in a five-day worldwide debut. The film will be a fascinating test case for old-school star power. It will be a worthwhile box office test to see if two of the most well-liked and "social media famous" movie stars on the planet right now are actually stand-alone box office draws. We know they are popular and have starred in massively successful franchises. But what is their pull outside of preordained blockbuster franchise-land?

The film stars Chris Pratt as a passenger on a 90-year space voyage to another planet who wakes up ahead of schedule and realizes that he is doomed to die alone. Jennifer Lawrence is the unlucky lady whom he eventually decides to wake up so that he can have companionship. It's a pretty creepy premise, which I suppose works if the Jon Spaihts screenplay is open about the plot's overtones, but I digress. The film was supposed to star Keanu Reeves and Reese Witherspoon back when it was a Weinstein Company project and back when it was budgeted at $35 million. The version we're getting now will cost $90m, trimmed from $120m no-less, and will be directed by Morten Tyldum fresh off The Imitation Game. First of all, let me say that this is how the so-called studio system is supposed to work. Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence made their mark in big franchises and now they are using that capital and would-be drawing power to get an original genre film off the ground. That Rothman was reluctant to commit to a big-scale budget starring two of the bigger stars in Hollywood today because it wasn't sequel-friendly is both dispiriting and not surprising. But the film got greenlit so the so-called system worked.

Now the question remains in terms of who will show up when the film is released in a couple years. There are not a lot of newer movie stars today, outside of explicitly comic actors who do cheaper comic vehicles, who can power a non-franchise film to reasonably big bucks today. So the $90 million question is whether or not Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt among that rare group? Even though Jennifer Lawrence has been a "star" since Winter's Bone back in 2010, such is the current Hollywood landscape that she hasn't had the chance to open a major studio movie all on her own up until this point. Prior to The Hunger Games for Lions Gate Entertainment, she did a few supporting gigs in the likes of Like Crazy and The Beaver, as well as a showy supporting role in X-Men: First Class. Since 2012 she's been dividing her time between Hunger Games movies (of which she is indeed a major component of their respective successes), 20th Century Fox's X-Men sequels (which has seen the role of Mystique beefed up in Days of Future Past and Apocalypse thanks to her popularity), and David O. Russell movies. The Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle were massive hits, grossing $236m worldwide and $251m worldwide respectively. But she was a supporting actor in both films, and American Hustle was an outright ensemble film.

That's not to dismiss her role in American Hustle's $19m wide release debut, but this Christmas's Joy (also O. Russell) will be her first high-profile star vehicle outside of a franchise. Her other "lead role" was the cheapie horror title The House at the End of the Street which was shot before Hunger Games and dropped into theaters in September 2012 by Relativity. The film opened with $12m and eventually earned $39m worldwide on a $10m budget, which is fine but hardly proof of anyone's outright drawing power. Of course we know what happened to Serena, which happened to co-star Bradley Cooper and didn't even make it to wide theatrical release. Of course considering the sad fate of Bradley Cooper's Aloha it may have been the right call. But then that's the idea. Aloha, which starred Cooper, Emma Stone, and Rachel McAdams, had nothing to offer except movie stars in gorgeous scenery, and it was a pretty harsh flop. Jennifer Lawrence in The Hunger Games is worth all the money in the world, but what exactly is her stand-alone drawing power outside of a popular franchise title? We don't know because she hasn't had a real opportunity to show us.

Chris Pratt is an even trickier situation, although I imagine none of what I'm about to write will keep him up at night. To wit, he broke out almost out-of-nowhere to snag high-profile lead roles in Warner Bros./Time Warner Inc.'s The LEGO Movie, Walt Disney's Guardians of the Galaxy, and now Jurassic World. Saying Pratt became a star because of his supporting work in the well-liked, but little-watched Parks and Recreation (which I'm sure we all miss in the saddest fashion) is like saying Andre Braugher was primed for stardom because of Homicide: Life on the Street, and that's coming from someone who actively sought out films like Primal Fear, City of Angels, and Frequency because I was a Homicide junkie in high school. Anyway, he is an incredibly well-liked celebrity who has a knack for engaging in social media-friendly antics ("Chris Pratt found himself stuck in a stall without toilet paper and angrily used one dollar bills to wipe and it was the best thing ever!") and was lucky enough to find himself in three arguably preordained blockbusters. He got first billing, but the real star in each break-out film was the franchise itself.

Now you can make the case that Pratt's "regular nice guy with abs" appeal allowed Guardians of the Galaxy to make more money than it otherwise would have, especially after opening weekend. And you can make the case that Pratt was a major added-value element in terms of getting audiences even more excited about Jurassic World than they already were. But all three of those films were already going to be pretty big hits, as will Antoine Fuqua's upcoming ensemble remake of The Magnificent Seven co-starring Denzel Washington, Ethan Hawke, and Byung-hun Lee alongside Pratt. Point being, it looked for a moment like Chris Pratt was basically going to jump from one surefire franchise hit to another, going from LEGO movies to Guardians of the Galaxy sequels to Jurassic World sequels and so forth. So relative kudos to Pratt for putting himself somewhat out there and offering a real test of his "no franchise, no preestablished characters, no safety net" drawing power. Of course you could argue that Jennifer Lawrence herself operates as "insurance" for him and that he operates as insurance for her, but since neither of them have yet been tested like this it is a mutual leap off a cliff.

In the proverbial olden days would-be new movie stars would get plenty of chances to prove their "my face on the poster" box office draw. But in this franchise-friendly era would-be new movie stars rarely get the chance to test their opening weekend muscle outside of franchises and often flounder when they do. Robert Downey Jr. spent years trying to make The Judge and yet it was a commercial (and artistic) miss. Chris Hemsworth is getting pretty much every old-school genre vehicle out there and yet Blackhat was a massive flop while Rush needed overseas might to save it (for the record, I liked both movies and he absolutely has star charisma). American Sniper could/should have been Bradley Cooper's coming out party, but yet Aloha won't even recoup its $35m budget in worldwide release. Christian Bale playing Batman didn't make Into the Furnace a hit, nor did Chris Pine making a strong Captain Kirk mean audiences wanted to see him as Jack Ryan. There are a few exceptions of course. Channing Tatum found non-franchise success in Magic Mike while Scarlett Johansson scored in the sci-fi original Lucy. And few can argue that the approaching $400m+ worldwide success of San Andreas wasn't due very much to the idea of watching Dwayne Johnson deal with an earthquake, but even that was more of a perfect "star+concept" sell as opposed to just "star." Generally speaking, today's so-called movie stars don't have much of an opportunity to prove their star power outside of their would-be franchises and often flounder when they do.

Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt are both good actors and incredibly charismatic and likable celebrities. They deserve relative credit for the films they have helped lead to box office glory. But Lawrence has had the benefit of iconic franchises and prestigious supporting work while Pratt has had the good luck to topline one surefire hit franchise-starter after another. That we don't really know what their "all by myself" drawing power is remains a byproduct of the current system in which they find themselves "movie stars." But while they are both worthwhile draws in that "star+concept" way, we don't yet know their value in terms of getting people to see a film that isn't based on a popular fantasy novel or isn't a sequel to a beloved 20-year old franchise. I get why Rothman was nervous about the film at that budget, but it is a fear born of a system created over the last decade by him and others like him. Being a movie star used to mean being able to open a movie where you were the primary draw. Thanks to the greenlighting of Passengers, we'll soon know to what extent two of our biggest so-called movie stars can actually live up to the old-school definition of the term.

[garbon]

I'd say J.Law is though Pratt, I don't know. It isn't like he has a lot of film credits at this point, no?

[Berkut]

An interesting article, and I think the points it is making are very valid. Neither of them have really "headlined" in the manner that say, Tom Hanks does - where the star themselves can serve as the draw.

[Berkut]

I'd say J.Law is though Pratt, I don't know. It isn't like he has a lot of film credits at this point, no?

I think J. Law is a bona-fide celebrity but not necessarily a bona-fide movie star yet.

I think she can be though - she is incredibly talented, IMO.

Pratt I just plain like - he is incredibly likable. But I haven't seen anything that suggests he is going to be the next Tom Hanks or Jack Nicholson.

[celedhring]

In the old Hollywood sense, they aren't. But I don't think those kind of stars exist anymore. And by that I mean actors that people would go see irregardless of the movie they were in (provided it didn't go against type).  Both Lawrence and Pratt haven't carried the movies they have been in - not in the way Julia Roberts did in the 90s, for example.

Incidentally I think Lawrence is a fantastic actress, by the way. I'm not slating their talent.

[garbon]

I'd say J.Law is though Pratt, I don't know. It isn't like he has a lot of film credits at this point, no?

I think J. Law is a bona-fide celebrity but not necessarily a bona-fide movie star yet.

I think she can be though - she is incredibly talented, IMO.

Fair enough.

[jimmy olsen]

I'd say J.Law is though Pratt, I don't know. It isn't like he has a lot of film credits at this point, no?

The last three movies he's starred in made $468,760,692..., $774,176,600 and over $1,030,240,805.          

[garbon]

So? It wasn't really him that was the draw, was it?

[Martinus]

I don't think Pratt is less of a "star" than Ashton Kutcher or Robert Pattison, though.

[Berkut]

I don't think Pratt is less of a "star" than Ashton Kutcher or Robert Pattison, though.

No, I think there is a set of "almost stars" out there right now. The question is whether any of them will become "true" stars in the fashion of Hanks, or if maybe it just doesn't work that way anymore.

I think to the extent it does not is because Hollywood has become so fucking boring and derivative. When you are just churning out X-Men: 36 and Fast and Furious 13: Faster and Even More Furious Than The Other 12 Really, it isn't about actual acting or star power.

[Martinus]

I don't think Pratt is less of a "star" than Ashton Kutcher or Robert Pattison, though.

No, I think there is a set of "almost stars" out there right now. The question is whether any of them will become "true" stars in the fashion of Hanks, or if maybe it just doesn't work that way anymore.

I think to the extent it does not is because Hollywood has become so fucking boring and derivative. When you are just churning out X-Men: 36 and Fast and Furious 13: Faster and Even More Furious Than The Other 12 Really, it isn't about actual acting or star power.

I think it is just an old man talking.

For younger generations, Tom Hanks has absolutely no pull - or at least definitely much less than Ashton Kutcher or Robert Pattison.

[garbon]

I don't think Pratt is less of a "star" than Ashton Kutcher or Robert Pattison, though.

No, I think there is a set of "almost stars" out there right now. The question is whether any of them will become "true" stars in the fashion of Hanks, or if maybe it just doesn't work that way anymore.

I think to the extent it does not is because Hollywood has become so fucking boring and derivative. When you are just churning out X-Men: 36 and Fast and Furious 13: Faster and Even More Furious Than The Other 12 Really, it isn't about actual acting or star power.

I think it is just an old man talking.

For younger generations, Tom Hanks has absolutely no pull - or at least definitely much less than Ashton Kutcher or Robert Pattison.

I assumed he meant that about Hanks in the same way as what cele said about Julia Roberts having pull in the 90s.

[Admiral Yi]

To flip the question, did old school stars make any bad films that did well financially?

[Berkut]

I don't think Pratt is less of a "star" than Ashton Kutcher or Robert Pattison, though.

No, I think there is a set of "almost stars" out there right now. The question is whether any of them will become "true" stars in the fashion of Hanks, or if maybe it just doesn't work that way anymore.

I think to the extent it does not is because Hollywood has become so fucking boring and derivative. When you are just churning out X-Men: 36 and Fast and Furious 13: Faster and Even More Furious Than The Other 12 Really, it isn't about actual acting or star power.

I think it is just an old man talking.

For younger generations, Tom Hanks has absolutely no pull - or at least definitely much less than Ashton Kutcher or Robert Pattison.

Of course Hanks doesn't have that kind of pull NOW, that is not at all what I am talking about.

[Liep]

To flip the question, did old school stars make any bad films that did well financially?

Da Vinci Code did reasonably well I think.