Michael Fassbender is the Next Tom Hanks

[Cena's Little Helper]

Although his star has dropped off a bit, Tom Hanks was once a man who guaranteed producers a $100 million American box office haul as well as a couple of Oscar nominations. Michael Fassbender will be this man within the next three years.

I would offer a quicker guarantee, but Fassbender has not yet learned the importance of limiting yourself to no more than two movies a year. However, this is something he'll come to understand once he's given $20 million per movie (something that will happen sooner rather than later). Fassbender currently has four movies coming out in 2014: Frank, Slow West, the new X-Men film, and an Untitled Terrence Malick Project. The X-Men film is a guaranteed hit and will also receive rave reviews, but this will be almost solely due to the return of Bryan Singer to the franchise. One of the three films leftover will be a hit, and this will make Fassbender an hotter commodity.

In 2015, Fassbender will star in the Assassin's Creed adaptation. If done right, this will finally catapult Fassbender into super-stardom. From there, he will be one of the top three movie stars in the world.

This is my assessment of Fassbender. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[jmt225]

Michael Fassbender is a great actor and should deliver a lot of classic roles within the next 10-20 years, but I don't agree with the Tom Hanks comparison. Sure, he will win a lot of awards throughout his career, but I don't think he'll ever be the draw Tom Hanks was in the late 80's and all throughout the 90's. Only few people have been and only a couple of people will be from this point on, if any at all to be honest. In fact, I really don't see any actor drawing consistently at the box office like prime Tom Hanks did again. The guy was the Hulk Hogan of the film industry.

Plus, Michael Fassbender isn't American. No non-American will ever attract movie goers in the states (excluding Canadians), unless they're playing a Superhero. Even Daniel Day-Lewis who so carefully picks his roles and whose films always get a ton of press isn't a very big box office draw.

Tom Hanks is your American everyday man who picked perfect role after perfect role in the rare box office successes that also drew the adoration from critics. I really don't think we'll see another run like his.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

While I do have a lot of respect for Fassbender and the myriad of great performances he has put in over the last few years (nice Shame sig Daron) I can't think of a light-hearted family friendly film that he has been in.

Sure, Hanks has starred in some tense dramatic films, but he can easily be associated with successful family comedy/drama/romantic films just the same, which gives him a broader appeal.

I do not doubt that Fassbender has the skill to pull off such films, but given the types of roles he has already performed, I think it would make people cautious about his sudden gear-change. Hanks, however, became a draw at the box office with the broader films first which must have given studios more confidence that even if he was cast in a different role, he'd still make them money.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

I can't think of a light-hearted family friendly film that he has been in.

That's something to think about. Will Smith is a good example for being "that guy", but his aura as an invincible box office draw took a real hit with After Earth.

Fassbender is a phenomenal actor, but I can't picture a Tom Hanks-esque run as a powerhouse box office draw. When I think of Fassbender's best, it's not Magneto in X-Men First Class. I think of Shame, Hunger, and although the movie itself was a bit underwhelming, A Dangerous Method. None of those films fit the mold for mass mainstream appeal, and it's a crucial dynamic, if Fassbender hopes to achieve consistent big pay days for being a monster draw. And I'm skeptical about Assassin's Creed, because when you consider box office performances and an overall critical reception, video game adaptations have a horrendous track record for failure and mediocrity.

To be honest, I think Shia LaBeouf had the best chance of becoming the next Tom Hanks. Whether he likes it or not, the Transformers films did wonders for his status as one of the more likeable faces in Hollywood, and the talent is there. He needs more time and he's still young, but I have no doubt LaBeouf will develop his skills and mature as a superb actor.

Unfortunately, LaBeouf is pissing away his chances to become the next big thing with this obsession to become a more serious actor, and he made a vow to turn his back on the Hollywood "system," so he can have more freedom with Indie films. It's a stupid move, because LaBeouf was on a fast track to stardom in Hollywood. I haven't seen his other serious stuff, but Lawless was an average crime drama at best, The Company You Keep received a lukewarm overall reception, Charlie Countryman continues to receive an overall negative reception, Nymphomaniac doesn't look good in the early stages, and I rolled my eyes at the news about Lars von Trier having to cut down on a runtime that's over five hours.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

You guys make some excellent points. I'll now take some time to comment on some of them in the hopes that we can determine some preconditions for becoming a bona fide box office draw.

Plus, Michael Fassbender isn't American. No non-American will ever attract movie goers in the states (excluding Canadians), unless they're playing a Superhero. Even Daniel Day-Lewis who so carefully picks his roles and whose films always get a ton of press isn't a very big box office draw.

This is an excellent point. I would just like to point two exceptions: Liam Neeson and Russell Crowe.

It looks more and more like Taken was a box-office fluke, but it's important to note here that studio execs were willing to milk Liam Neeson's appeal for all it was worth.

As far as Russell Crowe goes, this man was arguably the world's biggest movie star in the early 2000s. However, he ruined his own career for being a gigantic asshole.

While I do have a lot of respect for Fassbender and the myriad of great performances he has put in over the last few years (nice Shame sig Daron) I can't think of a light-hearted family friendly film that he has been in.

Sure, Hanks has starred in some tense dramatic films, but he can easily be associated with successful family comedy/drama/romantic films just the same, which gives him a broader appeal.

Another excellent point. Almost all legitimate box office draws have safe, broad appeal films on their resume. That being said, the comparison I made shouldn't be taken too literally. Based off of what we've seen, I can't imagine Michael Fassbender ever being a guy who stars in the type of films you mentioned. Thankfully, you don't need to star in these types of films nowadays to be a Hollywood superstar.

That's something to think about. Will Smith is a good example for being "that guy", but his aura as an invincible box office draw took a real hit with After Earth.

Fassbender is a phenomenal actor, but I can't picture a Tom Hanks-esque run as a powerhouse box office draw. When I think of Fassbender's best, it's not Magneto in X-Men First Class. I think of Shame, Hunger, and although the movie itself was a bit underwhelming, A Dangerous Method. None of those films fit the mold for mass mainstream appeal, and it's a crucial dynamic, if Fassbender hopes to achieve consistent big pay days for being a monster draw. And I'm skeptical about Assassin's Creed, because when you consider box office performances and an overall critical reception, video game adaptations have a horrendous track record for failure and mediocrity.

Excellent point about video game adaptations, and something that I have to admit I didn't think of when I made this thread. I think we can conclusively say that survival horror video game adaptations, for the most part, do not draw. However, action-adventure adaptations are a mixed bag. The first Tomb Raider film did well at the box office, as did the first Mortal Kombat film. You've brought a sense of realism to my expectations for Assassin's Creed, so I'll put its probability of success at 50% as of this moment. Based off of whom Fassbender attracts to the director's chair, this could either go up or down.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

Regarding Neeson, Crowe and the non-American acting draws, what would be the consensus of Christian Bale?

I have this weird feeling that me and Mitch discussed this topic a while back but I may have just imagined it. While the Batman films were generally excellent and made more than double their budget back each time, how instrumental really was Bale to the success? Films like The Machinist, Rescue Dawn and American Psycho were all well received critically but I think that they all only did so-so at the box office.

Terminator Salvation was an addition to a franchise that did well with its box office returns, so again that makes Bale's influence hard to gauge.

I see Fassbender fitting into that kind of mould; a talented actor who can take on and nail demanding roles, but may not quite be a massive solo draw at the box office. Time is on their side though so I wouldn't dare say that their careers won't evolve to the next rung on the box office draw ladder.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

But Fassbender takes risks! Would Hanks at any point in his career have done anything like Shame? I wouldn't label him as the next Hanks. In fact, I don't see any sort of comparison to be made now nor in the future.

 

[Blade]

But Fassbender takes risks! Would Hanks at any point in his career have done anything like Shame? I wouldn't label him as the next Hanks. In fact, I don't see any sort of comparison to be made now nor in the future.

Hanks doesn't take huge risks, but doing Philadelphia in 1993 was a pretty big one.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I don't think playing a homosexual with HIV is a big risk. Doing a drama with a director who'd just come off The Silence Of The Lambs. That seems like a safe option to me. That role was only going to enhance his reputation.

 

[JGlass]

I disagree. Great actor, but I don't think he'll ever be as bankable as Tom Hanks, and there's a few reasons why.

1) He's not American. That sounds xenophobic, but some quick research indicates that the biggest names in recent box office history are all Americans. In fact, the top 10 names are all Americans, and you don't get a foreigner until 11 with Michael Caine, and even at that point his money grossed comes more from his ability to be cast as a supporting actor in big movies rather than his own star power. You don't get a true "star" until number 19 with Emma Watson, and even at that point most of her money comes from the Harry Potter movies which were going to print cash with or without her. It's not until you reach number 28 and 29 with Ralph Fiennes and Ian McKellen that you have two bonafide top grossing stars, and they're way down on the list.

2) Tom Hanks was able to make his money independent of franchises. Yes, he had the good fortune to land big rolls in blockbusters, but for the most part Hanks just made excellent movies that people went out to see for Tom Hanks. Apart from Toy Story, Tom Hanks hasn't been in any franchises, and he's still managed to make huge money. Sleepless in Seattle grossed 227 million on a 22 million dollar budget. Big gross 150 million on an 18 million dollar budget. A League of their own grossed 132 million on a 40 million dollar budget.

Compare that to the movies Fassbender has made his money from (X-Men and Prometheus) and will make money from (X-Men and Assassin's Creed), and there's just no comparison.

What I guess I'm trying to say is: Hanks drew people to the theater because of his star power. Fassbender relies on franchises to get people to see his films.

3) There's less money to be made in movies. It's a sad truth, but it is the truth. Aside from the big blockbusters, it's a crap shoot whether movies are going to attract the crowd or not. Centurion was unable to attract a big crowd. Haywire had modest success. 12 Years a Slave looks like it will have a pretty paltry gross by the time it leaves theaters. On the flip side, Tom Hanks made two films between the 1992 and 2006 that didn't gross at least double the budget (That Thing You Do! and Polar Express). Fassbender will never see that type of success on his non-franchise films.