This weekend we're seeing Furiosa and Garfield, led with Hemsworth and Pratt maybe be lucky to do $30M OW.

Seems like Hemsworth had limited impact here other than marginally maybe $1-3M since its May long weekend and based on Max Max IP.

We had a Garfield movie 20 years ago and another one now that is going to pull off less than the adjusted OW.

So question becomes, which MCU stars of the last 16 years have real box office pull?

-Dave Bautista couldn't drive Cabin In The Woods much.
-Marvels 2 flopped so not sure if Brie alone has huge box office pull yet.
-Simu is still fairly untested as Barbie was an ensemble.
-Not counting Ryan or Hugh since X-men/DP were mostly out of the MCU.
-Samuel L Jackson, Bradley Cooper, Paul Rudd seem hit/miss based on the role.
-Zendaya still in progress but Challengers is headed for $50M+ so seems to be something.
-Holland really has only had Unchartered as a data point so still TBD.

Maybe Scarlett and RDJ are the big two? And we'll see Scarlett in her July space movie to see how much she can anchor it. RDJ also had Dolittle flop as his Endgame follow up.

So do any MCU stars have bankability for non-MCU films?

A bit of a pointless thread when you step back and see that no single star has bankability anymore, at least not in the way one would perceive it. No star is Tom Cruise in 2000-04 anymore and probably never will be. It's not just MCU stars. The idea is now way more of a pull than any one actor or actress.

I think it would be RDJ the most. But overall Tarantino had a point that you don't become a star playing a superhero because the character is. Genres where you need an ordinary person to pop like a romcom or to extent action are better for stars. Then again one of the closest things to a draw is Reynolds, but Deadpool is unique in that it relies so much on his style.

Agree with the above two posts - stars no longer attract audiences as they once did. The right actor in the right role can help at times but it's no hard and fast rules. It is what it is. The era of stars having red hot runs is over (i.e. Hanks, Cruise, Carrey 90/00s, Ferrel/Sandle 00s etc)

Killers of the Flower Moon showed even Leo is like a 20m+ opener compared to when he used to be a pretty safe bet for a 40m opening.

Right now i would say Denzel, Cruise and Dicaprio are the only ones that have fair fanbase that can get a film tl 70m+, but not like they used to.
Will Smith was on that list with Cruise as biggest movie stars for over a decade.

Denzel seems even more consistent than Leo and Cruise really hasn’t done none franchises in a while so feels like Denzel is pulling ahead of Leo in terms of consistency. Gladiator will be huge for him but it’s still doing that 70M+ floor since Denzel is involved.

I think with Denzel since he makes a lot of action movies, there's a whole brand of "Denzel movie" that's the draw, same with Sandler in his prime, it was actually the Happy Madison style of comedy that was the draw, the Spanglish/Punch Drunk Love version was not a draw. Actors in the past were more willing to pigeon hole themselves into their most popular role which helped them be bigger draws more, in a previous era Gosling would've just played Ken adjace roles for a decade after Barbie like how Burt Reynolds after Smokey in the Bandit just made a bunch more car movies. In modern age they realize it's just as big a part of longevity to be an Oscar nominated and taken seriously actor, plus twitter would critique them for only taking the same roles, the perfect strategy is the Zendaya Dune/Challengers combo where you latch onto a hit franchise and then you make people take you seriously as an actor, ScarJo having Marriage Story/Avengers in same years, etc. You only get a few guys like Reynolds and the Rock that are only interested in mainstream movies and going back to their well and those ones seem to be the biggest mainstream stars. But it's possible that with the tide turning away from franchise reboot type movies that actors like ATJ will have no choice but to be thrown in the deep end with other roles.