One last follow up to the discussion of the greatness of Tom Hanks: In the comments it was suggested that classic stars such as Bogart or John Wayne may have had strings of box office success equal or greater to that of Hanks.

Unfortunately, Box Office Mojo only dips back so far. It doesn’t track data for Wayne or Bogart–or even Paul Newman, whom I had thought might be in a similar class with Hanks.

Second, even if we had the data for the classic stars, I don’t think it would be fair to compare them to contemporary stars because working in the studio system they had little-to-no control over the projects they worked on. If Sam Goldwyn told Bogart to star in Movie X, Bogie had to do it, no matter how good or bad the project was. After the studio system broke down, stars became increasingly involved in production to the point where a fellow like Hanks not only chooses what movies he’ll star in, but in some cases will choose whether or not a given movie even gets made. All of which is to say that if Bogart or John Wayne didn’t have streaks like the one Hanks is on, it wouldn’t necessarily be their fault.

That said, when you’re talking about whatever the stuff is that makes a “movie star,” it’s pretty clear that Bogart, Wayne, Cary Grant, and Spencer Tracy had “it” in such copious amounts as to be completely unimaginable today. Nobody–not Tom Hanks, not Robert De Niro, not Russell Crowe–has the type of stuff they had. We just don’t make stars like that anymore.

After much speculating, we now have the results–and they aren’t good for New Line and United 93. Forget that the movie finished the weekend with only $11.6M; forget that it debuted in third place against very weak competition with no genre overlap. Here’s the most damning stat:

United 93 per theater avg. $6,465
Stick It per theater avg. $5,522

Stick It, you’ll recall is the gymnastics version of Bring It On, only without Kirsten Dunst or the advertising support.

After trying all last week to find a model for United 93, Brandon Gray now notes that it did perform very much like a recent release: Syriana.

This isn’t a disaster for New Line–United 93 will probably wind up with a solid gross, particularly considered next to its $15M budget. But it does suggest that audiences, for the most part, had little desire to revisit this story. We’ll see in August with Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center whether or not that attitude extends to all things 9/11.

With the aid of Galley Brother B.J. I had a rant all worked up and ready for when Kobe Bryant won the MVP award. You’ll just have to trust me when I tell you it was hot.

The gist was that while Kobe–the locus of all evil in professional sports–obviously deserved the MVP this year, it was travesty, because by this standard, Iverson should have won three or four MVPs in the late ’90s and early ’00s.

But instead, Steve Nash has won, for the second year in a row. If I had a vote, I would have cast it for Kobe. But Nash would have been my second choice. He’s fabulous and a great MVP.

There’s a lesson in all of this. But I’m from Philadelphia, so I refuse to learn it. I’ll just hold on to my grudge until next year. Or the year after that. Sooner or later, the universe really will be conspiring against us.

And when it does, I’ll be ready with that defense of Answer. Oh yes I will.

The Nintendo Revolution is now the Nintendo “Wii” (pronounced “wee”). The Big Brains at Nintendo Corp. explain:

While the code-name “Revolution” expressed our direction, Wii represents the answer. Wii will break down that wall that separates game players from everybody else. Wii will put people more in touch with their games…and each other. . . .

So that’s Wii. But now Nintendo needs you. Because, it’s really not about you or me. It’s about Wii. And together, Wii will change everything.

So, dumbest re-brand ever? Post competing nominees below, please.

On Teri H.:

Man, if there’s anything sexier than bloodless mummies, it’s bloodless mummies who look like an ad for rum. Put a parrot on her shoulder and I may just fall in love.

Galley Friend and Hollywood Superstar E.H. sends us a new site to crush on with this picture and captions set from M:I3. Just go, you’ll laugh about it all day long.

If you need further proof of the Fud genius, see this Dunst-hating post (Jenny, that’s just for you, peaches) and this Tom Cruise-Phil Hoffman triptych, which ends with:

Philip Seymour Hoffman: It’s true, America. He’s batshit crazy. What can I say?

Tom: HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH HOFFMAN YOU JOKER. GOD, isn’t this FUN?

Philip Seymour Hoffman: I’m not kidding.

Jenny sends us to BWE which links to this very fabulous Tom Cruise/Nike mash-up. Very, very well done.

Update: Here’s the original Nike ad.

This morning I remarked on Tom Hanks’s impressive streak of 12 of 14 movies going over the $100M mark from 1993 to 2002. It turns out that his streak is even more impressive when you adjust for inflation. How much of a difference does it make? Toy Story‘s 1995 gross of $190M is actually $280M in 2005 terms.

Anyway, when you adjust the numbers, Hanks has actually by 14 of 17 movies over the $100M mark from 1992 until today. Has any other actor put together a streak that comes even close?

Clint Eastwood is a giant, durable movie star, but look at his adjusted numbers and you see that even during his high point, he only put together 6 or 9 movies that went over $100M. Heck, he only has 14 movies over the $100M mark in his entire career, and he’s been around since 1967.

Tom Cruise is a super-gigantic movie star with great numbers. Since 1986, he’s put 16 of 20 over the $100M (adjusted). That’s a rate equivalent to Hanks. But for my money, Hanks’s streak is more impressive because of the movies he did. A lot of Cruise movie’s are hits no matter who stars in them. (Also, Hanks’s next three projects all look like they have a good chance to join the $100M club.)

Sylvestor Stallone was the biggest star on the planet once. At his height he put 6 of 11 movies over $100M (adjusted). Ditto Robert Redford who also put 6 of 11 movies over the adjusted $100M mark.

Watching Bossom Buddies, who would have thought that we were seeing the birth of our generation’s biggest star?

Update: A commenter suggests Harrison Ford, the star who’s my personal favorite. I accosted him at a party once, but that’s a story for another time. Suffice it to say that he’s more gracious than anyone could possibly expect. And that voice isn’t made in the mixing room.

But what about his inflation adjusted run? Beginning in 1980 with Empire and going through 1994’s Clear and Present Danger, Ford put 11 of 15 movies over the $100M mark.