>>106951894Rush is pretty good.
I don't think your point that Hemsworth would be nothing is entirely wrong, but he was on course for a B-tier career already.
>successful TV role>noticed in just a ten minute role in Star Trek>standout of a low budget ensemble in Cabin in the Woods>lead roles in mostly disposable increasing budget movies (Red Dawn, Snow White and the Huntsman, Rush)>lead in a more serious movie (In the Heart of the Sea)Now that movie didn't go well, so he would likely have taken a hit in terms of lead roles and budgets.
But he played it well and got himself in that fucking Ghostbusters movie, which while was a bomb, he was in the supporting comedy role and was considered the best thing about it.
And now he's gone back to leads in lower budget disposable movies.
He's kind of operating at his maximum talent level in his non-Marvel films. I would say the Marvel films are extending his career past what he would have without them, but he's working consistently, more than the others, because audiences like him and he turned out to have a greater range than expected. He started from globally unknown, unlike many of the others, so he's doing fine.
Chris Pratt is reasonably comparable, with the caveat that he was on a US TV show so had wider initial recognition. He got in some hits, but now he's stalling out, largely because he has poorer demos than Hemsworth; not as hot, alienated some people with the divorce and his hunting christian thing.
