Is the movie star a dated concept?
In the Jennifer Aniston topic someone posted an article about how Jennifer Garner has only become more famous as her movie grosses have fallen. I'm old enough to remember when people like Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts had a movie coming out and it was an event. Now I can't name anyone whose movies do that. The closest is Jennifer Lawrence, but she's had a couple of flops in a row.
What do you guys think? Is the movie star a thing of the past?
|by Anonymous||reply 88||06/08/2020|
There are still giant movie events. All those franchise and comic book movies have their fans frothing at the mouth and waiting in line for tickets dressed as their favorite characters.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||08/09/2018|
Social media killed the concept of celebrity.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||08/09/2018|
R1 Those aren't star vehicle movies. Do you think people lined up to see Wonder Woman because they're fans of Gal Gadot?
|by Anonymous||reply 3||08/09/2018|
[quote]Social media killed the concept of celebrity.
I think you're right that actors are overexposed today.
Today actors appear on t.v. shows every day and are posting online all the time.
In the old days, movie stars would appear only a couple of times a year when a film was coming out or a major interview was taking place.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||08/09/2018|
People still see movies because of who is cast in them. It’s just a new generation of stars and for some reason mostly comic book movies.
Dwayne Johnson, Chris Pratt, Chris Hemsworth are among the top-grossing stars of this year. People do see movies because they star these guys; it’s just a younger group of people. None of them feels like a movie star to me in the way the ones you mentioned used to, but movies are not attractions like they used to be. Movies today are not events. I am 40 and I just looked at a megaplex offering with my dad and almost all the movies were for kids, from The Incredibles 2 to Christopher Robin. Exceptions were Mamma Mia 2 and Mission: Impossible, both of which are mindless movies that are banking on big stars. We decided not to waste our money on any of these stupid movies. People today have too many options on TV, including Netflix (whose series I mostly find inferior), to bother with going to movie theatres. Nevertheless, the Hollywood marketing machine is still doing its thing and still selling bona fide movie stars that the public is still buying into to the tune of many millions in ticket sales. Jennifer Lawrence, Ryan Reynolds, et al. still have their swoony followings the way Julia Roberts and Cameron Diaz once did.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||08/09/2018|
The actress with the highest profile, the most interesting roles, the best-featured projects today is Elisabeth Moss. No way would I describe her as a star the way Meryl was for example, and yet she is getting all the good roles for a woman her age.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||08/09/2018|
The industry has changed. Meryl is still making big movies because she is so revered. Nicole Kidman, Reese Witherspoon, Jane Fonda, Amy Adams and other talented headliners are playing interesting television characters in addition to mostly interesting feature film roles. There just don’t seem to be any big box-office romantic comedy or serious drama types of vehicles that have been staples for this class of actress throughout film history. Insipid, sophomoric gross-out humor has infiltrated even women’s comedies like Girl’s Trip and Bridesmaids. There ARE big box-office attractions of this sort, though, such as
|by Anonymous||reply 7||08/09/2018|
...Amy Schumer and Tiffany Hadish.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||08/09/2018|
How many hits have those guys had outside of franchises? I looked up Chris Hemsworth's filmography and he's barely been in anything that wasn't a remake or franchise film. Besides Rush, pretty much all his non-franchise films have been bombs.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||08/09/2018|
R7 When Robert DeNiro got a fortune to star in that never aired Weinstein show I read an article that I can no longer find about how "movie stars" who could no longer garner high paychecks were turning to TV just for the $$$
|by Anonymous||reply 10||08/09/2018|
Why wouldn’t they, R10?
You do realize, I hope, that movie stars are not and never were highborn royals who are simply participating in a fine arts culture for the sake of art. Anyone who has a career acting in front of a camera is a product, and they know what they are. They do a line reading 20 times and repeat, line by line, and the movie is stitched together from the parts they contribute. That’s almost universally true. Movie stars are people with the right faces and bodies and voices who were at the right place at the right time and who can sell themselves and have aggressive agents who sell them—as products. In the Old Hollywood days, they were sent through a refinement bootcamp first to convey a false elitism that made the public think actors were a kind of royalty. Amazingly, the public is still hypnotized to believe it. Actors are day workers who are grateful for the work and insecure because they know, mostly, that their public images represent fads that change with the direction of the wind. So yeah, they end up doing TV when the time comes, and commercials, and public appearances, and even engage in stunt antics for tabloids to try to get their names back into public currency when they are desperate.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||08/09/2018|
I think it is because of things like Twitter and Instagram. Letting us see into their everyday lives shows us how average and ordinary most of them really are so they don't feel all that special anymore.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||08/09/2018|
I think films being more expensive to make has a lot to do with it as well. Star power can't guarantee box office.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||08/09/2018|
Keep in mind that they heyday of Cruise and Roberts was relatively short; I would say it extended from "Top Gun" (1986) to about ten years later, and had much to do with how Hollywood was marketing itself. In the Sixties (particularly after "Bonnie and Clyde") and Seventies and early Eighties there were still big stars around, but they were not guaranteed box office successes and their films were not quite as event-like as the films of Cruise and Roberts. The latter stars' era was almost like a return to the days of the Golden Age of Hollywood.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||08/09/2018|
Great post by R11, I hope we all know that.
R11, if you only had 3 novels to recommend to someone, which would those be? TIA.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||08/09/2018|
Yes because the industry is more focused on tentpoles based on established IP instead of star vehicles. With these tentpoles, actors are interchangable and can be replaced if they ask for too much money.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||08/09/2018|
Scarlett Johansson is pretty close to the older definition of movie star (who else could have led “Lucy” to box office success?) and was on a hot streak from The Avengers until her inexplicable decision to star in “Rough Night” and “Ghost in the Shell” back to back. The “Black Widow” solo movie should save her.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||08/09/2018|
Yes it's dead. Jennifer Garner is more famous now because of who she was married to, if not for that, she would be a discarded heap laying in the corner.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||08/09/2018|
Yes. In the mid-early 2000s there were a string of flop star vehicles. It peaked with The Tourist. When that bombed, it scared Hollywood out of them.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||08/10/2018|
True about Scarlett Johansson, and especially Lucy. That would have been a very obscure movie without her.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||08/10/2018|
Jennifer Lawrence was one of Harvey's girls. Now that he's no longer putting her in movies, her career is going to tank.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||08/11/2018|
The shelf life of a movie star is shorter, especially for women. Look at Megan Fox-she went from the hottest actress in Hollywood to doing a recurring role in a FOX sitcom in less than 10 years.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||08/12/2018|
Cate Blanchett will be to differ, but okay.
It's a winner-take-all paradigm.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||08/12/2018|
Faye Dunaway is the last real old-school Hollywood movie star. Sharon Stone attempted to revive the concept but wasn't able to sustain it.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||08/12/2018|
They ain't got no faces no more.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||08/12/2018|
Up into the 90s/early-2000s the same actors that were talked about and in all of the magazines were in high grossing movies. Now it's the opposite. The ones talked about the most (like OP's example Jennifer Garner) are mostly in movies that nobody's ever heard of.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||08/12/2018|
Dead as a doornail. And social media DID kill them. The younger generation doesn't give a shit. They're into YouTube celebrities.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||08/13/2018|
The younger generation (30 and under) loves Youtubers, for some reason. They barely know who everybody else is. Movie stars from the 1960s are positively ancient to them, like probably the 19th century for anybody 40+.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||08/13/2018|
R33 I don't get the appeal of YouTube "celebrities." Even though I'm old and wasn't a fan, I get why people liked One Direction and stuff, but people on YouTube???????
|by Anonymous||reply 34||08/13/2018|
R34 So agree, and how are they celebrities ffs?
|by Anonymous||reply 35||08/13/2018|
R35 My 17yo niece is obsessed with this one girl on YouTube and I could see the appeal if she sang or acted or something, but the girl just makes videos where she tries on clothes and where she talks about her "crazy personality." She seems no different than any girl at my niece's high school, but my niece is obsessed!
|by Anonymous||reply 36||08/13/2018|
She must be her Colton Haynes. Is your niece a budding lesbian?
|by Anonymous||reply 37||08/13/2018|
R37 I never thought so, but that would explain why she's no into this girl.
FYI-Here's the girl she's obsessed with
|by Anonymous||reply 38||08/13/2018|
It's not that complicated. In the past information about movies prior to their release was more limited. You had stars you liked and you went and saw their latest picture.
Now before you see a movie you can read see your favorite youtuber and blogger's review, check out the metacritic and rotten tomato score and check out a couple dissections of the trailer if you are so inclined. Even if you avoid this stuff you will instantly see on twitter or facebook whether or not people are excited about some movie.
The idea of seeing something for the actor has been replaced for seeing something for the actual product, because you now know about the product.
And yes, movies are about largely built around intellectual property, people see it for, not for the actor. R5 sounds delusional when they talk about people seeing movie for Chris Hemsworth, they care about Thor, they don't care about him specifically. He bombs outside the Marvel Universe, why he has been vocal he wants to keep playing Thor.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||08/13/2018|
Too many. If there is too much of a good thing, that thing becomes unimportant and boring. I'm not interested in these muscle bound acrobats who are bland and wear tights.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||08/13/2018|
A movie star is an actor/actress who pretty much is a celebrity not because of their great versatility as a performer -- just the opposite: they have a pleasing persona -- they seem like someone you might like to get to know. Guys like Gary Cooper and Cary Grant and Jack Nicholson; women like Katherine Hepburn, Ava Gardner, Lana Turner -- they didn't show much acting "chops" in a career but they were always relatively likeable and consistent. Of the modern group of actors who might that describe? Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper, Jakie Chan, Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Watson, Jessica Chastain.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||08/13/2018|
R41 I'd add George Clooney to the list.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||08/13/2018|
R41 I'm the OP and the definition I'm using is someone that sells movie tickets on their presence alone. 15 years ago Julia Roberts did that. Who does that now?
|by Anonymous||reply 43||08/13/2018|
When I was a teenager, in the 1980's, every big star would bring out his (and it seemed to be mostly his) big summer movie. Stars like Stallone, Schwartzenegger, Mel Gibson, Eddie Murphy, etc. Most of the films were junk, but they all had a distinctive identity thanks to the film's star. Today, the big summer movies, mostly comic book movies, the star is often wearing a mask, clad in latex/rubber and for much of the movie he isn't even on screen, that is he just a bunch of pixels, a CGI creation. Almost any fit, athletic actor could play the part. As said above, the franchise is the real star.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||08/13/2018|
Sandra Bullock is probably the closest R43. But even her biggest hits were almost a decade ago. Still, she's had an impressive run.
Scarlett had a hit movie on her own name, which was also impressive. It took years for Scarlett to become an audience favorite. In the early 2000's, she was the independent girl/critics darling but it never translated to mainstream audiences. She has that now with Lucy and The Avengers.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||08/13/2018|
Scarlet had a success with Lucy (moderate hit, not a blockbuster) but nobody watched Avengers because of her. Her last non franchise film, Rough Night, was a flop.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||08/13/2018|
I bet half the people that watched Thor couldn't even tell you who played the character.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||08/13/2018|
Yes, as a young gay, it is sssssoooooo BORING to watch movies. I think that they should be replaced by IG stories that are interesting to people like me. You know, stuff.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||08/13/2018|
The main problem is there is too much content. Too many movies. Too many shows. Too many everything.
Movies aren't special anymore. And thus, movie stars aren't special anymore.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||08/13/2018|
R50 Also, there are other forms of entertainment like videogames, social media, etc. which draw viewers away from things like movies making them even less special.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||08/13/2018|
That’s pretty much what R50 already said. You’ve added nothing to the conversation.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||08/13/2018|
R41 Sandra Bullock has been doing that consistently.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||08/13/2018|
R44 You make those sound like S&M movies. Maybe that's what viewers have become. Perpetual teenagers experimating in an ultra-safe world of BDSM.
In S&M identity is erased - the S&M world itself is the star. Just like the franchise.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||08/13/2018|
Sorry hadn't seen Bullock had already been mentioned upthread.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||08/13/2018|
R24 is right on the money. Have you seen her gushing over Harvey and their new baby boy? According to her, he gave the world what we needed, another him.
How about the Apple hack that never existed (according to Apple) where her nudes were made public? It's well known in Hollywood Harvey released her pictures as revenge.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||08/13/2018|
I would say a Marvel film is the most sure bet right now, but movies still sell with Cruise, Streep, Lawrence, Pratt, etc
|by Anonymous||reply 57||08/13/2018|
Youtubers are more popular today to youngsters than celebrities. Hollywood is still resisting that, because it's basically a much cheaper alternative to their overproduced and PR controlled environment.
The bashing of Alex Jones, to many executives of media has more to do with the fact he brings the same numbers to his website than CNN, being completely alternative and without relying on advertisers. They really don't care about Lizards and Sandy Hook deniers, they are actually worried about his popularity.
Pewdiepie got called on his "anti semitic" and "racist" videos only after they realized he was pulling bigger numbers than corporate media.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||08/13/2018|
There’s too much entertainment material now, and nothing special about a movie. It’s not something you see in the theater, then maybe a few years later on a network. Now it’s just like a roll of toilet paper or a pair of flip flops or a box of donuts — something you consume where and when you want to.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||08/13/2018|
There has been a divergence between being a celebrity and being a movie star.
A movie star can open a movie and drive box office. A celebrity is merely famous. Some people are both.
At one time, you had to achieve some fame and stature as a tv or movie star to be a celebrity. Otherwise, you couldn't generate the type of media coverage to gain popular mind share. Now, the line between fame and infamy have blurred sufficiently that celebrity accrues to people without having to be a movie star.
The problem is that Hollywood doesn't seem to know the difference. So, they cast celebrities thinking their celebrity will drive box office. It doesn't.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||08/13/2018|
Except when it does ... Ocean’s 8, Mama Mia 2, MIssion Impossible, all of these movies benefit from having big stars. You can’t put a Khardasian in a movie and expect the same result. But overall, a Marvel film is more of a sure bet than traditional movie stars. So movie stars are on the wane but still bring in millions.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||08/13/2018|
Someone like Daniel Day Lewis is probably the closest we have left - only does movies, only does them with big directors, limits his press, no social media, no TV. Also, IMO his name is enough of a draw - I can't imagine slogging through There Will Be Blood or Phantom Thread with a lesser actor.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||08/13/2018|
DDL stopped making movies. People say every year that movie stars are over and yet they still continue.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||08/13/2018|
Once Jim Carrey got $20 million for the cable guy, the doors blew off on star salaries. Within about a decade, studios were making deals where the actor would just own a huge portion Of the box office.
But a big problem is that studios don’t want to force actors into making movies that they don’t want to make and agencies are good about getting their clients out of projects that they don’t want to make. So unlike the Marvel universe, which exists in its own Quality bubble, it’s hard to make sequels and franchise projects with actors when each time you have to reconstitute the creative team and somehow make a film interesting for both the audience and the actor playing the role. Quality bubble, it’s hard to make sequels and franchise projects with actors when each time you have to reconstitute the creative team and somehow make a film interesting for both the audience and the actor playing the role. And those movies are tough to make for two reasons. One, the costs are absolutely insane and two, it’s nearly impossible for studios to make money off of them unless they Earn $1 billion. I think men in Black three is a great example where the film cost $250 million and even though it earned well worldwide, the studio probably wishes they didn’t make it because they didn’t see a profit and they tied up $250 million on that investment. But if it had earned $1 billion, it would’ve been quite profitable.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||08/13/2018|
R57 Streep is the only box office draw on that list. Cruise scurried back to franchises after a series of flops, Pratt has never carried a movie on his own, Laurence has had two flops in a row.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||08/13/2018|
How about a movie with Rihana?
|by Anonymous||reply 66||08/13/2018|
Men like The Rock, Leo, Tom still get over $20M a picture. JLaw was the last woman to get that salary (?) but I don’t know if she could anymore. Streep has picked up $5-10M checks for decades. She is probably underpaid but still very wealthy.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||08/13/2018|
[QUOTE]JLaw was the last woman to get that salary (?) but I don’t know if she could anymore.
When the hell did Jude Law ever get $20 million for a movie?
|by Anonymous||reply 68||08/13/2018|
When the hell did Jude Law get a sex change?
|by Anonymous||reply 69||08/13/2018|
Emma Stone was allegedly the top lady earner in 2017 with $26M due to La La Land (don't ask me how that’s even possible).
|by Anonymous||reply 70||08/13/2018|
Recently saw Cable Guy for the first time. Loved it (Ben Stiller notwithstanding), but $20M is too much. And this no matter how much praise I had for Jim Carrey in the role.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||08/13/2018|
Is that just from movies or do these things also include the money actresses get to shill clothes and makeup? I think a lot of these big paydays are for that.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||08/13/2018|
R68 I believe that JLaw is Jennifer Lawrence.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||08/14/2018|
R72 Yes. I believe that Emma Stone shills for Revlon. Her last movie, The Battle of the Sexes, was hyped as both a star vehicle and an Oscar movie and flopped hard at being both.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||08/14/2018|
When Jennifer Lawrence, yelled " OH FUCK' after supposedly tripping at the Oscars.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||08/14/2018|
And don't forget flipping the bird at reporters captured from every angle, just an hour later.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||08/14/2018|
R70 She might have received a percentage of the gross. But remember these numbers are just guesses by Forbes and I wouldn't put too much faith in them given the low quality journalism Forbes does these days (mostly just clickbait).
|by Anonymous||reply 77||08/14/2018|
I think Forbes mixes up movie salary and endorsement contracts for makeup, clothes, handbags and tampons.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||08/14/2018|
I think the movie star is a dated concept. For many reasons. Firstly, I don't think people go to see franchise films because of stars and nowadays these are the best selling films. I can't really say who plays there and it's more or less irrelevant as what matters the most is the story. Aside from franchises there are not so many high grossing hit movies which can make a star from an actor or actress. Secondly, in the era of Internet it is much more difficult to steer the attention of the audience and focus it on one person. Current stars enjoy 2-3 years of fame and then they fade. Not too long ago I asked myself if there have been any big careers in film like DiCaprio's or Pitt's (with huge fanbase) recently and I can think only about Jennifer Lawrence and Margot Robbie (but still not sure).
|by Anonymous||reply 79||08/14/2018|
Margot Robbie definitely not and Jennifer Lawrence is very questionable considering her last four movies bombed badly.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||08/14/2018|
Jennifer Lawrence is the next Nicole Flopman she's queen of the flops
|by Anonymous||reply 81||08/14/2018|
R82 I wonder if that couch is Harvey's infamous casting couch...the stories it could tell
|by Anonymous||reply 83||08/14/2018|
The video at R56 is faintly nauseating. Of course, it's obligatory for movie stars to thank their producers, their money people. But it's not obligatory for them to deep throat someone like Weinstein live via satellite and normalize abusive behavior.
How many of them knew? How many of those rich and famous actors knew Weinstein was a sexual predator and in all likelihood, a serial rapist? How many of them knowingly work with others who assault women, prey on minors, and create unsafe work environments?
|by Anonymous||reply 85||06/04/2020|
Gaming has played a big part as well. Gaming is now the primary source of entertainment for millions of young men, it's replaced movies and tv shows.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||06/08/2020|
Stars of Hollywood's golden age were glamorous and impossibly gorgeous. Made up and impeccably dressed, now we them on their Starbuck's runs looking like something the cat dragged in.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||06/08/2020|
They definitely had more mystery and it was better. Now you get many arguing on Twitter and whatnot and their self-promotion on Instagram is nauseating.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||06/08/2020|