Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

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 Anonymousreply 8806/08/2020

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 Anonymousreply 108/09/2018

Social media killed the concept of celebrity.

by Anonymousreply 208/09/2018

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 Anonymousreply 308/09/2018

[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 Anonymousreply 408/09/2018

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 Anonymousreply 508/09/2018

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 Anonymousreply 608/09/2018

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 Anonymousreply 708/09/2018

...Amy Schumer and Tiffany Hadish.

by Anonymousreply 808/09/2018

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 Anonymousreply 908/09/2018

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 Anonymousreply 1008/09/2018

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 Anonymousreply 1108/09/2018

Yes.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1208/09/2018

And yes.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1308/09/2018

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 Anonymousreply 1408/09/2018

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 Anonymousreply 1508/09/2018

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 Anonymousreply 1608/09/2018

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 Anonymousreply 1708/09/2018

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 Anonymousreply 1808/09/2018

I'm a STAHHH, bitches!

by Anonymousreply 1908/09/2018

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 Anonymousreply 2008/09/2018

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 Anonymousreply 2108/09/2018

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.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2208/10/2018

True about Scarlett Johansson, and especially Lucy. That would have been a very obscure movie without her.

by Anonymousreply 2308/10/2018

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 Anonymousreply 2408/11/2018

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 Anonymousreply 2508/12/2018

Cate Blanchett will be to differ, but okay.

It's a winner-take-all paradigm.

by Anonymousreply 2608/12/2018

*beg, chrissakes.

by Anonymousreply 2708/12/2018

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 Anonymousreply 2808/12/2018

R24 Sure Jan

by Anonymousreply 2908/12/2018

They ain't got no faces no more.

by Anonymousreply 3008/12/2018

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 Anonymousreply 3108/12/2018

Dead as a doornail. And social media DID kill them. The younger generation doesn't give a shit. They're into YouTube celebrities.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3208/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 3308/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 3408/13/2018

R34 So agree, and how are they celebrities ffs?

by Anonymousreply 3508/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 3608/13/2018

She must be her Colton Haynes. Is your niece a budding lesbian?

by Anonymousreply 3708/13/2018

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3808/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 3908/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 4008/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 4108/13/2018

R41 I'd add George Clooney to the list.

by Anonymousreply 4208/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 4308/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 4408/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 4508/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 4608/13/2018

I bet half the people that watched Thor couldn't even tell you who played the character.

by Anonymousreply 4708/13/2018

ding dong

by Anonymousreply 4808/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 4908/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 5008/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 5108/13/2018

That’s pretty much what R50 already said. You’ve added nothing to the conversation.

by Anonymousreply 5208/13/2018

R41 Sandra Bullock has been doing that consistently.

by Anonymousreply 5308/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 5408/13/2018

Sorry hadn't seen Bullock had already been mentioned upthread.

by Anonymousreply 5508/13/2018

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.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 5608/13/2018

I would say a Marvel film is the most sure bet right now, but movies still sell with Cruise, Streep, Lawrence, Pratt, etc

by Anonymousreply 5708/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 5808/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 5908/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 6008/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 6108/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 6208/13/2018

DDL stopped making movies. People say every year that movie stars are over and yet they still continue.

by Anonymousreply 6308/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 6408/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 6508/13/2018

How about a movie with Rihana?

by Anonymousreply 6608/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 6708/13/2018

[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 Anonymousreply 6808/13/2018

When the hell did Jude Law get a sex change?

by Anonymousreply 6908/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 7008/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 7108/13/2018

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 Anonymousreply 7208/13/2018

R68 I believe that JLaw is Jennifer Lawrence.

by Anonymousreply 7308/14/2018

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 Anonymousreply 7408/14/2018

When Jennifer Lawrence, yelled " OH FUCK' after supposedly tripping at the Oscars.

by Anonymousreply 7508/14/2018

And don't forget flipping the bird at reporters captured from every angle, just an hour later.

by Anonymousreply 7608/14/2018

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 Anonymousreply 7708/14/2018

I think Forbes mixes up movie salary and endorsement contracts for makeup, clothes, handbags and tampons.

by Anonymousreply 7808/14/2018

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 Anonymousreply 7908/14/2018

Margot Robbie definitely not and Jennifer Lawrence is very questionable considering her last four movies bombed badly.

by Anonymousreply 8008/14/2018

Jennifer Lawrence is the next Nicole Flopman she's queen of the flops

by Anonymousreply 8108/14/2018
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8208/14/2018

R82 I wonder if that couch is Harvey's infamous casting couch...the stories it could tell

by Anonymousreply 8308/14/2018

bump

by Anonymousreply 8405/24/2020

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 Anonymousreply 8506/04/2020

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 Anonymousreply 8606/08/2020

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 Anonymousreply 8706/08/2020

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 Anonymousreply 8806/08/2020
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!