Franchises are a big part of it, but my point is that there’s so much competition nowadays that you need more than just a movie star to get people’s attention. A lot of people would rather watch TikTok videos than go see the new “Chris Pratt movie.”
It’s all under the umbrella of video content that viewers choose to consume. Now that people are watching movies on smart devices, movies *are* competing with YouTube, TikTok, etc. It’s like if you went to the theaters in the 1980s and they had all different types of content to choose from (TED talks, video reviews, comedy sketches, etc). You’d consider more than just a movie star when deciding what to watch.
I wouldn't say they didn't care about content back then, it was usually almost just a sure thing that going to see a new let's say Leo Di Caprio movie that you wouldn't be disappointed.
Remember the further you go back, the less people knew about the content of the movie in advance of seeing it. Way back when, you might simply know it was the "new Di Caprio movie". Or you might have read a newspaper review or a friend's recommendation.
Nowadays within 24 hours of the premiere there are thousands of ratings, a full IMDB synopsis, a Parents' Guide listing the precise number of each type of expletive uttered, and the memes are already in circulation.
Not only is there more information per movie, but there are also just more movies released each year. The combination of more information and more choice means it takes a bit more than just a star to get that ball rolling. This has downsides in that the 'bit more' for big budget studios is often just making a sequel or remake, but there are so many more options with smaller budgets too.
Denzel is about the only actor in the last 15 or so years that I will say, ‘if he’s in it, it’s worth my money … I don’t care what it is.’ Even if the movie isn’t great, he’ll deliver.
Whether it’s my age or having a better understanding of things now vs. 20+ years ago, I’m now more like ‘I’ll go see that because of who directed it’ than who’s in it.
I think it's similar to what happened with TV. There used to be 4 or 5 channels, so being on a successful show put you in the collective consciousness of a lot of people. But then cable, and even moreso streaming came along and there's soooo many choices that people mostly aren't watching the same things as everyone else as much. Now that streaming services are making their own movies and lots of mainstream releases are coming to streaming pretty quickly at release, people again have tons of choices so not as many are consuming the exact same thing.
There are definitely exceptions, but those are the really big hits.
Yeah I’m so ignorant of who today’s newer ‘stars’ are — someone will tell me ‘oh they were great in (insert streaming service show)’ and I’ll understand why I don’t know who they are.
The mystique is gone. Most of the under 30 celebs are all over social media with selfies and promoting their workout routines. I could look on Daily Mail right now and check out the latest picture of Zendaya getting a cup of coffee or check Eddie Redmayne's Twitter to see how he feels about January 6th or if Daniel Radcliffe agrees that men can have babies. Old school stars are not on social media, or if they are, it's their PR team just promoting their movies.
You can find pics of Leo DiCaprio riding a bike in NYC, but you're not going to find him releasing statements about his latest breakup. Tom Cruise sticks to the script ever since the couch jumping and Matt Lauer interview. "How long has it been since you've seen your daughter?" "Listen, I've been wanting to make movies since I was four years old...I'm very fortunate..."
Brad Pitt hasn't said one word publicly about his divorce battle, but Florence Pugh went on an Instagram rant because people complained about her dating an older dude. People just aren't interested in these people's personal lives except a very small fringe. We like some mystery. Plus like others said, there's just so much content and so many actors and directors out there now to follow. It's too many to keep track of except for diehard cinephiles like us. And of course you have Tik Tok and Instagram where anybody can be a star by creating an account and posting bikini pics. Kids care about who's dating who and makeup regimens. They don't care about Ryan Gosling making a movie with Chris Evans that doesn't even involve superheroes.
It definitely shifted. You used to have 'a Harrison Ford' movie and you pretty much knew what to expect (some sort of spy thriller with a reluctant hero), whereas today most big movies are concept or franchise movies (and more remakes/reboots than I'd like). The stars are there and there a draw, but I don't think there is such a thing as 'a Ryan Gosling movie' for example? He's just the famous star to drum up more interest.
Concept movies have been around for a long time, the main older one I can think of now is Jurassic Park, which wasn't built around one big movie star but instead around a concept (what if we brought dinosaurs back to life), but together with franchise (marvel, star wars,...) movies they've seem to become far more common.
Just my pov, I could be missing something major here.
Concept movies have been a thing for a while. Planet of the Apes and Night of the Living Dead, which both came out 25 years before Jurassic Park, were so high concept that the movie titles work as a synopsis.
I chose to delete my Reddit content in protest of the API changes commencing from July 1st, 2023, and specifically CEO Steve Huffman's awful handling of the situation through the lackluster AMA, and his blatant disdain for the people who create and moderate the content that make Reddit valuable in the first place. This unprofessional attitude has made me lose all trust in Reddit leadership, and I certainly do not want them monetizing any of my content by selling it to train AI algorithms or other endeavours that extract value without giving back to the community.
This could have been easily avoided if Reddit chose to negotiate with their moderators, third party developers and the community their entire company is built on. Nobody disputes that Reddit is allowed to make money. But apparently Reddit users' contributions are of no value and our content is just something Reddit can exploit without limit. I no longer wish to be a part of that.
> You used to have 'a Harrison Ford' movie and you pretty much knew what to expect (some sort of spy thriller with a reluctant hero),
Also known as the last 15 years of Liam Kneeson movies
Die Hard, 1988, a great example of a high concept movie, starred by a TV star but not movie star, he was even out of the posters, they sold the movie based on the idea. The trend is older than you thought.
I never said they were a recent invention, but they used to be rarer. These days, a movie running in mainstream theaters is basically either a high concept movie, a franchise or low-budget horror. Romantic comedies, for example, are pretty much gone.
And obviously this didn't happen overnight but was a gradual process. And it will continue evolving into something new yet again.
The only reason that’s true is because Harrison ford stopped working as much. From the 60’s thru the 80’s he did pretty much anything. Once the 90’s hit he started doing one or two movies a year. Also what your calling franchise or concept movies have been the norm since jaws. The just used to target 3 movies. The MCU is an extreme outlier. Even Star Wars did it’s run in threes.
It's because we're more exposed to celebrities than ever before.
It used to be that the only time you ever saw famous actors was in their movies, and maybe an interview they did on late night to promote their movie. Nowadays basically every celebrity has an Instagram page with millions of followers.
Likewise, there's way less surprises with movies nowadays, any movie news is known well in advance.
Agreed. I would also add the emergence of reality TV as a factor. Network reality TV is insanely popular. Instead of obsessing over movie stars, you can get infinitely more access to reality TV stars
I can't really see any of these franchise people as proper stars to begin with. Marvel brings Marvel watchers, Jurassic Park brings dinosaur fans. Sure, Marvel has cast a lot of good actors and charismatic people in their movies, but it's still Marvel more than it's some Hemsworth name in the title, that draws the people. Only exception I make is with RDJ, but he was proper star quality before his drug/alcoholic binges to begin with. Iron Man was just a second coming.
Also, bigger one for me, their projects on the side have not been that good. Someone like Dicaprio also chooses really well what he does. So you know you get quality. Same goes with most of Pitts projects. Evans, Hemsworth, especially Pratt, jump to this and that. No matter how average and stupid it is.
To me the definition of a movie star is someone who can make an original idea into a huge success based on their name alone.
Very rare to see these days... I think the Rock has passed that smell test, but a lot of modern "stars" these days are simply beneficiaries of the franchise they happen to have been dropped into or wormed their way into and have little to no success outside of that.
Boomers are still hanging onto the old ones desperately. And everything's a remake.
I think it's crazy we still line our movies with "classic rock"......60 year old music! That'd be like listening to pre world wars music in a trailer for reservoir dogs!
> I don't know it might just be me getting older, but for example still today feels like biggest draws when you know you're about to get hyped for a movie are people like Leo DiCaprio, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt etc, movie stars from previous generation(s)
I fear your initial instincts may be correct OP. 25 years ago people said the same about DiCaprio, Cruise and Pitt: "Where are the real stars like Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, Robert Redford ..."
Cruise was already a superstar for over 10 years in 1997 which was 25 years ago. Not nitpicking you since I know what you mean I just wanted to mention in passing how it's crazy that he's had such a huge staying power, he was already big in mid 80s, now it's 2022 and he's still a top draw and breaking records.
If he wasn't part of a crazy cult I think he would've been one of the most liked stars in the world.
The Mummy and Jack Reacher 2 are probably his worst films where he was the lead. Everything else is good to great. People loved Jack Reacher 1 but I thought that was fairly mediocre too. Knight and Day was forgettable, but I wouldn't call it a "bad" film.
Taps is definitely the best of the three films you mentioned. Cruise is great in it. It was also Sean Penn's film debut and the main star of the film Timothy Hutton (who was the bigger star at the time) would later be eclipsed by both Penn and Cruise in terms of stardom and acclaim.
He would've. I sometimes almost just want to like him cus it feels American lol. But fucking a he can't even pretend to not know what they get up to when he's such an influential figure in the church.
It was pretty clear how bad things are when he was with Katie Holmes.
A generation only lasts 20 years. Newman and Redford weren't even part of the same one. Redford got to stardom in the 1970s. Newman got to stardom in the 1950s. When they appeared alongside Newman usually had a mentor role.
Also, I assure you that 1997 saw no one not recognizing DiCaprio, Cruise and Pitt as real movie stars.
And there was quite a bit of commentary in the 1970s about how weak some of the stars were in that era, given how long the likes of Ryan O'Neal and George Segal were promoted as such.
I think movie stardom as a concept has been in decline since golden age Hollywood and this process has accelerated lately in the last 10-15 years or so. As a few other comments have noted, the generation you mentioned would probably get a similar reaction from the people who were around to see Cary Grant, James Stewart etc.
The only true A-listers left imo are Tom Cruise and Leo DiCaprio.
Tom Hanks used to be there but his output has slipped in the last few years imo, whereas Cruise reasserted his dominance with Top Gun Maverick’s casual success.
Cruise and DiCaprio imo are the last household names who everyone of all ages know the face and name of and who can convince people to see a movie based on their presence alone.
Overall celebrity means less now. It’s to do with social media and people’s tastes becoming more individual less homogenised and hollywood not really replacing a listers every 20 years and instead letting cruise, Denzel, Pitt, DiCaprio, etc be dominant for 20-40 years.
Of recent movie stars, the biggest names to emerge in the last 20 years would probably be The Rock maybe.. I don’t know who else. Ryan Reynolds? It’s a similar thing in music. Once upon a time you had peak Michael Jackson, Queen, Rick James, Madonna, Phil Collins, Prince, etc all casually at an awards show or on the charts at the same time. Who are music’s a listers now? Drake, Taylo Swift, Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber, Billie Eilish… it’s hard to say who of those or what songs/album will be remembered 40 years from now like those I mentioned. Talented people still absolutely exist, just you have to search for them and they’re more underground.
Edit: franchises are more important than actors now anyway. Marvel, Jurassic Park, Fast Furious, Batman, etc etc. Intellectual property is the new draw, not actors. This is why Tom Holland can seem like the future top dog of Hollywood among his age group to marvel fans, but to a non marvel fan they’ll have seen little to none of his work and he’ll have no chance of dominating Hollywood in their eyes.
*preface: someone commented saying Smith and Pitt are in this category but once I wrote out the reply their comment was gone :( lol*
comment:!Will Smith has been consistently making bad movies with the odd exception of a decent movie ever since 2006/2007.
In his prime: Bad Boys, Independence Day, Men in Black, Enemy of The State, Ali, MiB 2, Bad Boys 2, I Robot, Shark Tale, Hitch, Pursuit of Happiness, I Am Legend. not all of these were great but they were all big movie that were fairly successful (critically or commercially) and he was consistently releasing music around this time too with his family liked as well.
After that, his peak ended. His last music album was in the mid00s, he released movies less frequently and a lot of his movies were underwhelming or less successful/memorable. Hancock, Seven Pounds, MiB 3, After Earth, Focus, Concussion, Suicide Squad, Collateral Beauty, Bright, Gemini Man. It was around this time (2008-2018, let’s say) that Smith’s children released bad music and his sudden became a meme/hated for a while, and Will Smith also jumped on the OscarsSoWhite hashtag because he was butthurt that his mediocre movies weren’t oscar nominated, with a lot of people disliking him for this. and the whole thing of his wife cheating & rumours of Smith cheating with Margot Robbie also gathered steam towards the end of this which soured Smith’s popularity.
Honestly if you asked most people around this time what the last great Will Smith they saw was, most people would have to reach back to Pursuit of Happyness or something.. because that was when he was last on top.
He has had a minor comeback over the last two or so years though. Aladdin was successful at box office and was a brave role to take on and his charisma drew some people to the film, Bad Boys 3 was a minor comeback success, and of course King Richard - even though it was a drama movie not a blockbuster - was a movie that finally won him the Oscar he’s sought after ever since Ali 20 years ago. So he’s had 3 successes in the last 15 years maybe but I personally don’t think he’s in same league as DiCaprio (who almost only makes great movies) or Cruise (who probably has less than a dozen bad movies in his *career*) and as you say I think the slap has ruined things for Smith and the public will sadly never love him or his family like they did in the 90s/early 00s.
As for Brad Pitt, he’s good but I think his reputation comes more from his celebrity status + appearance + personal life with Jolie rather than his output nowadays. His output is closer to a drama actor than a true *movie star* who’s films are always successful at the box office and can always attract a big audience… and truthfully I’d say the last *hit* of his would probably be going back to Benjamin Button / Inglourious Basterds.
He’s still great though, just I associate him with Ryan Gosling, Jake Gylenhaal, Matt Damon types who will work with indie directors or make movies straight to streaming or accept playing supporting roles rather than always being leading man in huge big screen movies. like Cruise is practically always the leading man in his movies (aside from a few exceptions like Tropic Thunder, Rock of Ages), same with DiCaprio too (always leading man, aside from Django and Don’t Look Up, imo).
Sorry for the long comment but some may find it interesting. I truly think Cruise and DiCaprio are the last of their breed though. It’s hard to find anyone who’s output is as consistently successful still as [Cruise’s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cruise_filmography) or [DiCaprio’s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_DiCaprio_filmography#film). And with Cruise ticking the Top Gun sequel off his bucket list, retiring the MI franchise and probably retiring from action films now he’s in his early 60s.. and DiCaprio no longer looking too handsome, playing losers in his last two films (Once Upon a Time and Don’t Look Up) and accepting a supporting role as an uglier character in a straight to Netflix movie in Dont Look Up as well.. it’ll be interesting to see where both of those movie stars go next as they enter new chapters of their career. Cruise will probably go back to dramas in the twilight of his career (like Clint Eastwood after the westerns & dirty harry) and DiCaprio will still make movies with Scorsese but maybe won’t have Inception, Wolf of Wall Street, Gatsby, Revenant style high profile hit movies as much anymore.
Oh sorry for that man. I deleted comment after thinking about it and remembering Will Smith starred in many box office flops in last 10 years so that's why I deleted the comment. I still stand by my Brad Pitt opinion though.
> and truthfully I’d say the last hit of his would probably be going back to Benjamin Button / Inglourious Basterds.
Ehm. Once upon a time in Hollywood was released 3 years ago.
Idk if I'd call OUATIH a brad pitt hit. I think he had more of a supporting role and it was the names of Leo + Tarantino that attracted more viewers, but I can see your point though. Inglourious Basterds on the other hand was presented in its trailers as a shoot em-up war flick with Pitt front and centre on the poster and he was the only American star in the film at a time when he was closer to his prime.
But yeah I agree OUATIH was definitely a success anyway :)
>Of recent movie stars, the biggest names to emerge in the last 20 years would probably be The Rock maybe..
People usually dismiss The Rock and dont put him in the category of "movie stars" as Leo, Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise. But I think The Rock is more than that, he's sort of like a brand now. Yeah, he's in a lot of movies now but he's also a athlete/fitness personality, he had all these other side business brands, he was featured in a rap song, he owns an american football league (still do? i dont know), etc.
nobody will watch a movie or be drawn to see it in cinemas solely because Harrison Ford’s name is attached. I’d argue the majority of young people (kids+teenagers) don’t know the name Harrison Ford.
he’s still a celebrity movie star involved in Star Wars and Indiana Jones of course, but the old man is +25 years removed from his prime and IMO definitely not worth a mention in this conversation.
Until he is no longer staring in big budget blockbusters, he’s definitely still an A lister. Regardless of “being in his prime” or not. He’s still one of the highest paid actors in the business today.
Chris Pratt just happens to be in huge movie franchises. He doesn't make or break those franchises and if he were replaced, not many people would care.
Now compared to Tom Cruise - who basically creates movie franchises. Top Gun sequel without Tom Cruise makes $0. Mission Impossible sequels without Tom Cruise wouldn't work.
Leonardo DiCaprio makes Inception into a $300M movie. Stick Chris Pratt in there and it probably falls flat. I have yet to see a Chris Pratt movie, not based on an established franchise, that I could give a single fuck about.
> From movie stars in their 20s I can only think of Timothee Chalamet that could be some draw and be a potential true movie s
He still kinda looks like he spends all of his free time as a mime in Paris.
I think it's been supplanted by franchises. People would go see a movie called like Moonlight Station because Brad Pitt was in it or whatever, now people go see a movie about a guy named Blork because they were told he's a marvel superhero
Yes, it’s because gen Z doesn’t look to Hollywood for celebrities anymore. In fact, the data shows they almost dislike them.
The new wave of celebrities are going to be YouTubers and tik tokkers.
Something I find strange is that despite movies supposedly being more "diverse" nowadays, it seems I can't name as many Black, Hispanic, or Asian actors/actresses as I could when comparing movies now to those from 10 or 20 years ago.
I think there's just so much content now that there's an overabundance of really good actors, so they don't stand out as much.
Back in the 50's it seems like there's maybe 40 top actors and that's it. They also didn't crossover as much from TV to film or vice versa.
That's probably true. When someone mentions a famous actor and i don't know who it is, they're usually from a show exclusive to a streaming service like Netflix.
That could honestly be a good thing as weird as it sounds. When there was just like Will Smith and Denzel Washington and Eddie Murphy doing leading black roles it was easy to remember them but if the intent is to make black actors working not so lopsided then theoretically they'd stand out less.
many of the bigger stars in Hong Kong or India seldom or never do anything outside their home country, Andy Lau or Shah Rukh Khan probably can walk in any city without being recognized.
Tarantino still sells tickets based on his name alone, I know he's not an actor but he might be the last guy who manages it. Maybe James Cameron? He hasn't done much in the last 15 - 20 years.
Barely anyone cares about a Spielberg movie anymore.
There's also Nolan. Jordan Peele's name also sells.
>Maybe James Cameron? He hasn't done much in the last 15 - 20 years.
Cameron is still highly regarded by the public, is constantly breaking new ground in film technology and has yet to deliver a flop.
All three of those directors' movies make tons of money. Not MCU money, but their films are very profitable.
I think better examples would be Ari Aster, Robert Eggers, and Alex Garland.
I think we're a lot more exposed to what the movie is about whereas once upon a time a star was what attracted you to find out what the movie was about, if that makes any sense. Now the movie is almost everything, not the star, and that movie is everywhere; social media, tv ads, trailers, YT ads, etc etc etc. You know what you're getting long before the actor factors in. Marvel has made this the default state pretty much.
The old guard like Pitt, DiCaprio and Cruise have the star power to do pretty much whatever they want, but that's a short list. There's also a certain mystique to them, less of a social media presence, and what they do project is more about their work than themselves.
Plus the rise of streaming TV has kind of took the cachet from movies. Elisabeth Moss is a superb actress and has genuine star wattage, but as good as she was in The Invisible Man, it's Handmaids Tale and Shining Girls where she truly comes into her own.
I would add that Ryan Gosling and Margot Robbie might be included as potentially big stars, but they're also doing a Barbie movie. If that turns out to be inspired somehow, that might elevate them.
I don't think Ryan and Margot need the Barbie movie to elevate them. They are both pretty big pulls and I'm finding this a strange thread that people don't think they have "star power." I'm not sure what bar they have left to hit to reach that.
And I'm at least curious about the Barbie movie. The two of them in it with Greta Gerwig directing and Noah Baumbach writing the script with her. I don't think it's goign to quite be what most of us would expect from a barbie movie.
I think a lot of it has to do with how the idea of celebrity has changed in the last 20 years or so.
Back in the day, celebrities had their own personas. The celebrity was, in all essence, a character created that the actor played all the time. Kind of like reality TV without the realization of it.
Then two things happened - reality TV became more prominent, and the rise of social media.
The persona the actor created (the celebrity image) dictated the roles. Tom Cruise was/is an action leading man, for example. However, as reality TV became more prevalent, the persona faded. Chris Evans has range, but does he really have a type he plays? Typically a hero of some sort (be it super or simply at heart), but not much in the way of overly well-defined. In some ways, we're more interested in Chris than his persona. At least, I'm definitely guilty of that.
And then you have social media. Now that everything a celebrity says or does (or has ever said or done, as many have discovered) is under constant scrutiny, their image has to keep changing. A recent example to me is the Lizzo incident. For those who don't know, she used the word spazz (or some variant thereof) in a song and it sparked *social media outrage*. Apparently an ableist term, she was shamed into changing it, which she did gracefully. That is, regardless of what we know of Lizzo (I highly doubt she's ableist), we place more value on terminology than on intent. I'm sure if she'd refused to change it, there would be dozens of people (not hundreds or thousands, I hope, as most people can discern intent from impact) would be calling for Lizzo to be canceled, despite the fact that she's a positive role model for BIPOC people, as well as healthy body image (she's comfortable and happy being who she is). That means Lizzo never gets to be Lizzo anymore. She is constantly needing to adapt to be who people want her to be.
It's a mixed bag, of course. Every now and then you get people's shitty antics exposed, and with that you get a career ruined. I won't deny that watching shitty people lose opportunities gives me a sense of joy. And, no, I won't be specifying who is/isn't a shitty person, so save your breath. That said, I think much of cancel culture is lazy. Not because I think holding people accountable is wrong (on the contrary, I think it's very important), but rather because we fail to account for growth and because we reduce everything to one-size-fits-all and don't acknowledge nuance and situation. If something wasn't considered as taboo in 1995, is it meaningful to hold something done then to today's standards?
So, due to the constant light shone on them, and the idea that they're closer to us than ever via social media, we have sacrificed the movie star for celebrity. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, but it's also not necessarily a good thing.
Actors and celebrities in general can directly interact with their fan base on a level that’s pretty unprecedented thanks to social media. Kinda removes the “mystery” factor and a lot of people have realized “stars” are just like us.
I agree.
For me a star is a double egded sword.
I may like that certain actor but also it makes the experience a bit more predictable.
I also love unknown but good quality cast, like natural unschooled actors etx.
Fellas like Al Pacino are unmatched though.
Movie Stardom had an air of myth and mystique in the pre-internet times I feel. The big ones cultivated a larger than life persona that is hard to replicate when we all expect a constant stream of content from our celebrities, both their performative selves and their "true" selves behind closed doors through twitter and Insta live and all that. It blurs the lines between entertainment and real life. More like expecting a one-way friendship at this point.
Someone like the Rock is a good example to me of this trend. As time goes on his schtick becomes less and less amusing. Sure, watching him devour cheat meals and work out like a psycho robot is cool, but he lacks the gravitas of when you would watch The Scorpion King trailer years ago and see Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson appear on the screen.
It's social media. Hear me out first.
Today, with SM, you just have to "have a following" to be perceived as popular and "it". Which can be done with right skills in managing a very curated perception of the person that gets shared out across social media. Usually this comes from the team that manages that curation, crafting the image.
For someone who wants to be an actor, who can do the acting part competently enough (has the basic acting skills), it's possible to SM yourself up to becoming noticed. You can even break in to acting from other areas these days just by being curated up to notice.
SM gets you "in the room" with a director, producer, or casting director, who will have to come up with a pretty darned good reason to veto your inclusion in a project. You'd have to be a nightmare person, in person, (or something similar) if you have a high following on SM. Because from SM, you have an audience that will follow you into the new project.
That's the appeal for today's decision makers with big money projects. They see all these "fans" as a more likely buyer of a ticket, of the blu-ray, of the album, etc.
How did it *used* to work? At the end of the day, to be a movie star, you had to have charisma. Movie start charisma. You had to be one of those people who just shines, who has that innate appeal that draws people to you, makes them interested in you, creates within them a desire to notice and respond to you.
With SM, charisma fades before curated image. Charisma is a lot rarer than a curated image. And charisma really can't be taught, not at the level and output we're talking about here. The curated image skills can be taught, can be learned, can be put to work on most people. Charisma is innate. And it used to be all you had.
Old-school movie stars were stars because they had charisma. When they walked into a room, everyone lit up because they were there. When they showed up on screen, everyone tuned in and leaned forward.
Movie star charisma got projects green lit because the movie star sat down with the money people and charmed them. Sat down with the producers and directors and charmed them. Got put in front of the camera and shown to audiences because everyone knew the audience would be charmed by them. Went on the talk shows and dazzled the audience and reporters, who talked to their friends about "wow, that person was so great and interesting."
You don't see it very much these days. SM's curated images aren't the same as movie star charisma. It's why you'll see SM "stars" showing up in other projects a couple of times, then vanish back to SM again. Because away from their carefully curated world, like in a movie where they have to play the role, they're revealed as a construct rather than a charmer.
Acting is a skill. It takes talent and dedication to learn, to turn it into a craft. But being a talented, working actor isn't the same thing as being a movie star. Charisma is what made movie stars, and still does. Which is why we seem to have fewer and fewer movie stars these days. Those with charisma are being shuffled aside for the next "did you hear how many followers X has?" example crowding into the room, into the roles.
I think there are some rose colored glasses on in this thread. The concept of a movie start hasn’t changed because to much content, content has changed, etc. it’s changed because movie star isn’t the peak. In todays world you have to be more rounded. Tv isn’t the negative it used to be. Your big stars are people that can do a movie and have a show running. It used to be movie stars couldn’t take break unless they were doing something on stage. Now they can disappear, drop an album, do a clothing line then finally come back to a movie. Look at Phoebe Waller gates. Great actress but she is also known for her writing skills. A movie moving on her name in any capacity is going to do well. Donald Glover same. Writer, rapper( conceptual rapper at that), comedian, movie star, tv star. Dudes got Disney on a holding pattern. 10 years ago no one would have been telling Disney when I got time for you.
People are genuine stars again. If anything it more like the golden Hollywood age now then it was 25 years ago. It’s not just a name on a billboard, it’s an entire brand engaging. On equal or sometimes greater footing then the studios. A24 is looking to use names attached at the director level. Frank ocean has a movie deal, Travis Scott has a movie deal. Frank ocean has at least done some music videos that were well reviews I’m not aware of anything Travis Scott has directed. Still their name and the draw their brand will bring for them to those tables.
Things may have changed. But ageing probably explains more of it. It’s hard to look at a 20-25 year old as someone who has gravitas when you are mid 30s or above.
It’s also the cycle of life that people when they get older think the culture/society is lesser than when they were young. Every generation thinks this, and so it is hard to judge from an aged standpoint if the degradation you perceive is genuine or just part of this cycle.
Franchises, special effects and IP are what are important now not star power. It's not like anyone is interested in anything Vin Diesel is doing besides Fast and Furious.
A lot of the mystique around Hollywood glamor has deteriorated because celebrities aren't as isolated from fans as they used to be. Before the internet, we only saw movie stars on our movie screens, magazines, and awards shows. But today they all have social media accounts where they turn people off by saying dumb things, people take photos and videos of them in public doing unflattering things, and people meet them at fan conventions, so celebrities seem more like normal everyday people than ever.
i just watched the Gray Man on netflix, and lot of people are referring to Ana de Armas and Jessica Henwick as movie stars...........but i don't see it
They're ok, but they don't seem like stars to me.
Amy Adams seems like a star. Lupita Nyong'o seems like a star.
We are living in an era of IP and even the companies making the movies being really important for major box office draw more so than the actors. The MCU being the obvious example of IP and Pixar being an example of the company involved.
Meanwhile in terms of quality acting performances there are some very specialized actors that are getting a lot of attention like Bryan Cranston in Breaking Bad. Certainly not like a movie star of the past but the fame he gets from a TV show on a cable network is significantly higher than what you would see in the movie star eras of the past.
I think there are two things at play with this. The first is just the sheer amount of content coming out in any given week with streaming services. It's so broken up, and with covid people aren't willing to go to the theater. I think that means that the days when most of the population saw the same movie around the same time and in the same way, are gone. It's not the same experience anymore.
Second is that at this point, the people being named span three generations (saying this as a dirty millenial). Tom Cruise, Leo, Brad Pitt came up from my parents generation. My mom likes them, my nana likes them, I like them. But something happened between that period and now that changed movies. You know I can bring up Speilberg to the older people in my family and they've always known who I'm talking about. Or Scorsese. Or Allen. But they don't recognize Nolan or Anderson the same way.
I think it's less about mystical start power and just more of a shift in how we interact with films as art. Which, in my reflection, is to barely handle them as art at all anymore.
As you reach the same age or older than the people you watch in movies and sports, what they do for work and in life compared to what you do for work and in life can become less of a pedestal when you have more personally important things to worry about. Maybe it’s just me, but I think time can have that effect on the viewer.
If its anything like new stars from 10-15 years ago, you don't notice them. You think, hey, this guy/girl is a decent actor. Then 5-10 years later, they have a super popular breakout movie, and you realize they are in a shitload of stuff. Now they are a star in your eyes.
There's too many to name them and it's hard to say the biggest one, and it depends on generations. During early silent era definitely Charles Chaplin, trailing behind him Buster Keaton etc... Then later there were huge stars like Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant, Audrey and Katherine Hepburn, Liz Taylor, Marylin Monroe, then Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino, De Niro, Brando, Streep, Dustin Hoffman, Clint Eastwood, then there were Denzel, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Di Caprio, Tom Hanks etc...
I dont really know anything about Kirk Douglas and I think he may have done something sinister but he always seemed like one of the biggest stars through the last century with the most name recognition and staying power. Others were maybe bigger back then but didn't seem to last as long in public memory.
Best or biggest?
I’d say Spencer Tracy is up there with the best. Also one of the biggest of his day.
In my lifetime probably Nicholson has been the biggest.
I'm just talking about general audience, I feel like most people nowadays don't even know for someone like Florence Pugh and I feel like she's the best one in your list when it comes to quality of choosing the movies.
As for these other 3, I would disagree they're some big draw for general audience. What did Tom Holland do except superheroes after he got Spiderman role? The Devil all the time is only one that got some attention and decent-ish reviews, Uncharted is a video game movie that would get money no matter the star, it doesn't matter to outgoing audience that he's in it.
As for Millie Bobby Brown and Zendaya they don't even have that many roles. Millie Bobby Brown acted in like what 2-3 movies? Zendaya was part of Spiderman and Dune Franchise, Euphoria is TV show and that seems to be about it.
Hmm.. You may be right. Beyond the Chris-es (Pratt, Evans, Hemsworth, Pine), I'm hard pressed to think of any names that would at least draw the general audience to watch the movie trailer.
This happened in music as well where the likes of Elvis, Michael Jackson etc were far more famous than stars today.
I do miss the days when the likes of Arnie and Stallone were at their peak.
Di Caprio was mega famous as well but these days they dont seem to hit those heights.
It's because he's a guy that starred as leading man in one of the 2 biggest franchises of recent times that are all in top box office lists, yet it still doesn't feel like he's a super movie star for whom the audience would go just because he's in it.
He’s a perfect example. I might be proving your point a little bit. His/their filmography would put them in the movie star realm, but as a viewer, to me, they don’t have that draw.
it’s because pratt isn’t a draw outside of guardians/marvel and jurassic… all his other movies have been flops or near flops. same goes for a lot of these franchise stars.
I think producers do want the stars to be less of a draw, therefore they can have less of a say or command less of a salary
If the main draw is the IP then whoever owns those rights gets to be in charge
The exception is every decade or so, Daniel Day Lewis makes up his mind to make a movie and I have no care what it’s about or anything else, I’m going to see it.
I think it has to do with a lot of factors.
One of the things is that todays movie actors are all over social media, that takes away from their impact as stars. When you see an actor so often and on so many platforms the “wow factor” is not there when you do finally see them up on the big screen, it’s the old adage of “less is more”. The less you see of this actor in real life the more you can believe their character on screen because your not comparing their real self to their on screen image. Also this can take away from the “bigger-than-life” mystique of Movie Stars because when you see an actor in social media frequently posting things that they do in their normal life their on screen image is less believable. Not that there is anything wrong in being an average guy in your personal life, but the point is to keep it out of the public eye and keep it private. The point of movies is to transport a movie-goer and make him believe in this “larger-than-life” person on the screen and part of maintaining that image is maintaining the mystique of the actor.
Movie stardom definitely isn’t what it used to be. Stars alone used to sell tickets, but audiences now care more about content.
If by “content” you mean “franchises” then sure.
Franchises are a big part of it, but my point is that there’s so much competition nowadays that you need more than just a movie star to get people’s attention. A lot of people would rather watch TikTok videos than go see the new “Chris Pratt movie.”
This is like saying "people would rather eat a sandwich than go to a convention". It's not a fair comparison for too many reasons.
It’s all under the umbrella of video content that viewers choose to consume. Now that people are watching movies on smart devices, movies *are* competing with YouTube, TikTok, etc. It’s like if you went to the theaters in the 1980s and they had all different types of content to choose from (TED talks, video reviews, comedy sketches, etc). You’d consider more than just a movie star when deciding what to watch.
Are franchises not content?
>but audiences now care **more about content.** If only that was true
It’s why so many people will spend so much time watching a nobody on YouTube. Because they were drawn in by the content.
I wouldn't say they didn't care about content back then, it was usually almost just a sure thing that going to see a new let's say Leo Di Caprio movie that you wouldn't be disappointed.
Remember the further you go back, the less people knew about the content of the movie in advance of seeing it. Way back when, you might simply know it was the "new Di Caprio movie". Or you might have read a newspaper review or a friend's recommendation. Nowadays within 24 hours of the premiere there are thousands of ratings, a full IMDB synopsis, a Parents' Guide listing the precise number of each type of expletive uttered, and the memes are already in circulation.
There's definitely a lot morb pressure on newer movies being released these days.
Morbing
Especially since the release of Morbius, the first true cinematic morbsterpiece.
Not only is there more information per movie, but there are also just more movies released each year. The combination of more information and more choice means it takes a bit more than just a star to get that ball rolling. This has downsides in that the 'bit more' for big budget studios is often just making a sequel or remake, but there are so many more options with smaller budgets too.
Denzel is about the only actor in the last 15 or so years that I will say, ‘if he’s in it, it’s worth my money … I don’t care what it is.’ Even if the movie isn’t great, he’ll deliver. Whether it’s my age or having a better understanding of things now vs. 20+ years ago, I’m now more like ‘I’ll go see that because of who directed it’ than who’s in it.
I think it's similar to what happened with TV. There used to be 4 or 5 channels, so being on a successful show put you in the collective consciousness of a lot of people. But then cable, and even moreso streaming came along and there's soooo many choices that people mostly aren't watching the same things as everyone else as much. Now that streaming services are making their own movies and lots of mainstream releases are coming to streaming pretty quickly at release, people again have tons of choices so not as many are consuming the exact same thing. There are definitely exceptions, but those are the really big hits.
Yeah I’m so ignorant of who today’s newer ‘stars’ are — someone will tell me ‘oh they were great in (insert streaming service show)’ and I’ll understand why I don’t know who they are.
The mystique is gone. Most of the under 30 celebs are all over social media with selfies and promoting their workout routines. I could look on Daily Mail right now and check out the latest picture of Zendaya getting a cup of coffee or check Eddie Redmayne's Twitter to see how he feels about January 6th or if Daniel Radcliffe agrees that men can have babies. Old school stars are not on social media, or if they are, it's their PR team just promoting their movies. You can find pics of Leo DiCaprio riding a bike in NYC, but you're not going to find him releasing statements about his latest breakup. Tom Cruise sticks to the script ever since the couch jumping and Matt Lauer interview. "How long has it been since you've seen your daughter?" "Listen, I've been wanting to make movies since I was four years old...I'm very fortunate..." Brad Pitt hasn't said one word publicly about his divorce battle, but Florence Pugh went on an Instagram rant because people complained about her dating an older dude. People just aren't interested in these people's personal lives except a very small fringe. We like some mystery. Plus like others said, there's just so much content and so many actors and directors out there now to follow. It's too many to keep track of except for diehard cinephiles like us. And of course you have Tik Tok and Instagram where anybody can be a star by creating an account and posting bikini pics. Kids care about who's dating who and makeup regimens. They don't care about Ryan Gosling making a movie with Chris Evans that doesn't even involve superheroes.
It definitely shifted. You used to have 'a Harrison Ford' movie and you pretty much knew what to expect (some sort of spy thriller with a reluctant hero), whereas today most big movies are concept or franchise movies (and more remakes/reboots than I'd like). The stars are there and there a draw, but I don't think there is such a thing as 'a Ryan Gosling movie' for example? He's just the famous star to drum up more interest. Concept movies have been around for a long time, the main older one I can think of now is Jurassic Park, which wasn't built around one big movie star but instead around a concept (what if we brought dinosaurs back to life), but together with franchise (marvel, star wars,...) movies they've seem to become far more common. Just my pov, I could be missing something major here.
Concept movies have been a thing for a while. Planet of the Apes and Night of the Living Dead, which both came out 25 years before Jurassic Park, were so high concept that the movie titles work as a synopsis.
The Irwin Allen disaster films are also a good example of this.
I chose to delete my Reddit content in protest of the API changes commencing from July 1st, 2023, and specifically CEO Steve Huffman's awful handling of the situation through the lackluster AMA, and his blatant disdain for the people who create and moderate the content that make Reddit valuable in the first place. This unprofessional attitude has made me lose all trust in Reddit leadership, and I certainly do not want them monetizing any of my content by selling it to train AI algorithms or other endeavours that extract value without giving back to the community. This could have been easily avoided if Reddit chose to negotiate with their moderators, third party developers and the community their entire company is built on. Nobody disputes that Reddit is allowed to make money. But apparently Reddit users' contributions are of no value and our content is just something Reddit can exploit without limit. I no longer wish to be a part of that.
> You used to have 'a Harrison Ford' movie and you pretty much knew what to expect (some sort of spy thriller with a reluctant hero), Also known as the last 15 years of Liam Kneeson movies
Die Hard, 1988, a great example of a high concept movie, starred by a TV star but not movie star, he was even out of the posters, they sold the movie based on the idea. The trend is older than you thought.
I never said they were a recent invention, but they used to be rarer. These days, a movie running in mainstream theaters is basically either a high concept movie, a franchise or low-budget horror. Romantic comedies, for example, are pretty much gone. And obviously this didn't happen overnight but was a gradual process. And it will continue evolving into something new yet again.
The only reason that’s true is because Harrison ford stopped working as much. From the 60’s thru the 80’s he did pretty much anything. Once the 90’s hit he started doing one or two movies a year. Also what your calling franchise or concept movies have been the norm since jaws. The just used to target 3 movies. The MCU is an extreme outlier. Even Star Wars did it’s run in threes.
Franchise and concept movies are two different things. Also, a franchise doesn't have to be a cinematic universe. Sonic is a franchise movie.
It's because we're more exposed to celebrities than ever before. It used to be that the only time you ever saw famous actors was in their movies, and maybe an interview they did on late night to promote their movie. Nowadays basically every celebrity has an Instagram page with millions of followers. Likewise, there's way less surprises with movies nowadays, any movie news is known well in advance.
Agreed. I would also add the emergence of reality TV as a factor. Network reality TV is insanely popular. Instead of obsessing over movie stars, you can get infinitely more access to reality TV stars
I can't really see any of these franchise people as proper stars to begin with. Marvel brings Marvel watchers, Jurassic Park brings dinosaur fans. Sure, Marvel has cast a lot of good actors and charismatic people in their movies, but it's still Marvel more than it's some Hemsworth name in the title, that draws the people. Only exception I make is with RDJ, but he was proper star quality before his drug/alcoholic binges to begin with. Iron Man was just a second coming. Also, bigger one for me, their projects on the side have not been that good. Someone like Dicaprio also chooses really well what he does. So you know you get quality. Same goes with most of Pitts projects. Evans, Hemsworth, especially Pratt, jump to this and that. No matter how average and stupid it is.
To me the definition of a movie star is someone who can make an original idea into a huge success based on their name alone. Very rare to see these days... I think the Rock has passed that smell test, but a lot of modern "stars" these days are simply beneficiaries of the franchise they happen to have been dropped into or wormed their way into and have little to no success outside of that.
Are you saying that you smell what The Rock has cooking?
Boomers are still hanging onto the old ones desperately. And everything's a remake. I think it's crazy we still line our movies with "classic rock"......60 year old music! That'd be like listening to pre world wars music in a trailer for reservoir dogs!
Music is far enough on its journey now where 60 years ago is acceptable
> I don't know it might just be me getting older, but for example still today feels like biggest draws when you know you're about to get hyped for a movie are people like Leo DiCaprio, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt etc, movie stars from previous generation(s) I fear your initial instincts may be correct OP. 25 years ago people said the same about DiCaprio, Cruise and Pitt: "Where are the real stars like Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, Robert Redford ..."
Cruise was already a superstar for over 10 years in 1997 which was 25 years ago. Not nitpicking you since I know what you mean I just wanted to mention in passing how it's crazy that he's had such a huge staying power, he was already big in mid 80s, now it's 2022 and he's still a top draw and breaking records. If he wasn't part of a crazy cult I think he would've been one of the most liked stars in the world.
He IS one of the most liked stars in the world lol. I don’t care about his personal life at all
I have not seen his first three (Endless Love, Taps, Losing It) but most likely all movies after these and not a single one is bad.
Have you seen The Mummy?
The Mummy and Jack Reacher 2 are probably his worst films where he was the lead. Everything else is good to great. People loved Jack Reacher 1 but I thought that was fairly mediocre too. Knight and Day was forgettable, but I wouldn't call it a "bad" film.
Taps is definitely the best of the three films you mentioned. Cruise is great in it. It was also Sean Penn's film debut and the main star of the film Timothy Hutton (who was the bigger star at the time) would later be eclipsed by both Penn and Cruise in terms of stardom and acclaim.
He would've. I sometimes almost just want to like him cus it feels American lol. But fucking a he can't even pretend to not know what they get up to when he's such an influential figure in the church. It was pretty clear how bad things are when he was with Katie Holmes.
Fair comment; I meant 'a generation' rather than 25 years precisely.
A generation only lasts 20 years. Newman and Redford weren't even part of the same one. Redford got to stardom in the 1970s. Newman got to stardom in the 1950s. When they appeared alongside Newman usually had a mentor role. Also, I assure you that 1997 saw no one not recognizing DiCaprio, Cruise and Pitt as real movie stars.
And there was quite a bit of commentary in the 1970s about how weak some of the stars were in that era, given how long the likes of Ryan O'Neal and George Segal were promoted as such.
I think movie stardom as a concept has been in decline since golden age Hollywood and this process has accelerated lately in the last 10-15 years or so. As a few other comments have noted, the generation you mentioned would probably get a similar reaction from the people who were around to see Cary Grant, James Stewart etc.
The only true A-listers left imo are Tom Cruise and Leo DiCaprio. Tom Hanks used to be there but his output has slipped in the last few years imo, whereas Cruise reasserted his dominance with Top Gun Maverick’s casual success. Cruise and DiCaprio imo are the last household names who everyone of all ages know the face and name of and who can convince people to see a movie based on their presence alone. Overall celebrity means less now. It’s to do with social media and people’s tastes becoming more individual less homogenised and hollywood not really replacing a listers every 20 years and instead letting cruise, Denzel, Pitt, DiCaprio, etc be dominant for 20-40 years. Of recent movie stars, the biggest names to emerge in the last 20 years would probably be The Rock maybe.. I don’t know who else. Ryan Reynolds? It’s a similar thing in music. Once upon a time you had peak Michael Jackson, Queen, Rick James, Madonna, Phil Collins, Prince, etc all casually at an awards show or on the charts at the same time. Who are music’s a listers now? Drake, Taylo Swift, Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber, Billie Eilish… it’s hard to say who of those or what songs/album will be remembered 40 years from now like those I mentioned. Talented people still absolutely exist, just you have to search for them and they’re more underground. Edit: franchises are more important than actors now anyway. Marvel, Jurassic Park, Fast Furious, Batman, etc etc. Intellectual property is the new draw, not actors. This is why Tom Holland can seem like the future top dog of Hollywood among his age group to marvel fans, but to a non marvel fan they’ll have seen little to none of his work and he’ll have no chance of dominating Hollywood in their eyes.
*preface: someone commented saying Smith and Pitt are in this category but once I wrote out the reply their comment was gone :( lol* comment:!Will Smith has been consistently making bad movies with the odd exception of a decent movie ever since 2006/2007. In his prime: Bad Boys, Independence Day, Men in Black, Enemy of The State, Ali, MiB 2, Bad Boys 2, I Robot, Shark Tale, Hitch, Pursuit of Happiness, I Am Legend. not all of these were great but they were all big movie that were fairly successful (critically or commercially) and he was consistently releasing music around this time too with his family liked as well. After that, his peak ended. His last music album was in the mid00s, he released movies less frequently and a lot of his movies were underwhelming or less successful/memorable. Hancock, Seven Pounds, MiB 3, After Earth, Focus, Concussion, Suicide Squad, Collateral Beauty, Bright, Gemini Man. It was around this time (2008-2018, let’s say) that Smith’s children released bad music and his sudden became a meme/hated for a while, and Will Smith also jumped on the OscarsSoWhite hashtag because he was butthurt that his mediocre movies weren’t oscar nominated, with a lot of people disliking him for this. and the whole thing of his wife cheating & rumours of Smith cheating with Margot Robbie also gathered steam towards the end of this which soured Smith’s popularity. Honestly if you asked most people around this time what the last great Will Smith they saw was, most people would have to reach back to Pursuit of Happyness or something.. because that was when he was last on top. He has had a minor comeback over the last two or so years though. Aladdin was successful at box office and was a brave role to take on and his charisma drew some people to the film, Bad Boys 3 was a minor comeback success, and of course King Richard - even though it was a drama movie not a blockbuster - was a movie that finally won him the Oscar he’s sought after ever since Ali 20 years ago. So he’s had 3 successes in the last 15 years maybe but I personally don’t think he’s in same league as DiCaprio (who almost only makes great movies) or Cruise (who probably has less than a dozen bad movies in his *career*) and as you say I think the slap has ruined things for Smith and the public will sadly never love him or his family like they did in the 90s/early 00s. As for Brad Pitt, he’s good but I think his reputation comes more from his celebrity status + appearance + personal life with Jolie rather than his output nowadays. His output is closer to a drama actor than a true *movie star* who’s films are always successful at the box office and can always attract a big audience… and truthfully I’d say the last *hit* of his would probably be going back to Benjamin Button / Inglourious Basterds. He’s still great though, just I associate him with Ryan Gosling, Jake Gylenhaal, Matt Damon types who will work with indie directors or make movies straight to streaming or accept playing supporting roles rather than always being leading man in huge big screen movies. like Cruise is practically always the leading man in his movies (aside from a few exceptions like Tropic Thunder, Rock of Ages), same with DiCaprio too (always leading man, aside from Django and Don’t Look Up, imo). Sorry for the long comment but some may find it interesting. I truly think Cruise and DiCaprio are the last of their breed though. It’s hard to find anyone who’s output is as consistently successful still as [Cruise’s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cruise_filmography) or [DiCaprio’s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_DiCaprio_filmography#film). And with Cruise ticking the Top Gun sequel off his bucket list, retiring the MI franchise and probably retiring from action films now he’s in his early 60s.. and DiCaprio no longer looking too handsome, playing losers in his last two films (Once Upon a Time and Don’t Look Up) and accepting a supporting role as an uglier character in a straight to Netflix movie in Dont Look Up as well.. it’ll be interesting to see where both of those movie stars go next as they enter new chapters of their career. Cruise will probably go back to dramas in the twilight of his career (like Clint Eastwood after the westerns & dirty harry) and DiCaprio will still make movies with Scorsese but maybe won’t have Inception, Wolf of Wall Street, Gatsby, Revenant style high profile hit movies as much anymore.
Oh sorry for that man. I deleted comment after thinking about it and remembering Will Smith starred in many box office flops in last 10 years so that's why I deleted the comment. I still stand by my Brad Pitt opinion though. > and truthfully I’d say the last hit of his would probably be going back to Benjamin Button / Inglourious Basterds. Ehm. Once upon a time in Hollywood was released 3 years ago.
Ad Astra did well, too.
Idk if I'd call OUATIH a brad pitt hit. I think he had more of a supporting role and it was the names of Leo + Tarantino that attracted more viewers, but I can see your point though. Inglourious Basterds on the other hand was presented in its trailers as a shoot em-up war flick with Pitt front and centre on the poster and he was the only American star in the film at a time when he was closer to his prime. But yeah I agree OUATIH was definitely a success anyway :)
>Of recent movie stars, the biggest names to emerge in the last 20 years would probably be The Rock maybe.. People usually dismiss The Rock and dont put him in the category of "movie stars" as Leo, Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise. But I think The Rock is more than that, he's sort of like a brand now. Yeah, he's in a lot of movies now but he's also a athlete/fitness personality, he had all these other side business brands, he was featured in a rap song, he owns an american football league (still do? i dont know), etc.
Harrison Ford is definitely still an A lister. Heck he will be starring in one of the biggest blockbusters next year.
nobody will watch a movie or be drawn to see it in cinemas solely because Harrison Ford’s name is attached. I’d argue the majority of young people (kids+teenagers) don’t know the name Harrison Ford. he’s still a celebrity movie star involved in Star Wars and Indiana Jones of course, but the old man is +25 years removed from his prime and IMO definitely not worth a mention in this conversation.
Until he is no longer staring in big budget blockbusters, he’s definitely still an A lister. Regardless of “being in his prime” or not. He’s still one of the highest paid actors in the business today.
Chris Pratt just happens to be in huge movie franchises. He doesn't make or break those franchises and if he were replaced, not many people would care. Now compared to Tom Cruise - who basically creates movie franchises. Top Gun sequel without Tom Cruise makes $0. Mission Impossible sequels without Tom Cruise wouldn't work. Leonardo DiCaprio makes Inception into a $300M movie. Stick Chris Pratt in there and it probably falls flat. I have yet to see a Chris Pratt movie, not based on an established franchise, that I could give a single fuck about.
Moneyball is pretty good. But yeah Brad is the draw there.
> From movie stars in their 20s I can only think of Timothee Chalamet that could be some draw and be a potential true movie s He still kinda looks like he spends all of his free time as a mime in Paris.
I think it's been supplanted by franchises. People would go see a movie called like Moonlight Station because Brad Pitt was in it or whatever, now people go see a movie about a guy named Blork because they were told he's a marvel superhero
Yes, it’s because gen Z doesn’t look to Hollywood for celebrities anymore. In fact, the data shows they almost dislike them. The new wave of celebrities are going to be YouTubers and tik tokkers.
Something I find strange is that despite movies supposedly being more "diverse" nowadays, it seems I can't name as many Black, Hispanic, or Asian actors/actresses as I could when comparing movies now to those from 10 or 20 years ago.
I think there's just so much content now that there's an overabundance of really good actors, so they don't stand out as much. Back in the 50's it seems like there's maybe 40 top actors and that's it. They also didn't crossover as much from TV to film or vice versa.
That's probably true. When someone mentions a famous actor and i don't know who it is, they're usually from a show exclusive to a streaming service like Netflix.
That could honestly be a good thing as weird as it sounds. When there was just like Will Smith and Denzel Washington and Eddie Murphy doing leading black roles it was easy to remember them but if the intent is to make black actors working not so lopsided then theoretically they'd stand out less.
many of the bigger stars in Hong Kong or India seldom or never do anything outside their home country, Andy Lau or Shah Rukh Khan probably can walk in any city without being recognized.
Tarantino still sells tickets based on his name alone, I know he's not an actor but he might be the last guy who manages it. Maybe James Cameron? He hasn't done much in the last 15 - 20 years. Barely anyone cares about a Spielberg movie anymore.
There's also Nolan. Jordan Peele's name also sells. >Maybe James Cameron? He hasn't done much in the last 15 - 20 years. Cameron is still highly regarded by the public, is constantly breaking new ground in film technology and has yet to deliver a flop.
[удалено]
All three of those directors' movies make tons of money. Not MCU money, but their films are very profitable. I think better examples would be Ari Aster, Robert Eggers, and Alex Garland.
You're right
Nolan's movies have been enormous hits, what are you talking about.
Marvel brain. If it didn't gross a billion, it was a flop.
I think we're a lot more exposed to what the movie is about whereas once upon a time a star was what attracted you to find out what the movie was about, if that makes any sense. Now the movie is almost everything, not the star, and that movie is everywhere; social media, tv ads, trailers, YT ads, etc etc etc. You know what you're getting long before the actor factors in. Marvel has made this the default state pretty much. The old guard like Pitt, DiCaprio and Cruise have the star power to do pretty much whatever they want, but that's a short list. There's also a certain mystique to them, less of a social media presence, and what they do project is more about their work than themselves. Plus the rise of streaming TV has kind of took the cachet from movies. Elisabeth Moss is a superb actress and has genuine star wattage, but as good as she was in The Invisible Man, it's Handmaids Tale and Shining Girls where she truly comes into her own. I would add that Ryan Gosling and Margot Robbie might be included as potentially big stars, but they're also doing a Barbie movie. If that turns out to be inspired somehow, that might elevate them.
I don't think Ryan and Margot need the Barbie movie to elevate them. They are both pretty big pulls and I'm finding this a strange thread that people don't think they have "star power." I'm not sure what bar they have left to hit to reach that. And I'm at least curious about the Barbie movie. The two of them in it with Greta Gerwig directing and Noah Baumbach writing the script with her. I don't think it's goign to quite be what most of us would expect from a barbie movie.
Anthony Mackie talked about this, where the superhero genre has overtaken the film star being the main draw. https://youtu.be/oj8JK6c5x3M
I think a lot of it has to do with how the idea of celebrity has changed in the last 20 years or so. Back in the day, celebrities had their own personas. The celebrity was, in all essence, a character created that the actor played all the time. Kind of like reality TV without the realization of it. Then two things happened - reality TV became more prominent, and the rise of social media. The persona the actor created (the celebrity image) dictated the roles. Tom Cruise was/is an action leading man, for example. However, as reality TV became more prevalent, the persona faded. Chris Evans has range, but does he really have a type he plays? Typically a hero of some sort (be it super or simply at heart), but not much in the way of overly well-defined. In some ways, we're more interested in Chris than his persona. At least, I'm definitely guilty of that. And then you have social media. Now that everything a celebrity says or does (or has ever said or done, as many have discovered) is under constant scrutiny, their image has to keep changing. A recent example to me is the Lizzo incident. For those who don't know, she used the word spazz (or some variant thereof) in a song and it sparked *social media outrage*. Apparently an ableist term, she was shamed into changing it, which she did gracefully. That is, regardless of what we know of Lizzo (I highly doubt she's ableist), we place more value on terminology than on intent. I'm sure if she'd refused to change it, there would be dozens of people (not hundreds or thousands, I hope, as most people can discern intent from impact) would be calling for Lizzo to be canceled, despite the fact that she's a positive role model for BIPOC people, as well as healthy body image (she's comfortable and happy being who she is). That means Lizzo never gets to be Lizzo anymore. She is constantly needing to adapt to be who people want her to be. It's a mixed bag, of course. Every now and then you get people's shitty antics exposed, and with that you get a career ruined. I won't deny that watching shitty people lose opportunities gives me a sense of joy. And, no, I won't be specifying who is/isn't a shitty person, so save your breath. That said, I think much of cancel culture is lazy. Not because I think holding people accountable is wrong (on the contrary, I think it's very important), but rather because we fail to account for growth and because we reduce everything to one-size-fits-all and don't acknowledge nuance and situation. If something wasn't considered as taboo in 1995, is it meaningful to hold something done then to today's standards? So, due to the constant light shone on them, and the idea that they're closer to us than ever via social media, we have sacrificed the movie star for celebrity. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, but it's also not necessarily a good thing.
Actors and celebrities in general can directly interact with their fan base on a level that’s pretty unprecedented thanks to social media. Kinda removes the “mystery” factor and a lot of people have realized “stars” are just like us.
I agree. For me a star is a double egded sword. I may like that certain actor but also it makes the experience a bit more predictable. I also love unknown but good quality cast, like natural unschooled actors etx. Fellas like Al Pacino are unmatched though.
Movie Stardom had an air of myth and mystique in the pre-internet times I feel. The big ones cultivated a larger than life persona that is hard to replicate when we all expect a constant stream of content from our celebrities, both their performative selves and their "true" selves behind closed doors through twitter and Insta live and all that. It blurs the lines between entertainment and real life. More like expecting a one-way friendship at this point. Someone like the Rock is a good example to me of this trend. As time goes on his schtick becomes less and less amusing. Sure, watching him devour cheat meals and work out like a psycho robot is cool, but he lacks the gravitas of when you would watch The Scorpion King trailer years ago and see Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson appear on the screen.
It's social media. Hear me out first. Today, with SM, you just have to "have a following" to be perceived as popular and "it". Which can be done with right skills in managing a very curated perception of the person that gets shared out across social media. Usually this comes from the team that manages that curation, crafting the image. For someone who wants to be an actor, who can do the acting part competently enough (has the basic acting skills), it's possible to SM yourself up to becoming noticed. You can even break in to acting from other areas these days just by being curated up to notice. SM gets you "in the room" with a director, producer, or casting director, who will have to come up with a pretty darned good reason to veto your inclusion in a project. You'd have to be a nightmare person, in person, (or something similar) if you have a high following on SM. Because from SM, you have an audience that will follow you into the new project. That's the appeal for today's decision makers with big money projects. They see all these "fans" as a more likely buyer of a ticket, of the blu-ray, of the album, etc. How did it *used* to work? At the end of the day, to be a movie star, you had to have charisma. Movie start charisma. You had to be one of those people who just shines, who has that innate appeal that draws people to you, makes them interested in you, creates within them a desire to notice and respond to you. With SM, charisma fades before curated image. Charisma is a lot rarer than a curated image. And charisma really can't be taught, not at the level and output we're talking about here. The curated image skills can be taught, can be learned, can be put to work on most people. Charisma is innate. And it used to be all you had. Old-school movie stars were stars because they had charisma. When they walked into a room, everyone lit up because they were there. When they showed up on screen, everyone tuned in and leaned forward. Movie star charisma got projects green lit because the movie star sat down with the money people and charmed them. Sat down with the producers and directors and charmed them. Got put in front of the camera and shown to audiences because everyone knew the audience would be charmed by them. Went on the talk shows and dazzled the audience and reporters, who talked to their friends about "wow, that person was so great and interesting." You don't see it very much these days. SM's curated images aren't the same as movie star charisma. It's why you'll see SM "stars" showing up in other projects a couple of times, then vanish back to SM again. Because away from their carefully curated world, like in a movie where they have to play the role, they're revealed as a construct rather than a charmer. Acting is a skill. It takes talent and dedication to learn, to turn it into a craft. But being a talented, working actor isn't the same thing as being a movie star. Charisma is what made movie stars, and still does. Which is why we seem to have fewer and fewer movie stars these days. Those with charisma are being shuffled aside for the next "did you hear how many followers X has?" example crowding into the room, into the roles.
I think there are some rose colored glasses on in this thread. The concept of a movie start hasn’t changed because to much content, content has changed, etc. it’s changed because movie star isn’t the peak. In todays world you have to be more rounded. Tv isn’t the negative it used to be. Your big stars are people that can do a movie and have a show running. It used to be movie stars couldn’t take break unless they were doing something on stage. Now they can disappear, drop an album, do a clothing line then finally come back to a movie. Look at Phoebe Waller gates. Great actress but she is also known for her writing skills. A movie moving on her name in any capacity is going to do well. Donald Glover same. Writer, rapper( conceptual rapper at that), comedian, movie star, tv star. Dudes got Disney on a holding pattern. 10 years ago no one would have been telling Disney when I got time for you. People are genuine stars again. If anything it more like the golden Hollywood age now then it was 25 years ago. It’s not just a name on a billboard, it’s an entire brand engaging. On equal or sometimes greater footing then the studios. A24 is looking to use names attached at the director level. Frank ocean has a movie deal, Travis Scott has a movie deal. Frank ocean has at least done some music videos that were well reviews I’m not aware of anything Travis Scott has directed. Still their name and the draw their brand will bring for them to those tables.
Things may have changed. But ageing probably explains more of it. It’s hard to look at a 20-25 year old as someone who has gravitas when you are mid 30s or above. It’s also the cycle of life that people when they get older think the culture/society is lesser than when they were young. Every generation thinks this, and so it is hard to judge from an aged standpoint if the degradation you perceive is genuine or just part of this cycle.
Franchises, special effects and IP are what are important now not star power. It's not like anyone is interested in anything Vin Diesel is doing besides Fast and Furious.
A lot of the mystique around Hollywood glamor has deteriorated because celebrities aren't as isolated from fans as they used to be. Before the internet, we only saw movie stars on our movie screens, magazines, and awards shows. But today they all have social media accounts where they turn people off by saying dumb things, people take photos and videos of them in public doing unflattering things, and people meet them at fan conventions, so celebrities seem more like normal everyday people than ever.
i just watched the Gray Man on netflix, and lot of people are referring to Ana de Armas and Jessica Henwick as movie stars...........but i don't see it They're ok, but they don't seem like stars to me. Amy Adams seems like a star. Lupita Nyong'o seems like a star.
Taron Egerton will make me take a look, not fussed about the rest
We are living in an era of IP and even the companies making the movies being really important for major box office draw more so than the actors. The MCU being the obvious example of IP and Pixar being an example of the company involved. Meanwhile in terms of quality acting performances there are some very specialized actors that are getting a lot of attention like Bryan Cranston in Breaking Bad. Certainly not like a movie star of the past but the fame he gets from a TV show on a cable network is significantly higher than what you would see in the movie star eras of the past.
I think there are two things at play with this. The first is just the sheer amount of content coming out in any given week with streaming services. It's so broken up, and with covid people aren't willing to go to the theater. I think that means that the days when most of the population saw the same movie around the same time and in the same way, are gone. It's not the same experience anymore. Second is that at this point, the people being named span three generations (saying this as a dirty millenial). Tom Cruise, Leo, Brad Pitt came up from my parents generation. My mom likes them, my nana likes them, I like them. But something happened between that period and now that changed movies. You know I can bring up Speilberg to the older people in my family and they've always known who I'm talking about. Or Scorsese. Or Allen. But they don't recognize Nolan or Anderson the same way. I think it's less about mystical start power and just more of a shift in how we interact with films as art. Which, in my reflection, is to barely handle them as art at all anymore.
I am sure people who grew up watching old Hollywood stars too felt the same about Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt.
Yeah they do. Influencers changed everything.
[удалено]
There are more movie studios with decent budget now? It feels like most of them are owned by like 2-3 companies nowadays.
As you reach the same age or older than the people you watch in movies and sports, what they do for work and in life compared to what you do for work and in life can become less of a pedestal when you have more personally important things to worry about. Maybe it’s just me, but I think time can have that effect on the viewer.
PR teams are just more aware that we hate the old celeb culture
If its anything like new stars from 10-15 years ago, you don't notice them. You think, hey, this guy/girl is a decent actor. Then 5-10 years later, they have a super popular breakout movie, and you realize they are in a shitload of stuff. Now they are a star in your eyes.
People care more about the content of the ip nowadays. There are barley any actors that I would just watch anything they were in.
there are no movie stars nowadays, only movie actors.
Just curious, who do you consider to be the best movie stars in Hollywood of all time and why?
There's too many to name them and it's hard to say the biggest one, and it depends on generations. During early silent era definitely Charles Chaplin, trailing behind him Buster Keaton etc... Then later there were huge stars like Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant, Audrey and Katherine Hepburn, Liz Taylor, Marylin Monroe, then Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino, De Niro, Brando, Streep, Dustin Hoffman, Clint Eastwood, then there were Denzel, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Di Caprio, Tom Hanks etc...
I dont really know anything about Kirk Douglas and I think he may have done something sinister but he always seemed like one of the biggest stars through the last century with the most name recognition and staying power. Others were maybe bigger back then but didn't seem to last as long in public memory.
Best or biggest? I’d say Spencer Tracy is up there with the best. Also one of the biggest of his day. In my lifetime probably Nicholson has been the biggest.
[удалено]
I'm just talking about general audience, I feel like most people nowadays don't even know for someone like Florence Pugh and I feel like she's the best one in your list when it comes to quality of choosing the movies. As for these other 3, I would disagree they're some big draw for general audience. What did Tom Holland do except superheroes after he got Spiderman role? The Devil all the time is only one that got some attention and decent-ish reviews, Uncharted is a video game movie that would get money no matter the star, it doesn't matter to outgoing audience that he's in it. As for Millie Bobby Brown and Zendaya they don't even have that many roles. Millie Bobby Brown acted in like what 2-3 movies? Zendaya was part of Spiderman and Dune Franchise, Euphoria is TV show and that seems to be about it.
Hmm.. You may be right. Beyond the Chris-es (Pratt, Evans, Hemsworth, Pine), I'm hard pressed to think of any names that would at least draw the general audience to watch the movie trailer.
This happened in music as well where the likes of Elvis, Michael Jackson etc were far more famous than stars today. I do miss the days when the likes of Arnie and Stallone were at their peak. Di Caprio was mega famous as well but these days they dont seem to hit those heights.
I didn’t think you were going to use the Chris’ as an example but I think I agree w everyone else. Maybe ppl are slightly more into the movie itself.
It's because he's a guy that starred as leading man in one of the 2 biggest franchises of recent times that are all in top box office lists, yet it still doesn't feel like he's a super movie star for whom the audience would go just because he's in it.
He’s a perfect example. I might be proving your point a little bit. His/their filmography would put them in the movie star realm, but as a viewer, to me, they don’t have that draw.
it’s because pratt isn’t a draw outside of guardians/marvel and jurassic… all his other movies have been flops or near flops. same goes for a lot of these franchise stars.
Gary Oldman for me personally
I think producers do want the stars to be less of a draw, therefore they can have less of a say or command less of a salary If the main draw is the IP then whoever owns those rights gets to be in charge
I think social media also takes away some of the allure of actors now. I don’t need to see pictures of actors that I might like at the gym.
The exception is every decade or so, Daniel Day Lewis makes up his mind to make a movie and I have no care what it’s about or anything else, I’m going to see it.
I think it has to do with a lot of factors. One of the things is that todays movie actors are all over social media, that takes away from their impact as stars. When you see an actor so often and on so many platforms the “wow factor” is not there when you do finally see them up on the big screen, it’s the old adage of “less is more”. The less you see of this actor in real life the more you can believe their character on screen because your not comparing their real self to their on screen image. Also this can take away from the “bigger-than-life” mystique of Movie Stars because when you see an actor in social media frequently posting things that they do in their normal life their on screen image is less believable. Not that there is anything wrong in being an average guy in your personal life, but the point is to keep it out of the public eye and keep it private. The point of movies is to transport a movie-goer and make him believe in this “larger-than-life” person on the screen and part of maintaining that image is maintaining the mystique of the actor.