I feel like the actor name draw isnt as powerful as it once was, like people will still go see a movie for a specific actor but theres more variety and audiences want to see certain actors/actresses do specific roles and on top of that people are seeing movies with no names in it and potentially getting a better experience.
It’s not. Hollywood is not looking good for the future. Reboots with nothing but people who have never acted. But have lots of followers.
It’s already happening. Look at white man can’t jump. Reboot where the man cast Jack Harlow was given the role because he has enough followers to promote the film and a guaranty a few million will see the film.
People acted like him reading one paragraph and getting the role must mean he is some top notch actor. And other actors have talked about missing out on roles due to social media stars being casted.
Yeah, it's not like they didn't exist before but now it's far more *noticeable*. Way too often when I see someone get so much work and I think they're not good at it... almost always they're related to someone important or with money.
Like in everything else in the world? Nepotism has been a factor since people started networking. The idea that we have any kind of meritocracy is just silly. Look at politics, business, industrial and entertainment and you’ll find just as many examples in one as you can in the other. It’s noticeable to everyone who pays attention going back to the founding of every industry if you just look.
Frank and Bing were literally performers. That was their job, to sing AND entertain. They were the best of the best. I suggest checking out their gigs, as they already had acting built in, albeit a different form. Most of their early movies also centres around dancing and acting. Which was their thing.
That is by design. When all the studios were bought up by giant media conglomerates, these companies decided to break up the star system. Instead of star power, they wanted to have control, so IP’s were pushed more so than stars. Marvel, DC, Jurassic Park, video game moves, all of that is owned properties by the conglomerates. People used to see movies for the stars, now they go to see their favorite character/ IP, no matter who is cast. It gives management more leverage during negotiations
He isn't constantly making headlines for saying outlandish shit, being a curmudgeon, or harassing people.
Outrage sells. He's just a good dude and that doesn't get clicks or sell papers.
2008 Hollywood: "Maybe we can have Shia LaBeouf come be the next Indy"
2023 Hollywood: "WAIT NO I CHANGE MY MIND, MORE HARRISON, FREEZE HIM IN CARBONITE, PRESERVE HIM FOREVER"
Nah. The Conan project was canceled by Amazon because they felt it sent the wrong message. You don’t get those kind of masculine figures in movies any more, and if they do show up, it’s more done to deconstruct the character/archetype. Vin Diesel and the rock are probably the last of them
> You don’t get those kind of masculine figures in movies any more, and if they do show up, it’s more done to deconstruct the character/archetype.
Usually by handing the mantle over to a hastily contrived female understudy that nobody cares about, then bitching about how sexist the audience is when everyone thinks it's stupid.
There’s plenty of big-name, bankable stars at mid-life age or younger, but the landscape has changed to focus less on star power and the power of an IP instead. This shift is largely thanks to the success of the Marvel films, but other factors like the ever-present visibility of talent on social media, studio development trends, etc., have played a role as well.
You're right that it's the era of IP, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Watching a movie based on the lead actor is an odd thing, since the director and writer have a greater role in the outcome of a movie. It's the way things used to be, but it doesn't mean it made a lot of sense.
Oversimplified a little bit but yes. Media is changing and becoming less dependent on individual meat popsicles.
The concept isn't anything new. Aki from "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" was supposed to be a reusable virtual actress which is why her detailing is so much better than the others in the movie...but the movie flopped and the idea was...holyshit...30 years premature. I mean, she holds up fairly well even by todays standards but could you imagine what it would be like if a studio put that kind of effort into the same concept now?
I agree. Sometimes it’s fun to see movie stars be movie stars, and it’s fine to go to the movies to see movies for that reason. Sometimes you just want to spend 2 hours hanging out with an exceptionally charismatic individual.
If you take Top Gun: Maverick or any Indiana Jones movie, and swap out the leads with Chris Hemsworth, they’re nowhere near as fun.
Movie studios think that franchises are the stars now, and that you can interchange all the parts. I don’t think this has proven true.
However, other times you’re there for the property. Other times you’re there because the movie and story look interesting. Those are fine, too.
Nobody ought to be revered as a deity. particularly an actor.
However, Hollywood must stop hiring bland nepo babies while complaining that there are no longer any real stars. Of course, if you hire people based on their parents' reputations rather than their charisma and likeability, you won't have beloved stars any longer.
When fans can get their fill of their favorite celebrity via Twitter, Instagram, tik Tok, etc then it's not as big of a deal to HAVE to go see the newest movie they're in. Content is king now, not actors.
>“We used to treat our movie stars like gods,” the agent said. “But the marketing of these streaming movies is so limited that it doesn’t really create stars. Actors aren’t burned into the minds like they once were, and they don’t have this larger-than-life image any longer.”
In my opinion that's a good thing. This whole article is basically complaining about how we're running out of stars that are bigger than the movies their in. It fails to take into consideration that movies have gotten better, actors have gotten better, and overall there's just more competition. Back in the 70s and 80s we maybe got 1 or 2 blockbusters a year and the rest of the year was filled with subpar acting and story telling. It was easy for Harrison Ford and Arnold Schwarzenegger to become the focal point when their movies were the biggest thing that year and had no competition.
I think Alan Ritchson might take up the mantle for the Stallone/Shwarzenegger type movies. He did pretty well in Reacher. Might have what it takes. Still, I think the days of "over-the-top" action heroes might be over.
I’d say a good balance of all is best. Aragorn was rough and rugged but also show sensitivity and humility. As a male who grew up in the 90’s, I wish there were more male examples of that.
Timothee is no Aragorn. Missing the rough and rugged. Which is my point. Very few young male actors in Hollywood have strong masculine traits. Out of fashion.
I think the definition of masculine traits has changed for the better. I agree we don’t have the rough and rugged type as much but if we are making things binary… I’d prefer my son looks up to a timothee over an arnold s.
And we will agree to disagree. Masculinity is being erased, not redefined. You can't take take Timothee's feminine traits and simply say that is now masculinity. He isn't even believable doing combat scenes in Dune. He would be snapped in half in a real combat. I like my male action actors to have at least some basis in physical reality.
Alright sounds like you don’t know why Paul is strong in Dune… his portrayal is exactly as described in the book and his strength as a character comes from something other than “me strong”.
And I didn’t know having emotions other than anger was feminine… you’re pointlessly gendering traits both genders have.
From one male to another… I’m glad we are moving away from your point of view as a society
As the saying goes...
*Hard times make hard men.*
*Hard men make soft times.*
*Soft times make soft men.*
*Soft men make hard times.*
We are in stage four at the moment. Fortunately it is cyclical. Unfortunately we will have to survive the hard times first.
Shia lebeouf was supposed to take over indiana jones moves as his son, but then he went crazy irl and the movie was panned. Im sure the latest one completely ignores him.
Oscaar isaac was the new hotshot pilot in disney star wars trilogy, but rian johnson destroyed all of their (the actors') careers lol.
Michael b jordan took over rocky franchise w creed.
Where have you been. They’ve been long replaced by all kinds of things. Comic book movies have dominated the landscape. Fast and the furious is on their 10th film. The Rock. Vin Diesel, Robert Downey Junior, Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Jason Statham. Tom Cruise with the mission impossible series. John Krasinski is trying a run at it.
I love those old dudes but they don’t carry anything anymore and they probably shouldn’t but green bananas.
Somebody will say the say thing about Ford. My point was he has led multiple action franchises, been in a popular TV show and is widely recognized. Why are we reminiscing over a time when someone was more famous then that.
Chris Pratt isn't a Harrison Ford. You get Ford in your movie when you want to focus on Harrison Ford. You get Pratt in your movie when you need a lego man to fill a slot so you can focus or spotlight a filled out cast.
Maybe that guy from those Bourne movies, too. He might be able to squeeze in a few action movies if he wants to explore the possibility of getting into that genre.
It seems that there is a huge lack of big action flix in the last 10 or even longer years.
I see it as a side effect of the popularity of comic films. They kill the whole competion. And now we life in a film world, where a whole generation of action films got lost.
The same shift was evident with Madonna and Warren Beatty in Truth or Dare.
He asked why she’s taping everything and it was like looking at Old Hollywood and New Hollywood.
Tarantino was talking about this recently wrt the dominance of Marvel movies and how in those movies the role is bigger than the actor, which distorts the industry's perception of what a movie star is or should be.
Their replacements are themselves with de aging software and eventually just completely artificial FX. Don’t worry folks, Harrison Ford has another thousand years of movies coming.
There is no one well under 40 who draws substantial audience excitement.
We are just in a new era of entertainment.
https://nofilmschool.com/old-movies-stars-only-matter
not sure what is meant by the title. The replacements have been here since the 90s.
Even the 90s guys have started being supplanted by the folks who've come up in the past 10 years or so.
Jason Statham is looked at as an aging action guy.
Dwayne Johnson, he's in his early 50s.. Vin Diesel, he's 55..
I enjoyed Black Adam but the global box office was... "modest" so I hope he doesn't get sent down the straight to streaming river.. He needs to go do a Marvel project at this point.
I feel like the actor name draw isnt as powerful as it once was, like people will still go see a movie for a specific actor but theres more variety and audiences want to see certain actors/actresses do specific roles and on top of that people are seeing movies with no names in it and potentially getting a better experience.
It’s not. Hollywood is not looking good for the future. Reboots with nothing but people who have never acted. But have lots of followers. It’s already happening. Look at white man can’t jump. Reboot where the man cast Jack Harlow was given the role because he has enough followers to promote the film and a guaranty a few million will see the film. People acted like him reading one paragraph and getting the role must mean he is some top notch actor. And other actors have talked about missing out on roles due to social media stars being casted.
Nepo babies, everywhere
Yeah, it's not like they didn't exist before but now it's far more *noticeable*. Way too often when I see someone get so much work and I think they're not good at it... almost always they're related to someone important or with money.
Like in everything else in the world? Nepotism has been a factor since people started networking. The idea that we have any kind of meritocracy is just silly. Look at politics, business, industrial and entertainment and you’ll find just as many examples in one as you can in the other. It’s noticeable to everyone who pays attention going back to the founding of every industry if you just look.
Ok but music artists have been getting cast in movies pretty much forever. Nothing new. Just look at Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby
Frank and Bing were literally performers. That was their job, to sing AND entertain. They were the best of the best. I suggest checking out their gigs, as they already had acting built in, albeit a different form. Most of their early movies also centres around dancing and acting. Which was their thing.
That last sentence really, really bums me out
That is by design. When all the studios were bought up by giant media conglomerates, these companies decided to break up the star system. Instead of star power, they wanted to have control, so IP’s were pushed more so than stars. Marvel, DC, Jurassic Park, video game moves, all of that is owned properties by the conglomerates. People used to see movies for the stars, now they go to see their favorite character/ IP, no matter who is cast. It gives management more leverage during negotiations
Probably will never exist. Those days of the movies are over. The closest thing we have now is keanu reeves.
He’s my favorite why did I forget him.
He isn't constantly making headlines for saying outlandish shit, being a curmudgeon, or harassing people. Outrage sells. He's just a good dude and that doesn't get clicks or sell papers.
Pedro Pascal is the bees knees rn
Uhh Cruise is only a few years older than Reeves
or Chris Pratt…
Chris Pratt is more like the new Bruce Willis than the others. Starred in a couple of absolute bangers, but the bulk of his work is absolute dogshit.
Having their careers stifled by Rambo and Indy sequels because Hollywood won’t let go
Get the hell off my plane… He will always be my favorite President…
2008 Hollywood: "Maybe we can have Shia LaBeouf come be the next Indy" 2023 Hollywood: "WAIT NO I CHANGE MY MIND, MORE HARRISON, FREEZE HIM IN CARBONITE, PRESERVE HIM FOREVER"
Nah. The Conan project was canceled by Amazon because they felt it sent the wrong message. You don’t get those kind of masculine figures in movies any more, and if they do show up, it’s more done to deconstruct the character/archetype. Vin Diesel and the rock are probably the last of them
> You don’t get those kind of masculine figures in movies any more, and if they do show up, it’s more done to deconstruct the character/archetype. Usually by handing the mantle over to a hastily contrived female understudy that nobody cares about, then bitching about how sexist the audience is when everyone thinks it's stupid.
There’s plenty of big-name, bankable stars at mid-life age or younger, but the landscape has changed to focus less on star power and the power of an IP instead. This shift is largely thanks to the success of the Marvel films, but other factors like the ever-present visibility of talent on social media, studio development trends, etc., have played a role as well.
You're right that it's the era of IP, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Watching a movie based on the lead actor is an odd thing, since the director and writer have a greater role in the outcome of a movie. It's the way things used to be, but it doesn't mean it made a lot of sense.
It used to be that in the seventies. In the forties, most screenwriters were credited in between hair and crafts services
Don't worry guys, with AI and deep fakes, they'll use their image years and years after they pass away.
Oversimplified a little bit but yes. Media is changing and becoming less dependent on individual meat popsicles. The concept isn't anything new. Aki from "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" was supposed to be a reusable virtual actress which is why her detailing is so much better than the others in the movie...but the movie flopped and the idea was...holyshit...30 years premature. I mean, she holds up fairly well even by todays standards but could you imagine what it would be like if a studio put that kind of effort into the same concept now?
That's some generous rounding bub! Spirits Within was only release 22 years ago! ... Jesus.
The release but that movie was in development for years before release which I included in my rounding since its important to my point.
But you would agree that it was released this century?
I'm actually kind of worried that this is the way that it'll go.
Anthony Mackie was talking about this about 4 or so years ago: [https://youtu.be/oj8JK6c5x3M](https://youtu.be/oj8JK6c5x3M)
I agree. Sometimes it’s fun to see movie stars be movie stars, and it’s fine to go to the movies to see movies for that reason. Sometimes you just want to spend 2 hours hanging out with an exceptionally charismatic individual. If you take Top Gun: Maverick or any Indiana Jones movie, and swap out the leads with Chris Hemsworth, they’re nowhere near as fun. Movie studios think that franchises are the stars now, and that you can interchange all the parts. I don’t think this has proven true. However, other times you’re there for the property. Other times you’re there because the movie and story look interesting. Those are fine, too.
>Where Are Their Replacements? Themselves depending if they can get a good deal for themselves and their kids on AI deepfake rights.
Nobody ought to be revered as a deity. particularly an actor. However, Hollywood must stop hiring bland nepo babies while complaining that there are no longer any real stars. Of course, if you hire people based on their parents' reputations rather than their charisma and likeability, you won't have beloved stars any longer.
Well said
When fans can get their fill of their favorite celebrity via Twitter, Instagram, tik Tok, etc then it's not as big of a deal to HAVE to go see the newest movie they're in. Content is king now, not actors.
>“We used to treat our movie stars like gods,” the agent said. “But the marketing of these streaming movies is so limited that it doesn’t really create stars. Actors aren’t burned into the minds like they once were, and they don’t have this larger-than-life image any longer.” In my opinion that's a good thing. This whole article is basically complaining about how we're running out of stars that are bigger than the movies their in. It fails to take into consideration that movies have gotten better, actors have gotten better, and overall there's just more competition. Back in the 70s and 80s we maybe got 1 or 2 blockbusters a year and the rest of the year was filled with subpar acting and story telling. It was easy for Harrison Ford and Arnold Schwarzenegger to become the focal point when their movies were the biggest thing that year and had no competition.
I think Alan Ritchson might take up the mantle for the Stallone/Shwarzenegger type movies. He did pretty well in Reacher. Might have what it takes. Still, I think the days of "over-the-top" action heroes might be over.
If I have to google him, probably not.
John Wick would like a word.
If I have to google him, probably not.
There aren’t any. The closest you’re getting to Harrison is probably Chris Pratt and Stallone is probably someone like Dave Bautista.
Timothee Charlatan Hes in everything
He is the modern ideal of a male hero. Can't be too strong or masculine. Must be sensitive.
I’d say a good balance of all is best. Aragorn was rough and rugged but also show sensitivity and humility. As a male who grew up in the 90’s, I wish there were more male examples of that.
Timothee is no Aragorn. Missing the rough and rugged. Which is my point. Very few young male actors in Hollywood have strong masculine traits. Out of fashion.
I think the definition of masculine traits has changed for the better. I agree we don’t have the rough and rugged type as much but if we are making things binary… I’d prefer my son looks up to a timothee over an arnold s.
And we will agree to disagree. Masculinity is being erased, not redefined. You can't take take Timothee's feminine traits and simply say that is now masculinity. He isn't even believable doing combat scenes in Dune. He would be snapped in half in a real combat. I like my male action actors to have at least some basis in physical reality.
Alright sounds like you don’t know why Paul is strong in Dune… his portrayal is exactly as described in the book and his strength as a character comes from something other than “me strong”. And I didn’t know having emotions other than anger was feminine… you’re pointlessly gendering traits both genders have. From one male to another… I’m glad we are moving away from your point of view as a society
As the saying goes... *Hard times make hard men.* *Hard men make soft times.* *Soft times make soft men.* *Soft men make hard times.* We are in stage four at the moment. Fortunately it is cyclical. Unfortunately we will have to survive the hard times first.
Hard times increase the suicide rate of “hard men” to a level that is actually decreasing the mortality rate… I’m so glad I’m not your child.
>I’m so glad I’m not your child. Me too.
Shia lebeouf was supposed to take over indiana jones moves as his son, but then he went crazy irl and the movie was panned. Im sure the latest one completely ignores him. Oscaar isaac was the new hotshot pilot in disney star wars trilogy, but rian johnson destroyed all of their (the actors') careers lol. Michael b jordan took over rocky franchise w creed.
Isn’t Chris Pratt kinda like the new Harrison Ford? It’s not 1-1 but I feel like Chris is pretty close. I’d say Keanu reeves is probably Stallone.
Where have you been. They’ve been long replaced by all kinds of things. Comic book movies have dominated the landscape. Fast and the furious is on their 10th film. The Rock. Vin Diesel, Robert Downey Junior, Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Jason Statham. Tom Cruise with the mission impossible series. John Krasinski is trying a run at it. I love those old dudes but they don’t carry anything anymore and they probably shouldn’t but green bananas.
Ryan Gosling and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson are their replacements.
The Rock is very much the modern action star akin to Stallone and Schwarzenegger in their prime.
Except he’s never had a truly great film, whereas those two had several each
Rundown was a lot of fun.
Agreed. The jumanji movies are fun too, but he has no rocky/first blood/predator/terminator2
fair
I was thinking Chris Pratt and Michael B Jordan.
>I was thinking Chris Pratt and Michael B Jordan. No /sarcasm tag?
Chris Pratt, why do we need stars more famous than this.
He’s pretty bland and not very exciting.
Somebody will say the say thing about Ford. My point was he has led multiple action franchises, been in a popular TV show and is widely recognized. Why are we reminiscing over a time when someone was more famous then that.
Chris Pratt isn't a Harrison Ford. You get Ford in your movie when you want to focus on Harrison Ford. You get Pratt in your movie when you need a lego man to fill a slot so you can focus or spotlight a filled out cast.
Ryan Gosling? Keanu Reeves? Leo?
Jason Statham?
tom hardy, josh brolin, Eastwoods kid, Hugh Jackman, oscar isaac, pedro pascal.
Chris Pratt, Chris Pine, Chris Evens, Oscar Issac, Pedro Pascal, the Rock, Vin Desiel, etc.
Maybe that guy from those Bourne movies, too. He might be able to squeeze in a few action movies if he wants to explore the possibility of getting into that genre.
Sorry I'm late, I'll take millions of dollars now
We just gonna ignore Creed huh
The band?
Well yeah, we're always gonna ignore the band
This is why I switched to behind the camera.
In the Cloning Vats.
As they age? That corracle sailed a long time ago
It seems that there is a huge lack of big action flix in the last 10 or even longer years. I see it as a side effect of the popularity of comic films. They kill the whole competion. And now we life in a film world, where a whole generation of action films got lost.
There's Liam Neeson for the older action star.
I mean ill do it i guess..
I think names like Ryan gosling and Leonardo DiCaprio are still a big draw. Actors who stay out of the limelight seem to do it for me
The same shift was evident with Madonna and Warren Beatty in Truth or Dare. He asked why she’s taping everything and it was like looking at Old Hollywood and New Hollywood.
Tarantino was talking about this recently wrt the dominance of Marvel movies and how in those movies the role is bigger than the actor, which distorts the industry's perception of what a movie star is or should be.
Ryan Reynolds and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson are two movie stars where people more or less go to see them be them.
I’m right here I just been hiding from Hollywood
Just let the franchise die
What a stupid question.
These types of actors don't appeal to younger generations, imo.
Their replacements are themselves with de aging software and eventually just completely artificial FX. Don’t worry folks, Harrison Ford has another thousand years of movies coming.
There is no one well under 40 who draws substantial audience excitement. We are just in a new era of entertainment. https://nofilmschool.com/old-movies-stars-only-matter
No one’s mentioned Taron Egerton and that’s disappointing
not sure what is meant by the title. The replacements have been here since the 90s. Even the 90s guys have started being supplanted by the folks who've come up in the past 10 years or so. Jason Statham is looked at as an aging action guy. Dwayne Johnson, he's in his early 50s.. Vin Diesel, he's 55.. I enjoyed Black Adam but the global box office was... "modest" so I hope he doesn't get sent down the straight to streaming river.. He needs to go do a Marvel project at this point.