Do we still have movie stars?- Page 2

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 11:02am

Bigger question: Do we NEED movie stars?

I would start by asking, "who is WE?" Is it the movie studios or the audience?

The studios need movie stars and pay a hefty price for them because they create a built-in audience for a film. Audiences often take a chance on a new movie simply because of the star or stars involved. They are fans of their work. If it's a project or subject they are familiar with, and it has a favorite star attached, that will help ticket sales.

Very few studios will take chances on a new film with no stars attached, unless it's a well-known project (meaning based on a popular story or character) or it has a star director involved, like Spielberg.

If you see an independent film released with no stars, no star director, and no familiar subject, and it's released by a major studio, that film was very likely made first (in its entirety) then bought by a studio for distribution during one of the indy festivals. That means the entire project had to be funded and made in advance before a studio picked it up and gave it a general release.

Sad, but true.

Does the audience "need" stars? No, not really. But they would have to start taking more chances on unknown actors in unknown stories, instead of flocking to the latest Sandra Bullock or Brad Pitt movie. Or the latest popular vampire/super-hero film. Until then, audiences will get movie stars, because they pay to see them, and studios "need' them to get the films into production.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 1:25pm

I don't think it's an accident that George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, Brad Bitt, Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts, Robert Downey Jr, Will Smith, Nicole Kidman don't have Twitter accounts.

Robert Downey, Jr. posts pretty often on his Facebook page.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 1:34pm

Speaking of Robert Downey, Jr....
Robert Downey May Have Been A Drug Addict, But This Is Amazing

[strummergirl]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 1:38pm

The studios are not as powerful as they once were, there's no factory and yes, that is more of a good thing than a bad thing. But the studios are also weaker because big studios lean toward the effects-driven, easily accessible works. The medium-sized films that would have a lot of stars in them have been pushed to the side. Those studios may distribute them but they are not homegrown within their studio, and those medium films, even with recognizable faces, are in the indie circuit.

You also have the fact the 70s happened. It's not just to be just an actor but an actor-writer, writer-director, all three of those things, and self-finance your own work. There's glamor in that for a lot of actors. It makes them appear that they are more than to just be looked at by audiences reciting lines.

I also think there are times when the media/hype machine are too aware of placing glamor on the preconceived notion of glamor. This doesn't always tie to box office or general Q ratings being associated with great films. When I note George Clooney it is just the glamorous lifestyle he has and not really his film work and his box office history is quite spotty for a movie star, especially compared to his peers of Pitt and Damon. But he's been deemed the 'new Cary Grant' since forever. Clooney's successful, but he seems more Warren Beatty, in terms of being a creative force behind his films in addition to being the star, except he definitely plays the man of mystery. It's always either take it to the red carpet, do a film, or hang out with Italy with the latest girlfriend. He's kind of a genius at branding. Behind the scenes he seems to manage everything to make sure not too much of his private life leaks while also going to the right parties and hang out with the right people to make sure his films do well in the industry circles.

Also there is certainly a contingent of critics and movie lovers who consider the director to be the star. It has shaped a lot of the way people have looked at films since auteur theory was put into the film dialogue.

[javero]

Posted: 3/10/14 at 7:21pm

Sometimes I think that video killed the film star, in addition to the radio star.

Hyperbole aside, between reality tv breakouts and video-divas we've got stars in spades. Sure, they lack the aloofness and allure of the stars of yore but today's reality tv Z-lister with the nanosecond shelf life is capable of competing with a Hollywood A-lister for consumer mind-share. And we now have celebrity-athletes galore setting fashion trends on several continents.

Thanks to a few cable tv channels dedicated to pro sports, certain elite athletes and commentators are seen on screen more often than George Clooney.

Just last night I caught an episode of Graham Norton on cable featuring Lady Gaga, Jude Law, Dom Hemingway, and June Brown. All throughout I was shaking my head at the mere thought that La Gaga is arguably one of the world's biggest stars. I'm not a Gaga hater either. It's just that for such a talented songwriter, there's very little alluring about her once she steps off stage and attempts to get thru an interview.

We've got pop stars, model-wanna-turn-actresses & rapper-turned-actors showing up at film industry award shows and nearly stealing thunder.

Despite the fact that neither Clooney nor Blanchett came up thru the studio system, I consider them vestiges of the old guard that still knows how to keep up appearances and to be proud of their Hollywood pedigree. I suppose they'll have to pass the torch to Rob & Kristin or Justin & Selena soon.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 3/10/14 at 8:17pm

Movie stars are being pushed aside by 'reality celebritards' with no discernible talent.

Same with the news. about 10% of every news cast is real news while the rest of it is BS about Justin Bieber getting arrested or Kim Karashians ass that just won't stop growing.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/10/14 at 8:45pm

The stars STILL are big. It's the fans that got small.


http://youtu.be/TMUJpec6Bdc