Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Asha_Brea t1_iu0ef5r wrote

"There are no movie stars or recognizable names except the ones I don't care about."

40

[deleted] OP t1_iu0f2pp wrote

[deleted]

−27

kingzilch t1_iu0ge0e wrote

"Do you really think people went to see a movie about an obscure villain just because it starred a charismatic and popular star who can reliably open a movie? Like, c'mon!"

15

Asha_Brea t1_iu0ff76 wrote

>Do you really think people went to see Black Adam because of a over the hill WWE wrestler?

I certainly do not think that they went to see Black Adam for love to the DC Universe.

>Which ones should I care about?

You should not care about anyone if they are not your thing, but to say that "they don't count because they are in popular movies or are named Tom Cruise" is super weird.

9

ColdPressedSteak t1_iu0k2vs wrote

The Rock hasn't been a WWE wrestler for like two decades. At least don't be lazy in your crying

9

HornyToad1984 t1_iu0gqam wrote

Oh they most certainly went for Dwayne Johnson. They ran out of comic book heroes that the average punter recognizes long ago.

8

DrRexMorman t1_iu0h0ih wrote

> Do you really think people went to see Black Adam because of a over the hill WWE wrestler? Like, c'mon!

They did.

8

kasetti t1_iu0l2yo wrote

As you mentioned 2 female actors, how about Ana de Armas or Charlize Theron?

2

Peanlocket t1_iu0el0p wrote

LMFAO at an unironic "back in my day we had Meg Ryan" post.

Jesus Christ reddit, just get your shit together....

26

ObiWan_Jabronii t1_iu0hc7a wrote

This post couldn't be more snobbish if it tried.

25

petdance t1_iu2286z wrote

Some posts don’t even have to try to be snobby. It just comes naturally.

2

d0nt_b_pathetlc t1_iu0figl wrote

"We need to worship and idolize more rich people! 😡"

14

testingtor t1_iu0f62g wrote

"People care more about the characters in their story than the actors" is a different way to put it. Obviously good, even great, actors are still working.

6

TheCosmicFailure t1_iu0ewa0 wrote

Because theres different forms of entertainment get into now. If they dont pay attention to hollywood they wont care whos on the big screen.

5

[deleted] OP t1_iu0fjn5 wrote

[deleted]

−7

testingtor t1_iu0gocd wrote

> But that's also because movie stars are too approachable today.

Wait....why is this bad?

7

TheCosmicFailure t1_iu0fymu wrote

That may be the case for some ppl. I personally love to see celebrities be normal.

1

nayapapaya t1_iu190k1 wrote

Is that a dig at Beanie Feldstein? She wasn't the right fit for Fanny Brice but she's barely old enough to be someone's mother.

1

BrickedHampster t1_iu0frls wrote

Scarlett Johansson, Hugh Jackman and Robert Downey Jr. are the first people I think of when I here “comic book movie star”.

They all did great movies otherwise.

4

[deleted] OP t1_iu0g6h1 wrote

[deleted]

0

Realsteels0311 t1_iu0j0nl wrote

Have you never seen Extraction. It was one of the best action movies of the past 5 years and it helped Netflix gain something like 1 million new subscribers. With the price of a Netflix subscription that movie made Netflix a shit load of money

7

testingtor t1_iu0hqze wrote

> Thor is his meal ticket, everything else he stars in loses money.

This is just literally untrue. His non MCU work is mixed but hes also had plenty of successes.

5

HornyToad1984 t1_iu0gxqh wrote

Such as?

Last five years only please.

−5

angrysqu1rrels t1_iu0iar3 wrote

Jojo Rabbit? Marriage Story? And that's just going by the super arbitrary "last five years only please."

6

GenuineChopper t1_iu2lisy wrote

2 of which were marked by production shutdowns and extended delays in theatrical releases

1

HornyToad1984 t1_iu0ex0c wrote

John Cusack said it best; 'Modern Hollywood is three corporations playing poker and the actors are the chips.'

1

[deleted] OP t1_iu161tr wrote

that's more 60's Hollywood when actors were under extreme contracts that basically meant they were cattle

0

TheRealProtozoid t1_iu28vss wrote

Yet a veteran film star said that about Hollywood much more recently than that.

0

KelMHill t1_iu0gc6r wrote

Foreign cinema has always been more accommodating of artistic merit than Hollywood.

1

WindingRoad10 t1_iu0hbsi wrote

The "age" of the traditional movie star has for the most part ended. But the level of acting from performers hasn't diminished. While there are still plenty of classically "beautiful" Hollywood types, you also now have strong actors who, image wise society would consider to be "normal / average" people. I think this is a positive, depending on the role & the film. Many people connect to it more.

There was an era where movies were true escapism (vs pure entertainment). So the beautiful untouchable was what people wanted. These days, more people can identify with a Melissa McCarthy than they can with a Charlize Theron...There isn't a right or wrong, but the mystery of the start facade is gone. People are totally fine with watching "regular" people in a film now.

In terms of the MCU / DC (which many times get a bad rap). They are a genre that (for the most part) puts out entertaining films that general audiences enjoy. The golden age of Hollywood had your Errol Flynn swashbuckling films that people enjoyed. The were adventure films back then as well.

But in terms of recognizable names, you still have that. Viola Davis, Frances McDormand, Gary Oldman, Tom Hanks, Denzel, Brad Pitt, Leo D., & tons more.

1

Orphan__of_Kos t1_iu10yq5 wrote

>While there are still plenty of classically "beautiful" Hollywood types, you also now have strong actors who, image wise society would consider to be "normal / average" people. I think this is a positive, depending on the role & the film. Many people connect to it more.

I actually think there are less "average looking" big actors in the current generation and also kinda ironic, the actors you mentioned all rose to stardom either in the era where movies were in your opinion true escapism or even before that era.

Melissa McCarthy was also never a superstar in Hollywood and her biggest box office hit was Charlie's Angel which came out in 2000.

1

WindingRoad10 t1_iu19hav wrote

Really? I think these days there are more average looking actors. (Maybe it's because of the amount of content) W

Most of actors that I mentioned rose in ranks in the 90's, 00's. I don't think that era was true escapism. For me, the true escapism was the Golden era of Hollywood.

The 80's & 90's & 00's on were pure entertainment. (Music, video games, cable tv, expanded sports, PPV, etc. were all other forms of competing entertainment)

Still, I believe that was the last era of the true era of the traditional movie star (The "Planet Hollywood" Era). There are "movie stars" these days, but it is different than before.

These days you can have a lead like Bob Odenkirk (Nobody). None of Jordan Peele's movies were huge names before & while starring in his 3 movies. A movie like "Smile" would've starred a recognizable (horror) name. Baby Driver, A Quiet Place, Dune, Old, etc. Even movies that tank (Bros) had non stars lead the movie.

These days, you can easily have an actor who is not necessarily a star lead a film. In the the "escapism era", stars were contracted with studios, so there had to be stars. Now, you can simply be an actor.

In terms of Melissa, She is a recognizable name though (and a brand). She ranked #4 in 2020 in terms of highest paid actresses. (According to Forbes). She's been in the top 5 since 2016.

1

SantaRosaJazz t1_iu0jucd wrote

You still have to be charismatic. And if you think people don’t care anymore, then let me tell you how I stepped on the toes of a batch of Henry Cavill fans when I said I couldn’t imagine caring who plays Superman. They care.

1

Bright_Beat_5981 t1_iu0m2ts wrote

I think ots has to do with tv shows and their growing status the last 20 years. The stars are connected to a certain show and a certain character for years. During that time its hard to do a lot of other movies, and you become the charcter instead. Walter white, tyrion lannister, johhny lawrence. You think about the characther and not the actors name. Compare that to jim carrey, samuel l jackson and brad pitt, sometimes it even hard to remember their characters name. Its more like the old trailer " Brad Pitt is ......!"

1

Volcano_Tequila t1_iu0p892 wrote

There is some truth that if you remove franchise movies from the mix, there are few movie actors/performers whose name alone can "open" a movie. However, there is also truth that including a recognized or valued performer can "add to" a movie by getting it some attention and press it may not receive otherwise. Recognizable names who bring a sort of persona or goodwill to a project can work wonders.

Some say that one of the reasons that In the Heights and West Side Story failed was that there were no charismatic / "now" stars attached, the talented casts notwithstanding. For all the criticism of Natalie Wood or Audrey Hepburn these days for the Sixties versions of West Side Story and My Fair Lady, respectively, they added stardust and charm and recognizable box office names to the proceedings, and audiences flocked to both films. Stars are still a thing, but they are more value-add than the days when, say, John Wayne's name enough could jet propel a movie .

1

Artparkgallery t1_iu1usnk wrote

Arrnt you all complaining that Timothee Chalamet is in every movie these days

1

HardToBeAHumanBeing t1_iu1yeta wrote

My brother in Christ, there are in fact tons of movie stars with recognizable names who are attractive and charismatic and good at acting. And none of the ones I’m thinking of are in Marvel movies. Sounds like you need to get out there and watch some movies!

1

TheRealProtozoid t1_iu298ew wrote

Nah. Leonardo DiCaprio might be even bigger than Cruise. Cruise can't open a big movie unless it's a franchise action film. DiCaprio can open anything. Brad Pitt, Dwayne Johnson, Ryan Reynolds, Robert Downey, Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Adam Driver, Matt Damon, and others aren't far behind.

The star system is definitely in decline as studios focus on selling genre films to their audience, but movie stars still exist.

1

Comfortable-Cress362 t1_iu0i6oa wrote

Tom Cruise is the best actor of all time in my opinion. I love Tom Cruise. Ill watch anything he is in!

0

Iknowthevoid t1_iu0qa1o wrote

I've seen it mentioned as the death of the cultural icons... I think the biggest cause is social media. It has taken power away from the individual and given it to the masses. Before, to be a celebrity you had to be accepted by the mainstream media, who chose who to give attention to and who remained in obscurity. Now you only need to be viral and people will know who you are. People pay less attention to one person who is constantly blasted by a few media conglomerates and instead give their time to nieche personalities who cater to their exact personalities.

Also most of the cultural icons produced by the mainstream media in the past were people who's path and trayectory also depended heavility on the network of people and friends they were able to foster, it did'nt mean they were the best or most talented out there. With social media and domocratization mass communication eveyone who is talented has a shot at stardom, meaning most of the celebrities now have to be actually talented to compete for the attention of millions of people who have higher standards.

0

EntLawyer t1_iu0wyp9 wrote

IP replaced movie stars.

0

UntidyBargain t1_iu1hrz9 wrote

There are tons of comics that are made with adults in mind, btw. Not infantilized adults.

0

UntidyBargain t1_iu1hsf5 wrote

There are tons of comics that are made with adults in mind, btw. Not infantilized adults.

0

GenuineChopper t1_iu2kve2 wrote

Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Timothee Chalamet, Kristen Stewart, Emma Stone, Bradley Cooper, all instantly recognizable movie stars who (as far as I know) never made a superhero movie. Then there’s Cate Blanchett who was in Thor: Ragnarok, yes, but is also our modern day Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, and Greta Garbo all rolled into one, supreme acting talent and regal persona

0

circleofblood t1_iu0eofq wrote

I don’t think actors should be held in as high regard as they have been for the past 90 years. Sure they’re the faces of a film but they’re pretty much the least essential part on a movie set.

−1

BrickedHampster t1_iu0fcgg wrote

A good director can carry a movie the same way a good actor can carry the scenes they’re in.

Bad take.

5

Kyadagum_Dulgadee t1_iu0zu9n wrote

This is a woeful misunderstanding of how movies are made. The choice of actor can have a huge impact on the final product. Their performance, what they improvise, how the audience engages with that actor, whether it's with or against type and how that's received.

There's also the huge factor of how the presence of this actor or that one influences the budget. If you have a bankable leading lady or man starring in your movie Vs an unknown, the budget will often be millions more, which allows for better production value and a stronger supporting cast of seasoned character actors. Not always the case but the leads have a big influence on how well a movie does financially.

Yes the other departments matter as does the writing and directing. A great director can make a million dollars look like 5. That doesn't mean you have to totally devalue what actors do.

4

GenuineChopper t1_iu2lt80 wrote

Yeah Gwyneth Paltrow was almost cast as Rose in Titanic instead of Kate Winslet. Just imagine how much of a different movie that would be, even taking into consideration James Cameron’s incredible production efforts, it would have been as unbearable as Shakespeare in Love.

1

HornyToad1984 t1_iu0f1zv wrote

>they’re the faces of a film but they’re pretty much the least essential part

This makes zero sense. Films are 100% visual, the face of film is all it is.

0

ProbsWrongbutDefMean t1_iu0fjqz wrote

you're both being to absolute

without someone behind the camera to press record, doesn't matter what the actor does, won't be seen

without an actor Infront, the film will just be random shots of places

both play their role and are needed (for the majority of movies)

3

SomeDuderr t1_iu0frwl wrote

It's easy. The guys are all called "Chris" and the women probably have an Instagram you can subscribe to. Shouldn't be that hard to remember.

−1

doc_55lk t1_iu0gb3f wrote

Keanu Reeves? Dwayne Johnson? Ryan Reynolds? Vin Diesel? These are some of the most bankable names in the industry right now.

−1

Bright_Beat_5981 t1_iu0mkw1 wrote

They are more Julia Roberts generation than anything. Who are the 20-35 year old superstars today?

1

doc_55lk t1_iu0t3va wrote

Timothée Chalamet, off the top of my head.

Edit: Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe, Karen Gillan, Jennifer Lawrence, Kristen Stewart.

3

Kavalkasutajanimi t1_iu149wr wrote

You cant exactly compare them to glory days of Pacino, De Niro, Daniel Day Lewis, Brando, Newman etc now those were stars.

1

doc_55lk t1_iu14mai wrote

You can't compare anything to things from the 70s and 80s.

1

kingzilch t1_iu0ev7i wrote

Meg Ryan was a crap actor who was only famous because white karens identified with her. We're better off without her.

−7

[deleted] OP t1_iu0fabj wrote

[deleted]

5

kingzilch t1_iu0fj8k wrote

Those are four of the most white-karen movies of all time...

−10

rotates-potatoes t1_iu0ntjx wrote

I don't think "karen" means what you think it means. It's not a generic insult for all white women.

2

kingzilch t1_iu0o8kv wrote

That's why I said "white-karen?" Instead of just saying "karen" and letting the whiteness be implied? Even though, let's not kid ourselves, I really could have.

−5

HornyToad1984 t1_iu0f9rw wrote

This gross corporate industry, creatively bankrupt, overpriced, committee-written, PR-driven, and utterly formulaic, is on the way out. It's yet another financial bubble.

Marvel won't see 2030.

−8

kingzilch t1_iu0g7wp wrote

Oh look, everyone, that guy is here.

3

HornyToad1984 t1_iu0ghtg wrote

It's only been in existence for 12 years. It feels like a f*king lifetime and I can't even remember the last one. Billion dollar films are an abomination.

−4

kasetti t1_iu0lva4 wrote

To some extend Hollywood has always been like that.

0

HornyToad1984 t1_iu0rehz wrote

Yes and to some extent, there's always been CO2 in the atmosphere.

To some extent.

More means something.

1

kasetti t1_iu0u7em wrote

Sure. I wouldnt mind something similar to what happened in the 60's - 70s where Hollywood in the 60s had them focusing on the spectate, making big epics with big budgets and gimmicks like cinerama (kinda like what we have now) which then crashed killing the old studio system to then giving rise to the new wave of Hollywood. I think that can happen if film theaters start to lose money and we move to a more streaming focus with more niche and personalized movies. But even with Covid that didnt really happen, I kinda see it unlikely to happen in the near future.

0