Actors' whom will never become ''stars.''

Do you mean, will there ever be another Tom Cruise/Brad Pitt/Mel Gibson? Nope. Not in today's financial climate. The days of the mega movie star are over, as studios know that very few of today's big actors can guarantee a successful movie anymore. And the people you listed are pretty bland - audiences aren't really swayed by them. In fact, directors are more influential these days I reckon.

I'm pretty sure Reese Witherspoon IS a star. She's one of the most popular female actresses alive.

Not convinced about some of those. Witherspoon has been a big star for ages and headlined a bunch of hits. Keira Knightly isn't going anywhere either, only she seems more interested in middlebrow fare than blockbusters. Timberlake got a plenty of credibility for Social Network, so you never know. Remains to be seen how Pine's non-Trek career will go but you understate how important he and the rest of the cast were in making that movie connect. Nemesis showed that Trekkies by themselves don't pay for shit.

By that standard, there are no stars. You think they'll scrap a 4th Batman because Nolan and Bale aren't on board? You think they won't recast Tony Stark if they feel it'll make 'em a few bucks? Everyone is disposable.

And do you really think (m)any of the people you're laughing at care that they're only quite successful to ridiculously successful? The, "LOL, what a bunch of losers!" attitude is weird. I've never found Ryan Phillipe to be very talented (except in MacGruber), but if he's "cursed", show me the black cat that walked by him so I can rub its balls.

Maybe we should retool this thread to talk about people who, even though well known (by name as well as face) and even make millions of dollars a film, barring some truly unexpected series of events; are not likely to ever crack the A List pantheon currently headed by Will Smith.

By this logic, besides the difference of years working, Bill Murray should not have that much fandom post Garfield.

Strangely, I kinda feel the same way in the case of Zach Galifianakis(G-Force, possible Incredible Mr. Limpet star). Go figure.

Yeah, I came in here to talk about people like Tony Hale and Paul Dano, not these people who virtually all qualify as some of the most successful people in Hollywood, and Jared Leto.

I think what you're starting to see, at least, is a return to the idea of the 70s leading man/woman -- smart, eclectic actors who might be non-traditionally good looking, but are talented and versatile as hell. There was an NY magazine article recently where Ryan Gosling, James Franco, Tom Hardy, Jesse Eisenberg, Joseph-Gordon Levitt, and Andrew Garfield were all mentioned. I'd also put Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Mark Ruffallo on this list, though he's of a generation behind them. As for the list in the OP:

Orlando Bloom - Definitely in need of a reinvention. I liked him in Elizabethtown. Probably the guy with the weakest resume on this list.

Chris Pine - Has quite a bit of potential, but it's a little foolhardy to be declaring him "over", when he's only been in two major projects. He's got a real everyman quality to him, but I like that he's an American actor who actually seems like a tough guy and not a Teen Beat Cover Model. He'd be excellent in something like Eagle Eye, though Eagle Eye was balls.

Justin Timberlake - This is deeply, deeply retarded. Timberlake is easily one of the biggest -- and smartest -- music stars on the fucking planet, and the only reason he hasn't broken through is because he's focused on his music career. With his attention turned to movies for the time being, it's only a matter of time. Look at Alpha Dog for proof, and the post-coke-bust scene in Social Network for supporting evidence. He might not be the "new Sinatra," but he's certainly got the potential to be. The guy is damn good.

Jake Gyllenhaal - Gyllenhaal's in that place where he can bounce from leading man to character actor, though he seems to be focusing more on the former rather than the latter. He's more of an everyman than Pine, which is why he seems out of place in these action roles. I think Source Code will be the one to watch for him. And going along with somebody else you mentioned, Tobey Maguire, Maguire always seemed more comfortable in character parts rather than the leading man.

Keira Knightley - Same fate as Orlando Bloom. Seriously, this is retarded. Knightley's smart, and picks smart parts with interesting directors. She'll be fine.

Reese Witherspoon - She ain't got in her.

I don't know what that means. Regardless, she makes a good point when she says there simply aren't parts for her, a 32 year old mom, in Hollywood worth taking. Like many people on your list, these folks are victim of the fact that Hollywood has basically squeezed out the mid-level movie for adults. R-rated, entertaining, great ensemble casts, usually based on a John Grisham book. I bring this up time and time again, but there's a reason why Billy Crudup and Patrick Wilson aren't huge -- the parts they would have gotten in the 80s and early 90s simply don't exist anymore.

Jared Leto / Ryan Phillippe - Forever cursed. Leto is a pile of suck -- Sorry, Diva -- but Phillippe needs to transition into darker roles, as that's always what he's been best at.

agree on most of these, but as for Pine, Unstoppable did okay, and I expect that he will eventually be a minor star.

Kristen Bell. She tries so hard and she just isn't crossing over into the A list on movies, just bad romcoms.

Doesn't Pine have a new Jack Ryan film coming up? The same Jack Ryan who was played by unkown characters such actors as Harrison Ford, Alec Baldwin, and Ben Affleck?

Michael Cera. Scott Pilgrim was great, but if he was going to break through in something, it would've been that. And he's not going to age well in terms of "star" appeal, though given another twenty years he might be an interesting character actor.

I think we're entering the era where the franchise property/concept film is the movie star. Look at the top grossing movies of all time, most of them are franchise properties...and the others are auteur driven (Avatar, Inception, E.T., Jurassic Park, The Sixth Sense). Hollywood seems to be in an all or nothing phase, and movie stars aren't reliable enough, so they're floundering. It's just leveling out from the insane star driven 90s...no way that was gonna last.

It depends on what you say star. Are we talking house hold name with a public life everyone wants to know about? We got reality TV now (sadly).

Christain Bale
Wants to totally disappear into his roles, very little publicity is done. Very private.

Michael Cera
There was a post above that nailed my thoughts, now they're pregnant.

Tom Welling
Typecast, sorry.

How would Cera ever become a star? Not good looking enough, not a big personality, too quirky. he could be an indie star but he doesn't have the potential to be huge.

Dustin Hoffman would like a word with you.

...I know, I know, the starmaking machine is radically different now.

I'm not sure if Cera has it in him to swim against the tide, and I think the recent news that he joined a band may be indicative of some reluctance to keep pushing the whole movie star thing. He's got other talents.

I've actually never had any issue with Cera, I think he's talented and a cute kid, but therein lies the rub, I can't see him not being this twenty-something pseudo-hipster comic actor, I can't see him when he's 30 or 40. Maybe that's my short-sightedness, but he's cultivated a pretty strong image, and that can be deadly.

Most of them.

However, you're wrong about Reese. She's huge. Reese<Sandra<Julia... but still huge with the female demo.

Some added thoughts about the Cera=Hoffman analogy I hastily drew.

Cera has the misfortune to be acting in a time when versatility isn't really rewarded. The first decade of Hoffman's film career will give you whiplash, his roles are so different. Hoffman starts out today, he gets the roles that Jason Schwartzman turns down. Cera just isn't getting the roles, I think. It could be that he's a one-trick pony. But it could be that Charlize Theron was considered eye candy and nothing else until Monster. With Cera, we may never know. He may have to go dramatic or play a psycho.

But again, (A) it's definitely harder for a Hoffman type to break out today as opposed to the '70s and (B) as others have said, the star system is on its last legs. This may or may not coincide with the internet and how fast scandal gets around.

did someone just use the words "Cera" and "versatility" in the same sentence? Come on, he's certainly been in enough movies for people to realise that he's only got one mode of acting.

That's my point, he hasn't been given the chance to show any versatility, if he has any. He's been cast and used for the same shtick over and over. Even Scott Pilgrim was pretty well in his wheelhouse. He needs his own Social Network with a quickness. If he fails at that, then we'll know.

Plus he's only 22, and it could be argued he got overexposed too fast, always in the same sort of role.

This thread was made for Wes Bentley. Hit big with American Beauty then a nosedive.

I'm still surprised Adam DSandler and Ben Stiller made it huge. Same movies every dam time.

Will be interesting to see if Emma Stone gets the role that makes her the new America's Sweetheart. And watch out for Jayden Smith. His parents will have the producing clout to make him some big movies.

Ben Stiller is a really talented dude, and though he kept putting himself in a certain type of role after There's Something About Mary, he has most certainly not made the same type of film or taken the same kind of role over and over again.

I'd add Jessica "Wooden Acting" Alba to those names. She'll never make it into the A-list.

Stiller is the kind of guy who is really talented, and is something of a draw, but he has definetly fallen into a certain pattern of roles that he takes, like his 'Night at the Museum' and 'Meet the (Funny Name Here)' franchises. He can certainly bring the goods dramatically, just look at 'The Royal Tenenbaums' or 'Greenberg.'

That reinvention is The Three Musketeers directed by Paul W.S. Anderson!

I feel like maybe Orlando is just exhausted. He had fairly prominent roles in eight huge epics (LOTR, Pirates, Troy, KoH), and they all were filmed within a fairly short span of time. Since At World's End released in 2007 he hasn't done anything noteworthy. Filmmaking is very tiring I hear.

Good looks got her pretty far, but being extremely limited, a bit of a prude, and unappealing to women is seriously nipping at the heels of her career right about now.

While reading through this thread, "30 Days of Night" is playing on one of my local tv stations. Josh Hartnett totally fits this category. Which is pretty sad, because I think he actually has quite a bit of potential. Sure, he played the same pretty boy roles in his first string of movies. However, he's showed some range between his comedic and dramatic roles "40 Days and Nights" and "August."

Megan Fox, Thora Birch and maybe Melissa George may qualify for this thread as well.

I don't think Ryan Reynolds is every going to break out. Green Lantern is coming up, but the guy has been trying to break through for so long and it hasn't happened, I don't think it's going to. He's going to be the B actor in he rom coms with the hot body forever.

Scarlett Johansson is ostensibly a star, but she doesn't sell tickets and she's yet to land the role that would put her in the big leagues (playing Black Widow certainly won't do shit for her, it's not even much of a payday). Speaking of Black Widow, Johansson has no eye for genre films.

I agree with Birch(bet daddy killed her career) Fox is still young and has only been on the sceen a few years.

But Melissa George? You should need a break out role to be considered for a list like this.

Ryan Reynolds is a great pick. The guy has the looks and charisma to be huge but hasn't hit.

*Scarlett made the mistake of doing Woody Allen movies. Nobody goes to see those.

All actors have flops, but she's still one of the few actresses whose presence in a film can actually affect its gross. She might not feel like she has star quality to you but she most definitely is a star.

Production Budget: $120 million

SERIOUSLY? I know there are names in there, but that's ridiulous for a rom com.

Why pay over 10 million a piece to get Jack and Owen? Reese is the star and they got Rudd for 3. I would think for those movies to make money you pay 1 draw and that's it.

Hopefully Captain America will make Chris Evans huge.

I have a bad feeling about Captain America, but I love Chris Evans and I'm rooting for the guy to break out. He really is an amazing talent, he really kind of sneaks up on you with just how good he is.

Fillion! Hehehe... He's this century's Bruce Campbell!

About Jaden Smith. I wonder how much audiences will be cool with the fact that his parents are pushing his career. I can see people turning on that the way people tend to react to any kind of star 'grooming' (Colin Farrell, Vin Diesel).

Does anyone actually like Jaden Smith?

I'm not particularly fond of him, though I thought he did ok in Karate Kid, which did very well.

You made me both really happy and really depressed with this statement.

Stiller I agree with but after Funny People and watching Reign Over Me the other night Sandler has some hidden chops he is too scared to unleash I bet.

I'm not sure another swashbuckling period piece is what Bloom needs.

Stiller has been in The Zero Effect, Flirting With Disaster, Permanent Midnight, Greenberg, Your Friends & Neighbors, and so on, but somehow he's less versatile than of all people...Adam Sandler?

I think that the THREE MUSKETEERS movie does have star making potential.. It has a great cast. Ray Stevenson is playing a Musketeer, and I keep hoping against hope that this will be the film to break him through

A few thoughts on others mentioned in this thread:

Melissa George is classy, and will break through yet I bet. IN TREATMENT already spawned one star. Why not two?

Cera is not only not star material IMHO, he is destined to disappear in short order. I literally can't stand him. I was watching ZOMBIELAND on NETFLIX INSTANT just now, and Jesse Eisenberg is like a version of Michael Cera that's not pathetic and grating. Eisenberg is destined for bigger things than Cera, IMHO. I think it was Devin who once said of Cera "some people are just annoyed that people like Cera exist in the real world". I don;t know if it's true or not, but thinking it over Michael Cera is the kind of person I'd avoid like the plague in real life. I don't think there will ever be a great desire from the general audience to spend time with his on screen persona either. Eisenberg at least seems kind of sweet, and clever. Cera just seems lost and awkward

Emma Stone: Again, rewatching ZOMBIE LAND and I just don't think she's a very strong actress. I have not seen EASY A, but she just kind of strikes poses and looks tough. In every one of the serious emotional beats she comes across as weak to me

PS After T3M, I do still hope Bloom disappears soon though. I don't think I'll ever be able to forgive him for not being Christian Bale in KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

PPS Re: Leto. He is kind of weak and I'm not really a fan, but I think he was still pretty good as Hyphystian in ALEXANDER ("The King lives! Long live Alexander!") for what thats worth. A star though? Not in this universe

Ray Stevenson will never be a star.

beat me to it.

Patrick..

I'll have to agree to disagree, as I just can't allow myself to believe that. At any rate, I think it's far too early to make such a determination, given the fact that his highest profile project to date yet looms with the release of T3M3D and rumors that the ROME movie may be just around the corner have been reported right here on CHUD. Stevenson has been cropping up in more and more bit parts in big studio films (BOOK OF ELI, where he was the third male lead/#2 villain, and THE OTHER GUYS where he was the central antagonist!) since the end of ROME in 2007, and with his innate charisma and disarming good looks, I think he stands a legitimate chance of capturing America's heart if Felicitas smiles on him and the fates align

What I will say in Sandler's favor is that, even within the framework of his stupid comedies, he has a tendency to experiment and take risks. For example: That whole sequence in Click where he's an old man and he has a heart attack and dies during his son's wedding, while Dolores O'Riordan sings a Lounge version of Linger.

Now, Click is an asshole movie. But those sort of touches make me respect the man. I see that he wants to try something different.

When Stiller goes for the formula, the results are somewhat entertaining at times, but I don't see him ever trying something like that in the Fockers movies or the 347th romantic comedy where he plays a cocky nebbish falling for some hot blonde.

Final note: Considering that Stiller is a very intelligent comedian, good actor and very good director, he just comes off as tremendously lazy. But Sandler looks like he's actually working. Even with Big Daddy or Grownups.

Fixed.