Actors' whom will never become ''stars.'' - Page 2

Female demo is out shopping this weekend. Dumb time to open a romcom. It might see some upswing after Christmas.

I'd like to add the following names for discussion:

Bill Nighy
Brian Cox
Ian McKellan
Christopher Lee

They were all already well regarded and highly successful in the UK - as far as I'm concerned once you reach a level where you can support yourself solely from acting; you're successful.

Also, they didn't need to be hugely successful or even working in the US (after all it would have been your loss, not ours), becoming prominent in the US that's just an added bonus for them - they didn't need it per se (though I'm sure the extra money is nice).

Finally, they all actually struck it big in the US at an age (if not well past) when a lot of actors (male and female) are finding their careers fading from prominence if not terminal decline.

I forgot, if Billy Crudup isn't the king of this thread, he's at least the duke. Years and years of: He's gonna happen! He's gonna happen! Awwww. He didn't happen. =-(

Crudup's case is interesting in that he basically had it, but then didn't want it. There have been numerous opportunities for him to "level up," such as it were -- to go from an indie drama to a high-profile lead, or to take more studio work -- but he's chosen to do theater and establish himself as a supporting actor who occasionally takes lead roles in interesting shit. See also: Liev Schreiber.

Here are other actors who will never be stars: Everyone who isn't George Clooney, Johnny Depp or Will Smith. Obviously there are more but you get my drift. These days, you can probably count the number of actors who have a significant enough effect on box-office to be called a "star" down on 2 hands.

I wouldn't call Clooney a star. Smith is numero uno, and I think Depp might be declining. Yes, Alice in Wonderland did $1 billion. But The Tourist flopped and I think Pirates 4 will under-perform. That trailer got the blankest reaction from my Tron screening.

I second the Nathan Fillion as this generation's Bruce Campbell scenario mentioned above (it's a parallel I've brought up elsewhere before).

Though to Fillion's credit, he does have one modest hit TV series to his name now (Castle) which to my knowledge is more than Bruce has managed. I also think Fillion is (no offense to Bruce) more talented than Campbell, but I don't think he's ever going to get that "make it big" project. "Castle" would have to get a lot bigger (like "ER" in its prime big) for that to happen.

I find this popular-on-chud idea that you're not really a movie star unless you can catapult a movie to blockbuster status simply by appearing in it a pretty dubious one. Sure, there are a small number of people who have managed to achieve that, but that kind of megastar has always been the absolute minority. By and large success has always come from matching appealing stars with appealing material, and that's still the case even if mainstream movies have put more emphasis on the concept in recent years.

I nominate Brian Cox as most absurd suggestion thus far. May as well list every character actor in the world if we're going to take shots at him for not headlining summer blockbusters.

But that's something else and completely subjective. By those criteria most of the people mentioned - Jake Gyllenhaal, Keira Knightley, Orlando Bloom, Ian Mckellen etc. are stars.

How do we define a "star," anyway?

(A) Someone who can open a movie/get asses in seats

or

(B) Someone who can get a movie made by his/her involvement

Clooney can get a movie made. He can't always put asses in seats. Which is more important? The American didn't do $100 million but Clooney still got it made and will probably continue to get movies like it made.

Seems to me that, as someone said above, directors with a proven track record are the real stars these days. Either that or "the material is the star."

Di Caprio isn't doing badly of late. But he was teamed with two superstar directors. Even if Joe Popcorn couldn't pick Scorsese or Nolan out of a line-up, he knows what "From the director of The Departed" or "From the director of The Dark Knight" means.

Then again, if Scorsese's or Nolan's -- or Will Smith's -- next film is a three-hour black-and-white drama about people dying in a nursing home, with no Bucket List/Tuesdays with Morrie inspirational takeaway, that's gonna put asses away from seats.

Even if it did have an inspirational takeaway...you wanna know why 127 Hours hasn't broken out bigger? Because people have heard about the arm scene and don't necessarily know, or care, that the story has a spiritual happy-face on it at the end. They don't want to see a dude cut his own arm off, and they don't wanna be stuck with him for an hour before that.

So it's as much director + star + material as anything.

Curious to see if Taylor Kitsch breaks out. There's Friday Night Lights obviously as the starting point. But he was arguably the best part of Wolverine (Yes, including Reynolds) and surprised Fox hasn't tried to utilize his Gambit in the new films. Plus he's headlining two big summer tentpoles in 2012 - Battleship and John Carter of Mars.

And his FNL co-star Scott Porter has been up for just about every superhero over the last few years. Wouldn't be surprised if he got Superman.

What's Liam Neeson's status? He's awesome, recognizable, and a prolific veteran, but is he a "star"?

And what about Sacha Baron Cohen? Borat's a star, but is the man behind the character? See: Paul Reubens for an earlier forgotten example of this paradigm.

Brad Pitt is clearly a star (as is Angelina Jolie), but why don't their flicks pull in the crowd EVERY time?

Does tabloid exposure/attention have anything to do with an actor star-power?

I hope tabloid exposure doesn't have anything to do with star power, then we'd have to call the Kardashians, The Real Housewives, and those mooks and mookettes from Jersey Shore stars.

Is there some assumption that all of these people want to be stars? I suspect a number of people on the lists here are quite happy and content with the roles they are getting. Reynolds, Fillion and Crudup are all perfectly content with their position in the hierarchy of Hollywood. To denigrate the people and their work based on what you consider to be a successful career or unsuccessful one is kinda being a jerk.

I read somewhere that Crudup rakes in so much cash from commercial voice over work that he basically only makes movies when he feels like it.

You want to know what a star is? Whoever is acting in a project and has a decent role and their name at the front of the credits.

Somewhere along the line, being a "star" stopped being "has a decent role and their name at the front of the credits" and started being "consistent box office draw." Course, the problem there is, only time will tell. If box office analysis existed today fifty years ago, we'd be having arguments back and forth if we considered Jack Lemmon a real draw.

I fear that Fillion is headed for Boxleitnerville.

Nah, Fillion actually has charisma and the ability to act. That makes him two up.

Choice A. No question about it.

The movies Clooney gets made are lower budget productions (around $20 million region) with everyone taking pay-cuts. It's admirable how he walked away from "easy money" gigs years ago and I respect his choices. But he's not a star.

On the other hand, Will Smith can get a big or low budget movie made. Anything he wants, and studios will grovel. Honestly, could anyone else today do that?

He also does a lot of theatre which is his first love.

Honestly, who exactly defined this new and deeply retarded definition of the word 'star', and what manner of brain damage did they first suffer?

This all seems depressingly similar to the argument that occurred about Christian Bale and his supposed (non)stardom.

Saying Clooney isn't a star is pretty ridiculous, since he, and he alone, opened The American.

When I bring up someone like Johansson or Crudup, I think of people that are famous, and have been enjoyed/appreciated in certain films, but who simply cannot carry a film. I think Johansson is smart, gorgeous, and talented, but I have never gone to see a movie because she was in it, and her presence alone has in no way caused me to be me interested in a film that I would normally never be interested in.

That said, there are so many contributing factors to the failures / underwhelming performance of the films of supposedly big actors, that it's kind of dumb to say that it's all about people not caring about "big stars", anymore, but I do have one idea that sort of lines up with this.

The double-edged sword of too much access. You can totally avoid hearing about this and that actor's sex tape / drug problem / political ideology / religious affiliation / break-up / hook-up / fashion faux pas / favorite cereal, and so on and so forth, but it permeates popular culture, and it is suffocating. Consciously and unconsciously, I think people are responding to that, they always have, it's just way more pronounced now.

That very thing has completely fucked up Tom Cruise's career, and at the very time when he needs it the least, when he's getting fucking old.

I think this idea is correct. Tom Cruise was a Star for years precisely because his people placed very strict control over what the public knew about him. Once he fired his agent in favor of his sister (?) we found out his opinions on post-partum depression, people who dis Scientology ("Fuck'em"), how much he luvs luvs LUVS his wife etc etc etc. any mystery about what kind of guy Tom Cruise is (kind of a douche) was gone.

I always thought there was this hierarchy where the "true Stars" always retained an air of mystery while the grade B Celebs and lower would appear on every possible show spouting their opinions on every fucking subject. Clint Eastwood is an example of the former: everyone who appeared on Hollywood Squares are examples of the later.

The American opened because it was sold as a Bourne-type action thriller and dropped on Labor Day weekend with virtually no competition. Once people found out otherwise, they stayed away. Hence its second weekend plummet.

I don't think this phrase means what you think it means. And Stevenson is going to be stuck playing a heavy for a really long time. Kill the Irishman might be able to make him the next Jason Statham (which isn't really a bad place to be, career wise), but he's never going to be a Star in the way that this thread is about.

A Rome alum who really could be a Star, but has been making some piss-poor decisions when it comes to his feature roles: James Purefoy. IMDB says he's playing Kantos Kan in John Carter, so maybe that will be his breakout role.

Though I was surprised it opened at all (thought the trailers were terrible), you put almost anyone else in the lead and that movie wouldn't have had a height to fall from, regardless of the perceived genre film that audiences thought they were getting.

I think we're asking if certain actors/actresses have leading role potential. One actor I could easily see joining the leading man ranks is Idris Elba. If that Alex Cross project ever happens that is. People say that leading men have to be incredibly handsome, but then I think of people like Tom Hanks or Nicholas Cage.



As a sidenote, what do people think of Garret Hedlund after Tron?

Empty suit with big teeth. Hard to really judge though, since the character was so weak.

You know what are the stars these days? Franchises/brands.

Him and Jeffery Dean Morgan. But they'll instead forever be the always-reliable character-actors. Not a bad thing per say. But they have the leading man chops.

Don't think anyone is thinking about him.

Well he's a pretty boy in a high profile film. Thought they were pulling another Sam Worthington with him.

Speaking of pretty boys, I'll say it again. Robert Pattinson is the next DiCaprio/Pitt. I can feel it in my bones.

What I mean is I can't imagine anyone thinking about Hedlund after seeing Tron.

To bring up Fillion again...

Ouch. Hahahaha

Nice baiting of the browncoats there.

Mwahahahahaha... it's been so long since they've had a cause to rally around!

Watch Death Sentence. Hedlund is absolutely magnetic in it. It's unfair to judge anyone based on Tron.

I was just about to post this. He has a real strong presence in that, really surprised the hell out of me.

Hm, I'll have to look it up because I think I'm using it correctly



I hope KTI does really well and helps get him more roles as "heavies" (though for the record he's slimmed down magnificently, probably in conjunction with his casting in T3M3D which will require derring do and a proficiency at swashing buckles), though I think he's capable of great versatility as well

I'll keep hoping against hope for his star to get a chance to shine for all of America. I counted out Pullo once before in my life (S1E11 of ROME). I won't make that mistake again!
Purefoy is pure class. He definitely could blow up big if people knew who he was. It kills me that SOLOMAN KANE still is not on DVD in the states, but if Daniel Craig were to get taken out by SPECTRE, Purefoy would be my first choice for an agent to elevate to double-oh status

And.. I had no idea he was in John Carter. I just became interested in that film for the first time

PS As much as I love McShane, it kills me that Purefoy was overlooked for the Black Beard role in POTCOST

EDIT: I looked it up, as far as I can tell I used the phrase correctly

Edit: now trying to be nice, so never mind.

"Edited by Policar" happens so much I almost think it's going to start showing up on my posts too.

That's almost worse, Policar, because now I don't know what you said

The way some of you guys are increasingly narrowing the definition of movie star is getting out of hand. I hope you're all aware that John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant, and Katherine Hepburn all had plenty of flops in their careers, and they're considered the/among the biggest movie stars to ever live. The definition of "star" is easy: an actor or actress whose name and face the general public (i.e. not movie nerds and tabloid devotees) can readily recall. You don't have to have a hit every time. God knows Orson Welles didn't. You just need to be famous. In other words, not Nathan Fillion.

The Golden Age stars also made a lot more movies (per year, even!) and had the studios managing their public images-- and this at a time when there was no direct competition for moving pictures. I don't begrudge today's artists having control over which films they make, but they lack impact in terms of relative tonnage.

'Tending to allay suspicion or hostility' is the absolute last way that I would describe Stevenson's looks. He's not a bad looking guy, but he looks like he was poured out of an iron smelter, and if you see a guy that looks like him coming you know he's been sent to fuck some people up.

For comparison's sake: early Brad Pitt had 'disarming good looks,' because he was something of a pretty boy and had a real boyish quality to his smile, which were qualities that made me (and I'm sure a lot of other people) write him off as a genuine actor in the beginning of his career.

Sure, the studio system is gone and there's other media forms, but I feel even when it comes to pop culture like this Gore Vidal's statement that we live in the United States Of Amnesia still applies. "No time before now could ever possibly correspond to our present situation!"

And if Reynolds and Fillion AREN'T stars (I could argue they are or nearly, but I'm also biased, but I can see the other side of the argument), I'd hate to see where their other 2 Guys and a Girl (and a Pizza Place) co-stars rate on the star-spectrum. Ouch. I mean, who?

It's all relative, right?

Well, Traylor Howard was on 87 episodes of Monk. That counts, right?

Sorta. If anyone (ie: me) knew what her name was.