Who are the next big movie stars? - Page 2

I think we're getting distracted from "Big Star" and drifting into "Favorite Actor". When I think Big Star, I think someone whose face on the poster automatically sells tickets. And these days that's Witherspoon, Will Smith, and...?

 = 54 million

There are no stars anymore.

Touché.

Although I was thinking more of posters that are just a big ol' face. This Means War's fatal mistake!

Idris Elba. He's got everything a star requires: the look, likable personality, hypnotic eyes, ultimate alpha. In 2013 he'll be appearing as Stacker Pentecost the badass giant robot pilot, Nelson Mandela the badass president and Heimdall the badass god.

Olivia Wilde- She's got the looks no doubt. Think she can make it big as a Dramatic Actress? Or will she coast on franchise role like Kate Beckinsale does

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virtanen 

Idris Elba. He's got everything a star requires: the look, likable personality, hypnotic eyes, ultimate alpha. In 2013 he'll be appearing as Stacker Pentecost the badass giant robot pilot, Nelson Mandela the badass president and Heimdall the badass god.

I hope this happens because he's awesome. It's almost a shame that he didn't get his own franchise with Alex Cross although, having seen that movie, it was probably a lucky escape.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virtanen 

Idris Elba. He's got everything a star requires: the look, likable personality, hypnotic eyes, ultimate alpha. In 2013 he'll be appearing as Stacker Pentecost the badass giant robot pilot, Nelson Mandela the badass president and Heimdall the badass god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSaxon 

 

I hope this happens because he's awesome. It's almost a shame that he didn't get his own franchise with Alex Cross although, having seen that movie, it was probably a lucky escape.

Thirded.  It also helps that women seem to love the guy.  All of the women that I know (including my wife) think he's pretty much the most handsome man on the planet.  He's one, maybe two breakout performances away from being THE STAR, in my opinion.

I'm kinda interested in what happens with Joseph Gordon-Levitt because whilst I think he's a remarkably versatile actor I think if he gets pushed onto audiences he ain't gonna stick. Honestly I think if the JGL is Batman in the Justice League movie turns out to be true then it might burn out his rising star more than anything else.

At worst JGL is going to be a "one for them, one for me" kind of star.  His hitRECord project kind of guarantees both sides of that.  He's artistically ambitious and diverse, but he also appreciates the need to find ways to fund things yourself.

I'd put Sandra Bullock into that first category.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucho 

There are levels to this malarky, right? The Big Stars are your Will Smiths, Tom Hankses, Adam Sandlers, Tom Cruises, Denzel Washingtons, Nic Cages, Johnny Depps and your Bruce Willises, where people who can't tell their mise-en-scène from their elbow will spend their money to see a movie without knowing much more about it. It won't happen every time out, because that's not how The Movies works, but these are people who are so big that people who couldn't name three Spielberg films could name each of these actors and for the most part trusts their choices. I think Robert Downey Junior has moved into this bracket with Iron Mans and Sherlocks over the last few years.
Then there are other movie stars who have an audience of non-movie dorks but they're not on the level of the Big Stars in terms of drawing power among the gen pop. I think Meryl Streep is one of these. Daniel Day Lewis, Matt Damon, George Clooney and Brad Pitt are in this bracket (Killing Them Softly opened fairly wide with less than $7m, right?). Mark Wahlberg, Cameron Diaz and Seth Rogen might even be in this bracket. His audience is high school and college kids but he nevertheless has an established audience who will see films because he is in them. Jeff Bridges and Bill Murray might be in this bracket too.
And then there are the familiar faces who are liked but who don't have an audience per se. They've starred in successful films, so their names and faces are known, but they're not the draw themselves so they're not what we'd traditionally think of as "stars". Christian Bale is this. The Harry Potter stars. Jennifer Lawrence and Emma Stone are here. So is a multi-franchise but unchampioned guy like Sam Worthington. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Michael Fassbender, Tom Hardy fit here.
Tell me who I'm wrong about.

Great breakdown, but I'd add that a lot of the 2nd and 3rd tier actors seem as much a creation of the Studios and PR agencies as they are of popular demand. I know I keep harping on this, but this syndrome of Studios financing and promoting films with people they think are Major Stars when Box Office doesn't show it is interesting.

Money is important to all of us but who are the ACTORS? the masters of the craft...the ones that make you believe in the character...the oscar winners of course...but the others...nice looking adequate skill...good story to tell but many could tell it.

Leonardo DiCaprio must be up there. It helps he picks quality projects. Of course he still stumbles at the box office with J. Edgar, Revolutionary Road and Body of Lies but has blockbusters with Shutter Island, Inception and The Departed. I assume Django Unchained and The Great Gatsby will be helped by his name.

I think Bucho's comment is incredibly perceptive about the Big Stars, Stars, Familar Faces distinction.

I would say I'm not sure Hanks and Cage are Big Stars anymore. I also think there are some people who don't quite fit into the scheme. Thespians like Patrick Stewart, Ian Mckellan, Daniel Day Lewis and Phillip Seymore Hoffman. They're known and credible but won't open a movie with their name and don't have the drawing power of Clooney/Pitt, but on the other hand add something that familiar faces like Gordon-Levitt and Worthington won't. There are also genre specialists like Kevin James, Jason Statham and the Rock. I wouldn't say they're Stars in the sense they have the broad appear of Damon/Clooney/Pitt, but on the other hand their names have power and will get a certain demographic to see a film.

Love her or hate her, nobody thinks Anne Hathaway is going to be in things big and small for the next 30 years?

At worst, she's the next Bullock. There's potential for more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leederick 
 There are also genre specialists like Kevin James, Jason Statham and the Rock. I wouldn't say they're Stars in the sense they have the broad appear of Damon/Clooney/Pitt, but on the other hand their names have power and will get a certain demographic to see a film.

You watch: in a few years people will look at Statham and The Rock (esp the later) as pop culture icons just like they now revere Chuck Norris and Van Damme. Just by hanging around and making B movies they'll infiltrate the consciousness of The World!

"Meet boys...Tommy, Pete.  Meet girls...Cindy, Angie.  These are the next stars...these are the real people in the world."

I'm kinda peeved that Bill Hader has been on eight seasons of SNL and had supporting roles in some major comedy hits (Superbad, Tropic Thunder, Forgetting Sara Marshall), but he has yet to headline a big screen comedy. The closest he has come is Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, and that's just a voice over. 

When he does leave SNL, I hope he gets his break. The guy is insanely talented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucho 

There are levels to this malarky, right? The Big Stars are your Will Smiths, Tom Hankses, Adam Sandlers, Tom Cruises, Denzel Washingtons, Nic Cages, Johnny Depps and your Bruce Willises, where people who can't tell their mise-en-scène from their elbow will spend their money to see a movie without knowing much more about it. It won't happen every time out, because that's not how The Movies works, but these are people who are so big that people who couldn't name three Spielberg films could name each of these actors and for the most part trusts their choices. I think Robert Downey Junior has moved into this bracket with Iron Mans and Sherlocks over the last few years.

Then there are other movie stars who have an audience of non-movie dorks but they're not on the level of the Big Stars in terms of drawing power among the gen pop. I think Meryl Streep is one of these. Daniel Day Lewis, Matt Damon, George Clooney and Brad Pitt are in this bracket (Killing Them Softly opened fairly wide with less than $7m, right?). Mark Wahlberg, Cameron Diaz and Seth Rogen might even be in this bracket. His audience is high school and college kids but he nevertheless has an established audience who will see films because he is in them.

I'm not sure I agree with that last group. Brad Pitt is still Brad Pitt, and is still a half of "Brangelina". He could easily belong to the first group, he just tends to choose more non crappy film roles. Killing Them Softly didn't seem to have been advertised all that well, so it's not that surprising that it underperformed. I'd say Streep deserves to be in the first group if only because she sort of represents that level of acting talent that is generally thought to be of an upper quality by most movie goers.  But unlike Daniel Day Lewis, she does movies that generally appeal to a bigger audience.

As for Cameron Diaz and Seth Rogen, I'm not sure their names belong up there with Clooney or Pitt. I don't think Seth Rogen is anywhere near as well liked by mass audiences, and I think Diaz's star has pretty much faded. I think most of the types of roles that would have gone to her a few years back are now going to Jennifer Aniston. Mark Wahlberg might be climbing that ladder, though.

I once read (can't remember where, sorry) that you can divide stardom into two types.

Will Smith - Tom Cruise - Angelina Jolie type: the audience sees the movie because the star lends his/her magical personality to it. So the audience comes to worship the immense charisma of the star.

Denzel Washington - Russel Crowe - Dustin Hoffman type: the audience sees the movie because the star's presence implies that the movie is good. The star is like a friend who recommends a movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by t3cii 

I'd say Streep deserves to be in the first group if only because she sort of represents that level of acting talent that is generally thought to be of an upper quality by most movie goers.  But unlike Daniel Day Lewis, she does movies that generally appeal to a bigger audience.

 

You don't think Lincoln and The Gangs Of New York appeal to at least the same size audience as The Iron Lady?

That's pitting Day-Lewis' biggest movies against a relatively small one from Streep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

That's pitting Day-Lewis' biggest movies against a relatively small one from Streep.

What's a big movie for Streep? I guess The Devil Wears Prada? I'd say it was an exception to the rule rather than a standard for her. Looking at her filmography, I can't say that I see her movies "generally appeal to a bigger audience" than Day-Lewis'. Both seem to choose their projects quite carefully and appear to be more dependant on the role rather than the potential audience which might be reached. Of course, her filmography is far greater in number.

Well Lincoln's about to be Day-Lewis' first $100m hit, while Streeps starred in a $100m hit in the 70's, and she's had a bunch of successes with mainstream romcoms and such over the last 10 years. Far as I can tell Last Of Mohicans was DDL's only real crossover hit before the 00's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virtanen 

I once read (can't remember where, sorry) that you can divide stardom into two types.

 

Will Smith - Tom Cruise - Angelina Jolie type: the audience sees the movie because the star lends his/her magical personality to it. So the audience comes to worship the immense charisma of the star.

 

Denzel Washington - Russel Crowe - Dustin Hoffman type: the audience sees the movie because the star's presence implies that the movie is good. The star is like a friend who recommends a movie.

I think that's very interesting. DeNiro was an example of the second group. Film fans new *back in the day*) that if DeNiro was in a movie that movie was likely to be something special. Starting sometime in the 90's he would do more and more paycheck gigs and people lost that sense of quality associated with his name.

There now seems to be a twist to that second group you mention: Stars who make predictable schlock but once in a while turn in a really good performance. DeNiro is now in this category, Adam Sandler for sure, etc.

I subscribe to the $12-$15 million rule.

If a star can open a middling* mid-to-low budget film that NO ONE* would want to see to the $12-$15 million mark, they're likely a star.

See: Seven Pounds, The American, Denzel's "Out Of Time" etc. etc.

A guy like Zac Efron had that with Charlie St. Cloud and then the bigger 17 Again... something happened to derail him, because he got close.

*as far as the general audience. We all know we want to see the Fresh Prince wrestle a jellyfish.

There's a rumor that Michael B. Jordan (Wallace in THE WIRE, Steve in CHRONICLE) will portray Richard Pryor in a biopic directed by Forrest Whitaker. I think he has the chops, the looks and the charisma to become something really big.

I'll be very interested in where Chris Pratt goes after starring in Guardians of The Galaxy. I've liked him since Everwood and he's extremely funny and likable on Parks and Recreation as the puppy dog cheerful but dim Andy Dwyer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

There now seems to be a twist to that second group you mention: Stars who make predictable schlock but once in a while turn in a really good performance. DeNiro is now in this category, Adam Sandler for sure, etc.

When was the last "good" Sandler movie and/or performance? Or DeNiro, for that matter - Ronin?  Jackie Brown?   Dude hasn't been "good" in 15 years!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucho 


Andy Dwyer is probably my favourite character in all of televisiondom right now (yes, even moreso than any of the Lannisters) but I've never thought of Chris Pratt having Movie Star Power. I see him more on the level of a Matt LeBlanc, although maybe that's because Andy is really just a thinly (but beautifully) reworked version of Joey Tribbiani.

Matt LeBlanc was very funny on Friends but I'd never call him a very good actor, but Pratt was a good actor on Everwood and in Zero Dark Thirty and he's headlining the next major Marvel team movie (Albeit a risky one, being a cosmic movie by an indy director). I think he could be going places.

Punctuation is wack, yo!

Word.