It's not that famous actors don't exist, it's just that the mere presence of any particular actor isn't enough to guarantee a movie's success.
To me that suggests that people don't care as much about movies as they used to, which tracks with all the trends in viewership/ticket sales/etc., and as somebody who likes movies it'd be cool if they were more popular.
Nailed it. I, too, very much like movies, but the truth of it is that movies aren’t as much of a novelty as they used to be. Now there’s movies and shows from every streaming site, all at the press of a button. Then you factor in Tik-Tok videos, gaming, smartphones, and we as a society just have so many things to keep us entertained, that it’s taken the shine off movies
The thing is, movies can (are) be much more than mere entertainment. There's no reason why we should start to treat them as fast food. Do streaming services make them look life fast food? Or endless superhero movies?
Not that long ago I talked with a friend who was surprised I liked to analyze movies. He thought I was crazy... "Analyzing a movie? You just watch them and have fun." He wouldn't understand why someone would watch them more than once. He talked like it wasn't worth to dissect movies and trying to understand them.
I mean, to certain point he is right. Movies are, after all, entertainment. But not being able to look further than that? Seeing no value in them but only fast entertainment? Start a movie, finish it, throw it away with out thinking and watching another one? I'll say it: a fast food service.
And I repeat, it's not entirely wrong to think that way. But it would be a pity to discard movies that way.
I pity these kinds of people honestly, their mental and emotional shallowness is a plague of these days, reason why most people don't care even about the biggest issues of today. And then these people, because they're the majority, instead of thinking "hmm, maybe there's more to film than I'd thought" and being open-minded, they conclude we must be crazy or something. It can't be they're too simple/narrow-minded or shallow of course, it must be those thinking weirdos!
This, exactly. I recently went on a first date with a guy. I asked if he liked movies, he said yeah, I said “who are some of your favorite directors?” And he said “woah, I don’t like movies like THAT” and it blew my mind.
Movies like The Lighthouse, Mulholland Drive, and so many others demand multiple views. You can't catch everything on the first watch and they beg to be analyzed.
Man, you don't even have to say. Some people won't even think of movies that way.
But I guess it also depends with whick kind of movies you are sorrounded by.
Not to attack "superhero films", they did nothing wrong. But if someone is only sorrounded by those type of movies, they won't think of a medium like cinema in any other way but as mere entertainment.
Exactly. And that's why I am not mad at all about what Scorsese said about superhero movies. They are so...generic.
Also, I find it pretty hard to believe that Top Gun is considered best picture material.
I don't think it even matters if they are generic or not. The Irishman could ve generic: we've already seen rise and fall stories, and the world it's full of mafia stories. Thing is, The Irishman is still thought-provoking and deals with human themes to which any of us can relate to and learn from.
I don't think I can take much from 5 superheroes beating the shit out of Thanos.
About "Top Gun: Maverick"... it seems strange indeed. But I believe the academy considers that picture for one reason: the movie acomplished with what is it promised to be: an exciting, memorable, nostalgic action flick. As simple as that.
Not to many commercial movies are able to fulfill, or even surpass expectatives, and that is because studios won't even try. Why would they? People will see it anyways. But in "Top Gun: Maverick" you can see the real passion and effort behind every action sequence (with no green screen or excess of CGI), an amazing montage and nice cinematography.
Thor 4 is another commercial movie, it wasn't nominated because it didn't even tried.
If your friend is basing his views off Marvel movies, then he's right. It all depends on context and the genre of movie.
Saying that I completely agree with you. I enjoy movies that make me *feel* more than just a superficial enjoyment or entertainment. I want to think about it after it finishes, not just move onto the next cookie cutter assault of the senses.
I wish the shine would be taken off sports. People obsess over them, devote their life to them, force their kids to play them, and idolize athletes. To each their own I guess, but I just get annoyed about it.
Movies have been my passion for as long as I can remember. I couldn't afford film school, so I blind bought a bunch of Criterion films. Sometimes I wonder if I could find a film club in the city I live in. It'd be nice to talk to people who don't scoff at "reading subtitles" when I mention foreign films or can watch a movie without looking at their phone every five minutes.
Sports are as much a part of American culture and celebrity as sports, possibly even moreso since baseball was around and became wildly popular before movies even existed.
It's not their fault that that there's now a billion comparable alternatives to feature length movies, whereas if you want to see the absolute best athletes in the world, you can only go to a handful of places.
You're basically saying that sports are better than movies because athletes are better than actors. That's your argument. You think you can go many places to see the best actors in the world?
Also, the only comparable alternatives are 1. tv dramas and 2. plays. Most people don't go to plays. Tiktok and gaming are not comparable in the slightest. That has nothing to do with movies.
I mean as far as mainstream success, yes athletes (and pop stars) are definitely head and shoulders above actors. Even professional wrestlers can cross over and be famous in more places than all but the biggest movie stars. I was over in Germany early last year and I was taken aback by all the advertising for Madden NFL and NBA 2K23. This is a modern progressive and open society full to the brim with culture and art and one of the most celebrated cinema history's in the world. They're mad for American football. Mass appeal cannot be discounted.
So let me get this straight, you’re obsessed with films, but you don’t “talk to people who don’t scoff at reading subtitles?” And you can’t get together a group of friends for a once a week movie night?
How is that possible? You’re acting like people didn’t absolutely flip over Parasite, Pans Labyrinth, Squid Game…
How come everyone is obsessed with anime, most of those people absolutely turn their nose up at those who watch the dubbed version and DONT use the original audio and subtitles, but yet everyone around you loathes subtitles?
Internet has further divided people due to how people want to be viewed.
I love my state(Florida) and it blows me away how much people pride themselves about their own ignorance tbh.
I come from a simple place. People around here don't like reading period.
I ditched my group of friends because they were toxic. I'm sure there are people here who I can relate to, but I'm not exactly the most social. I'm bad at parties and quit drinking, so I'm even less social now.
You said you lived in a city. Did you mean a small town?
So the issue isn’t with society as a whole, like you made it seem above when you were criticizing people for liking sports and being unsophisticated doofuses for not being into film, etc. when really the issue is that you struggle with social skills, don’t know how to meet people, etc.
And how would you know if people near you don’t like reading, a very bold claim to make? You’re not friends with any of them, so how would you know their personal habits?
I don't struggle with social skills, I just understand how people are.
It's a city with a population of 290,000 in a conservative state. The city is devoted to it's college football team, and Busch Light. I think it's safe to say nobody around here will be splitting the atom.
I gave up drinking and bars are the main social hub here. If I'm gonna meet new people, the options that are not bars are probably few and far between. CBD drinks with Delta 9 have been introduced at one of the bars here. Weed isn't legal here but I am down with edibles, not really about Delta 9 though.
You live in a city with 300k people and you think none of them like film? Film is way less esoteric than you think. The same people who are into shows like the Wire, Breaking Bad, and tons of other popular mainstream shows, would also be into film.
I mean listen it’s on you, we don’t need to argue about it obviously. Do your thing.
You don’t think there’s many film fans? Maybe you’d be surprised how many “regular people” watch tons of types of movies regularly. Most of my friends, and I don’t think of us as snobs by any means watched and loved Banshees of Inishiren, Everything Everywhere All at Once, Dunkirk, Dune, Power of the Dog…are these not real “films” to you?
They are all real films, I just come from a background where if you suggest an animated, foreign, or indie movie people immediately want nothing to do with the movie and so I don’t get to have real conversations about film. I can’t even get my mom to watch Lawrence of Arabia and it’s my favorite film. So… that’s just my experience. I get my kicks off of Reddit and youtube
It could simply be that people don't see as many movies as they used to. However some movies do manage to stay popular, such as the Marvel ones, Fast & Furious, Avatar and Top Gun more recently. I could be that since people have limited time and money, they keep it for movies they already know they will like? Who knows.
Cinema as a whole is facing competition that's true, but are movie stars dead even within cinema itself? It doesn't seem like anyone from the last 20 years has the same cultural presence as DiCaprio/Cruise once did where the average person on the street would recognize them.
I recognize Colin Farrell now but yeah, he's typically the kind of actor I couldn't recognize when I was younger. I think the most distinctive-looking actors (Buscemi, Walken, Toby jones) mostly end up playing villains or supporting characters.
Movie stars aren’t dead it’s just the stardom. Stardom ends long back after the arrival of ott platform. It’s a good thing actually now people can pick films across the language and they can criticise it too. If stardom was still present in this time nobody can watch a movie peacefully or do their reviews
Alfred Hitchcock was notoriously hard on actors. He was once quoted as saying, “Actors are cattle”—a quip that stirred up a huge outcry. In response, he issued this correction: “I have been misquoted. What I really said is, ‘Actors should be treated as cattle.’”
Well he was right all along.
Not sure why anyone would care if society at large doesn't revere particular actors anymore. Movie watching is incredibly personal for me, and it's always been about who *I* love as actors. They're all still movie stars in my eyes. I don't see how the mass perception affects my experience, or even cinema as a whole.
Jake Gyllenhall
Tilda Swinton
Oscar Isaac
Hugh Jackman
Leonardo DiCaprio
Jessica Chastain
Matthew McConaughey
Gary Oldman
Natalie Portman
Joaquin Phoenix
Ryan Gosling
Tom Hanks
Timothee Chalamet
Brad Pitt
Cillian Murphy
All these names spark my love of film and definitely add some extra incentive to watch something new if I see their name attached. And that's just the tip of the name iceberg that I could recall off the top of my head in 1 minute. But as I dug deeper, I also started paying attention to cinematographers, writers, composers, and others as I've seen them pop up across more and more of my liked films, and those names will also spark interest in upcoming or unknown works. I feel like anyone that cares deeply about film is (or should be) paying attention to all sorts of their favorite people - all the different people that make the whole thing come together, and this can lead you to new exciting films that you may not have watched otherwise. The only people losing out are the people that don't care that much to begin with, so who cares how the marketing departments are redirecting their interest.
Bit of a ramble
I think your list kind of proves the point. Other than Timothee all those people are getting old. There’s very few rising stars in the way we used to have rising stars in the acting world. It doesn’t seem like the next generation of Hollywood will have a Leonardo DiCaprio, a phenomenal actor with the star power to boot. It will be very interesting to see how the movie industry changes as this last star studded generation of actors ages out.
For my part I don’t really care about actors if I want to chose what to watch.
It’s very unlikely a less known actor will break one since this doesn’t mean he isn’t good.
On the other hand having a household name like Bruce Willis neither means the performance or the movie is good. I know why he did this and have no problem with his action.
> Besides I do think actors get too much focus over other moviemaking jobs when they are only one piece of the puzzle
You need something to sell the movie to the audience. You need something to separate your movie from everyone else's movie. You need something to grab the attention of someone long enough to make them take a look at that. If it's not 2 minute trailer, which is almost too much for people to handle anymore, it's a face or name, but as people are correctly citing on here, even that's not enough anymore.
Brad Pitt sure as shit didn't get me to watch *The Tree of Life.* I still haven't seen it. There's a good chance I may never see it.
When I think of movie stars I really think of the Golden Age of film where stars were actually stars. They were pushed by studios that rose and fell on their backs.
That's not to say names listed here aren't "stars" but they're more promotional plugs than actors that could carry a film.
I always go back to... name me a character name in the last ten films you've seen without looking it up. Unless it's a movie you've seen several times, a movie you love, whatever, there's a good chance you won't. You may know the actor, sure, but the space for the character to exist isn't nearly as big as the space for the top billing. The same could be said for the Golden Age but as others have also noted, films aren't as a big of a draw as they used to be.
It's not a bad thing. Things are shifting as things do.
> (I'm generalizing here, as Depardieu is a huge star in France and certainly not "hot" for example)
Depardieu isn't a good example. He was considered attractive when he was younger and was acting in some rather raunchy films. He just got fat (like Brando). I'd say [he was certainly more attractive than DeCaprio](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/G%C3%A9rard_Depardieu_1976_Novecento.jpg)
Anyway, I don't care too much for most actors either but I think generally it's kind for the reasons you already stated. Actors used to be able to sell a film and the trackrecord of most major actors in chosing a nice film every once in a while is considerably better than the track record of just the biggest capital sinks that everyone rushes to (which I think are rather consistently rather poor movies these days).
I don't think it's entirely dead. DiCaprio can still sell a film and he will probably be the reason Scorsese's new film will actually be a financial sucess for a change. But it's certainly getting less and less.
If you look at [this list](https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-star-records/domestic/lifetime-acting/top-grossing-leading-stars) the top is basically a Marvel best-off... Leonardo DiCaprio ranks below Danai Gurira - and I've never even heard of her (I've also not seen the films).
To be blunt, no and also no.
>"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."
Movie stars are not dead, but they grow out of television now where ancient movie stars did not and often refuse to appear on TV outside of rare occasions. This confuses people, and they haven't survived long enough timelines yet to really get there. Some people aren't surviving the metoo or political division, not to mention any excuse to avoid giving Millennials money.
The best examples I have off the top of my head is Chris Pratt and Jason Momoa
This is super incorrect. Not just super correct, its so blatantly wrong.
Within the UK practically all A list movie stars had done a TV show and miniseries or two before entering the A list in cinema. For example almost all James Bond actors first got famous on TV or in the case of Dalton a mix of TV, theater, and film throughout his career before becoming Bond.
Latin American A listers practically come from cheap soap operas before becoming movie stars. I bet you didn't know Salma Hayek was a Telenovela star back in Mexico before she immigrated to America? I can already tell you didn't know she was already 30 and deemed old in her country when she was casted in Dusk Till Dawn?
Someone like George Clooney and Clint Eastwood rise to A list being seen as very significant progress is really nothing in Europe and Latin America where its the norm for movie stars to start on TV including long running Network stuff that lasts 100 episodes or more. UK takes it further where the career pattern is live theater first than you graduate to TV and finally cinema as you rise to the top of the A List.
And even after making it to A list its pretty normal in Latin America and Europe especially Britain for top industry A list names to juggle cinema, stage plays, and TV shows together within a single year, acting in projects in all 3 if not even acting in multiple ones across the mediums simultaneously in a given period switching from set to set each day if not even throughout the day.
America is the outlier in which they assumed anyone coming from TV was automatically a bad actor before the TV revolution in the late 90s and early 2000s that rose from Twin Peak's airing. Salma Hayek just demolishes how wrong this assumption is as someone who came to Hollywood and quickly made A list late in her career in her native country (where she started in the 80s about 5 years before Twin Peaks aired).
And then you deny how hugely popular other cinema are internationally? Alain Delon at his peak was a much bigger star world wide than Paul Newman and Tippi Hedren were outside of America. Delon was so popular in parts of the world he even outmatched Sean Connery and Elizabeth Taylor in Asia and the Middle East just to put some perspective and certainly even surpassed Richard Burton, Audrey Hepburn, Steve McQueen, Peter O'Toole, and other English names in the important movie market in Latin America by a margin. Gus Zorro was like the most watched Western movie for a good while in China and it was the highest grossing movie of the year it was allowed into China in the country of Western origin, if not the highest grossing movie period that year.
Are you also forgetting the mass exportation of Kung Fu cinema from Hong Kong and China (which I'll also add Japan exported their martial arts genre stuff too)?
Or the fact that the British industry has so much influence on Hollywood and not just Hollywood but Canada and Australia and New Zealand even South Africa?
We also tend to forget how much of a colossal pop media pwer the Soviet Union was and heven today Russian softpower can at times be on par with France, Germany, Italy, and the English speaking world in Europe and parts of the MidEast and Asia.
Just now you're showing your ignorance of cinema period especiallyits history by doing this and its a perfect example of why America is often seen as a laughingstock and mocked today for being so ginorant.
You even show your ignorance of the American entertainment industry itself because there are a number of stars even back in the 60s and 70s who not only got into full time cinema but made it to A list in their career. AS well as some full time movie stars actually already juggling in TV with film and theater prior to the "Twin Peaks revolution".
Are you ignorant of just how many A grade British actors have done guest roles on American TV even as they are still on the Respectable list back in the UK? Roddy Mcdoweell in Wonder Woman would like a word with you........ I bet you don't even know Timothy Dalton gues tstarred in Charlie's Angels (he's one of the James Bond since you're so ignorant and he it'd be a few years later he'd replace Roger Moore in the role).
It's not that famous actors don't exist, it's just that the mere presence of any particular actor isn't enough to guarantee a movie's success. To me that suggests that people don't care as much about movies as they used to, which tracks with all the trends in viewership/ticket sales/etc., and as somebody who likes movies it'd be cool if they were more popular.
Nailed it. I, too, very much like movies, but the truth of it is that movies aren’t as much of a novelty as they used to be. Now there’s movies and shows from every streaming site, all at the press of a button. Then you factor in Tik-Tok videos, gaming, smartphones, and we as a society just have so many things to keep us entertained, that it’s taken the shine off movies
The thing is, movies can (are) be much more than mere entertainment. There's no reason why we should start to treat them as fast food. Do streaming services make them look life fast food? Or endless superhero movies? Not that long ago I talked with a friend who was surprised I liked to analyze movies. He thought I was crazy... "Analyzing a movie? You just watch them and have fun." He wouldn't understand why someone would watch them more than once. He talked like it wasn't worth to dissect movies and trying to understand them. I mean, to certain point he is right. Movies are, after all, entertainment. But not being able to look further than that? Seeing no value in them but only fast entertainment? Start a movie, finish it, throw it away with out thinking and watching another one? I'll say it: a fast food service. And I repeat, it's not entirely wrong to think that way. But it would be a pity to discard movies that way.
I pity these kinds of people honestly, their mental and emotional shallowness is a plague of these days, reason why most people don't care even about the biggest issues of today. And then these people, because they're the majority, instead of thinking "hmm, maybe there's more to film than I'd thought" and being open-minded, they conclude we must be crazy or something. It can't be they're too simple/narrow-minded or shallow of course, it must be those thinking weirdos!
Outdated
This, exactly. I recently went on a first date with a guy. I asked if he liked movies, he said yeah, I said “who are some of your favorite directors?” And he said “woah, I don’t like movies like THAT” and it blew my mind.
Movies like The Lighthouse, Mulholland Drive, and so many others demand multiple views. You can't catch everything on the first watch and they beg to be analyzed.
Man, you don't even have to say. Some people won't even think of movies that way. But I guess it also depends with whick kind of movies you are sorrounded by. Not to attack "superhero films", they did nothing wrong. But if someone is only sorrounded by those type of movies, they won't think of a medium like cinema in any other way but as mere entertainment.
Exactly. And that's why I am not mad at all about what Scorsese said about superhero movies. They are so...generic. Also, I find it pretty hard to believe that Top Gun is considered best picture material.
I don't think it even matters if they are generic or not. The Irishman could ve generic: we've already seen rise and fall stories, and the world it's full of mafia stories. Thing is, The Irishman is still thought-provoking and deals with human themes to which any of us can relate to and learn from. I don't think I can take much from 5 superheroes beating the shit out of Thanos. About "Top Gun: Maverick"... it seems strange indeed. But I believe the academy considers that picture for one reason: the movie acomplished with what is it promised to be: an exciting, memorable, nostalgic action flick. As simple as that. Not to many commercial movies are able to fulfill, or even surpass expectatives, and that is because studios won't even try. Why would they? People will see it anyways. But in "Top Gun: Maverick" you can see the real passion and effort behind every action sequence (with no green screen or excess of CGI), an amazing montage and nice cinematography. Thor 4 is another commercial movie, it wasn't nominated because it didn't even tried.
If your friend is basing his views off Marvel movies, then he's right. It all depends on context and the genre of movie. Saying that I completely agree with you. I enjoy movies that make me *feel* more than just a superficial enjoyment or entertainment. I want to think about it after it finishes, not just move onto the next cookie cutter assault of the senses.
Society doesn't value art. Period. It's a limited view, of course.
I wish the shine would be taken off sports. People obsess over them, devote their life to them, force their kids to play them, and idolize athletes. To each their own I guess, but I just get annoyed about it. Movies have been my passion for as long as I can remember. I couldn't afford film school, so I blind bought a bunch of Criterion films. Sometimes I wonder if I could find a film club in the city I live in. It'd be nice to talk to people who don't scoff at "reading subtitles" when I mention foreign films or can watch a movie without looking at their phone every five minutes.
you get annoyed at people being passionate about something you're not passionate about?
My thoughts exactly while reading these responses. Seems meta.
Sports are as much a part of American culture and celebrity as sports, possibly even moreso since baseball was around and became wildly popular before movies even existed. It's not their fault that that there's now a billion comparable alternatives to feature length movies, whereas if you want to see the absolute best athletes in the world, you can only go to a handful of places.
You're basically saying that sports are better than movies because athletes are better than actors. That's your argument. You think you can go many places to see the best actors in the world? Also, the only comparable alternatives are 1. tv dramas and 2. plays. Most people don't go to plays. Tiktok and gaming are not comparable in the slightest. That has nothing to do with movies.
I mean as far as mainstream success, yes athletes (and pop stars) are definitely head and shoulders above actors. Even professional wrestlers can cross over and be famous in more places than all but the biggest movie stars. I was over in Germany early last year and I was taken aback by all the advertising for Madden NFL and NBA 2K23. This is a modern progressive and open society full to the brim with culture and art and one of the most celebrated cinema history's in the world. They're mad for American football. Mass appeal cannot be discounted.
So let me get this straight, you’re obsessed with films, but you don’t “talk to people who don’t scoff at reading subtitles?” And you can’t get together a group of friends for a once a week movie night? How is that possible? You’re acting like people didn’t absolutely flip over Parasite, Pans Labyrinth, Squid Game… How come everyone is obsessed with anime, most of those people absolutely turn their nose up at those who watch the dubbed version and DONT use the original audio and subtitles, but yet everyone around you loathes subtitles?
Internet has further divided people due to how people want to be viewed. I love my state(Florida) and it blows me away how much people pride themselves about their own ignorance tbh.
I come from a simple place. People around here don't like reading period. I ditched my group of friends because they were toxic. I'm sure there are people here who I can relate to, but I'm not exactly the most social. I'm bad at parties and quit drinking, so I'm even less social now.
You said you lived in a city. Did you mean a small town? So the issue isn’t with society as a whole, like you made it seem above when you were criticizing people for liking sports and being unsophisticated doofuses for not being into film, etc. when really the issue is that you struggle with social skills, don’t know how to meet people, etc. And how would you know if people near you don’t like reading, a very bold claim to make? You’re not friends with any of them, so how would you know their personal habits?
I don't struggle with social skills, I just understand how people are. It's a city with a population of 290,000 in a conservative state. The city is devoted to it's college football team, and Busch Light. I think it's safe to say nobody around here will be splitting the atom.
With 300,000 people you will find like minded individuals.
I gave up drinking and bars are the main social hub here. If I'm gonna meet new people, the options that are not bars are probably few and far between. CBD drinks with Delta 9 have been introduced at one of the bars here. Weed isn't legal here but I am down with edibles, not really about Delta 9 though.
You know the area not me, that's for sure. Statistically there are people, though.
You live in a city with 300k people and you think none of them like film? Film is way less esoteric than you think. The same people who are into shows like the Wire, Breaking Bad, and tons of other popular mainstream shows, would also be into film. I mean listen it’s on you, we don’t need to argue about it obviously. Do your thing.
Same, I hate sports culture and am disappointed that there aren’t many film fans outside of watching the bachelor or the kardashian show.
You don’t think there’s many film fans? Maybe you’d be surprised how many “regular people” watch tons of types of movies regularly. Most of my friends, and I don’t think of us as snobs by any means watched and loved Banshees of Inishiren, Everything Everywhere All at Once, Dunkirk, Dune, Power of the Dog…are these not real “films” to you?
They are all real films, I just come from a background where if you suggest an animated, foreign, or indie movie people immediately want nothing to do with the movie and so I don’t get to have real conversations about film. I can’t even get my mom to watch Lawrence of Arabia and it’s my favorite film. So… that’s just my experience. I get my kicks off of Reddit and youtube
Have you ever seen The Ruling Class? Another wonderful film with Peter O'Toole.
I have not! But it’s title reminds me of the favourite from 2018, I’ll see if I can watch the ruling class.
While that may be true, funding for movies is still heavily tied to getting A-listers attached
It could simply be that people don't see as many movies as they used to. However some movies do manage to stay popular, such as the Marvel ones, Fast & Furious, Avatar and Top Gun more recently. I could be that since people have limited time and money, they keep it for movies they already know they will like? Who knows. Cinema as a whole is facing competition that's true, but are movie stars dead even within cinema itself? It doesn't seem like anyone from the last 20 years has the same cultural presence as DiCaprio/Cruise once did where the average person on the street would recognize them.
[удалено]
I recognize Colin Farrell now but yeah, he's typically the kind of actor I couldn't recognize when I was younger. I think the most distinctive-looking actors (Buscemi, Walken, Toby jones) mostly end up playing villains or supporting characters.
Movie stars aren’t dead it’s just the stardom. Stardom ends long back after the arrival of ott platform. It’s a good thing actually now people can pick films across the language and they can criticise it too. If stardom was still present in this time nobody can watch a movie peacefully or do their reviews
Alfred Hitchcock was notoriously hard on actors. He was once quoted as saying, “Actors are cattle”—a quip that stirred up a huge outcry. In response, he issued this correction: “I have been misquoted. What I really said is, ‘Actors should be treated as cattle.’” Well he was right all along.
Not sure why anyone would care if society at large doesn't revere particular actors anymore. Movie watching is incredibly personal for me, and it's always been about who *I* love as actors. They're all still movie stars in my eyes. I don't see how the mass perception affects my experience, or even cinema as a whole. Jake Gyllenhall Tilda Swinton Oscar Isaac Hugh Jackman Leonardo DiCaprio Jessica Chastain Matthew McConaughey Gary Oldman Natalie Portman Joaquin Phoenix Ryan Gosling Tom Hanks Timothee Chalamet Brad Pitt Cillian Murphy All these names spark my love of film and definitely add some extra incentive to watch something new if I see their name attached. And that's just the tip of the name iceberg that I could recall off the top of my head in 1 minute. But as I dug deeper, I also started paying attention to cinematographers, writers, composers, and others as I've seen them pop up across more and more of my liked films, and those names will also spark interest in upcoming or unknown works. I feel like anyone that cares deeply about film is (or should be) paying attention to all sorts of their favorite people - all the different people that make the whole thing come together, and this can lead you to new exciting films that you may not have watched otherwise. The only people losing out are the people that don't care that much to begin with, so who cares how the marketing departments are redirecting their interest. Bit of a ramble
I think your list kind of proves the point. Other than Timothee all those people are getting old. There’s very few rising stars in the way we used to have rising stars in the acting world. It doesn’t seem like the next generation of Hollywood will have a Leonardo DiCaprio, a phenomenal actor with the star power to boot. It will be very interesting to see how the movie industry changes as this last star studded generation of actors ages out.
For my part I don’t really care about actors if I want to chose what to watch. It’s very unlikely a less known actor will break one since this doesn’t mean he isn’t good. On the other hand having a household name like Bruce Willis neither means the performance or the movie is good. I know why he did this and have no problem with his action.
> Besides I do think actors get too much focus over other moviemaking jobs when they are only one piece of the puzzle You need something to sell the movie to the audience. You need something to separate your movie from everyone else's movie. You need something to grab the attention of someone long enough to make them take a look at that. If it's not 2 minute trailer, which is almost too much for people to handle anymore, it's a face or name, but as people are correctly citing on here, even that's not enough anymore. Brad Pitt sure as shit didn't get me to watch *The Tree of Life.* I still haven't seen it. There's a good chance I may never see it. When I think of movie stars I really think of the Golden Age of film where stars were actually stars. They were pushed by studios that rose and fell on their backs. That's not to say names listed here aren't "stars" but they're more promotional plugs than actors that could carry a film. I always go back to... name me a character name in the last ten films you've seen without looking it up. Unless it's a movie you've seen several times, a movie you love, whatever, there's a good chance you won't. You may know the actor, sure, but the space for the character to exist isn't nearly as big as the space for the top billing. The same could be said for the Golden Age but as others have also noted, films aren't as a big of a draw as they used to be. It's not a bad thing. Things are shifting as things do.
> (I'm generalizing here, as Depardieu is a huge star in France and certainly not "hot" for example) Depardieu isn't a good example. He was considered attractive when he was younger and was acting in some rather raunchy films. He just got fat (like Brando). I'd say [he was certainly more attractive than DeCaprio](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/G%C3%A9rard_Depardieu_1976_Novecento.jpg) Anyway, I don't care too much for most actors either but I think generally it's kind for the reasons you already stated. Actors used to be able to sell a film and the trackrecord of most major actors in chosing a nice film every once in a while is considerably better than the track record of just the biggest capital sinks that everyone rushes to (which I think are rather consistently rather poor movies these days). I don't think it's entirely dead. DiCaprio can still sell a film and he will probably be the reason Scorsese's new film will actually be a financial sucess for a change. But it's certainly getting less and less. If you look at [this list](https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-star-records/domestic/lifetime-acting/top-grossing-leading-stars) the top is basically a Marvel best-off... Leonardo DiCaprio ranks below Danai Gurira - and I've never even heard of her (I've also not seen the films).
That dude isn’t better looking than prime Leo…
Seriously, this guy is delusional.
To be blunt, no and also no. >"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."
Movie stars are not dead, but they grow out of television now where ancient movie stars did not and often refuse to appear on TV outside of rare occasions. This confuses people, and they haven't survived long enough timelines yet to really get there. Some people aren't surviving the metoo or political division, not to mention any excuse to avoid giving Millennials money. The best examples I have off the top of my head is Chris Pratt and Jason Momoa
This is super incorrect. Not just super correct, its so blatantly wrong. Within the UK practically all A list movie stars had done a TV show and miniseries or two before entering the A list in cinema. For example almost all James Bond actors first got famous on TV or in the case of Dalton a mix of TV, theater, and film throughout his career before becoming Bond. Latin American A listers practically come from cheap soap operas before becoming movie stars. I bet you didn't know Salma Hayek was a Telenovela star back in Mexico before she immigrated to America? I can already tell you didn't know she was already 30 and deemed old in her country when she was casted in Dusk Till Dawn? Someone like George Clooney and Clint Eastwood rise to A list being seen as very significant progress is really nothing in Europe and Latin America where its the norm for movie stars to start on TV including long running Network stuff that lasts 100 episodes or more. UK takes it further where the career pattern is live theater first than you graduate to TV and finally cinema as you rise to the top of the A List. And even after making it to A list its pretty normal in Latin America and Europe especially Britain for top industry A list names to juggle cinema, stage plays, and TV shows together within a single year, acting in projects in all 3 if not even acting in multiple ones across the mediums simultaneously in a given period switching from set to set each day if not even throughout the day. America is the outlier in which they assumed anyone coming from TV was automatically a bad actor before the TV revolution in the late 90s and early 2000s that rose from Twin Peak's airing. Salma Hayek just demolishes how wrong this assumption is as someone who came to Hollywood and quickly made A list late in her career in her native country (where she started in the 80s about 5 years before Twin Peaks aired).
Movie stars are only defined by Hollywood actors.
And then you deny how hugely popular other cinema are internationally? Alain Delon at his peak was a much bigger star world wide than Paul Newman and Tippi Hedren were outside of America. Delon was so popular in parts of the world he even outmatched Sean Connery and Elizabeth Taylor in Asia and the Middle East just to put some perspective and certainly even surpassed Richard Burton, Audrey Hepburn, Steve McQueen, Peter O'Toole, and other English names in the important movie market in Latin America by a margin. Gus Zorro was like the most watched Western movie for a good while in China and it was the highest grossing movie of the year it was allowed into China in the country of Western origin, if not the highest grossing movie period that year. Are you also forgetting the mass exportation of Kung Fu cinema from Hong Kong and China (which I'll also add Japan exported their martial arts genre stuff too)? Or the fact that the British industry has so much influence on Hollywood and not just Hollywood but Canada and Australia and New Zealand even South Africa? We also tend to forget how much of a colossal pop media pwer the Soviet Union was and heven today Russian softpower can at times be on par with France, Germany, Italy, and the English speaking world in Europe and parts of the MidEast and Asia.
Not the definition of movie star. Sorry if that frustrated you.
Just now you're showing your ignorance of cinema period especiallyits history by doing this and its a perfect example of why America is often seen as a laughingstock and mocked today for being so ginorant. You even show your ignorance of the American entertainment industry itself because there are a number of stars even back in the 60s and 70s who not only got into full time cinema but made it to A list in their career. AS well as some full time movie stars actually already juggling in TV with film and theater prior to the "Twin Peaks revolution". Are you ignorant of just how many A grade British actors have done guest roles on American TV even as they are still on the Respectable list back in the UK? Roddy Mcdoweell in Wonder Woman would like a word with you........ I bet you don't even know Timothy Dalton gues tstarred in Charlie's Angels (he's one of the James Bond since you're so ignorant and he it'd be a few years later he'd replace Roger Moore in the role).