Jump to content

Big 'stars' in movies, do they still have as much of a pull?


Capwn
 Share

Recommended Posts

This weekend my mum watched Legends of the Fall from 1994 with Pitt and Hopkins which she really liked. She said something a bit mad though, something along the lines of 'We often look for movies with big stars as the main stars tend to not do bad movies.'

 

My dad (divorced) is also weird like this. whenever I mention a film his first question is 'Who is in it?' and if I don't mention DeNiro, Jack Nicholson, Sandra Bullock, Stallone, DeCaprio etc he loses all interest. If a film doesn't have a big hollywood actor he presumes it can't be very good.

 

I think it has shifted, their generation a good movie was all about the screen presence but these days I think our generation get more excited about writers/directors and franchises? or am I just talking for movie nerds? Do normal people still watch movies just because of who is in it? I guess so because trailers still show the cast names, so it must still be effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over the last year I've watched Force of Nature, Waiting For The Barbarians, The Little Things, The Virtuoso and The Woman In The Window. All of which combined had Mel Gibson, Emile Hirsch, Kate Bosworth, Johnny Depp, Robert Pattinson, Mark Rylance, Denzel Washington, Jared Leto, Rami Malek, Eddie Marson, Abbie Cornish, Anthony Hopkins, Amy Adams, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Gary Oldman and Julianne Moore in them, and all are terrible and almost inexplicable that such big actors wouldn't be sent better scripts.

 

I only really check out a film of a big actor if I'm keen on seeing something early in their career, but still that isn't enough to compel me to watch say Revolution with Al Pacino in it despite the story seeming appealing just because the reviews were poor.

 

Director isn't a guarantee either. Ciro Guerra, Joe Wright, John Lee Hancock directed 3 of those above films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are a few with that star power that will draw in the average movie goer. 

 

Di Caprio is the big one i think. When he makes a film, people look into it. 

 

When i was younger up to about 2010 i would any film with certain actors in them just because i loved them that much. Now, if the film doesnt review well i wont bother. Case in point Di Niro and Pacino who i was passionate about but now make a lot of duds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that it's still the case in animated movies. There's always a big name or two attached to the main characters so there must be people who'll only go and see one if they recognise the actor no matter how good the film is otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harsin said:

No, we’ve firmly moved from the era of the megastar to the era of franchise IP being all important.

Yeah I watched a video about Hancock earlier where it effectively said that franchises sell movies now and the era of Tom Cruise etc are virtually over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it for the better? For example Tom Cruise has been in the news quite a bit championing him as the actor who is going to singlehandedly keep the industry going through the pandemic. 
 

It’s obviously well over egged in the press but I imagine he does still have a lot of sway and influence though. Without big stars (and I include directors and writers etc in this) are we left with business minded studio execs calling all the shots?  I mean, that’s like letting government choose how to tackle a pandemic despite a wealth of scientific talent equipped to show them what is really needed. Right? Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, strider said:

Yeah I watched a video about Hancock earlier where it effectively said that franchises sell movies now and the era of Tom Cruise etc are virtually over.


Captain Midnight?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Loik V credern said:

 

 

Jesus Christ. That is hilarious, cringeworthy and a bit terrifying all at the same time. The music is something else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Broker said:


Captain Midnight?

 

 

That’s the one. I’ve stopped watching critical drinker because he seems to despise anyone who isn’t a man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, El Geet said:

Jesus Christ. That is hilarious, cringeworthy and a bit terrifying all at the same time. The music is something else. 


It’s peak him, but you loved it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, strider said:

That’s the one. I’ve stopped watching critical drinker because he seems to despise anyone who isn’t a man.


YouTube is packed with people who seem funny and insightful until they suddenly say something bigoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, strider said:

That’s the one. I’ve stopped watching critical drinker because he seems to despise anyone who isn’t a man.

I've only seen him guest on other people's channels and he seems like a miserable cunt in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Harsin said:

No, we’ve firmly moved from the era of the megastar to the era of franchise IP being all important.

I dunno, I'm convinced Venom only earned as much money as it did because Tom Hardy was the lead. Had it been some unknown I doubt it would have had the same draw. I base this purely on my wife and 2 of her friends who went to see it purely because of Hardy. I'm aware Venom as an IP has a lot of fans, but without Spider-man, I'm not sure those fans cared much and Hardy was the main draw.

 

Upgrade was a much better version of Venom and hardly anyone saw it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stars add to it, but they're no longer the huge forces they were by a huge margin.

 

Think about it in terms of when cowboy films ruled the earth. People went to the cinema to see John Wayne, they didn't really care if he was playing Rooster Cogburn or Ethan Edwards, they mainly wanted to see The Duke. It's the opposite now, audiences are more interested in going to see a Ethan Edwards film. Of course who plays them influences the scucess of individual entries to a certain extent, but it's far more about the IP right now than it was at any point before. In this analogy, people might prefer John Wayne, but if they swapped him out, like they do with Batman and Spider-man regularly, then the main draw would still be the world/character and not the actor.

 

Venom is a much bigger IP than you give it credit for as well. Al Capone is huge pop culture figure and gangster films are still a popular genre, but Hardy's Capone hardly did any business. There's a reason Avi Arad had such a hard-on for trying to stick him (Venom, not Al Capone) in Spider-man films for so long (and alienating Sam Raimi in the process).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weird one for me has always been animated movies. With one or two exceptions who have distinctive voices, like Tom Hanks, I can’t understand why they bother with star names, especially if they’re putting on accents which make them nearly unrecognisable. There are plenty of voice actors who are better and cheaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jammy said:

The weird one for me has always been animated movies. With one or two exceptions who have distinctive voices, like Tom Hanks, I can’t understand why they bother with star names, especially if they’re putting on accents which make them nearly unrecognisable. There are plenty of voice actors who are better and cheaper.

Right, but the unknown voice actors wouldn't be invited onto talk shows or whatever to plug the film. Having a name attached is about recognition and publicity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

41 minutes ago, Dapple said:

Right, but the unknown voice actors wouldn't be invited onto talk shows or whatever to plug the film. Having a name attached is about recognition and publicity. 


That’s a very good point I hadn’t considered; it’s good for the press junkets I guess. Much like when they bring over a star name for a panto, it’s to bring in the parents rather than the kids, but that’s almost proving that stars are needed to sell certain movies at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Steve McQueef said:

Yeah, but it's mostly kids' movies and kids don't give a fuck.

 

It's another Hollywood circle-jerk.


Yeah but kids don’t take themselves out to the cinema.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, El Geet said:

Jesus Christ. That is hilarious, cringeworthy and a bit terrifying all at the same time. The music is something else. 


Yeah i couldn't even grasp what was happening it's that bad, the sudden change in the journalist to tell the pilot that America had killed Bin Laden because the pilot, being a pilot, of United Airlines (?) has gone through particular anguish? That's not a link i could make. When America assassinated Bin Laden i thought it wasn't a good thing, without there being a trial and things like that. Obviously that makes me a traitor and terrorist sympathiser and true liberals celebrate executions as long as the accused is notorious enough.

 

I only saw it a few months ago, but i couldn't believe that I'd never seen it before. It was aired in 2012 or something? Sorkin was granted a whole decade of not being thought less of by me. 'Yeah that trailer for the new Sorkin film looks alright i guess but wait Sorkin wrote that plane scene in the Newsroom didn't he? Or oversaw its existence, how can his opinion on anything be trusted anymore?' Things like that, he got away with that for pretty much a decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the day you'd be amazed to see the physicality of a performance - e.g Arnold carrying a fucking tree on his shoulder , JCVD doing kicks that seemed to defy gravity or Jackie Chan doing stunts that would put most actors into an early grave - but no one gives a fuck about that anymore when a computer can make anybody into a larger than life hero. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also it's hard to build your star brand when you can easily pick up a couple of million from spending a few days bouncing around in front of a green screen while wearing spandex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Down by Law said:

Back in the day you'd be amazed to see the physicality of a performance - e.g Arnold carrying a fucking tree on his shoulder , JCVD doing kicks that seemed to defy gravity or Jackie Chan doing stunts that would put most actors into an early grave - but no one gives a fuck about that anymore when a computer can make anybody into a larger than life hero. 


Go look at that tree on a 4K TV ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.