Stars Are Over But…
The three basic points in David Gritten‘s 4.24 Telegraph piece about the waning of movie stardom (“Have Stars Lost Their Shine?’”) is that (a) yes, movie stars ain’t what they used to be, (b) they’re certainly getting less upfront cash and are increasingly settling for back-end deals but (c) they’re still pocketing relatively hefty amounts when they agree to make big dumb-ass CG Eloi tentpole films.
Bottom line: The idea of getting humungous paychecks for films that aspire to quality and class and end-of-the-year awards is pretty much out the window.
(a) “Increasingly fewer films are dependent on big-name stars for financial success. Instead, they’re mostly driven by a simple, compelling conceit, a remake of a success in another medium (The A-Team, Prince of Persia) or by being part of a lucrative franchise (Iron Man 2, Toy Story 3, Shrek Forever After, Twilight: Eclipse).”
(b) “But these films are pre-sold to the public on their overall concept. If they happen to feature stars whose popularity has recently dimmed, it doesn’t matter; they’re not the most important factor.. Movie stars are in decline because, for better or worse, movies simply no longer need them.”
(c) “Huge fees for stars have come to look like a ludicrous luxury. These days, actors who less than a decade ago were receiving $15 to $20 million upfront are now taking a modest advance and a share of back end profits — if any. Look back six or seven years, when leading A-listers included Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts, Nicole Kidman, Gwyneth Paltrow and Denzel Washington. One cannot say any of them is bigger now than then.”
(d) “It’s a telling reflection that at the height of Avatar‘s success, Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana could have walked the length of Oxford Street without being stopped or recognized.”
Um, Gylenhaal’s never been a star. Also, Ferrel’s never really been a draw, while Jack Black only seems to sell kiddie movies. I’m also not sure why anyone expected Soloist to be big. Dunno why Crowe was ever considered a draw outside of Gladiator, either. As for Angie, I’m guessing why no one wants to see her in more dramatic fare is that she generally hams it up very badly.
Haven’t I read this already in the last few months? Is this the new meme in Hollywood? Don’t they need independent films to start catching on again before they declare star power dead?
“One cannot say any of them is bigger now than then.”
Denzel Washington seems to be doing better now than six or seven years ago, though not so much on the other four.
“temporarily putting aside artistic integrity and potential for critical acclaim to throw in his lot with big, loud, cartoonish movies aimed at increasingly younger audiences”
So, wait, according to this guy, Downey put aside artistic integrity and critical acclaim to be in ‘Iron Man’, but then picked it up again to be in ‘The Soloist’?
Jeff, how can you take this guy seriously enough to pass along his comments?
Six or seven years ago we didn’t have anything like Avatar and Transformers which rely on CGI more than stars. But for less VFX laden films stars still are a huge draw and while lines seldom form for Awrads bait, without a big name attached there would be even fewer people in to see them. As for Angelina, I saw a listing of the Academy nominees ranked according to their films’ box office and hers topped all the others. Drama doesn’t sell and actors adjust their salaries accordingly but for summer tentpole fare, all the top stars got or will get through the back end their $20M +++. The only salary that surprised me was Crowe’s reported $20M for Robin but then who knows, he may propel it to Gladiator glory.
And I agree with Gordn27. This guy’s reasoning and logic is seriously flawed.
“It’s a telling reflection that at the height of Avatar’s success . . . . Zoe Saldana could have walked the length of Oxford Street without being stopped or recognized.”
This is the dumbest statement ever. It’s like saying “it’s surprising no one can recognize Peter Cullen based on his performance in Transformers.”
Bob – not even; he’s not even saying that this did happen, he’s just assuming that it would happen.
drbob, your Zoe Saldana observation reminds me of the time I had the pleasure of running into Roddy McDowall when I was young and a big fan of the Planet of the Apes movies. I enthusiastically told him about my enjoyment of his work in these films and he cocked his eyebrow and said, “I should be sadder that you were able to recognize me without the makeup”.
Pffft. Gritten’s post is pure drivel. Stars — of one type or another — still matter; the vehicles they’re in still depend on them, as well. Even his notable exception, “Avatar” didn’t have a name any bigger than Sigourney Weaver…but it DID have James Cameron, and that matters to the fanboy cluster AND to MOR movie fans who grew up on his pictures. Nobody came out for “Aliens” on the basis of it being a Weaver picture, either. The franchises he cites wouldn’t have seen a second or third sequel without the success of the first film in the series, and in each case that film was built on the actors hired to put them over. Would “Iron Man” have hit as large with another actor in the role? Or would we care about a follow-up? I mean, people still turn out for Nic Cage in the worst kind of dross.
Johnny Depp might have had something to do with the success of “Alice in Wonderland”‘. The star system is not what it was years ago, but some names still draw. (And it will be a different set of names five years from now.)
And Meryl Streep is a bigger draw now then she has ever been.
I believe the article misses the true reason why the glow of movie stardom has dimmed. The real reason I believe is due to the dramatic sea change over the last twenty years of what constitutes a mainstream studio picture. As recently as fifteen years ago, solid dramas like ‘Out of Africa’, ‘Forrest Gump,’ and ‘Silkwood,’ were frequent, large tent pole dramas that audience’s flocked to by the tens of thousands. Now that the corrosive effect of fanboy culture (comic book mentality/i.e. Marvel) can finally claim victory to being the main staple diet of the studio system, dramas (real human experience and emotion) has been squeezed out. Consequently, audiences are no longer viscerally connected to the actor/star but now to the shallow concept. It is that lack of emotional connection to these stars that has diminished their glow, and nothing more. If real movies are brought back to the mainstream, that emotional bond will be restored, and movie stars will shine once more. Until then we are pathetically saddled with the twelve-year-old mentality of the likes of Iron Man, Avatar, and the Prince of Persia, no doubt.
I am sorry but the only reason Sherlock got more than 500mil WW was because of Downey Jr, Inglorious Basterd udes Pitt was main draw and it worked fine. The Pirates series would not being that sucessfull without Jonnhy Deep.
Wanted, made more than 300mil WW using Angelina star power, she is huge internationally, even Changeling made more than 110mil and that was a period drama.
stars STILL matter, maybe not as they used to matter, but people s till go to films when there is a bigger star in the picture.
*Inglorious Basterd used Pitt as the main draw and it worked fine
“Um, Gylenhaal’s never been a star.”
I love how in D.Z.’s ADD afflicted world, any excuse to trot out his favorite rants sends him dashing for the keys like a pony at Churchill Downs at the first bell.
And FYI, it’s Gyllenhaal.
Hickenlooper:
“Consequently, audiences are no longer viscerally connected to the actor/star but now to the shallow concept.”
Help me out here: Aside from nostalgia for the days when genre film was relegated to the back of the bus, how is going to see a movie because of the concept MORE shallow than going to see it because of the actor? Are you really going to tell me, straight-faced, that “fanboys” who show up because of the character or the idea are somehow inferior to “Oooh! SHE’S on the cover of people this week! Let’s go see that one!”?
linaf:
“I am sorry but the only reason Sherlock got more than 500mil WW was because of Downey Jr,”
Correction: The only reason Sherlock got to more than 500mil was Iron Man. THAT’S the big change: There are still stars, but now the concept/character sells the star and not the other way around. Jack Sparrow made Johnny Depp, Iron Man made Downey, Batman made Christian Bale.
I think Batman made Christian Bale a star the way that James Bond made Daniel Craig a star or Hulk made Eric Bana a star… at least, moreso than comparing him to Depp or Downey. He’s not there (yet).
Looper @13: You lost me as soon as you called Forrest Gump a “solid drama.”
Hickenlooper: Could the problem also be that the dramas themselves come off trite and uninspired?
As the most professional video converter,iPod Touch Converter can easily convert all the video formats to iPod Touch, including
MPEG,MPEG2,SWF,FLV,VOB,MOD,MP4,H.264,M4V,AVI,WMV,3GP,MOV,DivX,XviD,QuickTime Video,DV,MJPG, MJPEG,MPV,etc,even the High Definition video files
(HD/AVCHD videos),such as TS,MTS,M2TS,HD MPEG 2,HD MEG4,HD WMV,HD MOV,HD H.264,HD RM etc.
iPod Touch Converter
AVI to iPod Touch Converter
MP4 to iPod Touch Converter
Divx to iPod Touch Converter
YouTube to iPod Touch Converter
DVD to iPod Touch Converter
MKV to iPod Touch Converter
iPod Touch to PC Transfer
Transfer Music From iPod Touch to Computer
iPod Touch Video to PC
Backup iPod Touch to Computer
iPod Touch to PC Copy
iPod Converter Suite