Discuss: Is the Star System Dead?

i've never been one to go see a film because of the star. i wasn't remotely interested in pelham 1 2 3, and i love denzel. i love reese witherspoon but i didn't dare go anywhere near four christmases. if a film entices me with its humour or drama etc, i'll check it out. if not, that money's staying in my pocket.

Reply

well your movies are a bit unfair. Slumdog rode the coattails of word of mouth, UP is Pixar (thats all the "star" you need) and Watchmen and Star Trek have tons of built in fan base. I wouldnt say Travolta is A List anymore, and I think people can tell this was a paycheck movie for Denzel. What people did see was Andy from the Office, the guy that did Old School, and Las Vegas.

In the age of Rotten Tomatoes, you dont have to be Tom Cruise to carry a movie, you just have to be good. Or have Megan Fox and gigantic robots. in disguise.

Reply

I don't pay attention to the stars of a film too much. At this point, I find myself drawn to movies with interesting synopses, versus interesting casts.

I see too many movies, so I usually just go with my gut and see it (Without watching trailers or previews) if I think I'll like it. Doesn't matter too much who is in it anymore.

I don't agree on Seven Pounds though. It's easy for everyone to jump on a bandwagon, but as we all know, this is an extremely similar situation to Hancock. You hate it because Will Smith was in it and because it was different than any other movie you saw last year. Plain and simple.

I liked it for the same reasons I liked Observe & Report (Which ALSO received wildly varying reviews by unqualified reviewers). It was a completely different twist on a completely tired genre, and people are so scared of that.

I always knew Zach was a star... look at every film he's had a bit part in up until now... he ALWAYS steals the show (Disclosure: I've yet to see The Hangover, but feel like I have due to all of the coverage I've read and heard). Same way with someone like Rob Corrdry... he may not be a household name to you, but he's my favorite comedic actor (See: "Lower Learning" for further proof).

I don't care about how much money a movie makes, because I'm not the one who benefits if it does do well. I do care to see quality films, and it has become extremely clear to me that the cast of a movie is not a direct correlation to the quality of said film (See: "Vicky Cristina Barcelona"... what the crap?!).

Reply

I think it just depends on the star. There are a couple of stars who I'll see anything by (Ewan McGregor, Ed Norton, and Leonardo DiCaprio) because I know that even if the movie isn't fantastic they'll give a great performance. Otherwise, I'll pay attention to who is in movies, but I'll still wait until I hear about the reviews and word of mouth until I make my decision whether to see it or not.

Reply

I loved Seven Pounds. Will Smith does great movies.

Reply

Hollywood makes too many BAD remakes and it does not matter if there are stars in them or not. ex. The Women....they destroyed a classic in that remake. What a joke and it was full of :stars".

Reply

There are few stars that will make me see a movie automatically.

Clint Eastwood is one, his presence in a movie makes it worth watching.

Otherwise, I'm looking for quality film making, and dialog is king, even in an action movie.

Reply

I think this article makes a good point. Times are always changing and I think we are seeing so many new faces these days that we easily trust anyone who can make it on the big screen. The world is a bigger and more complicated place now with youtube, blogs, and so many other social mediums. Movies and TV shows that star these actors and directors get so much recognition and exposure than never before in history. The star system used to be the only spotlight for upcoming professionals. Look at Charlie Chaplin who wrote, directed, and stared in his own films. He was a millionaire by the time he was 20, in 1920! I think true talent is never about the money. These days you have kids on youtube who have even more exposure than he did yet make no money for it.

All in all its an interesting future we live in.

Reply

It seems like so many of the big name stars have fallen into typecast roles over and over again lately, either through choice, like Eddie Murphy deciding to stick with family fare, or because those are the only types of roles they're offered. It's no secret that Hollywood recycles and regurgitates as much as possible, for better or for worse. The movie industry is an industry, afterall, and they're going to release what they think will sell. Bad Boys did well, so we got Bad Boys 2, Independence Day, Wild Wild West, Men In Black, Men In Black 2, Hancock and so on until what we once liked about Will Smith became stale, and eventually we lost interest in a will Smith driven movie, whether it was actually good or not, and whether it was an action comedy or not. Not picking on Will Smith; just an example. In some cases, I think the big star can actually be a deterent because it's predictable. But Hollywood also recognizes that we are drawn to the familiar as well, which is why they keep cranking out remake after remake, and cookie cutter story after cookie cutter story. We all clamour for something new, but much of the truely fresh and new ideas either have too limited screen distribution for people to take notice, or are drowned out by product recognition. We moan and groan about yet another Eddie Murphy family romp, another romantic comedy featuring Reese Witherspoon, Sandra Bullock, Gweneth Paltrow, etc., another actor-in-a-fat-suit farce, another "(Insert adjective here) Movie" somehow linked to the Wayans' brothers, and yet they all still make huge box office bank.

Reply

I can't say I'd automatically go out and see anything anyone does, but there are a few stars that I'd consider any movie that they're in: Depp, DiCaprio, Hanks (yes, still, though not Browning) ... there are probably a couple more. There are a couple of non-"stars" that I look for because I like their work (even though some of them don't always get good roles) no doubt I will start looking for Jackie Earl Haley, for example. But, really, the deciding factor is what they're doing (do I want to see it right away, wait for the DVD, eh, maybe on TV sometime, or never if I can avoid it?).

A lot has been made of "star power" but doesn't that negate true acting ability? Doesn't it glorify those who outshine their roles and therefore put more of an emphasis on those performers who "always play themselves" (Costner?)? Perhaps this draws people into a theater, I don't know. And yet, I've always felt that I was drawn by a good story told well -- that is, including good acting.

And, gee, you know, I've always thought Bradley Cooper was pretty good.

Reply

I think we are entering an era (and this is because of the internet and the abundance of film writers) where the DIRECTOR is the star. Today, the old line "From the director of ..." is more important than ever.
For example, nobody can pick out Mumbai on a map, but everyone remembers "28 Days Later". Most people have never picked up a comic or graphic novel, but they loved "300". You say Star Trek had no stars, but JJ Abrams is a household name. People might not know the name Todd Phillips but EVERYBODY remembers "Old School".
Directors are the new stars, and we owe it to the internet film critics for making it so.

Reply

I think this article kind of defies logic, and it seems like not much thought might have been put into it (or maybe my reply will come off that way, who knows?). People have always flocked to good movies, regardless of star power. Who was the big draw in Jurassic Park, Star Wars, etc.? Harrison Ford became a star because of SW and IJ, those movies weren't popular because he was already a star. Star power can certainly help, and has always helped, and you provide examples of how in the last year that is still the case. There hasn't been some dramatic reversal in the publics decision making. They didn't used to go see ANYTHING that a star was in, and ignore good movies that didn't have movie stars. Sometimes a star can drive a movie to big box office returns in spite of the quality of the film, and sometimes not. It was true 30 years ago and its true today. I think you've drawn the wrong conclusion from these correlations. Its not that stars can do anything and have huge openings, and that stars can pick the movies they want to do and more frequently choose good scripts and quality films. Thats how they became stars in the first place.

Reply

I don't think the star systeme is dead. I think it has simply changed and been complemented with the "viral/word of mouth" system.

Travolta and Washington are mega-stars but their time/pull is plateauing simply because there is a new breed of movie-goer. You ask the average movie goer now if they know of Glory or Saturday Night Fever and you will be met with something simliar to "is that a song" and "i am never home/awake to watch SNL."

This is a generation of movie goers who are hyperlocal and also reliant on friends/followers to influence and be influenced by for most decisions. Also, the "no stars" that you mention are the new formula for a star where their rise is not simply tied to a big berakout movie - it is usually a combination of various movie/tv -shows/other media that usually has a smaller and even cultlier (can i make that a word) following.

one of the most common conversations have somthing around a moive - "what movie have you seen recently?" "what type of movies do you like?" and expanded to include "tv-show" and even "internet-show" because we have been pushed to the 'oh i was the first to know about....' phase that moves away from the guaranteed hit formula that hollywood used to follow.

So the "Mega Star Halo" effect has started to set and the "Star who is about to blow up" is rising. Think about how many people loved Midnight Meat Train - but the numbers were not enough to seep offline and into the normal papers or even commercials.

Reply

Yes, good movies provide a platform for making stars but Elvis' movies were always number one. The Star System is still definitely intact, but there is a problem. We americans are not the only ones to decide who a star is anymore. Julia Roberts is over in America (only a slight exageration), but is known all over the world. Pay careful attention to overseas grosses to see who can pull in foreign audiences. It's usually older well known actors who have lost most of their pull here. There are new stars coming though. Zac Efron's film 17 again made as much overseas as here. A great result for his first non-franchise effort. Miley Cyrus's overseas box office looks like it will eventually reach 60% of total, meaning it will make 1 1/2 times it's U.S. gross - the same as Angelina Jolie's last action movie!

Reply

P.S
Will Smith and Brad Pitt pull is AWESOME numbers overseas.

Reply