Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Den Of Geek)   So....Do movie stars still matter in the 21st century?   ( denofgeek.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Robert Downey, Jr., box office, Star, movie stars, Superhero, Marvel Comics, movie star, Academy Award for Best Actor  
•       •       •

1686 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 Jun 2017 at 11:50 AM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-06-17 09:47:30 AM  
Yes I think they are still relevant, in fact likely more then ever.  Just the movie industry is slow at learning they don't get to dictate what's popular anymore and have to move with the current instead of creating it.
 
2017-06-17 11:57:35 AM  
Try to get funding for your big budget movies without movie stars.  They are just one piece of the marketing but they are a big piece.
 
2017-06-17 12:05:02 PM  
Yes, it matters. It's how I gauge what not to watch.
 
2017-06-17 12:07:36 PM  
Movie stars matter if their are also good writers, directors, and editors.  Without those three it doesn't matter who stars in the movie.
 
2017-06-17 12:13:44 PM  

BumpInTheNight: Yes I think they are still relevant, in fact likely more then ever.  Just the movie industry is slow at learning they don't get to dictate what's popular anymore and have to move with the current instead of creating it.


Also that you just can't throw a movie star at a franchise and expect it to immediately work.  Tom Cruise doesn't seem to fit something called 'Dark Universe' considering his entire career has been 'unstoppable but perfect character'  when he's been fronting a venture.  He's only done the latter when he's doing cameos and at that point nobody cares.

Some more thought needs to go into this Dark Universe concept.  Having such a weird character as The Mummy be the intro to it seems very shortsighted.
 
2017-06-17 12:23:54 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: BumpInTheNight: Yes I think they are still relevant, in fact likely more then ever.  Just the movie industry is slow at learning they don't get to dictate what's popular anymore and have to move with the current instead of creating it.

Also that you just can't throw a movie star at a franchise and expect it to immediately work.  Tom Cruise doesn't seem to fit something called 'Dark Universe' considering his entire career has been 'unstoppable but perfect character'  when he's been fronting a venture.  He's only done the latter when he's doing cameos and at that point nobody cares.

Some more thought needs to go into this Dark Universe concept.  Having such a weird character as The Mummy be the intro to it seems very shortsighted.


I haven't seen the movie, but after reading some reviews and overviews of the plot, I think they just used Cruise poorly. I think it would have been better if he had been a jerk of a character all the way through instead of having his redemption moment. Make him the villain of the story, who takes the power of Set and goes mad, and the Mummy has to take him down. That way, you'd have her character initially distrusted by the Prodigium team and then at the end they have to work with her. That would also set up bringing her back for future movies, and if they didn't kill him they could keep Cruise around as a villain for later movies.

Here's an article where they talk about a similar reworking of making him the villain:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/13/15785622/the-mummy-tom-cruise-dark​-​universe-franchise-villain
 
2017-06-17 12:33:33 PM  
Is it just me or were there a lot of words used improperly on that article?
 
2017-06-17 12:43:49 PM  
It only matters to you Grandpa.

img.fark.net

Cartman Brah!
 
2017-06-17 12:50:25 PM  
No.  Did they ever?  Again, no.
 
2017-06-17 12:53:14 PM  
 
2017-06-17 12:57:26 PM  
Short answer: no. Long answer: NooOOooooooOOOOOOOOoooooo.

The Mummy is a good example. Also the Blumhouse Production movies: low budget horror with a (usually) emphasis on quality. They make a lot of money. Apparently people care about story and plot development and not which overpaid professional emoter is in it.
 
2017-06-17 01:04:25 PM  
Yes.
Big entertainment corporations have weaponized the internet to reduce its breadth to about ten topics at a time, with one prime topic. Your ad trends on social media, popular bloggers write articles about your content for free, major news media covers the trend and people talk about your promotional content offline, going as far as filming themselves watching it or producing music videos for your songs. It's like buying a block of advertisements on the only 5 tv channels again.
 
2017-06-17 01:12:26 PM  
Well...half the celebrity threads in the entertainment tab consist of Farkers asking "who?" I'm gonna go with maybe, maybe not.
 
2017-06-17 01:17:58 PM  
I think that before technology advanced, you could draw people into a theatre based off star power.  John Wayne, Marilyn Monroe, James Dean...these stars could draw in audiences with their names yet to many they were not very good but they were known names.  These days, you can have a movie star headlining but if the writing, directing, or visuals are lacking, then you have a problem.  This is an age where most people rely on the words of critics to tell them if they will like a movie or not based on the screening copies.  An example of how a movie can have a star but no real audience is Catwoman.  This was made when Halle Berry was at her peak.  It was a comic book movie and she already has practice playing a superhero in the X-Men movies.  Someone thought to save on writing and special effects and rely on star power to save that movie.  They did not bother to watch Halle Berry act and see that she was nothing more than a pretty face and expensive breasts that they did not even pay to be exposed.  So that movie made about 80 million worldwide but cost about 100 million to make and promote.  All because the critics watched it and cried that it was shiat.  The Blair Witch Project has not a single movie star in it and it easily made 240 million worldwide on a 60000 dollar budget.  Many other horror movies star unknowns but make a great showing at the box office because they had good writing, directing, or effects and critics have them their approval.  I am almost expecting a She's All That type of movie to come out where popular critics make a bet that they can turn a turd of a movie into a blockbuster based off their reviews.  Johnny Depp movies are also suffering from having a major name but little else going for his movies.
 
2017-06-17 01:18:00 PM  
I think we're seeing the same thing that we've seen in the music industry over the last 15 years: the big stars- the ones whose faces everyone knows and who can be banked on to sell tickets- will get bigger and more important. The lesser-known stars will fade away or never even get the opportunity to become stars at all- studios won't be willing to risk a flop at the box office, or, worse, that the star is a flop as a person themselves. Tom Cruise will always be able to star in movies- he'll probably even be able to command an even more obscene paycheque in the future due to his star status. It's the B-listers and character actors who are suffering and / or fleeing to friendlier climes (i.e.: TV).
 
2017-06-17 01:22:08 PM  
I know I'm not completely immune to marketing and advertising efforts but, for me, the more you promote something the less likely I'm interested in it.

I've got actors and actresses that I like but I still won't watch something just cuz one of them ran it necessarily
 
2017-06-17 01:26:27 PM  

AnotherBluesStringer: Well...half the celebrity threads in the entertainment tab consist of Farkers asking "who?" I'm gonna go with maybe, maybe not.


Those are the same morons that still think posting an RIP with a picture of a person with a vaguely similar name whenever someone dies is hilarious.
 
2017-06-17 01:46:56 PM  
The author is a farking moron. Or a 10 year old, can't decide which.

The underlying premise to TFA is that banking on a big name star is somehow something new that didn't happen until the 90s. This shiat has been going on since there were movie stars. Now, the current context for TFA IS an issue, if they really handed that much control to Cruise, based entirely on his star power, that's pants on head retarded. The man looks good on screen and plays good roles(Most of the time). That doesn't mean that he has the skill set to micromanage a farking film. I wouldn't let Tom Cruise manage my farking kid's birthday party, let alone a $125 million film.
 
2017-06-17 01:47:27 PM  
They matter to other celebrities.  Self-important douches.
 
2017-06-17 01:52:26 PM  

AquaTatanka: I know I'm not completely immune to marketing and advertising efforts but, for me, the more you promote something the less likely I'm interested in it.

I've got actors and actresses that I like but I still won't watch something just cuz one of them ran it necessarily


More often than not, whenever I see a film being heavily promoted it turns out to be a steaming pile. It's almost like most of their budget goes towards promoting the film, with the rest of the production being an afterthought
 
2017-06-17 01:53:48 PM  
So it's back to plenty of character actors?
 
2017-06-17 01:58:33 PM  
Internet killed the Theater Star?
 
2017-06-17 02:05:01 PM  
If an actor is in a movie and has been good in other films, then yes I will be more interested in seeing it. But if I hear good reviews about a movie and I don't recognize anyone, I'll still probably see it. I just like good movies.
 
2017-06-17 02:07:12 PM  

Fano: Internet killed the Theater Star?


Saw a play a while back. My aunt wanted to go so I went with her. Those were good actors. Seriously.  I will look into local theater more now. Compared to some of the acting on tv and in films, these guys were oscar material. I was surprised.
 
2017-06-17 02:09:01 PM  
Nope, only YouTube stars matter.
 
2017-06-17 02:09:50 PM  
I'm no expert, but it seems to me there's many aspects to this.

Over the last decade television seems to be overtaking movies as the better choice in entertainment. Years ago the big screen was the pinnacle of an actors career, once they made it there, they never looked back. Now the small screen has attracted many of these top names to successful shows. One look around the internet and you'll see way more people talking about and upcoming episode of their favorite show than upcoming movies.

The internet is a powerful tool and people are using it. Not only are people reading reviews of movies before they pay to see them, but people get an inside look into the stars themselves. I haven't watched a Tom Cruise movie in years, I just can't stand the guy. Most of that comes from things I've read on the internet about who he is as a person.

With the advances in home entertainment, many people would rather watch a movie in the comfort of their home and avoid the hassle and expense of the theater.

Another thing the internet has done is replaced television. Like many people these days, I've "pulled the plug". Without the constant barrage of advertisements coming into my home, I have no idea what most of these new movies are without using Google to find a trailer. As a result, I only ever look them up when I feel like going to the movies, which is becoming less and less frequent.

This is just my experience, I'm sure other have their own reasons.
 
2017-06-17 02:21:21 PM  
Stars still matter, just not the stars from the 80s. Arnold, Sly, Willis, no one cares anymore. Now it's Ryan Reynolds and Chris Pratt.

And The Mummy did very well overseas, which Hollywood cares more about now.
 
2017-06-17 02:25:25 PM  
Movie stars never really mattered.

That said, they mattered MORE back in the early days of film, and up through the 60s or so.

They matter less and less now, simply because when even Cletus McCousinHumper has a smartphone and streaming free porn from around the world in the palm of his hand, a stunningly pretty person with an exotic car or L33T fighting skills doesn't stand out at all.

We now see the world every day, and we see Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and the other Batman Villain level geniuses of the world doing amazeballs things on the 6 o clock news.

Movie stars matter less than ever, now, but the ones that DO command an amazing salary and following. It highlights the really talented ones (RDJ, for instance) and, when paired with excellent writing, a huge effects budget, AND a visionary studio head willing to play the long game....well, you make pretty much all the dump trucks of money.

When you have....not as talented/pretty//smart ones, working with inferior scripts, crappier directors, and studios that really don't have a farking clue and are just throwing moneydarts at a board in the hopes of a blind bullseye...well, then you get the majority of the DC movies of late (trash, in other words)

Wonder Woman frankly saved the entirety of the DCEU and probably a few studio head jobs as well. Had it been as bad as the other recent films, it's entirely likely the whole endeavor may have been scrapped.
 
2017-06-17 02:32:17 PM  
They seem to think they still matter, and one will pop-up any minute somewhere to let everybody know their opinions on politics, marriage, child-rearing, and medicine.
 
2017-06-17 02:40:23 PM  
It's iffy, and probably depends on the vehicle. Super hero movies it doesn't matter, people will go see it regardless. You don't need big name stars for CGI movies (even though they seem to still waste money on it), but anything that isn't standard "summer blockbuster" fare will matter who the star is.
 
2017-06-17 03:15:38 PM  

Spadababababababa Spadina Bus: I think we're seeing the same thing that we've seen in the music industry over the last 15 years: the big stars- the ones whose faces everyone knows and who can be banked on to sell tickets- will get bigger and more important. The lesser-known stars will fade away or never even get the opportunity to become stars at all- studios won't be willing to risk a flop at the box office, or, worse, that the star is a flop as a person themselves. Tom Cruise will always be able to star in movies- he'll probably even be able to command an even more obscene paycheque in the future due to his star status. It's the B-listers and character actors who are suffering and / or fleeing to friendlier climes (i.e.: TV).


I disagree.  No one would question Cruise is a movie star.  However, he doesn't guarantee (domestic) box office dollars, and I'd argue no one does.  A star might move the needle twenty million, but not more than that. Regarding music, no one guarantees sales.  Concert tickets sure but not album sales
 
2017-06-17 03:18:59 PM  
If you find someone is going to be in a project and you react Shut Up and Take My Money, then the answer is Yes, it still matters.
 
2017-06-17 03:29:13 PM  
s3.amazonaws.com
 
2017-06-17 04:02:20 PM  

4seasons85!: If an actor is in a movie and has been good in other films, then yes I will be more interested in seeing it. But if I hear good reviews about a movie and I don't recognize anyone, I'll still probably see it. I just like good movies.


They're very few actors that get the "I'll watch because they're in it" tag with me.  Daniel Day-Lewis comes to mind.  I'm more likely to watch something because it's a Marvel movie for an another established franchise I've enjoyed.
 
2017-06-17 04:13:46 PM  
I think stars matter most in comedies. I won't see anything with Adam Sandler because I don't think he's funny. And even though I can't stand her, people will see a Melissa McCarthy movie sight unseen because they think she's funny. People don't see action movies because they like how a certain actor jumps.
 
2017-06-17 04:46:16 PM  

AquaTatanka: 4seasons85!: If an actor is in a movie and has been good in other films, then yes I will be more interested in seeing it. But if I hear good reviews about a movie and I don't recognize anyone, I'll still probably see it. I just like good movies.

They're very few actors that get the "I'll watch because they're in it" tag with me.  Daniel Day-Lewis comes to mind.  I'm more likely to watch something because it's a Marvel movie for an another established franchise I've enjoyed.


I agree it is only a few. And Daniel Day Lewis is one of them. I generally like anything Tom Hanks is in. For comedy, I don't care how dumb the movie is, I love Will Ferrell. But generally I rely on word of mouth and overall reviews like Rotten Tomatoes when I make my decision.
 
2017-06-17 05:19:30 PM  

4seasons85!: I generally like anything Tom Hanks is in


I can't farking stand Tom Hanks. I mean he's a great actor and seems like a really nice guy IRL. And I love Saving Private Ryan. I think I just can't forgive him for Forrest Gump.
 
2017-06-17 05:32:21 PM  

Mugato: 4seasons85!: I generally like anything Tom Hanks is in

I can't farking stand Tom Hanks. I mean he's a great actor and seems like a really nice guy IRL. And I love Saving Private Ryan. I think I just can't forgive him for Forrest Gump.


See I loved Forrest Gump. I also loved him in Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail. He's very good for the classic chick flicks.
 
2017-06-17 05:39:19 PM  

4seasons85!: See I loved Forrest Gump. I also loved him in Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail. He's very good for the classic chick flicks.


I hate you.

I'm kidding. But we're not going to the movies together.
 
2017-06-17 05:41:14 PM  

Mugato: 4seasons85!: See I loved Forrest Gump. I also loved him in Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail. He's very good for the classic chick flicks.

I hate you.

I'm kidding. But we're not going to the movies together.


You've long had the farkie of "Hates Forrest Gump, loves Pulp Fiction" from me.
 
2017-06-17 05:50:13 PM  

Mugato: 4seasons85!: See I loved Forrest Gump. I also loved him in Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail. He's very good for the classic chick flicks.

I hate you.

I'm kidding. But we're not going to the movies together.


Aw! Damn! Oh well.
 
2017-06-17 06:46:22 PM  
I have NEVER gone to see a movie just because an actor (even my favorite actor) was in it.

I go to movies I want to see that are about the things I like, and I enjoy them if they have good characters, dialogue, story and direction. The only thing star appeal adds is a certain trustworthiness in the acting (a safer bet than a cast of no-names), but no actor can make a bad movie good. Natalie Portman is an Oscar-level actress but even she sucked in Phantom Menace.
 
2017-06-17 07:00:51 PM  
Not much. I think comedy, they still do. People go and see comedies because of stars, but most other stuff?

See, stars were mostly just a "brand". You see a couple of good Kevin Costner films, say, The Untouchables and No Way Out, you think they're good, you go and see more. And the star could bring in a big audience and even if it sucked, get you a box office for a while. Today, movies are winners or losers in a weekend.

Also, we have far more media about movies in general. Like, not just some show with a sofa that celebrities appear on. People read more diverse stuff. More and more people understand that directors matter far more as a marker of quality.

Ironicallly, Cruise is one of the better markers. I think he really tries to do good parts. I'll generally check out the films he does.
 
2017-06-17 07:06:46 PM  

AquaTatanka: Mugato: 4seasons85!: See I loved Forrest Gump. I also loved him in Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail. He's very good for the classic chick flicks.

I hate you.

I'm kidding. But we're not going to the movies together.

You've long had the farkie of "Hates Forrest Gump, loves Pulp Fiction" from me.


I have him farkied as "always wrong about Star Wars"
 
2017-06-17 07:20:06 PM  

farkeruk: Also, we have far more media about movies in general. Like, not just some show with a sofa that celebrities appear on. People read more diverse stuff. More and more people understand that directors matter far more as a marker of quality.


This too. Direction and writing matter far more. I will go see a Tarantino movie because I like his movies and I know what to expect. I will never watch any movie with these names attached to them: Michael Bay, Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, John Rogers, Friedberg & Seltzer, just off the top of my head. They are cinematic cancer.
 
2017-06-17 07:28:23 PM  

Ishkur: AquaTatanka: Mugato: 4seasons85!: See I loved Forrest Gump. I also loved him in Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail. He's very good for the classic chick flicks.

I hate you.

I'm kidding. But we're not going to the movies together.

You've long had the farkie of "Hates Forrest Gump, loves Pulp Fiction" from me.

I have him farkied as "always wrong about Star Wars"


I didnt like The Force Awakens and didnt bother seeing Rogue One.  I might be 'wrong' too.
 
2017-06-17 07:30:20 PM  

Ishkur: farkeruk: Also, we have far more media about movies in general. Like, not just some show with a sofa that celebrities appear on. People read more diverse stuff. More and more people understand that directors matter far more as a marker of quality.

This too. Direction and writing matter far more. I will go see a Tarantino movie because I like his movies and I know what to expect. I will never watch any movie with these names attached to them: Michael Bay, Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, John Rogers, Friedberg & Seltzer, just off the top of my head. They are cinematic cancer.


I watched Hateful 8 despite bad word of mouth b/c Tarantino.  It was okay.  I liked it more than I thought i would because i generally hate  anything thats even remotely "Western".
 
2017-06-17 07:35:57 PM  
Sure?

I mean, Disney runs on a different model that doesn't require star power; they just crush their enemies beneath the weight of their raw marketing dollars and drive all before them in a combine harvester of viral/native advertising on top of an omnipresent ad campaign that harnesses every other disney actor and movie to cross-promote.

Other studios don't necessarily have this option, and the presence of a Matt Damon or whatever can easily be the slender thread holding back a film from being a financial black hole.  It's the easiest and often cheapest way to put asses in seats.

There's been no sea change or quantum leap in the industry, Disney has always operated like this and the other studios have always been unable to really replicate the feat.  Honestly I can say the same thing about the supposed "shift to cinematic universes".  CUs being a brilliant idea isn't why the MCU is fine and the DCU is struggling and/or not benefitting from connectivity.  It's kind of a bad idea that drags things down for all of the people trying it, the MCU is just a disney production and their production and to an even greater degree their promotional model is capable of muscling through the downsides to a much greater degree than anyone else.

I mean, this is the company that bought Star Wars and then rewrote an entire era of cinematic history on the entire internet with spammed propaganda about how the prequels totally weren't that bad that would put most of Stalin's propo initiatives to shame, and they're famous on the acting end for non-compete contracts and turning no-name actors into astroturfed movie stars overnight, how they focus their advertising firepower isn't exactly subtle.

// The first person to respond with "nuh-uh, it's because the MCU is good" is sentenced to a viewing of the Norton Hulk movie and Punisher: War Zone back to back.  They literally tried three times in a year, picked the one good one, and dropped a dump truck full of money on making sure that the critics all agreed the two that were mediocre to bad "didn't really count".  It's not just about the films being good by any means... that doesn't hurt, of course, but the Lego films were both good so far and no one's buying that shared universe bullshiat.
 
2017-06-17 08:25:03 PM  

Ishkur: Natalie Portman is an Oscar-level actress but even she sucked in Phantom Menace.


She did? Wow, was that in some unrated cut?
 
2017-06-17 09:00:03 PM  
Nope.  I look more at directors than stars.  Stars get all the attention, directors make good movies.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report