Movie Stars No Longer Exist
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 сен 2024
- The Death of the Movie Star, Who is Killing Cinema?, The End of Movies, all valid topics that have been rising to the fore over this past year. So today it's my turn to lay waste to the so-called movie stars that are fighting to gain relevance these days. That's right, I'll be taking on the star of Wonka, Timothee Chalamet, Margot Robbie, Tom Holland, the Hollywood Chris's, Gal Gadot, Robert Downey Jr., Barbenheimmer, etc. Spoiler warning, the future is pretty bleak.
* All clips and images from the films and series referenced are the property of their respective owners.
#Wonka #Superhero #Barbie
You are spot on, this is why I’m being drawn to older movies more and more, less is more, we don’t need to know every personal detail about a stars life, the Hollywood stars back in the day had mystique, Tom Cruise and Tom Hanks are probably the biggest draws for me at the moment. Of course this could have something to do with current audiences having an attention span of a fried egg… they are not interested in good storytelling anymore, it’s a sad world. Excellent video mate, take care👍🎅🏻👍
I would actually argue that it was Tom Cruise’s star power that still gave MI7 600 million despite the movie losing all of its PLF screens to Barbenheimer in its second week.
I watch a ton of Danish films and TV, there are leading men there that are also character actors, Mads Mikkelsen, Ulrich Thomsen and Nikolaj Lie Kaas. Mikkelsen is an international star now because he is distinctive, an excellent actor and can play anything. I consider him the modern Barbara Stanwyck. On the classic film side, TCM has a rabid fan base for a reason, you will never mistake James Cagney for Humphrey Bogart or Joan Crawford for Myrna Loy.
Creativity in Cinema does exist outside the US
in the US too, but those are low budget independent movies, no chance e to get much attention, because they don't have all the money in the world to put in the marketing
Thanks for your video. I enjoyed it. It does seem to me that as the years go by, there are fewer and fewer actors in leading roles who have much charisma and gravitas, in American films anyway. Sometimes the supporting character actors fare better. I think a lot of it is that so many scripts are formulaic and poorly written, not that the actors aren't talented. But perhaps my biggest pet peeve is how dependent on CGI so many movies seem to be these days. It just looks so fake to me. I miss the use of real people, real props, and practical effects instead of so much obviously computer-generated stuff (crowds, armies, ships, planes, everything). This is all just my opinion of course.
Adam Driver is the only modern leading man I can think of. He has a pretty strong filmography. Jon Hamm has leading man chops but not great roles. And I still think Harrison Ford is the real deal, maybe not in terms of commercialism but in terms of gravitas and acting ability. Unfortunately, I think Tom Cruise is getting old - he was a little corny and not as cool in Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning - I don't think his days of being an action star are much longer.
Maybe it's not that movie stars don't exist - I'd say celebrity worship is still rampant and more parasocial than ever - it just doesn't translate into commercial success. But I agree that the younger crop of actors aren't as charismatic as the actors of old.
Bradley Cooper and Jon Hamm have loads of Charisma and talent
Ryan Reynolds …
@@christianjadot4459 not really in my opinion, or not anymore, he only cares about his whiskey or product he has...not sure. His movies lately sucks and terrible, and he completely lost his charm( for me at least) if I saw a movie his is in rather not watch.
Love your clips. You are right on some things here, but missed on some others.
First, modern film lovers have a tendency to carp about lost quality, but the quality is not that much different. There are gems, but a lot of bad, middling, and good but not great films. The same was true in the past - the problem is we have hindsight to praise the gems and conveniently forget or relegate to the dustbin the tons of films that did not measure up. Truthfully, even a number of hits from the past don't stand the test of time. Watching a Coquette or Imitation of Life now can be cringe worthy.
Next is the disintegration of the studio system, which would groom, build up, and exploit certain stars by funneling them tailor made roles that would get grade A publicity and compel viewers to see them. So a lot of the personalities you cite - like Cary Grant or John Wayne (who was incidentally a terrible person in real life) - benefited from it. We don't have such a system in place to groom actors into stars now. And as many realized, if the studio heads decided they did not like or tried to pigeon hole you into bad films, there was nothing to be done. Which was why people like Bette Davis, Myrna Loy and Olivia de Havilland challenged it so they could be free agents.
Starting in the 1970s, there was also a push among most actors to downplay the star routine. The term movie star became a four-letter word that indicated you weren't serious as an actor. That generation of actors did not want to be stars with personas like Grant, Doris Day or Marilyn Monroe, they wanted to be actors free of personas. I think that holds true today with many of them. They may stumble across a popular character that clicks with audiences that they get associated with, but it is almost by accident. Most of them are happy with streaming parts that take the pressure of box office bombs off them and allows them to explore other things. Ergo, why you see a Nicole Kidman or Meryl Streep in a Big Little Lies, which got them award notice. I don't think there is a guiding desire to be "a star", so the whole "there are no movie stars" view is in many cases intentional.
And yes - boy yes - are you correct about the modern audiences (and I include people my age and older in that as well). What they embrace seems completely arbitrary based on what social media tells them to embrace and what they hate is often based on what trolls on the internet tell them to hate without even seeing for themselves. Not only are they fickle and incredibly hateful about what they see now - but they also despise the classics from the past and love to tear them down as well, as it seems to make them feel superior. I saw one poster deride the classic Alien and Aliens as "woke crap". And films from the 30s and 40s are either ignored as useless relics or dismissed as "what's the big deal?". These people cannot unplug from their darn phones. If there are dialogue moments or important exposition, you can easily see people start messing with their phones. This is probably why I had little problem watching the last Indiana Jones with its character moments and quieter dialogue scenes (does anyone remember that action films of the past had these?) and am struggling through Oppenheimer - which seems a "serious" film geared to the ADHD viewer with jittery camera, quick cuts, colorful bursts, and I swear scenes that are timed to last only a moment or two before something flashy lights up the screen. So yes - the audience is a real problem with the attention span of an ear mite.
I do think you are off though about everyone now being bland. I think there are plenty of modern performers that are demonstrating acting chops, sex appeal, versatility, and charisma. Again, they don't have the studio promoting them and funneling roles their way to develop certain traits and personas that remain with audiences. There were definitely bland people in the past that were stars. Anyone remember Dolores Del Rio? Jon Hall? Gene Raymond? All considered stars but their glitter has not aged well. Would anyone remember Dorothy Lamour were it not for The Road pictures? Was anyone more bland than Ronald Reagan?
Your focus on Timothee Chalamet seems particularly off - and when you said you were only familiar with him from Dune, it explained a lot. First, I don't think Chalamet is going for boyish or the Tiger Beat generation. I am not being critical of him, but you mentioned actors with unconventional looks that gave character, and I think his looks are unusual as opposed to bland. Even that picture you showed seems that this person is more of an oddball character than a mainstream bland person. I also think he picks roles that he finds quirky or challenging (a la Leonardo DiCaprio) and has zero interest in being "a star". His breakout role in Call Me By Your Name was excellent acting and deservedly put him in spitting distance of the best actor Oscar. Following that, he has largely picked challenging, edgy or fascinating roles, as opposed to predictable rom coms, action films, or things that look to break the box office. He is as likely to be found in small budget or artsy stuff, as opposed to a Dune. In fact, the only role that might recommend him to bland boyish descriptions is his first rate turn in Little Women. I don't seek him out, but when I do see him in films is always quirky and memorable. I think he even chose the Wonka role less as a box office/mainstream thing and more because he thought it would be a fun challenge. Tom Holland is quite charismatic as Spider-Man (contrast him with bland white bread Tobey Maguire) and was amazing in The Impossible. Margot Robbie is having an infectious blast in Barbie as she was in Birds of Prey, but she is impressive in films like I, Tonya. One not mentioned: Daniel Craig was roundly criticized for not clicking with audiences outside of Bond films, at least until Knives Out showed up. And Craig is a great actor, unconventional looking, with plenty of charisma. So just saying that you should probably view the actual output of the actors you are critical of before dismissing them as throwaway talents. In the past, the studio system probably would have snapped these people up and given them the grand treatment (Holland, in particular, would probably be the go-to guy for the Dick Powell musical roles)... then again, would our audiences now get off the phones long enough to notice?
"They had interesting voices and interesting faces." Yes! And they spoke interesting lines in interesting movies. Alas, these days, actors and films of that quality are few and far between. Thank goodness the classics are preserved for us to enjoy.
9:07 Josh Hartnet will come back and Save the DAY!
Tom Cruise should clone himself. We need YoungBlood!
Keep the Work up!
The Tsunami Wave has pulled back as far as it could.... now Its coming back with great Stuff.
The Next Decades will be Golden.
I don't watch the same kind of movies you do. I don't care for superheroes or action movies. I like foreign movies, indie movies, that sort of thing. I tend to follow directors, but I do watch some things just because a certain actor is in it. Olivia Colman comes to mind. I started watching you when you were doing Agatha Christie because I watch a lot of British detective shows. Tom Cruise isn't my kind of actor, and he's a Scientologist, to boot. (Ick.) I love old movies and silent films, as well. I absolutely loved Cillian Murphy way back when he was in Breakfast on Pluto, and I've seen several things since. I didn't make it all the way through Peaky Blinders, but I think he was good in it, and I was glad he was having such a success with it. So I kind of winced when you called him out. I haven't seen Oppenheimer, so I don't have an opinion on it. My thoughts are kind of all over the place here. I thought your rant was interesting and I agree with you on a lot of stuff. But hey, there are good movies out there and there are good actors. Not movie stars like back in the studio system days, of course. I do go to see movies that have certain actors, but they're not big superstars, just actors that I admire. That are more careful about picking roles to play.
Excellent! I agree with you 100%.Films are an art form and that form rarely exists today if at all. Fortunately ,They didn't just make wonderful films with wonderful stars in the decades of the 20th century especially 30's thru 70's ,They made lots of them!
Movie stars may no longer exist as they once did, but neither do the fans. When the studios controlled the narrative, feeding us carefully crafted press releases & glamourous head shots, we were an innocent population which connected to what we saw. Life was simpler & we believed in goodness. But now we no longer believe in Santa Claus, & the special fx are what we are offered to take home in our dreams. A poor substitute for Boris Karloff & Katharine Hepburn, Gary Cooper & Marilyn Monroe. No, the movies aren't real anymore. Neither are we. 😢
We have much more entertainment at our fingertips. So many people, so many different interests and outlets. where to enjoy what each individual chooses. Movies lost their monopoly like national broadcasts channels did. Everybody curates their own stars. There arnt many "celebrities" id recognise but im sure id wobble my eyebrows and drop a few heartbeats if id see you around unexpectedly.
(I wanted to add I don't think the audience changed to much. It's just before they where led by the nose by the studios themselves who had an easy time of it by how the other media was concentrated. A little payola went a very long way when everyone is listening and reading the same 10 outlets. )
I concur
Finally, one other person exist in the world who didn't see Barbie🥳
Quote from a review: "the best thing about Barbie was the marketing" This is probably true, because ''little children'' here on RUclips, call it the best movie ever made and they compare it to Casablanca. 20ish people or under that age really think Barbie is a masterpiece and it is so right in everything, society today, women situation etc.
Greta Gerwig is a no to me, since he completely ruined Little women to me.
They still exist they just need a good to great movie. Had snake eyes been real good dude wouldve been one but it flunked. Than others like dune kid n latest spiderman just dont have it really but they keeo trying to shove em in like they do
I disagree with you about Harrison Ford. I don't know the reason personally why he finally chose to go streaming but it has not diminished his movie star-ness. He increases the quality what he chooses to be in giving it class or gravitas in my opinion. I don't want him in "movies" anymore cause they are kinda crappy. And he gets blamed for their box office failure when the finger can be pointed in many directions. The only real misstep he has made is the Marvel movie now postponed for a year or 2 because it didn't test well with an "audience". Good riddance I think. Hate stupid superhero movies. Since I dislike Tom Cruise I don't watch his movies(The Firm I liked and strangely enough War of the Worlds) I am happily TC free but seeing trailers I don't think he is aging well or gracefully. Maybe he just can't keep remaking the same story over and over.
I do agree with you that they don't make movie star movies anymore. Gone. Dried up. I don't go to the theater anymore so I am only gonna get my movie star on streaming if I am lucky.....
Ryan renolds n the rock are stars. But deadpool made it for Reynolds. The rock needed to do more R rated. But he plays it very clean.
Dune sucked
Especially the second one. Timothe Chalamet, the last person on Earth I can imagine as Paul Atreides, he is too boyish looking, the same as Wonka. He only in the movies, because his name sell the movie.
Bad news: The make a movie out of the second book.