|
|
An interesting article was on /Film today: Has the Hollywood Movie Star Died? In the past, if you had one of a select group of actors in your movie (Tom Hanks, Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, Arnold, Sly Stone, Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, Tom Cruise, etc.), you were guaranteed a blockbuster. With the recent failures of movies that should have been huge given their stars (A Christmas Carol, Surrogates, Jennifer's Body, Land of the Lost, Funny People, Year One, and anything featuring Eddie Murphy), it seems that the pull of a single huge star really isn't enough to guarantee huge box office wins, anymore. Last year, one such movie star, Vin Diesel, who has been pulling in huge box offices by himself for years now, had a gigantic flop on his hands with Babylon A.D. which had drawn comparisons visually to one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time, Blade Runner. The frat pack of Will Ferrell, Vince Vaughn, Luke and Owen Wilson, Ben Stiller, Jack Black, and Steve Carell, box office gods of the last decade, have even been shown to be vulnerable in recent times with quite a few flops between them. On top of this, you have the recent mega-successes of movies lacking even a single A-list actor. District 9, The Hangover, Paranormal Activity, (500) Days of Summer, and Taken coupled with the mini-successes of Watchmen, the Underworld series, and Adventureland, all seem to be proof that you don't need a huge star to have a huge movie anymore. The only truly bankable movie stars nowadays seem to be Will Smith and Christian Bale. The only "failure" in Will Smith's career where he was the star (so excluding Bagger Vance) was his latest movie, Seven Pounds which managed to bring in more than three times its budget. Bale has mild failures but they seem to gain big support in DVD sales (such as Rescue Dawn). Even movies of his that are universally panned (Terminator: Salvation) by critics, are able to gain almost double its budget at the box office. There is an up and coming star to keep an eye on. Sam Worthington has had a string of high profile roles recently and is starring in the most expensive movie ever made (Avatar at a reported $500 million) next month. He seems to be one of the few young actors who will be able to achieve the "movie star" status and be able to pump out blockbuster after blockbuster no matter who else is in the film with him. So, I ask you... is the era of the blockbuster-guaranteed movie star over? Have people begun to look beyond the person who is on the poster and look more at the story that is revealed in trailers and reviews on the internet and from people such as Roger Ebert? And is this a good thing? It will certainly allow for more low-budget films (District 9 was made for $30 million, which it made back in its first two days in theaters) to make it big. It could also force Hollywood to stop relying on star power so much and start making movies with decent stories (I'm looking at you, Transformers. Stop it.). Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it might be. The Men Who Stare at Goats was full of A-list actors, yet it failed to be anything more than "good".
But I ask you, what part of Liam Neeson makes you think that "Taken" didn't have a A-list actor in it?
Also, you mentioned Christian Bale which reminded me of Public Enemies which reminds me that you can watch anything with Johnny Depp and it'll be good (including Public Enemies). There's this really obscure movie called The Ninth Gate with him in it. Low budget, weak storyline, but it's entirely watchable and enjoyable thanks to Johnny Depp (and a couple other actors). Or Chocolat. I'll admit that I fucking loved that movie, and Johnny Depp had next to nothing to do with it. He had a tiny part, but he played it well and the movie as a whole was amazing. You want a good movie? Put Johnny Depp in it. Anywhere. It will be good.
|
|
|
|
|
What I am talking about has nothing to do with "Good" movies and everything to do with money. I am talking about stars that guarantee a movie's success at the box office, even if they are the only true star in the movie. Movies that are like Transformers... universally panned by critics, yet mega-blockbusters no matter what. Johnny Depp cannot do that. The fact is that he can't carry a movie by himself. He's either with others (Public Enemies) or with Tim Burton (who has as big a name as Depp, if not bigger). The last film that he had to carry (The Libertine) failed at the box office. Finding Neverland was a huuuge success, but that could be attributed to any number of things (Peter Pan, Kate Winslet, Dustin Hoffman, or the fact that it is considered by many to be one of the best films of the decade). I'll give you Secret Window and Blow, he did carry those by himself to big time box offices. But, really, that's two movies in a decade that he did it with. Not really enough to count for what I am talking about.
Last Edit: Nov 17, 2009 11:01:50 GMT by Josh
|
|
|
|
|
What I am talking about has nothing to do with "Good" movies and everything to do with money. I am talking about stars that guarantee a movie's success at the box office, even if they are the only true star in the movie. Movies that are like Transformers... universally panned by critics, yet mega-blockbusters no matter what. Johnny Depp cannot do that. The fact is that he can't carry a movie by himself. He's either with others (Public Enemies) or with Tim Burton (who has as big a name as Depp, if not bigger). The last film that he had to carry (The Libertine) failed at the box office. Finding Neverland was a huuuge success, but that could be attributed to any number of things (Peter Pan, Kate Winslet, Dustin Hoffman, or the fact that it is considered by many to be one of the best films of the decade). I'll give you Secret Window and Blow, he did carry those by himself to big time box offices. But, really, that's two movies in a decade that he did it with. Not really enough to count for what I am talking about. To your first point, I see what you're saying. But I still disagree with you about Johnny Depp. First of all, he pretty much carried Public Enemies (Christian Bale, for example, had virtually no part in it). Second of all, I've honestly never heard of The Libertine. And to say that Tim Burton is somehow responsible for Johnny Depp's success isn't fair because they compliment each other. There's a reason they always work together. You could just as easily say that Tim Burton can do no good without Johnny Depp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Bale didn't have much of a role in it, but he was advertised as the big, bad villain in the movie, and I would be willing to bet that he was shown almost as much as Depp was in the marketing, which means that Depp did not bring the audiences to the theaters, Depp and Bale both did.
As for Burton, I will have to disagree. Burton is responsible for Depp. Depp's two breakout films, Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood, were both Tim Burton films. If Tim Burton hadn't cast Depp in those roles, who knows if he would be where he is today (and yes, they weren't his first roles but they were easily his breakout roles).
As for Burton not being able to do good without Depp... have you ever seen Big Fish? His Batman films? Freaking Beatlejuice? The latter three were MASSIVE successes. Beatlejuice brought in its budget fivefold. Big Fish managed to bring in $50 million in profit. And I'm not even including his worst reviewed film of all time, Planet of the Apes, which managed to earn back its budget threefold.
Anything Burton does is a success, barring Mars Attacks!. Depp, however, doesn't seem to be able to do it without someone there with him, whether it be Burton, Bruckheimer, Bale, Banderas, etc.
Don't get me wrong, Depp is amazing. I love his stuff, especially with Burton. But he isn't a moviestar in the sense that I am talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Bale didn't have much of a role in it, but he was advertised as the big, bad villain in the movie, and I would be willing to bet that he was shown almost as much as Depp was in the marketing, which means that Depp did not bring the audiences to the theaters, Depp and Bale both did. As for Burton, I will have to disagree. Burton is responsible for Depp. Depp's two breakout films, Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood, were both Tim Burton films. If Tim Burton hadn't cast Depp in those roles, who knows if he would be where he is today (and yes, they weren't his first roles but they were easily his breakout roles). As for Burton not being able to do good without Depp... have you ever seen Big Fish? His Batman films? Freaking Beatlejuice? The latter three were MASSIVE successes. Beatlejuice brought in its budget fivefold. Big Fish managed to bring in $50 million in profit. And I'm not even including his worst reviewed film of all time, Planet of the Apes, which managed to earn back its budget threefold. Anything Burton does is a success, barring Mars Attacks!. Depp, however, doesn't seem to be able to do it without someone there with him, whether it be Burton, Bruckheimer, Bale, Banderas, etc. Don't get me wrong, Depp is amazing. I love his stuff, especially with Burton. But he isn't a moviestar in the sense that I am talking about. I wasn't saying Tim Burton could do no good without Johnny Depp. My point was that even though they do well together, Johnny Depp has clearly done great work without him (and vice versa). You could just as easily say that Tim Burton can't do anything without Michael Keaton (Beetlejuice and Batman) or whoever. Sure, Johnny Depp always has a good director, but that's because good directors make good movies. Good movies get the good stars (like Johnny Depp). Regardless of what you think of Johnny Depp, I really don't think you can fairly say that his success is solely due to the directors he worked with. They play a part in his success, but he plays a part in there's. Captain Jack Sparrow played by anyone else simply wouldn't have been as good and those movies wouldn't have done as well. End of story.
|
|
|
