Perhaps.

Hmmm. I seem to have hockey sticks near each entrance to my home, and in my bedroom. Though I suspect I'd be better off flinging habanero powder at an intruder in my kitchen.

So much easier to do serious damage to someone when they're begging you to kill them and put them out of their misery.

Who was Julia Roberts "the new" of? And Denzel Washington is "the new" whom? I pshaw on that article, in its arrogant supposition that now is the pinnacle of movie stars, and that there are only a few timeless categories of star.

I didn't get that idea at all...I've understood that there are probably two incarnations of movie star that precede Julia/Denzel/etc -- I'm not precisely sure of the timing, but the sword-to-the-studio was the first type, and even so, the idea that people can't open movies like Hanks or Cruise is definitely a paradigm shift.

And that's what it was about, at least how I read it.

Sometimes it's just a matter of the right actor finding the right role at the right time.

Also, just saw an ad for Vanity Fair , it looks very pretty.

(I'm watching a movie called Life in a Day on Scifi -- it stars somebody from Party of Five and is pretty fun.)

the idea that people can't open movies like Hanks or Cruise is definitely a paradigm shift.

I also liked the parts about how the hype precedes the person now, in some ways. That we are making celebrities more than film stars. It reminded me of EWs article last year about Kate Bosworth being the new face of hollywood. Then the flop of Tad Hamilton and suddenly, not so much.

That we are making celebrities more than film stars.

Yes. And at least they didn't pull an attitude about their part in it.

I read the letters that were all "Why Christian Bale on the cover???" I was indignant -- he's a darkly pretty man with some interesting choices and a lovely body and the new Batman!

But yeah, not a big movie star, and nowhere near as famous as I keep figuring he is. Or a draw. I mean, Halle Berry and Hugh Jackman can't open movies, individually, or together.

Which is fine by me, just weird. "A Hugh Jackman movie" just doesn't have the same resonance as "a Tom Cruise movie," though I'd rather watch the former.

Maybe because Hugh Jackman is more of an actor, so his name on a movie doesn't actually tell us anything about the film? Whereas Cruise of Roberts or Hanks always deliver a certain set of attributes which their films are designed to highlight? (and when they don't, like Hanks in Road to Perdition, their fans are unhappy).

Whereas Cruise of Roberts or Hanks always deliver a certain set of attributes which their films are designed to highlight?

That was one of the thrusts of the article, yeah. Actors are making more diverse choices, so they're less attached to an overriding persona.

Better for the actors -- less good for the business of Hollywood?