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?
Can Reese be the next Hepburn? I surely do love me some Reese.
Katherine, I think.
Anyone who could pull off Election definitely has Kate's spunk.
Yeah, she works much better as a Kate.
We need a new Audrey. But i'm not sure that anybody will ever be able to be her again.
Audrey's particular charms were unprecedented and, I think, unduplicable.
My sister kind of looks and acts like her, sometimes. She does an excellent impression of her in
Roman Holiday,
especially.
Too bad she's not really interested in becoming a movie star.
Ah, okay then. I would certainly say we do create celebrities now, nsm movie stars.
And yeah, hardly anyone knows who Christian Bale is.
I would certainly say we do create celebrities now, nsm movie stars
I think the industry is still star-driven. Action films will always make more money because they play better in non-English speaking countries. Star = franchise = knowable quality = $100 million on opening weekend. A lot of actors love to have a franchise character that they can interchange with their smaller movies - like Zellwegger with Bridget Jones.
Old time studios spent a lot of time building up stars and creating their mystique. Now it's more up to the individual actors (and their agents and publicists). But it's still the same idea.
The one thing I'd note that's distinctly different is that franchises are more about the vehicle/milieu than about the character. Star Trek franchises, rather than James T. Kirk franchises.