We'll be in our bunk.

Wash ,'War Stories'


Buffista Movies 3: Panned and Scanned  

A place to talk about movies--Old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.


DavidS - Aug 08, 2004 8:49:12 am PDT #2465 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."

Audrey's particular charms were unprecedented and, I think, unduplicable.


Gris - Aug 08, 2004 8:52:24 am PDT #2466 of 10001
Hey. New board.

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.


Volans - Aug 08, 2004 8:58:30 am PDT #2467 of 10001
move out and draw fire

Ah, okay then. I would certainly say we do create celebrities now, nsm movie stars.

And yeah, hardly anyone knows who Christian Bale is.


DavidS - Aug 08, 2004 9:03:54 am PDT #2468 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."

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.


Volans - Aug 08, 2004 9:07:36 am PDT #2469 of 10001
move out and draw fire

Tho James T. Kirk is a character, not an actor...it's a quibble, but in a way I think there's sort of a William Shatner franchise. It's cheesy and goofy and not entirely Star Trek free, but it sells due to Shatner.

Does the article ask who the next Tom Hanks will be? Because I realize that I'm good for about one more Tom Hanks movie. I'm already done with Tom Cruise. I just can't watch him anymore.


sumi - Aug 08, 2004 9:07:42 am PDT #2470 of 10001
Art Crawl!!!

Back in the day, the studios owned the stars -- now they own the series -- so it does make sense.


DavidS - Aug 08, 2004 9:11:05 am PDT #2471 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."

Back in the day, the studios owned the stars -- now they own the series -- so it does make sense.

I think this is a factor.

Tho James T. Kirk is a character, not an actor...it's a quibble, but in a way I think there's sort of a William Shatner franchise. It's cheesy and goofy and not entirely Star Trek free, but it sells due to Shatner.

James Bond is an example of a character driven franchise. Batman too. I just think the movement will be away from this. I keep expecting somebody to move more towards a gaming mentality with these franchises. People like to go to Middle Earth for the Middle Earthness of it, as well as that particular narrative and those characters. People like particular milieus - it's part of what drives fan fiction.


sumi - Aug 08, 2004 9:14:10 am PDT #2472 of 10001
Art Crawl!!!

The "Who's the next" they picked were:

Julia Roberts
1. Kirsten Dunst
2. Reese Witherspoon
3. Rachel McAdams

Tom Cruise
1. Tobey Maguire
2. Hugh Jackman
3. Jake Gyllenhaal

Meg Ryan
1. Kate Hudson
2. Jennifer Anniston
3. Zooey Deschanel

Tom Hanks
1. Mos Def
2. Topher Grace
3. Zach Braff

Denzel Washington
1. Jamie Foxx
2. Mekhi Phifer
3. Matt Damon

Mel Gibson
1. Orlando Bloom
2. Ryan Gosling
3. Colin Farrell

(Perhaps they put Matt Damon in with Denzel because they put Mos Def in with Tom Hanks.)


Lyra Jane - Aug 08, 2004 9:18:37 am PDT #2473 of 10001
Up with the sun

Speaking of Katharine Hepburn, Bringing Up Baby was on TV late last night.

It is one of my favorite romantic comedies. There's a LEOPARD, and Cary Grant acting silly, and Katharine Hepburn singing and impersonating a moll, and ... it's very nearly perfect.

And as for the EW article, I agree that it has to do both with actors being drawn more to parts that interest them than to star-making roles, and with the fact the hype often gets ahead of the actual career because SOMETHING has to fill the news hole, and it's Kate Bosworth this week and Keira Knightly(sp?) the next


§ ita § - Aug 08, 2004 11:06:54 am PDT #2474 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I don't understand your angle, Hec. You're using both star and character as an indicator of potential success.

I think star is less than character right now, that movies want whoever can staff their franchise right. Hugh Jackman might be the definitive Wolverine, but his success has only spilled over into other movie roles, but not success in those roles. When that same studio needs to make their next big action pic, they'll probably still reach for Tom.

When you want a suave black charmer, they're going to reach for Denzel.

My point was a lot more cohesive when I started typing.