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.

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.

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

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.

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.)

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

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.

I think part of it is that acting range has become more valued. I'm not sure by who, but big-name actors have, fairly consistently, been doing individual projects that don't play to their type (Collateral comes to mind immediately, as it's new, but there's a larger pattern).

A lot of the mid-to-big names now are taking that to the next level, and have enough diversity on their credits list that the type is harder to peg than a Meg Ryan-movie, or a Denzel Washington movie (Orlando Bloom's circumstances notwithstanding). Katherine Hepburn played much the same character her entire career. Did a stellar job of it, but I don't know that you can so much make a career of that anymore (Jackie Chan notwithstanding). If all I know about a movie is that Matt Damon is in it, I don't really know anything at all.

What I have no data on, but am interested in on this, is how much director/producer have taken on the expectation-setting role from stars, especially in non-franchise movies.