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.

What sort of movie is a Denzel Washington movie, though?

A Tom Hanks movie is probably touching and inspirational, and maybe he's not that bright. A Meg Ryan movie is supposed to be quirky and funny and romantic, and maybe not suck. A Julia Roberts movie is less quirky, more pointedly funny, and romantic or inspiring. A Tom Cruise movie -- it gets more complicated, but he still can't act, so there's a limit to his variety.

But what do you know about a movie if you know it's Denzel?

Which is to say...I think he has a very specific following, but maybe it's a black thing. And not a what kind of movie it means it'll be thing.

I think with Denzel it's a yummy thing. At least among the women I know.

Except for that movie with Ethan Hawke, you can be pretty sure Denzel is going to play a man of honor who doesn't have sex on screen.

But really, who doesn't love Denzel?

What I think of as a Denzel Washington movie: Little Guy/Underdog fighting against "the man" as primary theme. Serious/heavy movie, and maybe a kinda-complicated plot.

At least, in my head.

eta: Yes! That was the other thing: wicked understated, if any, romance for him.

I think honor is a big word to apply to Virtuosity, Mississipi Masala, Carbon Copy, Fallen, and The Mighty Quinn and the wrong word to apply to Out Of Time, He Got Game, and Mo Better Blues.

And I thought it was that he didn't have sex with white women, until He Got Game, I had thought Mississipi Masala and Mo Better Blues had sex scenes.

He plays a regular guy a lot. More than Julia or Meg have shown diversity. With Tom Hanks it's that the ones in which he plays that guy get so much press/money, that the others fall off. I never got that impression with Denzel.