I'm not using the same definition of iconic that you are, Sean. It's pretty clear that "Tom Hanks movie" and "Denzel Washington movie" mean something to people that's varying degrees of independent from their actual track records.

Yeah, that's something I'm not sure I have my head wrapped around either, because I know I probably have a different definition of "Tom Hanks movie" or "Denzel Washington movie," than studio marketing or personal image grooming wantes me to have.

When I hear the phrase "Tom Hanks movie," or "Denzel Washington movie," all that tells me is that there will be (probably) be some good acting to be seen, if nothing else.

Typically, if I think that an actor's name conveys any info about the character to be played or the type of movie I'm in for (example: Mike Myers), I probably have less respect for them as an actor, even if I enjoy their performances and films from time to time.

I disagree. Tom Cruise is iconic right now.

Fair point. I think we don't quite have the depth of focus about his iconogra.... iconicis.... his being iconic that we would fifty years from now.

Not that I think I am, at this point, contributing anything meanigful or coherent to the conversation, I just like hearing the sound of my own typing....

Well, that first week in August in '04 was some week.

Iconicness. Iconicity.

Fair point. I think we don't quite have the depth of focus about his iconogra.... iconicis.... his being iconic that we would fifty years from now.

Sure, but in 50 years, the list of icons of the 1920s may have changed as much as the list of icons of 2004. When I think of media figures being considered iconic, I think of that as being much more reflective of the era naming them icons than the era in which they were/are from, so whether or not their iconic status will last 50 years doesn't really seem relevant.

I don't really have a horse in this race, but I can kind of see where Sean is going. I mean, doesn't icon carry with it an inherent sense of permanence (and I feel I didn't spell that right) or lasting relevance that is really hard to put your finger on while it's happening? I'm thinking about folks like Marilyn Monroe or going further back to folks like Rudolph Valentino who were icons in their day and have stood the test of time. I mean, there are "icons" of the day that I doubt will be looked on as such 50 years from now. Someone like Jim Carrey, for example, who is certainly an actor who can open a movie (at least a comedy) and commands a star salary, internationally known (though not known to rock the microphone). But I doubt 50 years from now he'll be considered an icon, merely a mildly annoying funny man.

I was watching Headliners & Legends on CNN the other day and they were doing a segment on Halle Berry. I'd hardly call her a headliner, much less a legend, but there she was just the same. I think we toss around words like legend and icon and diva much more freely today. So much so that they start to lose their meaning. In an age when Jessica Simpson can be on "Divas Live", what does it all mean?

I feel like I lost my point somewhere in there, assuming I ever had one. Ah well, at least now I can go and listen to some Rob Base.

Sean's just talking about a different topic than the one I am.

I'm considering the idea of Tom Hanks being a representation of a movie or acting choices or qualities or them all wrapped up into one. I don't care how long that lasts, because the question about the future is unanswerable, and unrewarding for me to pursue.

Right now, he's an icon. I don't know if he'll be a legend, don't much care, never asked the question.

Hmm, see for me iconicity always has that enduring quality rolled up in it, although that may be me reading more into the word than is actually there.

And I see that this is probably the case after looking it up. Both Cambridge ( and a very famous person or thing considered as representing a set of beliefs or a way of life) and M-W (3 : an object of uncritical devotion : IDOL) would suggest that I'm just on the bad crack again. Although Dictionary.com (An important and enduring symbol: “Voyager will take its place... alongside such icons of airborne adventure as The Spirit of St. Louis and [the] Bell X-1” (William D. Marbach) gives me at least a half of a leg to stand on.

Right now, he's an icon. I don't know if he'll be a legend, don't much care, never asked the question.

Right, sao since this seems to be yet another argument with me where I didn't want to get in an argument, just make some observations, and now statements are being made about what my intent is, or who I'm talking to, or whether I'm responding to unasked questions...

I*was* talking to you, ita. Mostly just trying wrap my head around what you were looking for, which I still don't quite get, but seeing as how I'm apparently actually talking about completely different things that don't interest you, and seem to be annoying you, I will then butt the flying fuck out.

Just to be clear, I didn't mean to talk for anyone except myself, so sorry if anyone feels I mis-stated his/her point. (Is mis-stated a word? I am cooking on the imaginary words today.) I was just trying to brighten up my otherwise dull and dreary first day back at work. I will now take my icons out back and make them participate in a deathmatch with a sack of hammers and some large kitchen knives. There may even be oil, although not boiling because Denzel is involved and I wouldn't want to mess up all the pretty.

I can think of several actors with personas who were nonethelesss fine actors. You knew what you were getting from a Humphrey Bogart perfomance; you knew what to expect from a Jimmy Stewart performance. (Except for that one Thin Man movie). The joy was in seeing how you got there. Both of them were fine and effective actors, as well as iconic movie stars.