Death of the movie star

[Atticus Chaos 0]

 

 

FALLING STAR In 1995, Jim Carrey was paid $20 million for The Cable Guy. For his next comedy, Yes Man, he's receiving nothing up-front and shares in the profits only if there are any (Photo: Getty Images) "We're in a cycle where stars aren't as important to a film's success as they used to be," says Variety editor in chief Peter Bart, echoing a May cover story in the Hollywood Reporter. Between 1990 and 2000, roughly two-thirds of the top 10 grossing films each year could chalk up their success to star power; since 2001, that number has declined by more than half. "There was a period of time when studio marketing departments could count on just hiring a movie star to open a movie," says producer Lynda Obst—casting, for example, Arnold Schwarzenegger in the absurd Kindergarten Cop, and Julia Roberts in the aggressively mediocre Runaway Bride. "It's not so easy anymore," she adds.

 

Accordingly, movie star paychecks aren't what they used to be. In 1995, the rubber-faced Jim Carrey was the first actor to be awarded a $20 million contract—for the ill-fated Cable Guy. (Soon after, Sandler, Smith, Cruise, Schwarzenegger, Willis, and others were commanding the same price.) At the time that Columbia Pictures made him the offer, the funnyman had never had a flop. Since then, he's had plenty. As a result, Warner Bros. just financed his next comedy, Yes Man, with a very different sort of deal: Carrey will receive zippo up front, but is entitled to 36.2 percent of the movie's profits ... should any materialize.

 

Face it: The movie star as we've come to know him—an actor who can reliably put butts in seats on opening weekend—is dead, finished off like one of those nubile young counselors at Camp Crystal Lake, devoured with fava beans and a fine Chianti (ssssllllurp!), gutted in the shower, blood swirling elegantly down the drain. And there's no shortage of possible culprits

 

 

read the rest here

 

http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazi..._tom_cruise.php

 

 

I do blame overexposure more than anything. Angelina Jolie was one of my favourite actresses, but she, brad and their numerous children are everywhere now, and I honestly don't feel like watching her anymore. I think guys like Matt Damon and Christian Bale have the right idea: be as private as you can be. I also think the superhero franchises tend to sell themselves,regardless of who's starring.

[TheOriginalOrangeGoblin 0]

Will Smith is still a movie star. Considering how much money Pursuit of Happyness and Hitch made, there is no doubt Will Smith can make money in ANYTHING.

[Black Lushus 0]

Will Smith is still a movie star. Considering how much money Pursuit of Happyness and Hitch made, there is no doubt Will Smith can make money in ANYTHING.

 

that's not a slight on those two movies...it it?

[Jingus 0]

finished off like one of those nubile young counselors at Camp Crystal Lake, devoured with fava beans and a fine Chianti (ssssllllurp!), gutted in the shower, blood swirling elegantly down the drain.

God I hate it when critics try to get cutesy with their writing like this. Bring me the head of Gene Shalit.

[bob_barron 0]

Pursuit of Happyness was pretty bad, but Hitch was good disposable entertainment.

 

Both of those movies were essentially star vehicles for Smith, and the fact that they made so much money, shows there are still movie stars out there

[Atticus Chaos 0]

I suppose you could include Tom Hanks as well. Since he's always performed consistently at the box office.

[UZI Suicide 0]

I think I'd call Johnny Depp a movie star.

[TheOriginalOrangeGoblin 0]

Will Smith is still a movie star. Considering how much money Pursuit of Happyness and Hitch made, there is no doubt Will Smith can make money in ANYTHING.

 

that's not a slight on those two movies...it it?

I liked them both but with any other lead, no way in hell either of them grosses anywhere near what they did.

[Mik 0]

This article is stupid and pointless.

 

Some of the old guard have seen their stars dim out but that doesn't mean there are no movie stars anymore. Sloppy and lazy writing.

[Ripper 0]

You have to admit, there isn't as many as there used to be. I think Cruise, Smith, Crowe and Hanks still can make people go see a movie despite what the movie looks like.

 

And I think guys like Christian Bale can insure a movie not flopping now. Don't know if he guarentees big bank, but he will guarentee it won't flop.

[foleyfanforever88 0]

Will Smith, Matt Damon, and Denzel Washington are the only guys I can think of that could get me to see a movie just because they are in it.

[Dandy 0]

By looking at the average gross for individual actors, Tom Hanks and Will Smith stand out. Orlando Bloom has an average that is out of this world, but I think we all agree that he wasn't the driving force behind POTC or LOTR. Mike Myers understandably has huge numbers as well, and deserves a lot of credit for Shrek.

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/?view=...ross&p=.htm

 

Edit---As bad as I hate it, Tom Cruise still does good box office. I also forgot to mention Jim Carrey.

[Kristianna 0]

Will Smith, Matt Damon, and Denzel Washington are the only guys I can think of that could get me to see a movie just because they are in it.

 

I'm with you on Matt Damon. I've been a huge fan of his since Good Will Hunting. I even liked him in Dogma, even though that movie was fairly sub-par. Now those Bourne movies, he totally kicks ass in.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

You have to admit, there isn't as many as there used to be. I think Cruise, Smith, Crowe and Hanks still can make people go see a movie despite what the movie looks like.

 

And I think guys like Christian Bale can insure a movie not flopping now. Don't know if he guarentees big bank, but he will guarentee it won't flop.

 

 

Its actually been written by forbes that Crowe is one of the worst inversments in hollywood. He's had a lot of flops (Master and commander, a good year, cinderella man) and not that many successes (gladiator, a beautiul mind) and he's still asking for $20 million a movie. I'd also put Nicole Kidman on the list of not being able to justfy such a big check: its been years since she's been in a hit.

 

Bale is interesting. The dark knight is going to be huge, but it might be like Toby Maquire where no one's bothered about seeing them if they're not playing their signature character. He'll probably get paid a fortune for the 3rd batman film though.

[bob_barron 0]

Before American Gangster, Crowe hadn't had a hit film since Beautiful Mind.

 

Will Smith is easily on top right now.

 

I think the days where stars guaranteed a top box office is starting to fade. Look at Charlie Wilson's War- Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks and it can't even crack 70 mil

[Twisted Intestine 0]

Will Smith, Matt Damon, and Denzel Washington are the only guys I can think of that could get me to see a movie just because they are in it.

 

I'm with you on Matt Damon. I've been a huge fan of his since Good Will Hunting. I even liked him in Dogma, even though that movie was fairly sub-par. Now those Bourne movies, he totally kicks ass in.

 

Dogma isn't sub-par, you're sub-par!

 

*Runs off crying.

[TheOriginalOrangeGoblin 0]

Denzel doesn't make blockbusters like Will does but he basically guarantees that a movie won't bomb. Gibson, before he went nuts, was up there (his last starring vehicle to not crack $75 million was The Man Without A Face back in 1993 - an 11 movie streak). Carrey is still up there although his track record is obvious (comedies hit, everything else doesn't). Nicholson has done pretty well lately (6 movies in this decade, 3 cracked $100 million and 1 missed by $5 million).

 

Damon is rising but, so far, he's a tad overrated as a draw. Outside of the Bourne movies (which are to his credit) and the Ocean's movies (which cannot really be credited to any one person), he's only had two movies break $60 million.

 

 

[Atticus Chaos 0]

You can tell the talented actors when they make even the bad movies seem decent, Deja Vu is a laughable movie, but Washington holds it together. Same with Harrison Ford. I find with people like Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy that when the material sucks (the love guru, Norbit) they usually do too.

 

I like Will Smith but with the exception of Ali he plays the same role in every movie he's in. Maybe that's why he's so successful. Bruce Willis seems to play disgruntled cops an awful lot too.

[Dandy 0]

I don't think Smith plays the same role at all.

[Ripper 0]

Will Smith doesn't come close to playing the same role.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

I don't think Smith plays the same role at all.

 

 

Apparantly, the reason Will Smith turned down the Matrix when he was offered it was because he wanted Neo to tell more jokes. That doesn't sound like an actor who wants to play the same role every time?

[cd213 0]

Will Smith, Matt Damon, and Denzel Washington are the only guys I can think of that could get me to see a movie just because they are in it.

 

I'm with you on Matt Damon. I've been a huge fan of his since Good Will Hunting. I even liked him in Dogma, even though that movie was fairly sub-par. Now those Bourne movies, he totally kicks ass in.

 

Matt Damon is the better actor of the Matt Damon/Ben Affleck tandom. I've been a fan of his since SCHOOL TIES. A great movie, with some good young (at the time) actors. He is certainly on the rise as a draw.

 

Orlando Bloom will never be a big draw. He's not a good actor and has only made a few good movies, and it wasn't even due to his presence that they were good.

[CanadianChris 0]

Edit---As bad as I hate it, Tom Cruise still does good box office.

That's already started to change. Lions for Lambs absolutely bombed, and Valkyrie looks to be headed down the same path.

[Maztinho 0]

Edit---As bad as I hate it, Tom Cruise still does good box office.

That's already started to change. Lions for Lambs absolutely bombed, and Valkyrie looks to be headed down the same path.

 

Likely, because he's seen as a total crackpot by the American public as a whole, that and outside of a few roles, I've never been impressed with Cruise's work. He's the guy who plays, Tom Cruise as ______ in every film.

[Jingus 0]

Will Smith doesn't come close to playing the same role.

He doesn't play the exact same guy every time out, no. But he does tend to play a lot of similar roles in some movies. His characters in Independence Day, Bad Boys, Men In Black, Wild Wild West, and so on were all very familiar. Hell, the guys in I, Robot and I Am Legend were just slightly darker versions of those. He's kind of like a Jack Nicholson type; he stretches his range here and there, but often goes back to the same kind of personality for many of his films.

[bob_barron 0]

I don't think Smith plays the same role at all.

 

 

Apparantly, the reason Will Smith turned down the Matrix when he was offered it was because he wanted Neo to tell more jokes. That doesn't sound like an actor who wants to play the same role every time?

 

That was ten years ago.

 

Cruise's starpower is starting to fade, but I think his Tropic Thunder cameo might restore some goodwill

[spman 0]

Some actors just seem to be critic proof. Eddie Murphy and Martin Lawrence have been pumping out some of the worst movies of the last decade, but for some reason everything they're in seems to make some dough.

[Starks 0]

I believe it is simply a by product of an increasingly networked world. Back in the early 90's you had your movie reviewer in the local paper to give his verdict on any new film, so many people would simply see films their favourite actors featured in. These days with mobile phones, websites, email and social networking sites, if a movie sucks you'll hear about it sooner, with a greater frequency, and the source of this information will be someone know, or trust (eg. a favourite reviewer). Hence many studios focus on a big opening weekend - if the movie sucks everyone will know within a few days and subsequent weeks at the box office will plunge. Perhaps it is the time of acclaimed Character Actor, or a Director with a respected body of work (Nolan, Jackson, Scorsese, the Scott bothers, Michael Mann etc. ) to open movies.

 

 

And to reference the opening article, Jim Carey's current studio deal is said to be one of the dumbest ever made by an A-List Actor, even though it's partly his own fault given his supposed difficulty onset.

 

Read about his deal here: The Worst Talent Deal Ever: Jim Carrey succumbs to voodoo economics

 

If Hollywood studio's can make movies like Lord Of Rings show a loss on the budget books, he won't see a dollar more than his base fee.

 

 

[bob_barron 0]

I don't know, I can see that deal strangely working out for him.

 

Carrey's an interesting case, b/c it's obvious he just wants to do dramas, but no one will see them. So he's fucked

[Starks 0]

I don't know, I can see that deal strangely working out for him.

 

Carrey's an interesting case, b/c it's obvious he just wants to do dramas, but no one will see them. So he's fucked

 

The deal would work out for him if the movie studios were honest in their accounting practices, but they have a history of writing off anything they can against the profits (including the budgets of other unrelated films). It's one of the reasons that The Hobbit took so long to organise, New Line did some creative accounting which disappeared 100's of millions of $$$ off the earning of the films so they didn't have to pay Jackson or the cast their rightfully earned cut of the profits. Jackson was pissed, to point of threatening a lawsuit if he couldn't get an independent evaluation of the books (which his contract specified he could do, yet still was denied by New Line). Any movie star or director looking for a big payday makes sure they get a cut of the gross to avoid that kind of headache.