I've been thinking about that title question myself of late. It really has been hard for anyone who comes to fame in a franchise to find much life beyond it. Emma Watson hasn't quite transcended getting her start in the "Harry Potter" films, for instance, even after she toplined the "Beauty and the Beast" remake that made a skillion dollars. (Actually, given how bad her performance was...)
The only star I can think of besides Cruise and Smith who still has some cachet as a name, mostly overseas, is Johnny Depp, but if those guys are "dented and human" he's even more so. For a few years, after he really broke through via the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies -- I'd liked him before those, but it was exciting to see him go into this celeb stratosphere like that -- I would go to the theater specifically to see what he was up to. But then came 2010 ("Alice in Wonderland" and "The Tourist") and it was clear that he was becoming tapped out. When the reports about Amber Heard came out, and his bad money management, etc. I was saddened and not surprised. He had some of the charms and versatility of a Peter Sellers at his height, but as it turned out, some of the same personal and professional issues too.
Right now, the one actor I'd get out of bed and into a theater for would be Jeff Goldblum. On the one hand, it's sad that Hollywood never quite figured out how to create star vehicles for him they way they managed to for Depp when he got red-hot. (I know that's partially because he was so useful as a supporting actor, especially after "Jurassic Park".) It's criminal that Goldblum has never been nominated for an acting Oscar for anything. But on the other hand...I love how this curious cult of personality has sprung up around him, largely because he just kept working and has this crazy quilt of a filmography to explore, and he likes to play up his quirkiness for the fans, and so on and so forth. Talking of the MCU hiring character actors to class up the proceedings, Goldblum playing the Grandmaster in "Thor: Ragnarok" is a rare case where the character isn't consuming the actor, because he just has that much personality, a real star quality. I wonder if the reason he became a "late bloomer" as he puts it is because he's filling some subconscious need for a larger-than-life character actor in these corporate productions. Kind of the spiritual heir to someone like Vincent Price, I suppose.
Your movie star question is interesting, Drew. I don't believe we have any true movie stars created in the last decade or so, no. It is like we've returned to a quasi-producer-controlled version of the studio system. When I think of movie stars, Tom Cruise is up there, but two of his movies that I absolutely loved and saw in theaters, Oblivion and Edge of Tomorrow (aka Live. Die. Repeat.), were lukewarmly received by crowds. I don't think they lost money, but they didn't hit like Cruise and the studio hoped they would. Tom Hanks is a movie star. I will go see any movie in which he stars. Tom Hanks is a bonafide MOVIE STAR. I think Chris Pratt can get there. Right now, he's working smartly in the system as it exists today. He is part of two huge IPs and is now part of the PIXAR family. Chris Pratt is like a younger, more bankable Paul Rudd in that there isn't anything he seemingly can't do. I would like to see Chris Pratt take some risks. I would like to see Chris Pratt find a passion-project indie film that he just NEEDS to make where he works for scale and bares his soul. I would even love to see Chris Pratt in a great romantic comedy in the tradition of When Harry Met Sally or Sleepless in Seattle. We all know who is partner on screen would need to be for that: Jennifer Lawrence. Speaking of, I liked the questions posed by Passengers. I don't think everything in the movie worked, but I think part of the issue were people putting some politics into the film where it didn't necessarily belong and it made them miss the point which was more about exploring shared human experience and the act of forgiveness than what was in the air during the film's release.
I'd like to amend my earlier statement. Jennifer Lawrence is the one actor or actress who has become a movie star in the last ten years. She can open a big film or a small film. She possess the ability to do comedy and drama in equal measure even though she's not yet taken a chance on a big comedy yet. She can work on the indie scene and in the blockbusters and never lose credibility in either. I will go see a movie because Jennifer Lawrence is in that movie.
In the last 20 years, I think Christian Bale also fits that bill, and like Jennifer Lawrence, I would kill for someone to cast him in a comedy because his timing and sense of humor is impeccable. And like Lawrence, I will see a film because Christian Bale is in it. Even if I have no interest in the film, like the God-awful Terminator movie he did.
As for Amazing Stories, I was a bit young when it premiered, but the one episode that stuck out to me (or maybe it was in the TV Movie, I can't remember?) was Kevin Costner as a WWII bomber pilot and Casey Siemaszko was a belly gunner who was stuck in turret and couldn't get out, and the landing gear was also damaged. You can see the predicament. I thought that was a story that lived up to the name.
I’m a big fan of Edge Of Tomorrow. I think they did well enough on home video to make money on it. In fact, the director Doug Liman has been rumored to have a sequel in the works for a while now. I’m hoping they can bring it together.
I do believe a sequel is in development and should start shooting soon, and I think it's great people found the movie after the fact. I just think it goes to show that even "movie stars" can have issues opening a film if it's marketed poorly. Few seem invulnerable in this way anymore.
To Drew's point, once upon a time, audiences would go see the new Paul Newman movie or the new John Wayne movie. They may not have had any idea what the new movie was about, but they went because Paul Newman or John Wayne were in it. Tom Cruise had that pull for about 20 years, but I don't think he does anymore for everyone. Put Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible? BANK. Put Tom Cruise in an original science fiction film that isn't marketed particularly well? Ehhhhh.
I think Tom Hanks still has that pull, even with a movie like Larry Crowne in his semi-recent circular file, but he's maybe, at this point, one of a few bonafide movies stars left.
Yeah, the name game they played with it was a good indicator that the studio struggled with the best way to sell it. I seem to remember it being based on manga and maybe having been name-changed once even before it hit theaters. And speaking of star power, Emily Blunt is quite a force to be reckoned with these days, too. If she and Cruise are both attached again, I’m sure any sequel will be a much easier sell.
I don’t historically seek out movies based solely on cast, though I know that may be atypical. I certainly understand the significance of the draw a particular kind of star can bring as a general rule, and the investment insurance, so to speak, that it can provide a studio. For me, a good ensemble is a better motivator than any individual. That said, I’ve typically made my decisions more on the basis of writers & directors than anything else. Story matters most, and I always love the special depth of immersion that comes with watching an actor that I haven’t seen countless times before.
I didn’t make it around to Amazing Stories this week, but Alex Garland’s new show Devs on Hulu premiered with its first two episodes, and I thought it was pretty damn amazing from the jump.
Given that "Solo" did so poorly for a Star Wars film, I'm thinking that might scare Marvel and others off from doing "young [character's] adventures" projects, especially with the other SW spinoff projects going over far better by focusing on new characters derived from extant ones/concepts.
I've been thinking about that title question myself of late. It really has been hard for anyone who comes to fame in a franchise to find much life beyond it. Emma Watson hasn't quite transcended getting her start in the "Harry Potter" films, for instance, even after she toplined the "Beauty and the Beast" remake that made a skillion dollars. (Actually, given how bad her performance was...)
The only star I can think of besides Cruise and Smith who still has some cachet as a name, mostly overseas, is Johnny Depp, but if those guys are "dented and human" he's even more so. For a few years, after he really broke through via the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies -- I'd liked him before those, but it was exciting to see him go into this celeb stratosphere like that -- I would go to the theater specifically to see what he was up to. But then came 2010 ("Alice in Wonderland" and "The Tourist") and it was clear that he was becoming tapped out. When the reports about Amber Heard came out, and his bad money management, etc. I was saddened and not surprised. He had some of the charms and versatility of a Peter Sellers at his height, but as it turned out, some of the same personal and professional issues too.
Right now, the one actor I'd get out of bed and into a theater for would be Jeff Goldblum. On the one hand, it's sad that Hollywood never quite figured out how to create star vehicles for him they way they managed to for Depp when he got red-hot. (I know that's partially because he was so useful as a supporting actor, especially after "Jurassic Park".) It's criminal that Goldblum has never been nominated for an acting Oscar for anything. But on the other hand...I love how this curious cult of personality has sprung up around him, largely because he just kept working and has this crazy quilt of a filmography to explore, and he likes to play up his quirkiness for the fans, and so on and so forth. Talking of the MCU hiring character actors to class up the proceedings, Goldblum playing the Grandmaster in "Thor: Ragnarok" is a rare case where the character isn't consuming the actor, because he just has that much personality, a real star quality. I wonder if the reason he became a "late bloomer" as he puts it is because he's filling some subconscious need for a larger-than-life character actor in these corporate productions. Kind of the spiritual heir to someone like Vincent Price, I suppose.
Your movie star question is interesting, Drew. I don't believe we have any true movie stars created in the last decade or so, no. It is like we've returned to a quasi-producer-controlled version of the studio system. When I think of movie stars, Tom Cruise is up there, but two of his movies that I absolutely loved and saw in theaters, Oblivion and Edge of Tomorrow (aka Live. Die. Repeat.), were lukewarmly received by crowds. I don't think they lost money, but they didn't hit like Cruise and the studio hoped they would. Tom Hanks is a movie star. I will go see any movie in which he stars. Tom Hanks is a bonafide MOVIE STAR. I think Chris Pratt can get there. Right now, he's working smartly in the system as it exists today. He is part of two huge IPs and is now part of the PIXAR family. Chris Pratt is like a younger, more bankable Paul Rudd in that there isn't anything he seemingly can't do. I would like to see Chris Pratt take some risks. I would like to see Chris Pratt find a passion-project indie film that he just NEEDS to make where he works for scale and bares his soul. I would even love to see Chris Pratt in a great romantic comedy in the tradition of When Harry Met Sally or Sleepless in Seattle. We all know who is partner on screen would need to be for that: Jennifer Lawrence. Speaking of, I liked the questions posed by Passengers. I don't think everything in the movie worked, but I think part of the issue were people putting some politics into the film where it didn't necessarily belong and it made them miss the point which was more about exploring shared human experience and the act of forgiveness than what was in the air during the film's release.
I'd like to amend my earlier statement. Jennifer Lawrence is the one actor or actress who has become a movie star in the last ten years. She can open a big film or a small film. She possess the ability to do comedy and drama in equal measure even though she's not yet taken a chance on a big comedy yet. She can work on the indie scene and in the blockbusters and never lose credibility in either. I will go see a movie because Jennifer Lawrence is in that movie.
In the last 20 years, I think Christian Bale also fits that bill, and like Jennifer Lawrence, I would kill for someone to cast him in a comedy because his timing and sense of humor is impeccable. And like Lawrence, I will see a film because Christian Bale is in it. Even if I have no interest in the film, like the God-awful Terminator movie he did.
As for Amazing Stories, I was a bit young when it premiered, but the one episode that stuck out to me (or maybe it was in the TV Movie, I can't remember?) was Kevin Costner as a WWII bomber pilot and Casey Siemaszko was a belly gunner who was stuck in turret and couldn't get out, and the landing gear was also damaged. You can see the predicament. I thought that was a story that lived up to the name.
I’m a big fan of Edge Of Tomorrow. I think they did well enough on home video to make money on it. In fact, the director Doug Liman has been rumored to have a sequel in the works for a while now. I’m hoping they can bring it together.
I do believe a sequel is in development and should start shooting soon, and I think it's great people found the movie after the fact. I just think it goes to show that even "movie stars" can have issues opening a film if it's marketed poorly. Few seem invulnerable in this way anymore.
To Drew's point, once upon a time, audiences would go see the new Paul Newman movie or the new John Wayne movie. They may not have had any idea what the new movie was about, but they went because Paul Newman or John Wayne were in it. Tom Cruise had that pull for about 20 years, but I don't think he does anymore for everyone. Put Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible? BANK. Put Tom Cruise in an original science fiction film that isn't marketed particularly well? Ehhhhh.
I think Tom Hanks still has that pull, even with a movie like Larry Crowne in his semi-recent circular file, but he's maybe, at this point, one of a few bonafide movies stars left.
Yeah, the name game they played with it was a good indicator that the studio struggled with the best way to sell it. I seem to remember it being based on manga and maybe having been name-changed once even before it hit theaters. And speaking of star power, Emily Blunt is quite a force to be reckoned with these days, too. If she and Cruise are both attached again, I’m sure any sequel will be a much easier sell.
I don’t historically seek out movies based solely on cast, though I know that may be atypical. I certainly understand the significance of the draw a particular kind of star can bring as a general rule, and the investment insurance, so to speak, that it can provide a studio. For me, a good ensemble is a better motivator than any individual. That said, I’ve typically made my decisions more on the basis of writers & directors than anything else. Story matters most, and I always love the special depth of immersion that comes with watching an actor that I haven’t seen countless times before.
I didn’t make it around to Amazing Stories this week, but Alex Garland’s new show Devs on Hulu premiered with its first two episodes, and I thought it was pretty damn amazing from the jump.
Given that "Solo" did so poorly for a Star Wars film, I'm thinking that might scare Marvel and others off from doing "young [character's] adventures" projects, especially with the other SW spinoff projects going over far better by focusing on new characters derived from extant ones/concepts.