# The death of the movie star



## billc (Jul 12, 2011)

An article by john nolte from bighollywood about why movie stars are in decline.  Interesting take on the problem, especially with the increase in interesting and edgy t.v. shows.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/07/12/death-of-the-movie-star-yes-its-for-real/

From the article:

Films aimed at teens will never change. Vampires, superheroes, lame musicals, horror films, teen romance, bawdy comedies, etc. This is not a hard nut to crack and that formula has been around since my generation went to high school. So, as we see, the movie industry is still able to hang on to that crowd.  What I have seen change over the past decade are films aimed at those of us over 18 and this change has been a suicidal one for any industry interested in making a profit.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 12, 2011)

Aye, there is something to this, I have to agree.  I don't know whether I just got older and my 'film is NOT art' gene got stronger or whether films just stopped being entertaining or became too expensive and too much trouble to go and see at the cinema.

I suspect some of all of that feeds into it.  The last film I took the missus to see, at her request, was one of the Twilight series - boy did *I* feel out of place in the cinema I can tell you :lol:.  It cost me a small fortune - I'd far rather have taken her out to dinner as I'd've felt like I got more for my money.


----------



## Steve (Jul 12, 2011)

Read like the typical "old people lamenting how good the old days were and blaming non-existent problems on young people" article.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 12, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Read like the typical "old people lamenting how good the old days were and blaming non-existent problems on young people" article.


Agreed, I've read articles like this before and in a way they're right but also it is a noticeable change from the big name movie star compared to today's stars. 

There's probably never going to be the golden hollywood's heyday of Stewart, Bancroft, Wayne, Hepburn, Bogart, Bacall, Robertson, Davis, Peck, Stanwyck, Houston, Cagney, Bergman, Karloff, de Havilland, Tracy, Lombard, Gable, Cooper, Fonda, and dozens others from the what I call The George Hurrell list, the great films of the 30's and 40's when they were made for entertainment and not for profit, although ironically they did during the depression. 

Later decades is probably the notable decline but still big name stars surfaced time and again in movie after movie. Eastwood, Mac Claine, Nicholson, Taylor, Burton, O'Toole, Connery, Dunaway, Hoffman, and that list goes on but arguably it's a shorter list. 

Move on to the next set of decades 70's & 80's and the list is shorter still with less memorable names (meaning I'm not having to sit and THINK hard about the "big-stars" of that decade. Travolta, DuVall, Hackman, Fonda (and again), Fonda, Streisand, O'Neal and so on.

The list dwindles even further during the 90's and 2000's and shrinks to a couple of dozen (of both sexes) in this decade. 

The problem isn't the star it's the movies they're given. Utterly forgettable in most accounts, one time block-busters then gone forever to the realm of the DVD shelves so these films today, good (and atrocious) as they are as they say being written for the glitzy CGI, mega-mega FX profit mode. I imagine that many actors/actresses are becoming frustrated at being outshined by their movies rather the other way around. Everyone raves about Inception's great FX and psychotic dream sequences but only murmurs about DiCaprio's performance (which was pretty good IMO). 

Better stories will make more memorable actors and actresses and likewise the steep price tags that they command (ahem, like sport stars) need to come down (some) before the talent that is in Hollywood will shine again and people go to see films just because the actor/actress. 


> Edith Keeler: "...if we hurry we can catch the Clark Gable movie before it starts"
> Capt. Kirk: "...the Clark who? movie?"


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 13, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> The problem isn't the star it's the movies they're given. Utterly forgettable in most accounts, one time block-busters then gone forever to the realm of the DVD shelves so these films today, good (and atrocious) as they are as they say being written for the glitzy CGI, mega-mega FX profit mode. I imagine that many actors/actresses are becoming frustrated at being outshined by their movies rather the other way around. Everyone raves about Inception's great FX and psychotic dream sequences but only murmurs about DiCaprio's performance (which was pretty good IMO).
> 
> Better stories will make more memorable actors and actresses and likewise the steep price tags that they command (ahem, like sport stars) need to come down (some) before the talent that is in Hollywood will shine again and people go to see films just because the actor/actress.



Agreed, mate.  I shall have to read the article again tho' as I have no resonance with what Steve said.  I clearly missed something in the intent of the author (it was late when I read it I admit ).

On the 'old movies' issue, what we have to bear in mind, along with the truism that 'effects' are being used as a prop for 'story', is that only the truly good survives the decades.  It's the same with music; I look back on the late 60's and 70's and think of how much better the music was back then compared to the shouty-stampy rubbish that comes out now ... then I remember Disco and the Bay City Rollers :lol:.


----------



## granfire (Jul 13, 2011)

well, the stars of old were contract players.
Studio had a script, actors performed. They made good money (for the time) but the studio picked what they played or not...
They produced a lot more back then, too...

It;s different.


----------



## Carol (Jul 13, 2011)

People still watch movies?  :idunno:


----------



## granfire (Jul 13, 2011)

only on TCM...


----------

