why cant we have big box office draws?

[sharkstank]

hey guys,
ive been assigned to write about why our generation doesnt have a huge star. somebody who will sell tickets just by theyre name. jude law has tried, jamie foxx may be getting there, but there really isnt a young actor/actress that can do that
any ideas as to why?

thanks in advance for the ideas

WWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Nachokoolaid]

This may sound old and cliched, but times are changing. Now let me explain. In the past, there were no amazing special effects, etc. that many of the huge money-making films all currently use. In the past, there were limited effects, so the film rested on the shoulders of a particular actor or actress. In turn, that actor/actress became more famous (if successful) and was more of a box-office draw. Now days, special effects are the big draw, instead of a big name. If you look at the way that people scrutinize special effects under a microscope, you may notice that it is the same way they used to pick apart the performance of a lead actor/actress. So, technology is our "new star," and it will probably remain that way for a long, long time. A generation at least, 35-40 years. Who knows?

That's just my theory, but I think it has some credence.

[mcfab]

I could suggest a number of possible reasons why we dont have a guarenteed drawcard of an actor.

1. There are alot more movies coming out these days that cover a wider variety of genres than they did in the past. eg The romantic musicals of the 50's and 60's to the run and gun action flicks of the late 80's and early 90's. So there arent as many 'similar' roles available to actors to kind of cement their place in a certain genre.
eg: Frank Sinatra or Bing Crosby could play just about any role in a romantic musical comedy where as actors these days are trying not to get trapped into playing one role over an over. Actors these days swap genres all the time and therefore may not appear as a quality actor in that genre. Damn its hard to put into words but i'll try. Take Arnie for example, he played run and gun action roles all the time and the action fans loved him so they would go see him every time his new action flick was out. But now roles are so varied that actors need to be alot more versatile and therefore dont neccessarily appeal to the same audience every time.

2. Even the best actors make some terribly horrible films and lose a chunk of their following and unfortunatly get known only as the star of that bad film. People then lose the trust that those actors will make good films. It may also be due to the amount of sequels coming out these days.

Ok thats about it, sorry if its a bit long winded but its kind of hard to verbalise.

[Damone]

My theory is the level of advertising.

With the internet and several hundred television stations, seeing a celebrity is no longer a big deal. How many times have you said, or have you heard someone say, "I'm sick of seeing so and so! I wished they'd go away!"

Back in the 40's and 50's the stars seemed larger than life. I think part of that was because media coverage was so limited. You weren't bombarded every waking hour with reports of the same people.

With outlets like Entertainment Tonight, Access, Inside Hollywood, E!, Mtv, VH1, People, Us, National Enquier, Star, several Teen Magazines, and whatever else I've forgotten all showing whoever is the current "hot thing" several months in a row, after awhile boredom sets in.

[bigred760]

I agree with a lot of what my fellow schmoes said above, especially about the special effects trend of movies nowadays.

-But I also think that it's that most actors/actresses are picking similar roles. It happens so much that fans really don't care too much about them to watch a movie with an actor that is very similar to another movie with another actor.

-Another reason is that the superstars from the previous generation aren't done with their fanbase and have gotten more fans in our generation. Stars like Tom Cruise, Denzel Washington, Mel Gibson, Julia Roberts, and Tom Hanks are all still making great movies and fans (and critics) are acknowledging this. There's no room for new stars.

There's a good article on this subject in a recent edition of Entertainment Weekly (it's a 2004 issue). I recommend trying to look it up.

[jackson13]

People like Owen Wilson, Will Ferrel, Vince Vaughn and Ben Stiller are big draws. Every movie starring one of them this year was #1 (except for Envy). Ferrel and Stiller both had the biggest comedies of the year (other than Shrek) with Anchorman and Meet the Fockers.

Then you've got guys like Will Smith. He may only have 1 movie a year come out, but it always opens #1. And they dont call him Mr. Fourth of July for nothing.

Theres also Jim Carrey. You put him in a movie and you're guaranteed a hit.

Jamie Foxx is definitely becoming a big contender. I'm glad you mentioned him.

[James Logan]

Tom Cruise. The man's movies have opened at number one and/or made 100 million years every time since 1902 now, I think. :)

The man's in every magazine, be it gossip rags, movie magazines, or whatever. He's a producer, he's an actor, he's worked with the biggest names. He's got the scandals, he's had the beautiful wife and now got the beautiful divorce...

...if that ain't a big time movie star, then I'm the late Prince Albert, the also late Queen Victoria's supposedly gay grandson. ;)

[Rated R]

Even though he's older than the younger generation, Johnny Depp was not a box-office draw until Pirates of the Caribbean really. Now if a movie says Johnny Depp is starring it is more likely to do well like Secret Window. Of course Finding Neverland didn't do too well, but that's to be expected in some cases anyway.

Of the younger actors, I could see Eric Bana becoming a draw or possibly Jake Gyllenhaal, but it's usually the movie that brings in the audience, not the cast.

[sharkstank]

Originally posted by James Logan
Tom Cruise. The man's movies have opened at number one and/or made 100 million years every time since 1902 now, I think. :)

The man's in every magazine, be it gossip rags, movie magazines, or whatever. He's a producer, he's an actor, he's worked with the biggest names. He's got the scandals, he's had the beautiful wife and now got the beautiful divorce...

...if that ain't a big time movie star, then I'm the late Prince Albert, the also late Queen Victoria's supposedly gay grandson. ;)

i agree james, but i was thinking someone who has come out recent years. cruise had risky buisness in 84, so he's not thought of as this generation

thaks everybody. ur really helping out. keep em coming

WWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Nachokoolaid]

If we are naming the next huge box office draw, I submit, (with complete seriousness) Dwayne "THE ROCK" Johnson. I truly beleive he is the next big action star. He has already had three successful films, and that was before he was really accepted as an actor. Now that he has a few more under his belt, I think people will just go out to see his films, just like they did for Arnold, as long as they know they are in for a fun ride. He has BE COOL (which isn't 'his' film, but he's in it) SPY HUNTER and DOOM on the way. I can't wait. He's a very charismatic guy, and the only "action star" that I'll go see without knowing too much else about the film.

[Patrick Bateman]

Although I enjoy The Rock's films, I am very skeptical on if he is indeed the next big box office draw for this generation. The reason I submit this, is because his box office numbers were impressive for "The Scorpion King", but were considered somewhat disappointing for both "The Rundown", and "Walking Tall". Check out any wrestling message board, and they'll pretty much tell you the same thing.

However, I am looking forward to "Spy Hunter", and hope it does well.

Many had high hopes for one, Vin Diesel. But I've read several articles, and even saw a show on E! discussing Vin's position in Hollywood. And the generalization in Hollywood is that "Riddick" was not the summer blockbuster it was expected to be, and Vin Diesel's name isnt quite as marketable as it once was before ....

In short, I agree with the 'theory' that with SO many outlets such as ET, Access Hollywood, Inside Hollywood, ect, ect. That the "larger than life" aspect of a film star has died in many ways.
We as a society are bombarded with reports of many of the same stars every day. And like Damone mentioned eariler, it wont be long till boredom will eventually set in. This bombardment clearly wasnt the case in the 40's, and 50's Hollywood.

This along with amazing special effects, and the rise of the DVD industry (which is quickly, or has already become more profitable than the film industry), are reasons why I believe this generation will never have a TRUE Big Box Office Draw.

[sharkstank]

im gonna have to ask sum permission if i can use sum of this stuff, lol. good job guys

WWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[therealjohng]

Tom Cruise is the biggest movie star in the history of world.

[Ted Pikul]

Another factor not already mentioned is that today some film directors are stars in their own right.

Every Spielberg or Shyamalan film is guaranteed a big opening no matter who is starring.