Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If moviegoers come out especially for a particular actor, this doesn't bode well. But studios seem to often make the young male leads nondescript and interchangeable these days.
The Boy King: Chalamet could be our next great leading man — if he can figure out what kind he wants to be
Back in February, National Research Group conducted a survey about the actors people would come out to see in theaters, and the only performer under the age of 40 who ranked in the top 20 was the then-39-year-old Chris Hemsworth. Chalamet was way down at No. 94, a rank that feels less important than the fact that he was one of only four actors on the list under the age of 30. Hollywood has shown so little interest in cultivating movie stars that actors have taken the task up themselves. https://www.vulture.com/article/timo...ading-man.html
Technology has killed the notion of a "great" leading man or woman for the most part.
There are so many more TV dramas today than there were in 1994 or even 2004, which means more jobs for writers, which means that many of the best writers spend more time writing for TV than they do for movies. A series like GAME OF THRONES might employ scores of writers and guarantees them a consistent paycheck for 7-8 years. A movie is a one and done kind of deal. Not as attractive. So the lack of quality writing is one impediment to a young actors/actress aspiring to become the next Brando or Streep.
So streaming is where it's at now, and you're more likely to chit chat with co-workers or even perfect strangers about Julie Garner's performance in OZARK than about DUNE 2 or OPPENHEIMER. And the thing about streaming is that these shows don't need big names to be successful. So yeah, I think you're right that leads are more interchangeable because people care much more about content today over name recognition, and every year we see new actors/actresses hit the scene that are pretty damned good.
Hollywood is flooded with quality young talent. You just see them in Netflix/Hulu series rather than on the big screen. They'll never be as big as stars from the 50s simply because it is so much harder to stand out with so much content.
I know I am old. But "great actor" and "leading man" are not the same thing.
Timothy Chalamat is a great actor. His performance is fantastic in everything I have ever seen him in.
But a leading man? Is this what the movies have come to? Is Chalamet really successor to Clint Eastwood, Steve McQueen, Tom Cruise, George Clooney, Ed Harris, Russell Crowe, Harrison Ford, Denzel Washington, Pacino, Brando, DeNiro, Samuel L. Jackson?
I know I am old. But "great actor" and "leading man" are not the same thing.
Timothy Chalamat is a great actor. His performance is fantastic in everything I have ever seen him in.
But a leading man? Is this what the movies have come to? Is Chalamet really successor to Clint Eastwood, Steve McQueen, Tom Cruise, George Clooney, Ed Harris, Russell Crowe, Harrison Ford, Denzel Washington, Pacino, Brando, DeNiro, Samuel L. Jackson?
Maybe. Perhaps he will break the mold and we'll see a new type of "leading man" emerge that departs from traditional notions of masculinity.
Hollywood is flooded with quality young talent. You just see them in Netflix/Hulu series rather than on the big screen. They'll never be as big as stars from the 50s simply because it is so much harder to stand out with so much content.
Well, this sounds like a bright future rather than a dim one. More content = more roles = more jobs.
Hollywood is flooded with quality young talent. You just see them in Netflix/Hulu series rather than on the big screen. They'll never be as big as stars from the 50s simply because it is so much harder to stand out with so much content.
That's not a bad thing for young actors, and I disagree with the thread premise.
I don't think there will be any fewer "big stars." There will just as many "big stars" even if we old-timers don't think they're as great as the stars of our own youth.
But for sure, there is more content being created than ever before, so for actors in general there is much more opportunity to pay the bills by acting than waiting tables. That's not a "dim future."
On the other hand...AI, which was an issue during the SAG strike.
In the near future AI will see it to that actors and actresses will no longer be necessary on the payroll.
In particular, the extras...which is what the preponderance of actors are, and entry jobs for beginning actors.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is this what the movies have come to? Is Chalamet really successor to Clint Eastwood, Steve McQueen, Tom Cruise, George Clooney, Ed Harris, Russell Crowe, Harrison Ford, Denzel Washington, Pacino, Brando, DeNiro, Samuel L. Jackson?
