Take a look at the top five grossing films of the year.
1. AVATAR
2. TRANSFORMERS 2
3. HARRY POTTER
4. TWILIGHT: NEW MOON
5. UP
Did you happen to notice there isn’t a ‘Marquee’ name amongst them? Sure people are familiar with the name Daniel Radcliff, and Robert Pattison. Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner are famous, but none are ‘Movie Stars’. The appeal of most of 2009’s biggest hits were the films themselves. Whether it was the CGI spectacle of ‘Transformers 2’ , the 3D worlds of ‘AVATAR’, the love triangle in ‘New Moon’, or the ridiculous comedic situations in ‘The Hangover’. Audiences went to films in record numbers during 2009 spending over $10 billion in domestic ticket sales, aided by the highest grossing film of all time (in unadjusted numbers) for ‘AVATAR’.
To be fair many top stars had either no films slated for release or films that were pushed back to 2010. Top draws such as Will Smith, Tom Cruise, and Leonardo Dicaprio were absent from screens last year. Brad Pitt had a nice hit with ‘INGLORIOUS BASTERDS’, but that has to do more with Tarantino’s fan base than Pitt’s star power. Johnny Depp and Vince Vaughn had solid hits in ‘PUBLIC ENEMIES’ and ‘COUPLES RETREAT’, respectively. But Tom Hanks stumbled with ‘ANGLES & DEMONS’, which grossed half of its predecessor’s 2006 ‘DA’ VINCI CODE’. Bruce Willis crashed with the expensive flop ‘SURROGATES’ and Adam Sandler’s ‘FUNNY PEOPLE’ barely cracked the $50 million mark.
-OUT WITH THE OLD?-
Maybe audiences are growing tired of aging actors. Young up and comers navigated a number of films to box office riches. Channing Tatum helped ‘G.I. JOE’ open to $54 million and a worldwide gross of $300 million. Shia LaBeouf’s sizeable fan base and Megan Fox’s sex appeal propelled ‘Transformers 2’ to over $400 million domestically and into the top ten grossing films of all time. The biggest opening weekend of 2009 goes to ‘New Moon’. A media frenzy detailing Pattison and Stewart’s relationship and Lautner’s abs sold many magazines which in turn generated an amazing amount of interest in the modestly budgeted film. It’s easy to forget because of ‘AVATAR’s phenomenal box office run, that ‘New Moon’ still holds the record for largest single day in the history of box office tracking at $73 million. That’s nearly what ‘AVATAR’ made in its entire opening weekend! It’s no wonder Paramount has signed Lautner to a multi-picture deal. Reportedly to star alongside Tom Cruise in a quasi sequel to ‘TOP GUN’ currently titled ‘Northern Lights’. Further down the ladder is Zac Effron who delivered solid business for ’17 AGAIN’ doing over $60 million domestically. Which is especially impressive considering that film wasn’t an event picture or sequel released during the summer or holiday season. Rather a ‘BIG’-type knock off released in the typically barren spring season. I saw girls taking pictures next to the poster on separate occasions last March; this kid is going to be around for awhile.
-WOMAN’S WORLD-
Several actresses scored major hits in 2009. Among them was Katherine Heigl who expanded on her ’27 Dresses’ success by scoring with ‘The Ugly Truth’, which grossed nearly $90 million domestically. Meryl Streep also continued her hot streak, with two films ‘Julia & Julia’ and ‘It’s Complicated’ grossing over $110 million domestically apiece. But no other star burned brighter in 2009 than Sandra Bullock. After a few years absence, she returned to the screen and audiences welcomed her back in droves. First pushing last summer’s ‘The Proposal’ to over $160 million domestically, ranking it as the highest grossing romantic comedy of all time. Then there was ‘The Blindside’ which astonished analysts by grossing close to $250 million in the U.S. alone, ranking it as the bestselling sports film of all time.
-COME BACK-
Will the stars shine at the box office again? With new releases from Tom Cruise, Leonardo Dicaprio, Russell Crowe, Adam Sandler, and Robert Downey Jr., it will be interesting to see how well they rebound in 2010. The numbers never lie.
there r a number of contradicting errors w/your post which i feel i must point out to u so that u know all the facts on the matter…
first off, every era has its movie stars…from the silent era til today, the moviegoing public has always wanted someone to idolize and have found it on the larger than life figures on the screen…in particular, in times of strife and uncertainty…the american citizen most commonly looks to the image of the screen idol as a hero and savior that they can rely on?? there might be a surplus of star-less films, but that doesn’t mean that the stars themselves have lost thier shine…
secondly, out with the old?? u mention that ppl would rather see new talent than established ones, yet u credit streep w/having two solid hits in the same year as if the two subjects r totally unrelated…why did u also not include how harrison ford still drew in a more than willing audience for the last indiana jones installment or how jodie foster still has enough star power to have a movie open at no. 1 (i.e. panic room, flight plan, the brave one) and even when it doesn’t its still a hit (nim’s island- $100 million)!! also, did it ever make u think that the success of transformers 2 has almost nothing to do w/its actors and more with the actual franchise on the screen, whose popularity was well established before lebouf and fox came along?? if it doesn’t then just look at the financial failure of fox’s first solo vehicle jennifer’s body for proof…
thirdly, have u ever seen those old irwin allen disaster epics?? u remember how he littered them w/stars?? well he did that cuz he believed that audiences liked familiarity…and he was right…ppl like to see their favoirtes when they go to the movies…ppl believe in the stars they’ve chosen to idolize and will continue to do so…
and finally, sandra bullock did not take five years off between movies…her last movie before the proposal was premonition which came out in the spring of 2007 and itself found success at the box office…
I do believe the original 1969 “The Football Follies” is or at least was “the most popular sports film ever made” according to its VHS box blurb, but that was just a syndicated TV half hour.
It’s a little hastey to be declaring “the movie star is dead.”
Movies are not about the stars that play the characters. Movies are about the characters and how they interact within a plot. Ocean’s 11 = great. Ocean’s 12 with Bruce playing his pseudo-self and Robert’s playing a character who looks like herself…. That is the death of movies and movie stars (Producer fault).
Avatar is filled with cliched roles, but they revolve around the Moon. Pandora is the main character, the humans are a virus and the Navi are the immune system… It’s the Incredible Journey. Harry Potter and Up are about the lessons learned from growing up and traveling, not the actors who played them
The characters and plots of the movies listed are bigger than the actors.. And that is how a good movie is made. Even though Twilight is very bad in a lot technical aspects, the total package is enough to immerse the tweenie-girls. Transformers1&2 are about the robots not the people. That was Bay’s intent. Really, who does care about Megan Fox beyond the superficial? Now who cares about seeing a Mac-truck transform into a father-figure?
For every “epic” movie we’ve had, the best have been big names in small roles or supporting roles with no names or newcomers in lead-roles.
Too easy is it also to claim a movie-star is dead because they just rode the “name sells movie but movie is bad”-wave till people got tired of the same thing over and over… Why is classic-Rock still so good while modern music is so forgettable? Because bands used to released albums every 5 years with almost all good material instead of every 6 months with only a couple good songs. The classic-band wrote just as many crappy songs between albums as modern bands do, the difference is, they didn’t try to sell them until they were happy with them or not at all.
Of the 150 released MJ songs, he wrote another 500. Would he be as “great” if he had released all 500?
So after all the food for thought…. How does a 1 year hiatus from the “norm” in an 89 year run constitute the death of it? How does that even show a trend? You’d need about 3 years of repeated results to even claim a trend without exaggerating the point (unless you’re FOXNews).
This is not the first article to explore this issue in the past year or two as the blockbusters have not all have marquee names. I disagree with the author’s suggestion that this represents a shift away from “movie stars”. Rather I believe we are in a transitional period between groups of major stars that dominate the headlines. As the existing “movie stars” (Hanks, Willis, Smith, Roberts, etc) age, they have chosen movies that aren’t the summer “tentpoles” (typically the flashier, action movies that either soar or crash and burn). Their careers don’t require those risks and they can be more selective. It is, for example, smart for Bruce Willis not to agree to a “Die Hard 5”, since it becomes increasingly less believeable. He’s also ‘been there/done that’. On the other hand, his decision to co-star in the upcoming cop-buddy, comedy with Tracy Morgan seems poised to be ill-fated. On the other hand, Stallone seems to be enjoying a re-emergence with the relative success of his last Rocky and Rambo efforts. “The Expendables” may just prove that an aging action hero (or group of aging action hereos) can still bring large audiences.
The new crop of “stars”, those that have emerged from the recent successful movies, will now go through a culling process based on the choices the actors make. Some will make smart choices and become the next generation of movie stars. Others will fade into the background based on poor role selection (and, often, some bad luck).
We are in a period similar to the late 70’s and early 80’s, just as the current group of now-aging stars (Cruise, Harrison Ford, Willis, Stallone) were emerging, with only a big hit or two to their names and the movie stars of the 50s and 60s were quietly shifting to the background.
So, the “movie star” is not ending. We are just witnessing a period of transition.
“But Tom Hanks stumbled with ‘ANGLES & DEMONS’, which grossed half of its predecessor’s 2006 ‘DA’ VINCI CODE’.”
According to http://www.boxofficemojo.com/:
THE DA VINCI CODE= Worldwide: $758,239,851
ANGELS & DEMONS = Worldwide: $485,930,816
Hmm…, as far as I can calculate, this is not exactly “half” and by no means a bad box office gross.
Adolph Zukor must be spinning in his grave….
Movie stars are not dead. The top 5 is misleading. Notably Harry Potter, a franchise. It also includes two major sequels appealing to particular audiences. However I liked the mention of Hangover in there. This likely cost less than the advertising budget of AVATAR. Advertising and/or “media frenzies” definetely helped the top 4. Angels and demons is a nice comparison as a sequel in this commentary, however is a movie star only defined by box office appeal. Also the movie and the star often unite in defining roles eg “pirates”
The emergence of a new generation of movie stars may well be happening. LeBeouf, Worthington are contenders. Age is an ingredient Depp, Pitt and Cruise are all over 45. They cannot play the young leading man. Your own thunder is injured when you mention Streep (a movie star and “old”) and Bullock who could have been in the same class as the Deppster. Having said that “the hangover””district 9” and “up” show something missing from many movies-originality. I think there are three final aspects that support the view above (not close to RIP stage), one is I think salaries will drop and there will be less “movie stars” as appeal does seem to be dropping, second, those that are left better be prepared for change over the next ten years, sound and vision is in a revolution. Last but not least is an increasing discerning audience (over 25)that demand much more than 30 years ago.
The movie stars are still here and they have honed their craft. The newbies need to show they can act and create a body of work. This will be, as shown above, more difficult than ever. Good luck to the new generation.
It’s an all-time thing. Look at the top 50 word wide most money making films and you’ll find out only 15 of them involve top grossing moviestars. The real moviestar power goes to work when they get attached to a relative smal film. Thos films get a money boost because the involvement a a big name. But the real big money makers are the ‘concept-movies’ like star wars or Harry Potter.
“Movie Stars” died a long time ago. Tom Hanks, Bruce Willis, and The Fresh Prince-guy are sit-com stars; Leo De Caprio is a baby-faced head that some p.r. mavens have been foisting on the world. If you want to know what a movie star is, here are some names: Humphrey Bogart. Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson, and Lee Marvin. Elliott Gould, Donald Sutherland, and George Segal. Gone are the days of masculinity. It’s a new world — with blue people in it!
you failed to mention Taken starring a real movie star and superb actor,Liam Neeson-and a sleeper blockbuster.
Who is tired of aging actors?..i am tired of these no bodies becoming a big deal-efron,chris pine,the twilight freaks and that channing tatum-gay ass sounding name if there ever was one.
sam worthington is being shoved down our throats same as vin diesel was..hopefully he will be as a flash in the pan as the bald one proved to be