Interesting Article on Stars and Superheroes Roles

[hedrap]

About 15 years ago, I made his main point in a pitch to investors over trends. They didn't see it because everyone was still in awe of Titanic...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/movies/in-x-men-apocalypse-and-captain-america-superheroes-versus-movie-stars.html

[PNGwynne]

It's an interesting article, but IMO he's spinning his opinion pretty hard.

If you've watched as many movies as I have--particularly old films from the factory-studio system, the realization is that his position is not at all new. Stars have never been synonymous with actors. Other media, whether print, radio, or TV, has often shaped film. It's synergistic and admittedly that doesn't always result in "art."

It's obvious---and a bit of a low-blow in a way--to belittle actors for working within the limited palette of superhero comics and films when the entire genre is quite contrived--so contrived that when you try to fiddle with it the way DC/Warner does, it collapses. He should mention the quality of writing in some of these films. He also doesn't mention, for example, what an actor like Paul Rudd brings to these films. But, is Rudd a "star? "

I chuckled at his assertion of Cruise as a star, who has been phoning it in for decades.

I think it's unavoidable that a superhero film will constrain an actor in a certain way. But performances--Connery, Reeve, Jackman, Evans--can elevate the material. The article ends by discussing non-hero performances and he seems to feel it's all eroded. But that was said at the intro of sound, of television, and now of the internet, too.

[hedrap]

You're right in a larger historical context, but his time frame is based on the corporate studio model where the stars dictated the projects.

Marvel is locking in talent before they become marquee names in their own right and that's distorted the 40-year norm. So in their own way, Marvel is going back to the contract player age.

He does unravel at the end. Like most pieces, it could have been a few paragraphs shorter.

What he misses, and a lot of critics do, is the real watershed moment of Clooney/Batman v Snipes/Blade. Clooney is classic studio moviemaking where they're box-checking based on marketing, while Snipes is a case of the right star integrating into the right project.

[PNGwynne]

Thanks for the clarification regarding actor-driven production, which really revved up in the '60s.

Good point contrasting Clooney and Snipes' vehicles, I wouldn't have thought of that in those terms.