is the talent of hollywood A listers hugely overrated

Cork boy 55

There nothing these people are doing that thousands of other lesser actors could do just as well .

There repeat employment is largely a function of marketing and celebrity culture , a film with known faces will do better than one with unknowns generally speaking ,

We hear usually when they die or during there lavish narcissism award party's of
There "body of work" and talent

As Charlton. Heston its a bizarre immature career , grown men pretended to be real people like children playing.

There careers and huge fees are just functions of advertising and marketing
Nothing to do with talent,

NachoBusiness

Hugely overrated on acting ability? For sure.

Hugely overrated at getting bums on seats? No.

Takes a lot of cash to produce a film and distribute it and having an A lister on board is pretty much the only thing that can come close to guaranteeing a return on investment and so who would risk their cash without one. For example, without Harvey Keitel on board for Reservoir Dogs, not a chance it would have been made. Well, at least not without Quentin getting replaced with a more high profile director and him being giving a cheque to naff off. Which is pretty much what happened with True Romance. He wanted to direct it and instead ending up taking the cash and used it to fund Dogs.

I can't see the system changing all that much but it is nice when a low budget flick comes along with no stars of great note, made by a director who hasn't had made a film of great success and yet it still manages to do amazingly well at the box office.

I'm struggling here to think of one tbh... maybe Juno (2007)?

Bowlardo

true romance was a great film...just for THAT scene

youreadthat

Related to this, I haven't seen Silver Linings Playbook, but I've seen a lot of Jennifer Lawrence's other films and it blows my mind that she has a best actress Oscar. I need to see this!

TiGeR KiNgS

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

There nothing these people are doing that thousands of other lesser actors could do just as well .

There repeat employment is largely a function of marketing and celebrity culture , a film with known faces will do better than one with unknowns generally speaking ,

We hear usually when they die or during there lavish narcissism award party's of
There "body of work" and talent

As Charlton. Heston its a bizarre immature career , grown men pretended to be real people like children playing.

There careers and huge fees are just functions of advertising and marketing
Nothing to do with talent,

Most A listers are A listers because they can sell a movie. Its just business, nothing shady or underhanded at all.

colossus-x

Acting in general is overrated. It's nowhere near as difficult as singing well for example , imo.

K.Flyer

You could say the same for footballers, they are paid extortionate and ridiculous amounts of money compared to the more important people in life.

bur

A lot depends on what kind of "favours" you are willing to do for the power players in Hollywood.

bur

K.Flyer wrote: »

You could say the same for footballers, they are paid extortionate and ridiculous amounts of money compared to the more important people in life.

But a league 2 player is never going to cut it in the PL, which is more to the point of the OP I think. With acting, having talent isn't essential to becoming really successful.

Actors and footballer deserve every penny as they are the ones generating the revenue that make people rich.

I should coco!

K.Flyer wrote: »

You could say the same for footballers, they are paid extortionate and ridiculous amounts of money compared to the more important people in life.

Cork Boy is not talking about 'the more important people in life'. And how do you define one's importance? And the pay scale to attribute to the verying degrees?

It's not like professional football at all.

I would agree that the talent of A-listers is overrated. I know there's an argument to say they can sell a movie and that is correct, but something a lot of lesser known actors could do if given the chance perhaps.


Selling a movie has a lot to do with others involved in the production also. Familiarity plays a large part too I think.

NachoBusiness

Actually, the useless Paranormal Activity did amazingly well at the box office for a film with an unknown cast.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Surely what makes A Listers great is the sort of un-quantifiable qualities they have.

For example Clint Eastwood plays virtually the same character in pretty much all of his films but it never gets boring and it's always enjoyable to watch and he just seems to have something about him.

I just can't picture someone other than Clint Eastwood doing as good a job as he does in all his films.

Harry Palmr

What is strange is that broadly the industry is now "post-star". If you look at the biggest films in a given year nearly all of them trade in spectacle and noise, the actors are largely disposable cyphers who react to the bangs and crashes orchestrated by directors and heads of special effects and yet the money the supposed A listers get is a quantum larger than their forebears who had to actually work the screen for 120 mins pretty much every time they made a film.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2015&p=.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2014&view=releasedate&view2=domestic&sort=gross&order=DESC&&p=.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013&view=releasedate&view2=domestic&sort=gross&order=DESC&&p=.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2012&view=releasedate&view2=domestic&sort=gross&order=DESC&&p=.htm

and so on! Spot the films that actually require acting and what they make.

Rubber_Soul

colossus-x wrote: »

Acting in general is overrated. It's nowhere near as difficult as singing well for example , imo.

Have you actually tried it?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

youreadthat wrote: »

Related to this, I haven't seen Silver Linings Playbook, but I've seen a lot of Jennifer Lawrence's other films and it blows my mind that she has a best actress Oscar. I need to see this!

Most people would probably tell you that she didn't really deserve the Oscar, or even a nomination, for that one, but she did deserve it for Winter's Bone a few years previously but lost out to Natalie Portman.

Winter's Bone and The Burning Plain are two early films of hers where she shows, I believe, she is a very talented young lady, but there's no question that it's her presence in things like The Hunger Games and XMen that make her a bankable star, regardless of the quality of those films.

Wedwood

You can consider virtually anything overrated if you want, film stars, singers, sports stars etc. Movie stars bring an element of their personalities to their roles, which is what makes you want to see them again.

When you look at movie remakes/sequels/reboots, most fade in comparison to the originals because they lack the original actors' performance that made the film what it was. Examples: Psycho, Superman, James Bond.

Strongbow10

Alot of movies nowadays are aimed specifically at the female audience. Channing Tatum could play a wild boar trapped in space and women will turn out en masse to have a look.

Some very untalented and bland actors out there at the minute, usually models masquerading as actors.

Jamie Dornan is one, although i'd imagine he will disappear quite sharpish.

Never understood how Mark Wahlberg gets so many roles, terrible actor in my opinion.

colossus-x

StarshipPooper wrote: »

Have you actually tried it?

Yes I'm actually quite good. Why?

Strongbow10

Strongbow10 wrote: »

Alot of movies nowadays are aimed specifically at the female audience. Channing Tatum could play a wild boar trapped in space and women will turn out en masse to have a look.

Some very untalented and bland actors out there at the minute, usually models masquerading as actors.

Jamie Dornan is one, although i'd imagine he will disappear quite sharpish.

Never understood how Mark Wahlberg gets so many roles, terrible actor in my opinion.

In fairness to Tatum, he's actually a pretty decent actor. He's definitely becoming one after Foxcatcher

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness to Tatum, he's actually a pretty decent actor. He's definitely becoming one after Foxcatcher

He's also very good in The Book of Life, although it is just his voice there, but still, it's a skill.

Keyzer

TiGeR KiNgS wrote: »

Most A listers are A listers because they can sell a movie. Its just business, nothing shady or underhanded at all.

Exactly the point... Its called the entertainment business for a reason.

Tatum is definitely one of the actors that is moving away from just looking like a super model. Also it's worth remembering that he got his first gig in step up because he's a talented dancer. It's rare to find an actor or actress who is good at both - I mean naturally talented. Zac Efron, who has been sadly quiet as of late, was the perfect example of this - an actor who was an all-round talented individual.

pickarooney

Nobody will ever convince me that Chris Pratt is the world's best actor.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

pickarooney wrote: »

Nobody will ever convince me that Chris Pratt is the world's best actor.

Has anyone said he is?

pickarooney

I think I saw somewhere last week that he was the highest paid actor in Hollywood.

I find that very dubious, unless he got a percentage of the box office sales from Jurassic World.

pickarooney

From here but I think I've misunderstood it. Does it means films he was in grossed more than any other (male) actor or his own salary?

And, thanks to Guardians of the Galaxy, Pratt became the second highest grossing actor of 2014 behind Lawrence.

Still, there can't be too many earning more than $12 million a film.

Mickeroo

pickarooney wrote: »

I think I saw somewhere last week that he was the highest paid actor in Hollywood.

That's for combined earnings not wages per film:

The American actor has an estimated net worth of $245 million. He owes his fortune to smart stock investments, substantial property holdings, lucrative endorsement deals with CoverGirl cosmetics. He also owns several restaurants (the “Fat Pratt Burger” chain) in Washington, a Football Team (the “Virginia Angels”), has launched his own brand of Vodka (Pure Wonderpratt - US), and is tackling the juniors market with a top-selling perfume (With Love from Chris) and a fashion line called “Chris Pratt Seduction”.

Source: http://en.mediamass.net/people/chris-pratt/highest-paid.html

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

He was the biggest male actor in terms of box office last year. That's in no way indicative of acting ability. Jennifer Lawrence was the biggest female at the box office. Their presence in franchise movies with massive built in audiences contribute massively to that. You could have cast any number of actors in Jurassic World and it would have done the same numbers.

None of that is implying anyone is the best actor or actress in the world. Don't confuse being a Movie Star with being a talented actor.

I think grossing means that it's based off of what the movie made, as opposed to what Chris Pratt made himself

I also can't imagine that Pratt would have been paid that much for either GotG or JW, well, not enough to make him the highest paid actor.

pickarooney

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

He was the biggest male actor in terms of box office last year. That's in no way indicative of acting ability. Jennifer Lawrence was the biggest female at the box office. Their presence in franchise movies with massive built in audiences contribute massively to that. You could have cast any number of actors in Jurassic World and it would have done the same numbers.

None of that is implying anyone is the best actor or actress in the world. Don't confuse being a Movie Star with being a talented actor.

That's the theme of the thread... the talent of A-listers is hugely overrated and lots of 'lesser' actors could do an equally good job.

Mickeroo

He's a really good comedy actor imo. Sure his JW role was pretty run of the mill but he brought a lot of charm to GotG and is brilliant in Parks and Recreation.

Don't think he's A-list though, he's only after making the step up from TV in the past year, A-list to me is folks like RDJ, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Will Smith, George Clooney, Jennifer Lawerence (fairly recent addition tbf), Christian Bale etc Thought the thread was more aimed at that kind of thing rather than someone like Pratt who's only just starting to make the step up from lesser roles.

Sad Professor

Strongbow10 wrote: »

Alot of movies nowadays are aimed specifically at the female audience. Channing Tatum could play a wild boar trapped in space and women will turn out en masse to have a look.

Some very untalented and bland actors out there at the minute, usually models masquerading as actors.

Jamie Dornan is one, although i'd imagine he will disappear quite sharpish.

Never understood how Mark Wahlberg gets so many roles, terrible actor in my opinion.

I think your assessment of Dornan is probably based solely on his role in Fifty Shades of Grey, which even he holds with considerable disdain. Check out The Fall for a better demonstration of his acting ability.

Dismissing an actor because of their current heartthrob status is a mistake. Take Leonardo DiCaprio for example. A far more interesting actor than Titanic would have made anyone believe. See also Robert Pattinson.

And re Wahlberg, there was a great piece on Grantland a while ago looking at his transformation from sex model to asexual movie star. I thought it was interesting as it seems to describe the path of many former male heartthrobs, who actively shy away from sexualised roles later in their career.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Sad Professor wrote: »

I think your assessment of Dornan is probably based solely on his role in Fifty Shades of Grey, which even he holds with considerable disdain. Check out The Fall for a better demonstration of his acting ability.

He didn't have an awful lot to do in The Fall to be fair. Series 2 particularly was just an awful lot of him staring quietly at things.

He's got a few roles off the back of it though so we'll be better positioned to judge when we see a bit more of him.

What I'd love to see Pratt go back to is physical comedy. That's what made his role in Andy so brilliant on P&R. He would literally throw his entire body into a performance. He's also got fantastic comedic timing and extremely witty - some of his improvised lines on P&R were among the funniest.

pickarooney

Mickeroo wrote: »

He's a really good comedy actor imo. Sure his JW role was pretty run of the mill but he brought a lot of charm to GotG and is brilliant in Parks and Recreation.

Don't think he's A-list though, he's only after making the step up from TV in the past year, A-list to me is folks like RDJ, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Will Smith, George Clooney, Jennifer Lawerence (fairly recent addition tbf), Christian Bale etc Thought the thread was more aimed at that kind of thing rather than someone like Pratt who's only just starting to make the step up from lesser roles.

Will Smith? When was he last in a good or successful film? Even Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise have been a long time out of the sun.

pickarooney

Sad Professor wrote: »

I think your assessment of Dornan is probably based solely on his role in Fifty Shades of Grey, which even he holds with considerable disdain. Check out The Fall for a better demonstration of his acting ability.

Dismissing an actor because of their current heartthrob status is a mistake. Take Leonardo DiCaprio for example. A far more interesting actor than Titanic would have made anyone believe. See also Robert Pattinson.

And re Wahlberg, there was a great piece on Grantland a while ago looking at his transformation from sex model to asexual movie star. I thought it was interesting as it seems to describe the path of many former male heartthrobs, who actively shy away from sexualised roles later in their career.

Does anyone really hold Titanic against Di Caprio? That would be idiotic. Nobody hold it against Winslet.

LDC is a genuinely fine actor. I don't know many who would dispute that.

Ardent

colossus-x wrote: »

Acting in general is overrated. It's nowhere near as difficult as singing well for example , imo.

Have you ever watched an episode of Fair City?

Got to agree that Smith's career is seemingly gone into a slump. Feels like he's not even the lead in Suicide Squad.

Sad Professor

pickarooney wrote: »

Does anyone really hold Titanic against Di Caprio? That would be idiotic. Nobody hold it against Winslet.

To be clear, I’m referring to the sex symbol status he attained as a result of the film. People don’t hold it against him anymore, but they certainly did at the time (despite the quality of his earlier work) and for a long time after. I still come across people who have never seen The Beach because they think it was aimed at the post-Titanic teenybopper crowd.

Winslet was never a sex symbol in the way he was. Maybe earlier in her career, but not for Titanic, where (bizarrely) she was accused of being overweight.

Mickeroo

pickarooney wrote: »

Will Smith? When was he last in a good or successful film? Even Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise have been a long time out of the sun.

They're still 3 of the most bankable stars in the business, Cruise in particular. Smith and Pitt have been relatively quiet of late alright.

Sad Professor

Whatever about Smith, but Pitt has kept a fairly consistent pace. Fury last year, Counsellor/12 Years the year before, WWZ before that.

Cruise seems to be going through a mid-life action hero crisis. Which if Liam Neeson is anything to go by, may go on for some time yet before he gets back to serious roles. Although the death of mid-budget studio films has probably been a factor in this as well.

don ramo

chriss pratt is worth 20 million dollars

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/chris-pratt-net-worth/

ryan gosling is worth 30 million, joseph gordon levitt is worth 35 million, leonardo dicaprio is worth 235 million, robert downey jr is worth 180 million, merly streep is worth 65 million, jennifer lawrence is worth 60 million,

bar meryl streep im not surprised at any of them, johnny depp (whos worth 400 million) got 120 million to do the last pirates of the carribean film, which is insane, robert downey jr got 50 million for the first avengers film, literally 10 times more than each of the rest of the cast, and being honest the iron man films are the weakest of the franchise bar the first one, which launched the whole thing,

heres the 2014 top earning actors for the year,

1. Robert Downey Jr. – $75 million
2. Dwayne Johnson – $52 million
3. Bradley Cooper – $46 million
4. Leonardo DiCaprio – $39 million
5. Chris Hemsworth – $37 million
6. Liam Neeson – $36 million
7. Ben Affleck – $35 million
8. Christian Bale – $35 million
9. Will Smith – $32 million
10. Mark Wahlberg – $32 million

looks normal, but its not in any way relevant to acting ability, its related to the product these people have spent years building, all instant names, you see them on a cover and your already sold, every single one of them has produced a **** film, multiple **** films even,

will smith hasnt made a worthwhile film since probably 2008s seven pounds, liam neeson is gone completely off the boil, the quality of his films are just all over the place, and robert downey jr is just sitting on a cash cow, it actually doesnt matter what he does now, those marvel cheques will just keep rolling in,

but all of them are A listers, not cause their good actors, cause they deliver on their product, id rather back the rock to deliver than i would the undertaker, and 10 times outta 10 ill come out better off by picking the rock, even if he delivers muck, ill probably still make money, and that qualifies him to be an A lister, just like the rest of them,

a list just refers to bankability now, no more no less, acting doesnt even enter the equation,

Rubber_Soul

colossus-x wrote: »

Yes I'm actually quite good. Why?

I don't believe you.

colossus-x

Ardent wrote: »

Have you ever watched an episode of Fair City?

Yes the acting is crap. That don't prove acing is difficult that just proves the actors In Fair city are crap. Had the dubious please of watching an episode of it just last week and to be fair to the actors the scirpt was dire.

Pitt is still pretty bankable. How many bad movies has he been in in the past few years? I mean almost universally accepted as bad.

Smith, however, hasn't been performing well.

bnt

Is Sandra Bullock overrated? She strikes me as someone who usually plays to her strengths. When she steps out of her comfort zone, the results tend to be excellent e.g. Crash, The Blind Side, Gravity ... Minions. :pac:

Wedwood

pickarooney wrote: »

Will Smith? When was he last in a good or successful film? Even Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise have been a long time out of the sun.

Brad Pitt's movies are awful. Half an hour into Fury I reckoned he must be one of the producers, up come the end credits and yes, another self promoting turd produced by Pitt.

Will Smith seems to have lost his way, reverting to past glories with another Bad Boys sequel, surprised he didn't sign up for Independence Day 2.

Tom Cruise has done a good job recovering his movie star status after the Scientology nonsense. Edge of Tomorrow is fairly good and the Mission Impossible movies have eked out his own alternate James Bond franchise.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Wedwood wrote: »

Brad Pitt's movies are awful. Half an hour into Fury I reckoned he must be one of the producers, up come the end credits and yes, another self promoting turd produced by Pitt.

Will Smith seems to have lost his way, reverting to past glories with another Bad Boys sequel, surprised he didn't sign up for Independence Day 2.

Tom Cruise has done a good job recovering his movie star status after the Scientology nonsense. Edge of Tomorrow is fairly good and the Mission Impossible movies have eked out his own alternate James Bond franchise.

Really?

he's been in buckets loads of rally good films and has has some great performances through the years. Fury is a brilliant film in my opinion and he's excellent in it.

Nervous Wreck

Wedwood wrote: »

Brad Pitt's movies are awful. Half an hour into Fury I reckoned he must be one of the producers, up come the end credits and yes, another self promoting turd produced by Pitt.

In fairness, it's more likely that he produced the movie because he was in it, not the other way around.

Pitt is a fantastic actor with a long list of great films under his belt. He's been in some not so great stuff too but that's the way of it.

Tea 1000

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

In fairness, it's more likely that he produced the movie because he was in it, not the other way around.

Pitt is a fantastic actor with a long list of great films under his belt. He's been in some not so great stuff too but that's the way of it.

I think he's terrible.