The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Is Hollywood killing the A-List?

gsdx

gsdx

Festina lente
JUB Supporter
50K Posts
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Posts
57,249
Reaction score
1,622
Points
113
Location
Peterborough Ontario
Since moving pictures were invented, there has been an 'A-List' of actors which could virtually guarantee a profit at the box office, even if the movie was ho-hum.

Even recently the A-List has still be thriving in Hollywood. Throw Harrison Ford in a movie and you had a box office hit. Or Tom Cruise. Or Tom Hanks.

The list goes on.

These days, though, the movies have been so horribly bad that even the starring actors can't salvage them and they become career busters rather than career boosters for the stars.

A few actors come to mind: Will Farrell, Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, Eddie Murphy. . .

There are still a few actors out there who can pull in the audiences and the money mainly because they are more selective in the movies they decide to make and give performances worthy of the price of your ticket.

For the most part, though, do you think the Hollywood A-List is becoming extinct?
 
The title of this thread makes me think : why do people talk about "Hollywood" as if its a person?
 
"hollywood" isn't killing anything. the concept of the a-list star is simply changing. the idea that someone could command a good up front fee plus first dollar gross and continually do that for years and years is pretty much gone.

instead, the concept of "celebrity" is following in the tracks of the japanese model. people soar to amazing heights only to be replaced VERY quickly by the newer, fresher face.

that's why jim carrey can't open a movie anymore, but producers are tripping over their own feet clamoring to give taylor lautner a title role.

"hollywood" is always evolving.
 
I think the public, or the fans, are killing the A-List.

An A-list actor used to star in a couple movies a year. Do the "red carpet" deal for the premieres, and maybe do the rounds of TV shows and magazines when the movie first came out.

This isn't sufficient anymore.

It seems the public isn't doing that much anymore. They're not content with seeing celebrities on the big screen twice a year, and maybe a few times on TV or magazines. They want more access. They want to follow them on Twitter and Facebook, and get involved in their glamorous celebrity lifestyle. And if the celebrity either isn't interested in playing that game, or doesn't have much of a "celebrity life" (@celebri-T stayed home, did laundry), then the public will move on to somebody they CAN follow. Somebody who IS willing to be a 24-hour celebrity.

...at least, that helps explain why a million more people watched the Kardashian wedding than watched the Mad Men season finale.

Lex
 
Hitchcock was right: actors in general are overrated.
 
I think part of being on the A-list is picking good scripts and only attaching yourself to movies where you know a quality film is going to be made.

I still consider Jim Carrey A-list. I think "A Christmas Carol" was #1 at the box office. He got paid $20 million per character in that movie, from what he said on Chelsea Lately.

Eddie and Adam are hit and miss. Their reputation is iffy because they sometimes make crap, but other times do good work. Will Farrell sabotaged his career by making a lot of dumb movies in a row that were too similar.
 
Travisevian said:
Becoming? It's been so for decades now!
Click to expand...

i dunno about that. the days of the $20 million club aren't that far behind us. cruise, schwarzenegger, travolta, smith, pitt, stallone, kurt russel - their heyday wasn't that terribly long ago.

out of that group tho, i'll bet will smith is the only one who can command up front fee plus a percentage of first dollar gross now.

tom cruise can't get a movie made to save his fucking life and he runs united artists. lol
 
Phillyurban8 said:
Nicole Kidman doesn't know how to choose good movie scripts, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Disagree. People know her from Eyes Wide Shut and Bewitched or whatever but otherwise she'd do things in independent/foreign movies that no one else would dare. And I guess that's the problem too. Nicole, Naomi and Kate would rather do indies than large blockbusters like Julia Roberts did.

And except for Brad Pitt and Will Smith, it's all about franchises, animations and book and comic book adaptations. Especially for the latter, they wouldn't want a star with a known look/style of acting in the movie and instead want some unknown who fits the role like a glove. All stars do nowadays is green light projects that aren't franchises or work with their favourite directors.
 
kidman can pick scripts - but she's used to much fucking botox to be able to pull off a good performance anymore.
 
^ And look at District 9. Produced for $30,000,000 and earned $37,000,000 on its opening weekend. Overall, it has earned well-over $100,000,000 at the box office. (And it has 90% on the Tomatometer.)

What did Carrey's Christmas Carol cost? $179,000,000? (Half of which appears to have gone to Carrey.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top