He's not a prestige actor, but I think he knows that. He's earnest, funny, and ridiculously handsome. You don't have to chase Oscars to be a movie star.
Indeed, movie stars chase box office by bringing the same persona to each project (Wahlberg, Reynolds, Dwayne, JLo, Keanu, Clooney, Gadot, Schwarzenegger, Redford) and actors chase awards by creating new characters for each project (Bale, Viggo, Cillian, Phoenix, Oldman, Day-Lewis, Rapace, Comer, Riseborough), different professions with opposite goals from each other. I think Hemsworth is happy being a movie star, even if he's not able to open non-IP movies to massive opening weekends like a traditional movie star could, he at least understands that and is therefore smartly sticking to reliable IPs like Thor, Mad Max, Men in Black and Extraction for Netflix.
I feel that he had a turning point when learning about of the genetic potential of developing dementia in old age. He seems much more driven by enjoying the projects he works in, while having a lot of time to spend with his family. I respect that a lot, really.
yeah! I think he's comfortable in his position as a non-prestige actor, knowing that he can take fun projects if he wants to. I really respect and like how family-centered he seems to be; that's rare in Hollywood nowadays and I like that he's a role model of sorts in that respect. I do wish he could do more unique movies; I really liked him in Rush for example
7:30 what helps DiCaprio is that he frequently collaborates with Martin Scorcese and Quentin Tarantino, whose projects are so massive and hyped up that they're essentially franchises unto themselves.
I was gonna say! 😂 when Leo needs a fall back movie he knows will make bank, he calls Marty and we get The Wolf of Wall Street, or Killers of the Flower Moon. Don’t even get me started on Calvin Candie.
Sure it helps but he also had a lot of success in movies without those directors so still miles ahead of Chris H though your point that it helps is also valid.
A reason those top directors want to work with Leo is exactly the point of the video. And he has hits (some HUGE) outside of movies without Scorsese & Tarintino like: - The Revenant, The Great Gatsby, Inception, Revolutionary Road, Body of Lies, Catch Me If You Can, Titanic.
@@Homer-OJ-Simpson I agree but he's also not the massive box office draw he used to be anymore. You can say the same about almost every star of the past
@@TinyLordCthulhu i struggled between the two. He’s a high demand actor, gets leading/starring roles, can demand a high salary, has celebrity status… I’d say he would be on a studio’s A-list for first choice actors for any given project. But I also think he’s probably just a notch above B-list territory these days.
Agreed but that whole next generation of Hemsworth, Cavill, McAvoy, Pine, Cooper, Reynolds, Larson, B Jordan, Gadot, Driver, Lawrence, Renner, Gosling..etc sadly never became as big as the previous generation of Dicaprio, Cruise, Pitt, Denzel, Costner, Gibson, Willis, Clooney, Roberts, Jolie, Stallone, Crowe, Bullock, Smith, Hanks, Schwarzenegger..etc who were on another level and paid 20 million per movie because they could open a non-IP movie to a massive opening weekend to justify that level of payday. However, in defense of the newer generation, it's difficult to carve a career as a movie star (especially if Leo's advice for success to you is "no superhero movies") when studios are willing to only greenlight IP projects. The previous generation became so huge thanks to movies like Rocky, Gladiator, Speed, Forest Gump, From Dusk Until Dawn, Independence Day, Lethal Weapon, Terminator, Pretty Woman and Die Hard, whereas no-one is going to become a huge star by playing only Superman or Spiderman or Mr Fantastic as their 1st introduction to audiences, they'll just be seen as the next someone to play that already super-famous character. When I think of Hemsworth or Cavill my 1st thought just goes to Thor and Superman but when I think of Denzel or Dicaprio my 1st thought goes to a variety of Man on Fire / Training Day / Courage Under Fire and Titanic / The Beach / Shutter Island..etc.
Very good point! In fact, I would put TOM HOLLAND in that first list because besides that SPIDER-MAN frranchise.... What else does that kid has? - James D Watkins artistic director of Phoenix Productions.@@thetalentof
Yeah well thats thanks to audiences too, they’re not gonna change their game when general audiences eat up big IP movies far more enthusiastically than anything original. IP makes 10x the money any original film does, regardless of the stars attached, thats still true, and so why the fuck do movie fans its gonna magically change for ‘artistic’ merit. Studios want to make profit and no one buys tickets to original films anymore, most every day people aren’t willing to take the risk on an original film they don’t know anything about, people are too busy with content-consumption elsewhere. Its only on TV where original stuff is actually quite profitable.
But that standard applies to Chris. There's almost no chance I'd watch another transformers movie. But if it had Chris? I'd watch that. I only watched Extraction because Chris was in it. Same with the Red Dawn remake. So if the only remaining aspect of a movie star is risk taking like Capnmidnight claims, than neither is the Rock, or Kevin Hart. And try telling them they aren't movie stars...
@@jadinhanson1 The general appeal of Transformers is the concept itself. When the casting was revealed I remember many freaking out about the choices feeling phoned in. I was happily surprised to learn later that Chris Hemsworth took the role resiously and respected Peter Cullen's take on Optimus Prime. So for that example specifically, I don't think many share your feelings on the matter. Including me to be honest. Allthough I'm happy he took the role seriously and seems to have done a good job.
@@jadinhanson1 Yeah but he shouldn't be in the next live action film because WHY ARE YOU DOING GI X TRANSFORMERS FOR THE THIRD FILM? Like they could've done a shockwave story, or Wreckers, or bring in a combiner but why GI Joe this early??
I think if the Extraction movies were shown in theaters instead of just Netflix, we’d think of those movies alongside or just after Thor when we think of Chris’ roles and performances.
Netflix should release projects with big names in theaters, a 3 week window before both theaters & Netflix. Some of there projects could grab people who don't have or cancelled their Netflix accounts.
I know type casting is a real issue for actors and actresses,but man will Chris just always be Thor to me no matter what,but good for him for finding the infinite money glitch
IDK I think the role in Furiosa was a step in the good direction, I wouldn't have known it's him if I hadn't read it. It's reminds me of how bombshell actresses sometimes have to play an "ugly" character to get out of the bombshell typecasting to get to play more serious roles.
See I knew him from rush before I watched the MCU, as James Hunt Incredible movie if you haven’t watched it, great acting as someone who’s seen a decent amount of video of the real James hunt
i think this video is a great film-based look at how the concept of celebrity at large has shifted in the internet days, the same patterns exist within the music industry and the fashion industry and so on. banger video as always cap'n
Honestly I'd say yes. I loved him as Dementus in Furiosa. Even most of his work as Thor is a performance that still holds up today as long as we don't talk about Love and Thunder.
TBH the answer is actually "yes", the issue is the ones that get greenlit have budgets so small that they would never attract a celebrity level actor to begin with. Even if a Hemsworth type star wanted to work on some under the radar artsy director's $70k direct-to-Prime passion project, his entire management team would throw him into traffic before letting him star in something that didn't have at least 90 million dollars worth of CGI explosions in it.
afaik a lot of actors now setup their own production companies exactly to make "one for me" movies. I believe Margo Robbie has one, and it is a big reason that I, Tonya made it to theaters, Tom Holland has one, it produced The Crowded Room miniseries. I'm sure there are much more of those, they are just a bit lowkey.
A24 and Blumhouse are filling that void but only with about 5% of the budget of what original non-IP films used to have 25 years ago from Fox, Paramount, Universal and WarnerBros when Hanks, Gibson, Costner, Willis, Cruise, Smith, Denzel, Crowe, Ford, Dicaprio, Cage were getting 20 million per movie.
to be fair most actors today arent true draws anymore. its mainly about the ip or director now not really the actors. and im not sure if its better that way or not but i think its just the way the times have changed but i will say Chris is still someone id say is more relevant and a bigger deal than many actors today.
I think it's a bit of all three like a Trinity. Like Nolan's Batman Trilogy. One of my favorite Directors shooting a film with some of my favorite actors/actresses based on some of my favorite characters. When I was growing up it was about the actors and if you heard bout the directors then that meant he was really good. Nowadays theres more aspects to It. But still mainly that trio
Daniel Radcliffe has had the best turn as a movie star coming out of a major franchise. On the one hand, the projects he's chosen shows he understands that audiences want to see him undermine his Potter persona. On the other, he contributed his star power to interesting projects that probably would not have gotten off the ground without his involvement. Movie stars can encourage their fans to take a chance on films they might not otherwise see ("Harry Potter plays a farting corpse"). but what makes this work is how he seems genuinely passionate about those projects. More actors who come out of major franchises should follow that example.
@@donnyspeed Why are you cursing ? lol Calm yourself down. Drink some water or something. You cannot be a movie star if all the non-IP movies you lead (top-billed actor) flop! Simple as that. I am responding to the topic of the video with fact, not rabid stan-like emotion. He is NOT a movie star. Period.
@@backto-il9neyour opinion about him not being a movie star is objectively false and doesnt matter at the end of the day, as even a lot his non ip movies were still well received outside of thor so Chris Hemsworth is defentely a movie star whether you like it or not lmao.
I think Zendaya and Timothy Chalamet would be strong examples of modern movie stars. They look for artistic projects rather than commercial hits, and it does pay off for them. Loads of people go to these films just to see them.
I think you're absolutely right that either the idea of a movie star has changed OR or it has (almost) died altogether. Compared to some of the old school actors you mentioned, there's not really anyone like that in the younger "up and coming" generations where they do all kinds of stuff and it's THEM who people go to the cinema to see, nowadays it's more about the movie or franchise itself than the actors BUT at the same time, someone like Hemsworth is closer to those old school folks compared to the other actors you mentioned who seek more commercial viability in their movie projects.
I'm glad that this wasn't a Hemsworth bashing video. The entire film landscape has changed and there are very few actors who can pull off getting a non-franchise film funded just because they're in it. Studios these days are also extremely risk averse and almost always pick the "safe option" and will continue to do so until the wheels fall off
The answer is 'No, not in the traditional sense' and I thought we knew that already because it's been proven for several of his movies now. You nailed it on the DiCaprio comparison, and a studio willing to put up more money based on his involvement alone. That sort of thing is so key, and tells you everything right there.
There is a interview to Tarantino by Tom Segura, where Tarantino explains just that. He said that the star in a marvel movie is Captain America, not Chris Evans, same with Thor and Hemsworth. I think that's almost by design, many people consider Tom Cruise as the last "real movie Stars", I do believe that there is some true to that, it doesn't mean that Cruise can't fail, he did a couple of times. I'm in my 40's and I remember when Leo DiCaprio was the pretty face for blockbusters, he really fight against that taking challenging roles, big stakes that may not been all big blockbusters but many great movies. I really like your channel! Hi, from Argentina.
He's not just a movie star, he's a full package human being 🥰 Because of his looks and athletic abilities, he usually gets type cast as an action hero but he has tried and shown diversity over the years and I'm sure if given the opportunity he can show even more diversity
I was really impressed with his Dementus in Furiosa. I was afraid I'd just see Thor but he made the role completely unique. I'm now looking forward to his next moves 🧸
My favourite of his movies is Rush and I agree I'd like to see him in more stuff like that. It's definitely on the studios, though. The way they make decisions has changed and they are much more into safe bets and recognisable brands (be that an IP, an actor or a well-known director). This is, obviously, not how you get the most interesting films.
I don't think the DiCaprio comparison is necessarily fair. He, Denzel, Cruise, and Will Smith have kinda been grandfathered in. They've developed personal relationships with all the big wigs in Hollywood. The landscape has just changed dramatically since the 90s. Other people have pointed out that Chris is a star by today's standards but I think people are more interested in the film rather than the star and I dont think that's really a bad thing.
“People are more interested in the film rather than the Star” implies the films are better now than they were when we used to have movie stars. They aren’t.
They're also more interested on the director's name. Plenty of people are going to see a movie if Christopher Nolan is behind it, and I don't find that bad at all
@@catarinemarques231 definitely. A director or actor can help pique my interest but ultimately the trailer is what's gonna determine whether I see a movie or not.
Tbf might be a good thing. The Hollywood movie stars were people put on pedestals. Now theres the push to separate the public persona from the actual person.
Agreed to an extent yes, while I do have some nostalgia for the movie star days, I do agree that they were given way too much credit for the success of a movie when they had a really talented director like John McTiernan, Peter Hyams, Tony Scott, Renny Harlin, Wolfgang Petersen, Brian De Palma, Robert Zemeckis or Paul Verhoeven directing the shit of those movies for them.
Leonardo DiCaprio's nose (or his agent's) for prestigious projects is really impeccable. Of the last 7 films he did, 6 were nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, with the only one missing out on this nomination being Baz Luhrmann's "The Great Gatsby" - which was more than a decade ago! He has his favorite directors, but also it's not like he's blindly taking part in all of their projects. It works both ways here - his name is a promotional vehicle for the movie, the movie is a vehicle for his talent (and probably ego) to create interesting characters (and get those awards).
Yeah he guarantees that his films will always be good regardless of his performance by getting PTA, Nolan, Zwick, Tarantino, Spielberg, Mendes, Scorsese, Ridley Scott, James Cameron..etc behind the camera first. Any actor's filmography is going to be of a high standard if those are the directors of the films you're starring in. It's a safe, low-risk play, especially when you look at how many masterpieces each of those directors have made.
He’s everything I wish I could be. Attractive, smooth, hilarious, kind, humble, the guy everyone wants to be around, and a family man. He’s more than an A list actor, he’s a role model and just a good guy!
Movie stars are a dying breed, but he's probably One of the closest equivalents we have these days. I really like his body of work as of late, He's trying to do things and they're pretty good. I really like his Tyler rake movies.
I think Chalamet is an example of the emerging/current regime of actors, and thankfully he follows the DiCaprio model, choosing unique and disparate movies that are all higher quality pictures that help him create a more "premium" personal brand.
The original Thor is in my MCU top 10. I respect the Shakespearian stuff the director put into it, Thor, Loki and Odin have great chemistry, and by god if those 20 minutes of deleted scenes were edited back in the movie, it would have been top 5 worthy.
Thank you! I also rate the original Thor a lot higher than most people because of my love for Shakespeare and Kenneth Branagh. And I think all of the actors did really great together. I've heard that the deleted scenes are awesome (I've only seen one), so I need to go watch them and incorporate them into the movie.
It's about personal brand, more specifically a personal brand of "I'm in this so it's going to be a good movie" - Leo, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Meryl Streep, all continually picked really good roles and scripts from talented directors that resulted in good movies, and therefore resulted in building a personal brand associated with quality. You can even see this a bit with other MCU actors, Benedict Cumberbatch for example, while not a huge draw, was still in really good movies that helped him build that brand, well before and after being Doctor Strange. Or even Zendaya - she keeps picking really good roles which makes her a draw. The problem with Hemsworth, and honestly MANY of the MCU actors, is that he never really had that. He was pretty much an unknown before Thor, and he never had that dramatic stand-out performance or hit that made people really see his talent or name. It also didn't help that the Thor movies have been probably the weakest standalone movies of the MCU. I think Thor diminished his reputation of quality as much as it built up his name. It's the difference between Arnold and The Rock. Dwayne Johnson is a better actor than Arnie, but Arnie actually picked good roles and scripts and directors, which gave him that brand of quality - once he stopped doing that his name marquee value went way down. The Rock didn't do that at all though. He wasn't in any real good movies and therefore, although everyone knows who he is, his movies don't make that much money unless they're Jumanji (an already existing IP that came well before him).
I've only really started watching movies 'awarely' in the past ten years and I almost can not imagine people going to see the new Anthony Hopkins movie without knowing what it even is about just because of Anthony Hopkins...
He's a wonderful actor, just check out Rush, Extraction, and In the Heart of the Sea. He has everything that would make him a draw outside of Thor. But sadly, for some reason, his other movies haven't really been hits.
@@Georg3epeople only wants to see his version of Iron Man. The man has talent, but i feel like people barely pay attention to his non-Marvel work. Even in Oppenheimer, most people only talks about Cilian Murphy, even though RDJ is almost the main character
I lived/worked in LA / the entertainment industry for over 20 yrs. It actually used to be "2 for them, 1 for me" then it became "3 for them, 1 for me". But the landscape changes rapidly, and unfortunately not in the way that supports creativity.
I personally think that social media has had a bigger impact than modern franchises in movie stars being almost extinct nowadays: the fact that on places like Instagram, TH-cam or Reddit (TikTok too, but I don't use that app) you can get stuff that is perfectly aligned with your personal tastes, makes going to watch a movie just for the main actor rather frivolous.
This is it, really. Social media killed the concept of the movie star. When any Joe Schmoe could create a cult of personality online, the field opened up, and whole generations found their idols in places other than hollywood.
Eh not all of our favorite movies stars have social media. Most of mine don't, and it's not just older people (most of them actually do), a lot of the 30-45 ranged actors I like do not.
@@LARKXHIN I think what OP meant was that younger generations have favorite TH-camrs, TikTokkers, Twitch streamers and Instagrammers now, instead of favorite Hollywood actors. Hence no need to go to the movies specifically to see your favorite actor, because you care more about the stuff that happens on the internet
WWAIT WHAT?!!? There's a new transformers film? And its taking after the intro-sequence of Bumblebee instead of jumping off a cliff with Michael Bay's transformers desgin? That sounds, and looks lol, incredible!
I cant really say. Most of the movies that i saw with him are action or comedy movies that require little emotional acting. For movies like that a charismatic, beautiful and incredible fit man like him is obviously a perfect match. Just like Jason Statham or Dwayne Johnson are made for action movies. I never seen him into a heavy drama or something that really forces a actor to go all out.
Back in 2016 or 2017, The Economist (the magazine) ran numbers on star-driven films compared to other films (including a lot of controls for factors such as franchises). They seemed to conclude that already at that point, movie stars just were not driving box office numbers in any sizable way. Making investing in them, or building them up less profitable. Both for studios and actors themselves.
A Movie Star Then: “Oh! Leonardo DiCaprio is in this! It’s a safe bet! Let’s give it a bunch of money.” A Movie Star Now: “We’ve spent a bunch of money on this; we need a safe bet. Let’s go with Chris Hemsworth.” At the end of the day, it’s a fundamental flipping of the script on the mindset for movie producers. And, as this video seemingly tries to show, it’s pretty clearly not a change for the better.
"Rarely do I see the first Thor movie topping people's MCU lists" ...it tops mine. ^_^;; I know it isn't objectively the best, but it's long been my personal favorite as I just love the story and characters. (Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston being in it certainly doesn't hurt either, lol.) This video has made me realize that I really need to go hunt down more of his movies. I've really liked him in everything I've seen him in, so might as well give more of them a go!
I think it's really really hard now to identify what a movie star even is now. Studios figured out in the 2000s that they could make the IP the star, and they could get young stars on the cheap at the start of a series with the promise of a big payday down the road. I agree that Hemsworth is more talented than some might give him credit for and I would like to see him do more films like Rush. But again, studios are risk averse and the one for me one for them model doesn't really happen much anymore
Timothy Chalamet I think is an example of a modern movie star. If I see him listed in a movie, there's a good chance I'll go see it. I can't think of a movie with him in it I didn't enjoy, and he almost always turns in a good performance - even if you don't agree with his interpretation. I agree that I probably won't see a movie just because Hemsworth is in it.
I feel like one of the aspects that shifted around Hemsworth is also that, like... we found out how god damn funny he is. When the Thor stuff pivoted to more comedy, AND we saw those side projects that let Hemsworth play a more comedic role, he hit a secondary speed bump into stardom. Remember how long it took Jim Carrey to dig his way out of being a "Comedy Star" into being taken seriously as a dramatic actor? Now Hemsworth has the baggage of being known as both an Action AND Comedy Star. Both individually pigeonholed careers that don't have the same studio pull or public weight. And even looking at his more dramatic roles you've got, what, Bad Times at the El Royale, great movie but he's got a pivotal but minor role in it. And then Furiosa, which he did AMAZING work in, but almost weaponized his comedic/action skills to the drama. He's had some other dramatic roles, but they're not the ones people think of OR more recent.
Anthony Mackie talked about this a few years ago, he said that the rise of film franchises means the death of the individual movie star. Since Chris Hemsworth is primarily known for being Thor in the MCU where Kevin Feige and other producers have more power than any director or screenwriter, in that genre, it's difficult to take risks. But Chris Hemsworth has played a smaller role in comedies like the Vacation remake back in 2015, the film just wasn't received very well.
Chris Hemsworth is way more star-worthy, in both presence and acting ability, than most all of the wannabees (Courtney, Worthington, etc.) that studios have tried to launch. I think the problem here is that unfortunately many of his non-Thor movies have flopped (not generally his fault besides perhaps role selection), leaving most audiences associating him pretty much only with the role of Thor. We don't see him as a versatile star, which then hurts his box office potential. The right movie and role could change that though.
Idk how much of it is the classical leading actor is dying vs. big studios specifically focusing on IP as the reason to make any movie. In addition, I think the “movie star” as a whole is dying simply because of the access we get to the stars these days. With the advent of the internet, it’s possible you see your favorite celeb 24/7 whereas back in the day the only real access you had to the star was the films they were in. I like a lot of the points you made but I think your ire could definitely be pointed at other stars like maybe Chris Pratt.
I put actors and actresses in two different boxes. Box No1 Real Actors and Actresses: Leonardo DiCaprio, Will Smith, Daniel Kaluuya, LaKeith Stanfield, Jonathan Mayors, Lupita Nyong'o, Michael Keaton, etc. They become a different person for every role, every time I watch a movie with them in it, I don't know what I'm going to get. As opposed to, Box No2 Same Dude/Chic Different Movie: Dwayne, Kevin Hart, Ryan Reynolds, Gal Gadot, etc.
some of cinema's greatest actors like John Wayne played the same character. it doesnt deminish their contribution to cinema. just like a director sticking to the same genre and formula like instead of genre jumping doesnt make them any less of a director
Correct, what you're talking about are 2 different professions - movie stars chase box office by bringing the same persona to each project (Wahlberg, Reynolds, Dwayne, JLo, Keanu, Clooney, Gadot, Schwarzenegger, Redford) and actors chase awards by creating new characters for each project (Bale, Viggo, Cillian, Phoenix, Oldman, Day-Lewis, Rapace, Comer, Riseborough), different professions with opposite goals from each other.
Not in the old-school terms, in which an actor is more ambitious, experimental and selective with their projects due, at least in part, to being the main draw of audiences over the movies themselves. That's a rare breed these days, it seems. But he is a Movie Star in the modern sense of being popular as a big name in a cast, and a reliable lead in big franchises. It might be more risky now than in the past to approach projects like Cruise/DiCaprio when not already at their level of fame. Regardless, many actors, not just Hemsworth, seem to be stars in a different way.
I’d argue he’s one of the ONLY rock solid movie stars in today’s age. Even if his stock isn’t as high as someone like Tom Cruise, he’s got enough charisma to carry whichever franchise he chooses.
But the point is that he's mostly at home in franchises. He's a solid actor, but you don' go to see a "Hemsworth movie" you go to see a movie. Compare that to someone like Julia Roberts or Brad Pitt at the peak of their careers. They were the movies selling points for many people.
You totally missed the point of this video. His argument is that Hemsworth’s characters - Thor especially - are the draw for audiences, not the actor himself. DiCaprio can pull an audience to riskier projects on his appeal alone, like in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood or Revenant
The point is that he obviously doesn't, because he's never once managed to open a movie. His name isn't a selling point. In the MCU the franchise carried him, not vice versa.
Actors I like I will see a movie because they are in it: Steve Carrell, Simon Pegg, Amy Adams, Glen Powell, Ryan Gosling, Michele Yeoh, Ke Huy Quan. And I like younger actors too like Elle Fanning. And yes still will see something with George Clooney in it because he is in it. And I generally am not into independent movies or dramas - but these actors I mentioned I like enough that I might even try some of those. I get your point. Maybe a lot of people are watching some tv shows/ streaming productions because of the actors involved in the way they used to do with the movies. The social media landscape is what drives things now - even older stars like Jamie Lee Curtis use Instagram to engage fans and promote their projects. I think Chris Hemsworth is a movie star - maybe not enough to get you to see a film just for him. But he is great and he has a lot of fans and worldwide recognition. He is doing just fine.
This is an interesting topic that I hadn't thought about before. By your definition, no Hemsworth isn't a movie star, but the fact that so few other actors can fit that definition of movie star either does suggest that the definition is outdated, which is definitely because of studios becoming more ip focused which isn't great. But on the other hand, I don't know if I would mind movie stars dying out so we don't get more weird castings like Chris Pratt as Mario. A choice that shouldn't have been made, but likely only did because of that definition of stardom
Between El Royale and Furiosa, I put Hemsworth in the Brad Pitt camp of "Gifted character actor trapped in a leading man's body." He's better off in a movie he doesn't have to carry.
There was a great video about Miss Piggy and how they've had to retool her because we no longer have the kind of movie stars she originally was parodying.
The safe plays are *very* safe The artistic projects are widely approachable It’s a cautious strategy but he won’t be quickly forgotten and with 2 brothers in the game he doesn’t need to take unnecessary risks for accolade. His ambitions are more dynastic
I once read about what makes someone an 'A-list' actor, and it made a lot of sense to me. It helps to understand how an actor ranks within Hollywood and casting circles. There are basically 3 components: 1, are they given lead roles in major movies where the studio doesn't hedge its bets by co-starring big names? 2, do they have the influence to make the movie their own, get changes made, showcase their talents etc.? 3, are they in enough demand that another actor would lose a role if the studio could get them instead? Look at someone like Tom Cruise. The answers here are 1 - yes, 2 - absolutely, 3 - without a doubt. Chris Hemsworth. 1 - not yet. 2 - no. 3 - maybe. But the question isn't really fair, because the number of actual 'movie stars' is diminishing. Hemsworth is just one example of many popular actors who just aren't as big a draw as the top guys.
You never gave a coherent definition of what a movie star is, and that really cuts the legs out from under the whole video. The definition I heard many years ago was that a true star boosts the opening weekend box office (and that is why they help a movie get funded). I can't think of a single actor in their prime who does that today.
Can you do another one of these but for Hugh Jackman? He kind of disappears into any and every role he does but kind of like RDJ, his most famous(or infamous)role, which happens to be a comic book movie role seems to pop up first in everyone’s minds. They did a good job, some would say their portrayal was the best, with their performances and these Super-Heroes and even do good jobs in all other projects, it seems that, like RDJ, their famous Comic-Book Roles can be Blessings and a Curse in a way. Blessing in the way that they are now universally known and loved and set up financially for life and for generations to come but a Curse in the way that their other art gets overshadowed or overlooked if it’s not them playing their more known Roles with in the Comic-Book Movie Genre Hugh was great in Reminiscence, Bad Education, The Front Runner, The Son(all very recent), Pan, Real Steel and Les Miserables(Both Criminally Underrated and also Real Steel Directed by Shawn Levy), The Greatest Showman(which should have beaten out The Disaster Artist), Prisoners, Swordfish, The Prestige, Van Helsings, and Chappie-All Criminally Underrated and his no one ever has a problem with his Performance in them and they all Range from Comedy, Drama, Horror, Political Drama, High School Drama, World Problems, Two Musicals, to Family Dramas and to Action -So is Hugh Jackman a Movie Star? You can make the same video for Robert Downey Jr. Great Video As Always, Captainmidnight!!!🙌
The problem is it’s very easy to get shoe horned into a character type. It’s why it’s so important to shift to very different projects after your first big success and not only do franchise work if you want to be seen as an artist. I think there are actors people will go see because of who they are still, even after getting big in a franchise. Look at Adam Driver for example.
From him I've only watched Rush and Furiousa and I enjoyed his performances in those supportive roles, but I didn't watch those movies because of his involvement, he can be a good actor but he's not a movie star. Someone who's a movie star who can still apply the one for me one for them idea is RDJ who after winning an Oscar for Oppenheimer, made a well received return to the MCU as part of a really lucrative deal because the people at Disney understand he can really pull audiences in theaters just because he's part of the movie.
I found his character in Bad Times at El Royale very very good and enjoyed that movie a lot more than Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which is in my opinion similar vibe and theme. Also Bad Times at El Royale isn't talked about enough.
in my best thor ragnarok: is he though? (yes) relatively, he's one of the biggest I think. but we really don't have any left, the way we used to think of them. maybe Dwayne Johnson or Jason Statham, maybe. but I honestly don't think it's a huge deal. give more people roles. the huge stars don't need endless hits, but there are lots of smaller actors who need a "big break."
It's a good thing that characters are what drive movies, and not just who is playing them. We cast better now, than ever before. Had he not been Thor, he wouldn't be a movie star most likely. As it is, he is...
I will say I respect an actor who works on a lot of movies. Showing up and doing the work is important. Sometimes being the best part of a middling movie is what you do.
The only closest young actors to movie star status are Zendaya and Timothee Chalamet. Will be interesting if any more emerge but in general we might be in or entering a filmmaker era where Chris Nolan, Greta Gerwig, Jordan Peele etc is the draw to the movie not the actor.
Studios _want_ movie stars, but they're failing to make them. The Jai Courtneys, Chloe Grace-Moretzes, Taylor Lautners, Rachel Zeglers- you see them on magazine covers, you can all but _feel_ the attempt to make them "click" in the public consciousness by sheer will (and often, PR spending)- and it just doesn't happen. I will say that I don't think Hemsworth belongs in that list, in as much as I've never felt his presence _detracted_ from a film that I saw him in. But I agree that he also doesn't generate the "Oh, _he_ decided to sign on? It must be good!" mojo. Part of the reason we're still watching big movies with DiCaprio, Washington, Reeves, and Cruise is that, despite their advancing age, no one has really risen to take their place.
Idk what ur on about none of those above have been leading movie star material, they’ve been in big movies sure, but they’re never Emma Stone, Timothee Chalamet, Zendaya, Sydney Sweeney type of leading figures, movie stars just DO NOT exist in the same way, i have not seen any actor who came to fame after the early 2000s reach heights that ppl like Cruise, Smith, Washington did, its not possible anymore becuz the way ppl watch movies now has changed so much that with how much content is out there no one is willing to take a risk on buying tickets to original IP just for the star alone. IP is the box office draw now, not movie stars. And you can’t change that anymore becuz of the internet, social media, and how increasingly irrelevant theatrical releases are. Movie stars used to anchor films into big profits, now its the IP that brings the profit, and movie stars are just supporting that IP. Zendaya, probably the most popular young female star rn, can hardly even make a well-liked appealing film profitable in theatrical release, ppl don’t flock to watch her the same way they did movie stars in the 40s-90s where just their name, regardless of how shit the film was, could bring profit. You dont have action stars like Arnold or Sylvester where every film of theirs can make a 100million or so.
He’s a really good actor. He has to take some more serious roles in independent films where he can show his range better. He has the talent. He needs to take more risks.
I reeeally enjoy the first Thor. Now with so much multiversal stuff it's actually nostalgic. But each time I watch it, I like it more. The scene in which he tries to lift mjolnir is awesome.
I very much agree, with your assessment, it galls me a bit that diCaprio is on of the few remaining movie stars, but that’s a personal preference. He can carry a whole movie on his shoulders, he has the appeal to audiences. Former the definition of a movie star was always, the sentence “let’s go see the new John Wayne movie” substitute Wayne, for whoever you please, but it didn’t really matter what the movie was about, it was Wayne who got people excited. Same with some directors today, Nolan, Villeneuve, Tarantino. If you say let’s go see that new Nolan film, instead of we are going to see prestige, you distinguish by the star appeal compared to an interest in the story. And now cones the part that will get me ripped to shreds, “let’s go see the new Marvel movie”; there is no star appeal at all, people are flocking to the cinema because they are interested in the characters, no matter who plays them, or have a brand loyalty. I think RDJ would have had the quality to become a full blown movie star, but in the head of large parts of the audience he will now always been Ironman. I love that movie, and thoroughly enjoy RDJ in Oppenheimer for example. The MCU might in equal parts have salvaged and barred his career.
Put into perspective he's actually carved out a solid career for himself. I forgot how they were trying to push the likes of Jai Courtney, Sam Worthington (the charisma vacuum), Taylor Kitch, Taylor Lautner, Armie Hammer etc. Hell even Liam Hemsworth had a big push too (studios had a weird fascination with Australians for a stage). I would say Chris has done well even in comparison to the likes of his fellow Chris's in Pine and Evans. Bradley Cooper and Chris Pratt aren't the megastars they had envisaged either. You'd argue Hemsworth is more consistent. The closest actors to that era is probably Christian Bale and Tom Hardy. Henry Cavill I feel has the potential as well.
That’s why I enjoy Christian Bale sooo much besides just being my favorite Batman he does a lot of smaller box office movies. And always puts in 100 percent
I hope you also do a video on Henry Cavill, For someone who has a superstar and Hollywood face he is only remembered for being superman in a mid superman movie, He is a better actor than Orlando Bloom but Bloom has been in franchises that will be seen and remembered till the end of times. Also love your videos Mr. Captain Midnight.
I just think studios are happy with the death of movie starts. Those are expensive, demanding and know their value. If an actor is a brand then studios depend on them to make money. If the movie is the start itself...
DiCaprio isn’t a pull for those audiences, the directors Scorsese, PTA, Tarantino are. A movie star is a person where you’ll go out to their movies because they are in it. You don’t even have to know the plot is, you go because of that Star. Hollywood has conditioned audience members to look for brands. Actors are expendable to studios but franchises are not viable forever. If you make a new, unknown project it helps to have a Star to draw people in. Not movies that make a billion but they don’t lose 100s of millions either. But that’s gone and making people interested by bludgeoning them with nostalgia will only work for so long.
He's not a prestige actor, but I think he knows that. He's earnest, funny, and ridiculously handsome. You don't have to chase Oscars to be a movie star.
Indeed, movie stars chase box office by bringing the same persona to each project (Wahlberg, Reynolds, Dwayne, JLo, Keanu, Clooney, Gadot, Schwarzenegger, Redford) and actors chase awards by creating new characters for each project (Bale, Viggo, Cillian, Phoenix, Oldman, Day-Lewis, Rapace, Comer, Riseborough), different professions with opposite goals from each other. I think Hemsworth is happy being a movie star, even if he's not able to open non-IP movies to massive opening weekends like a traditional movie star could, he at least understands that and is therefore smartly sticking to reliable IPs like Thor, Mad Max, Men in Black and Extraction for Netflix.
@@thetalentoftrue. Dwayne Johnson is literally himself in every movie 😂. Also don't forget gal gadot kal el no
I feel that he had a turning point when learning about of the genetic potential of developing dementia in old age. He seems much more driven by enjoying the projects he works in, while having a lot of time to spend with his family. I respect that a lot, really.
Yeah, that would make a lot of sense.
yeah! I think he's comfortable in his position as a non-prestige actor, knowing that he can take fun projects if he wants to. I really respect and like how family-centered he seems to be; that's rare in Hollywood nowadays and I like that he's a role model of sorts in that respect. I do wish he could do more unique movies; I really liked him in Rush for example
7:30 what helps DiCaprio is that he frequently collaborates with Martin Scorcese and Quentin Tarantino, whose projects are so massive and hyped up that they're essentially franchises unto themselves.
I was gonna say! 😂 when Leo needs a fall back movie he knows will make bank, he calls Marty and we get The Wolf of Wall Street, or Killers of the Flower Moon. Don’t even get me started on Calvin Candie.
Sure it helps but he also had a lot of success in movies without those directors so still miles ahead of Chris H though your point that it helps is also valid.
Their last film still flopped tho. In part bc Leo's salary was 1/5 of the budget😂
A reason those top directors want to work with Leo is exactly the point of the video. And he has hits (some HUGE) outside of movies without Scorsese & Tarintino like:
- The Revenant, The Great Gatsby, Inception, Revolutionary Road, Body of Lies, Catch Me If You Can, Titanic.
@@Homer-OJ-Simpson I agree but he's also not the massive box office draw he used to be anymore. You can say the same about almost every star of the past
He may not be a movie star, but he’s definitely considered to be an A-list actor.
He's a B-list, but if he's able to get good roles, he could reach A-star potential; he has plenty of charisma.
@@TinyLordCthulhu i struggled between the two. He’s a high demand actor, gets leading/starring roles, can demand a high salary, has celebrity status… I’d say he would be on a studio’s A-list for first choice actors for any given project. But I also think he’s probably just a notch above B-list territory these days.
Agreed but that whole next generation of Hemsworth, Cavill, McAvoy, Pine, Cooper, Reynolds, Larson, B Jordan, Gadot, Driver, Lawrence, Renner, Gosling..etc sadly never became as big as the previous generation of Dicaprio, Cruise, Pitt, Denzel, Costner, Gibson, Willis, Clooney, Roberts, Jolie, Stallone, Crowe, Bullock, Smith, Hanks, Schwarzenegger..etc who were on another level and paid 20 million per movie because they could open a non-IP movie to a massive opening weekend to justify that level of payday. However, in defense of the newer generation, it's difficult to carve a career as a movie star (especially if Leo's advice for success to you is "no superhero movies") when studios are willing to only greenlight IP projects. The previous generation became so huge thanks to movies like Rocky, Gladiator, Speed, Forest Gump, From Dusk Until Dawn, Independence Day, Lethal Weapon, Terminator, Pretty Woman and Die Hard, whereas no-one is going to become a huge star by playing only Superman or Spiderman or Mr Fantastic as their 1st introduction to audiences, they'll just be seen as the next someone to play that already super-famous character. When I think of Hemsworth or Cavill my 1st thought just goes to Thor and Superman but when I think of Denzel or Dicaprio my 1st thought goes to a variety of Man on Fire / Training Day / Courage Under Fire and Titanic / The Beach / Shutter Island..etc.
That would make DiCaprio an S- tier actor.
Very good point! In fact, I would put TOM HOLLAND in that first list because besides that SPIDER-MAN frranchise.... What else does that kid has? - James D Watkins artistic director of Phoenix Productions.@@thetalentof
In my opinion, this is absolutely a symptom of studios not taking risks on original IPs.
I don't get how there can be such a massive reliance on sequels and franchises without looking to create new IPs to grow the library.
@@willichtenstein7071 Indian cinema is biggest example of star driven industry they make fan service movies because of actor's stardom
Real, he's a great actor who happens to be the perfect face Hollywood can use to recycle an ip so people hate him over that.
Yeah well thats thanks to audiences too, they’re not gonna change their game when general audiences eat up big IP movies far more enthusiastically than anything original. IP makes 10x the money any original film does, regardless of the stars attached, thats still true, and so why the fuck do movie fans its gonna magically change for ‘artistic’ merit. Studios want to make profit and no one buys tickets to original films anymore, most every day people aren’t willing to take the risk on an original film they don’t know anything about, people are too busy with content-consumption elsewhere. Its only on TV where original stuff is actually quite profitable.
Nobody goes to see original IP. They lose money. So they make them less often
This is very true cause in the 80's and 90's you went to see a movie cause it had and that was that.
But that standard applies to Chris. There's almost no chance I'd watch another transformers movie. But if it had Chris? I'd watch that. I only watched Extraction because Chris was in it. Same with the Red Dawn remake. So if the only remaining aspect of a movie star is risk taking like Capnmidnight claims, than neither is the Rock, or Kevin Hart. And try telling them they aren't movie stars...
@@jadinhanson1 The general appeal of Transformers is the concept itself. When the casting was revealed I remember many freaking out about the choices feeling phoned in. I was happily surprised to learn later that Chris Hemsworth took the role resiously and respected Peter Cullen's take on Optimus Prime.
So for that example specifically, I don't think many share your feelings on the matter. Including me to be honest. Allthough I'm happy he took the role seriously and seems to have done a good job.
@@leithaziz2716Peter Cullen is the goat
I’d say I watched Extraction because is had Chris in but I’d watch any movie with the Rock just because the Rock is in it
@@jadinhanson1 Yeah but he shouldn't be in the next live action film because WHY ARE YOU DOING GI X TRANSFORMERS FOR THE THIRD FILM? Like they could've done a shockwave story, or Wreckers, or bring in a combiner but why GI Joe this early??
I think if the Extraction movies were shown in theaters instead of just Netflix, we’d think of those movies alongside or just after Thor when we think of Chris’ roles and performances.
This is actually true, definitely since both those movies have done well on Netflix.
Netflix should release projects with big names in theaters, a 3 week window before both theaters & Netflix. Some of there projects could grab people who don't have or cancelled their Netflix accounts.
The extraction movies are really underrated imo.
Chris = Thor
Robert = Iron man/ Tropical thunder
Leonardo = Titanic / Jango / Inception
Tom = mission impossible
@@Tethloach1you forgot Robert and Sherlock Holmes
I know type casting is a real issue for actors and actresses,but man will Chris just always be Thor to me no matter what,but good for him for finding the infinite money glitch
IDK I think the role in Furiosa was a step in the good direction, I wouldn't have known it's him if I hadn't read it. It's reminds me of how bombshell actresses sometimes have to play an "ugly" character to get out of the bombshell typecasting to get to play more serious roles.
See I knew him from rush before I watched the MCU, as James Hunt
Incredible movie if you haven’t watched it, great acting as someone who’s seen a decent amount of video of the real James hunt
If Bautista can lose a bunch of weight to get other roles I"m sure Chris can be a little more picky about the script he chooses.
i think this video is a great film-based look at how the concept of celebrity at large has shifted in the internet days, the same patterns exist within the music industry and the fashion industry and so on.
banger video as always cap'n
Honestly I'd say yes. I loved him as Dementus in Furiosa.
Even most of his work as Thor is a performance that still holds up today as long as we don't talk about Love and Thunder.
He was great in Extraction 1 and 2, too. He's definitely an A-lister.
@@imarobobot8795 Those are big sellers for Netflix.
Most of his movies are flops outside of Thor.
He is also the best part of Ghostbusters 2016.
He has a secondary role with limited screen time in Furiousa. If that’s the best you got, it’s not a good argument
Is Hollywood even green lighting enough worthy “one for me” projects?
No!
TBH the answer is actually "yes", the issue is the ones that get greenlit have budgets so small that they would never attract a celebrity level actor to begin with.
Even if a Hemsworth type star wanted to work on some under the radar artsy director's $70k direct-to-Prime passion project, his entire management team would throw him into traffic before letting him star in something that didn't have at least 90 million dollars worth of CGI explosions in it.
afaik a lot of actors now setup their own production companies exactly to make "one for me" movies. I believe Margo Robbie has one, and it is a big reason that I, Tonya made it to theaters, Tom Holland has one, it produced The Crowded Room miniseries. I'm sure there are much more of those, they are just a bit lowkey.
A24 and Blumhouse are filling that void but only with about 5% of the budget of what original non-IP films used to have 25 years ago from Fox, Paramount, Universal and WarnerBros when Hanks, Gibson, Costner, Willis, Cruise, Smith, Denzel, Crowe, Ford, Dicaprio, Cage were getting 20 million per movie.
What is this sentence?
Chris Hemsworth in Furiosa might probably be one of his best performances yet. And Dementus is easily one of my favorite movie villain of 2024.
Don't forget the Extraction movies. Really good.
@@se77226 That's because the *character* is putting on a performance. Hemsworth explicitly said so. He has a making of video on his TH-cam channel.
@@se77226 The complaint that you have is what worked for me. He’s supposed to be an over the top villain where it makes us hate his guts.
@@palmmahir3888 Especially in contrast to Immortan Joe, who is a lot more measured, focused, and sensible.
he was very memorable in Bad Times at the El Royale as well
to be fair most actors today arent true draws anymore. its mainly about the ip or director now not really the actors. and im not sure if its better that way or not but i think its just the way the times have changed but i will say Chris is still someone id say is more relevant and a bigger deal than many actors today.
I think it's a bit of all three like a Trinity. Like Nolan's Batman Trilogy. One of my favorite Directors shooting a film with some of my favorite actors/actresses based on some of my favorite characters.
When I was growing up it was about the actors and if you heard bout the directors then that meant he was really good. Nowadays theres more aspects to It. But still mainly that trio
Daniel Radcliffe has had the best turn as a movie star coming out of a major franchise. On the one hand, the projects he's chosen shows he understands that audiences want to see him undermine his Potter persona. On the other, he contributed his star power to interesting projects that probably would not have gotten off the ground without his involvement. Movie stars can encourage their fans to take a chance on films they might not otherwise see ("Harry Potter plays a farting corpse"). but what makes this work is how he seems genuinely passionate about those projects. More actors who come out of major franchises should follow that example.
"Rush" was amazing :)
and it flopped
@@backto-il9newho fucking cares. Scott pilgrim is a flop financially but has grown to let Micheal Cera be a household name
@@donnyspeed Why are you cursing ? lol Calm yourself down. Drink some water or something. You cannot be a movie star if all the non-IP movies you lead (top-billed actor) flop! Simple as that. I am responding to the topic of the video with fact, not rabid stan-like emotion. He is NOT a movie star. Period.
Indeed, Ron Howard's such an underrated director as he never seems to get talked about like some of the other greats.
@@backto-il9neyour opinion about him not being a movie star is objectively false and doesnt matter at the end of the day, as even a lot his non ip movies were still well received outside of thor so Chris Hemsworth is defentely a movie star whether you like it or not lmao.
I think Zendaya and Timothy Chalamet would be strong examples of modern movie stars. They look for artistic projects rather than commercial hits, and it does pay off for them. Loads of people go to these films just to see them.
I made a list of actors since 2000 that have had more success outside of just one role/character than Chris H. It's at least 60 something actors.
nope. Neither have starred in non IP box office successes
@@johnsmith651 Literally Dune. For both.
@@captainstage2009 huh Dune is franchise movie.
@@captainstage2009Dune is based on a very famous and popular book
I think you're absolutely right that either the idea of a movie star has changed OR or it has (almost) died altogether. Compared to some of the old school actors you mentioned, there's not really anyone like that in the younger "up and coming" generations where they do all kinds of stuff and it's THEM who people go to the cinema to see, nowadays it's more about the movie or franchise itself than the actors BUT at the same time, someone like Hemsworth is closer to those old school folks compared to the other actors you mentioned who seek more commercial viability in their movie projects.
I'm glad that this wasn't a Hemsworth bashing video. The entire film landscape has changed and there are very few actors who can pull off getting a non-franchise film funded just because they're in it. Studios these days are also extremely risk averse and almost always pick the "safe option" and will continue to do so until the wheels fall off
The answer is 'No, not in the traditional sense' and I thought we knew that already because it's been proven for several of his movies now. You nailed it on the DiCaprio comparison, and a studio willing to put up more money based on his involvement alone. That sort of thing is so key, and tells you everything right there.
There is a interview to Tarantino by Tom Segura, where Tarantino explains just that. He said that the star in a marvel movie is Captain America, not Chris Evans, same with Thor and Hemsworth. I think that's almost by design, many people consider Tom Cruise as the last "real movie Stars", I do believe that there is some true to that, it doesn't mean that Cruise can't fail, he did a couple of times. I'm in my 40's and I remember when Leo DiCaprio was the pretty face for blockbusters, he really fight against that taking challenging roles, big stakes that may not been all big blockbusters but many great movies.
I really like your channel! Hi, from Argentina.
He's not just a movie star, he's a full package human being 🥰
Because of his looks and athletic abilities, he usually gets type cast as an action hero but he has tried and shown diversity over the years and I'm sure if given the opportunity he can show even more diversity
The Extraction films being in Cinemas & Hemsworth being in a big RomCom would have made him a classic leading man
I was really impressed with his Dementus in Furiosa. I was afraid I'd just see Thor but he made the role completely unique. I'm now looking forward to his next moves 🧸
My favourite of his movies is Rush and I agree I'd like to see him in more stuff like that. It's definitely on the studios, though. The way they make decisions has changed and they are much more into safe bets and recognisable brands (be that an IP, an actor or a well-known director). This is, obviously, not how you get the most interesting films.
I don't think the DiCaprio comparison is necessarily fair. He, Denzel, Cruise, and Will Smith have kinda been grandfathered in. They've developed personal relationships with all the big wigs in Hollywood. The landscape has just changed dramatically since the 90s. Other people have pointed out that Chris is a star by today's standards but I think people are more interested in the film rather than the star and I dont think that's really a bad thing.
“People are more interested in the film rather than the Star” implies the films are better now than they were when we used to have movie stars.
They aren’t.
@@bikramarora1819 that's a gross oversimplification. We had plenty of garbage films back in the day. We only tend to remember the classics.
They're also more interested on the director's name. Plenty of people are going to see a movie if Christopher Nolan is behind it, and I don't find that bad at all
@@catarinemarques231 definitely. A director or actor can help pique my interest but ultimately the trailer is what's gonna determine whether I see a movie or not.
I’ve been here a while but I just wanted to say I love the little radio outro, it makes me smile
Tbf might be a good thing. The Hollywood movie stars were people put on pedestals. Now theres the push to separate the public persona from the actual person.
Agreed to an extent yes, while I do have some nostalgia for the movie star days, I do agree that they were given way too much credit for the success of a movie when they had a really talented director like John McTiernan, Peter Hyams, Tony Scott, Renny Harlin, Wolfgang Petersen, Brian De Palma, Robert Zemeckis or Paul Verhoeven directing the shit of those movies for them.
Leonardo DiCaprio's nose (or his agent's) for prestigious projects is really impeccable. Of the last 7 films he did, 6 were nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, with the only one missing out on this nomination being Baz Luhrmann's "The Great Gatsby" - which was more than a decade ago! He has his favorite directors, but also it's not like he's blindly taking part in all of their projects. It works both ways here - his name is a promotional vehicle for the movie, the movie is a vehicle for his talent (and probably ego) to create interesting characters (and get those awards).
Yeah he guarantees that his films will always be good regardless of his performance by getting PTA, Nolan, Zwick, Tarantino, Spielberg, Mendes, Scorsese, Ridley Scott, James Cameron..etc behind the camera first. Any actor's filmography is going to be of a high standard if those are the directors of the films you're starring in. It's a safe, low-risk play, especially when you look at how many masterpieces each of those directors have made.
He’s everything I wish I could be. Attractive, smooth, hilarious, kind, humble, the guy everyone wants to be around, and a family man. He’s more than an A list actor, he’s a role model and just a good guy!
By todays standards yes
A marvel star
Yup and if he isn’t than a lot of people aren’t. Definitely the big names in the mcu 😊
That's fucked up
He's kind of transitioning to a character actor, which I love for him
By any standard
You’re videos always get me to think of ts from another perspective
Movie stars are a dying breed, but he's probably One of the closest equivalents we have these days. I really like his body of work as of late, He's trying to do things and they're pretty good. I really like his Tyler rake movies.
I think Chalamet is an example of the emerging/current regime of actors, and thankfully he follows the DiCaprio model, choosing unique and disparate movies that are all higher quality pictures that help him create a more "premium" personal brand.
his most noticeable films are still IPs and he doesnt guarantee box office success like Leo - that WOnka film wasnt unique tho
Chalamet's non-IP movies have all flopped though, whereas Titanic, The Beach, Gangs of New York and Catch Me If You Can had massive opening weekends.
My favorite movie with him is Cabin in the Woods
Same
The stoner had a more memorable performance than Chris
The original Thor is in my MCU top 10. I respect the Shakespearian stuff the director put into it, Thor, Loki and Odin have great chemistry, and by god if those 20 minutes of deleted scenes were edited back in the movie, it would have been top 5 worthy.
Thank you! I also rate the original Thor a lot higher than most people because of my love for Shakespeare and Kenneth Branagh. And I think all of the actors did really great together. I've heard that the deleted scenes are awesome (I've only seen one), so I need to go watch them and incorporate them into the movie.
such an interesting take! i like these actor breakdown videos a lot
It's about personal brand, more specifically a personal brand of "I'm in this so it's going to be a good movie" - Leo, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Meryl Streep, all continually picked really good roles and scripts from talented directors that resulted in good movies, and therefore resulted in building a personal brand associated with quality. You can even see this a bit with other MCU actors, Benedict Cumberbatch for example, while not a huge draw, was still in really good movies that helped him build that brand, well before and after being Doctor Strange. Or even Zendaya - she keeps picking really good roles which makes her a draw. The problem with Hemsworth, and honestly MANY of the MCU actors, is that he never really had that. He was pretty much an unknown before Thor, and he never had that dramatic stand-out performance or hit that made people really see his talent or name. It also didn't help that the Thor movies have been probably the weakest standalone movies of the MCU. I think Thor diminished his reputation of quality as much as it built up his name. It's the difference between Arnold and The Rock. Dwayne Johnson is a better actor than Arnie, but Arnie actually picked good roles and scripts and directors, which gave him that brand of quality - once he stopped doing that his name marquee value went way down. The Rock didn't do that at all though. He wasn't in any real good movies and therefore, although everyone knows who he is, his movies don't make that much money unless they're Jumanji (an already existing IP that came well before him).
I've only really started watching movies 'awarely' in the past ten years and I almost can not imagine people going to see the new Anthony Hopkins movie without knowing what it even is about just because of Anthony Hopkins...
He's a wonderful actor, just check out Rush, Extraction, and In the Heart of the Sea. He has everything that would make him a draw outside of Thor. But sadly, for some reason, his other movies haven't really been hits.
The traditional movie star doesn't exist anymore. Tom Cruise and Will Smith were the last of the bankable ones. And even they are hit and miss.
And Robert Downey Jr!
@@Georg3e Also hit and miss. No one watched Dr Dolittle.
@@Georg3epeople only wants to see his version of Iron Man. The man has talent, but i feel like people barely pay attention to his non-Marvel work. Even in Oppenheimer, most people only talks about Cilian Murphy, even though RDJ is almost the main character
I lived/worked in LA / the entertainment industry for over 20 yrs. It actually used to be "2 for them, 1 for me" then it became "3 for them, 1 for me". But the landscape changes rapidly, and unfortunately not in the way that supports creativity.
I personally think that social media has had a bigger impact than modern franchises in movie stars being almost extinct nowadays: the fact that on places like Instagram, TH-cam or Reddit (TikTok too, but I don't use that app) you can get stuff that is perfectly aligned with your personal tastes, makes going to watch a movie just for the main actor rather frivolous.
This is it, really. Social media killed the concept of the movie star.
When any Joe Schmoe could create a cult of personality online, the field opened up, and whole generations found their idols in places other than hollywood.
Eh not all of our favorite movies stars have social media. Most of mine don't, and it's not just older people (most of them actually do), a lot of the 30-45 ranged actors I like do not.
@@LARKXHIN I think what OP meant was that younger generations have favorite TH-camrs, TikTokkers, Twitch streamers and Instagrammers now, instead of favorite Hollywood actors. Hence no need to go to the movies specifically to see your favorite actor, because you care more about the stuff that happens on the internet
He kicked ass as dementus in furious I was pleasantly surprised
WWAIT WHAT?!!? There's a new transformers film? And its taking after the intro-sequence of Bumblebee instead of jumping off a cliff with Michael Bay's transformers desgin? That sounds, and looks lol, incredible!
I cant really say. Most of the movies that i saw with him are action or comedy movies that require little emotional acting. For movies like that a charismatic, beautiful and incredible fit man like him is obviously a perfect match. Just like Jason Statham or Dwayne Johnson are made for action movies. I never seen him into a heavy drama or something that really forces a actor to go all out.
Back in 2016 or 2017, The Economist (the magazine) ran numbers on star-driven films compared to other films (including a lot of controls for factors such as franchises). They seemed to conclude that already at that point, movie stars just were not driving box office numbers in any sizable way. Making investing in them, or building them up less profitable. Both for studios and actors themselves.
A Movie Star Then: “Oh! Leonardo DiCaprio is in this! It’s a safe bet! Let’s give it a bunch of money.”
A Movie Star Now: “We’ve spent a bunch of money on this; we need a safe bet. Let’s go with Chris Hemsworth.”
At the end of the day, it’s a fundamental flipping of the script on the mindset for movie producers. And, as this video seemingly tries to show, it’s pretty clearly not a change for the better.
I think if Extraction was traditionally released it would’ve been bigger
"Rarely do I see the first Thor movie topping people's MCU lists" ...it tops mine. ^_^;; I know it isn't objectively the best, but it's long been my personal favorite as I just love the story and characters. (Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston being in it certainly doesn't hurt either, lol.)
This video has made me realize that I really need to go hunt down more of his movies. I've really liked him in everything I've seen him in, so might as well give more of them a go!
I think it's really really hard now to identify what a movie star even is now. Studios figured out in the 2000s that they could make the IP the star, and they could get young stars on the cheap at the start of a series with the promise of a big payday down the road. I agree that Hemsworth is more talented than some might give him credit for and I would like to see him do more films like Rush. But again, studios are risk averse and the one for me one for them model doesn't really happen much anymore
Timothy Chalamet I think is an example of a modern movie star. If I see him listed in a movie, there's a good chance I'll go see it. I can't think of a movie with him in it I didn't enjoy, and he almost always turns in a good performance - even if you don't agree with his interpretation. I agree that I probably won't see a movie just because Hemsworth is in it.
I really liked him in the movie Rush, I was like this guy can actually act!
Edit: Oh you (of course) mentioned that
I feel like one of the aspects that shifted around Hemsworth is also that, like... we found out how god damn funny he is. When the Thor stuff pivoted to more comedy, AND we saw those side projects that let Hemsworth play a more comedic role, he hit a secondary speed bump into stardom. Remember how long it took Jim Carrey to dig his way out of being a "Comedy Star" into being taken seriously as a dramatic actor?
Now Hemsworth has the baggage of being known as both an Action AND Comedy Star. Both individually pigeonholed careers that don't have the same studio pull or public weight.
And even looking at his more dramatic roles you've got, what, Bad Times at the El Royale, great movie but he's got a pivotal but minor role in it. And then Furiosa, which he did AMAZING work in, but almost weaponized his comedic/action skills to the drama. He's had some other dramatic roles, but they're not the ones people think of OR more recent.
Anthony Mackie talked about this a few years ago, he said that the rise of film franchises means the death of the individual movie star. Since Chris Hemsworth is primarily known for being Thor in the MCU where Kevin Feige and other producers have more power than any director or screenwriter, in that genre, it's difficult to take risks. But Chris Hemsworth has played a smaller role in comedies like the Vacation remake back in 2015, the film just wasn't received very well.
Chris Hemsworth is way more star-worthy, in both presence and acting ability, than most all of the wannabees (Courtney, Worthington, etc.) that studios have tried to launch. I think the problem here is that unfortunately many of his non-Thor movies have flopped (not generally his fault besides perhaps role selection), leaving most audiences associating him pretty much only with the role of Thor. We don't see him as a versatile star, which then hurts his box office potential. The right movie and role could change that though.
Nice to hear some love for In the Heart of the Sea
Idk how much of it is the classical leading actor is dying vs. big studios specifically focusing on IP as the reason to make any movie.
In addition, I think the “movie star” as a whole is dying simply because of the access we get to the stars these days. With the advent of the internet, it’s possible you see your favorite celeb 24/7 whereas back in the day the only real access you had to the star was the films they were in.
I like a lot of the points you made but I think your ire could definitely be pointed at other stars like maybe Chris Pratt.
He is a kiss of death to any franchise that isn't Marvel. Just look at Vacation, Ghostbusters, and MIB.
Oh, and Furiosa (I really liked him in the movie and the movie overall. But it still bombed)
@@ohstate411Mad Max was never really a box office juggernaut.
He does change things up in most of his movie roles and not just being himself in the movie.
dementus is the most australian i've ever seen him
I put actors and actresses in two different boxes.
Box No1 Real Actors and Actresses: Leonardo DiCaprio, Will Smith, Daniel Kaluuya, LaKeith Stanfield, Jonathan Mayors, Lupita Nyong'o, Michael Keaton, etc.
They become a different person for every role, every time I watch a movie with them in it, I don't know what I'm going to get.
As opposed to,
Box No2 Same Dude/Chic Different Movie: Dwayne, Kevin Hart, Ryan Reynolds, Gal Gadot, etc.
Glad to see someone giving Lakeith some love. F!@# he's amazing
some of cinema's greatest actors like John Wayne played the same character. it doesnt deminish their contribution to cinema. just like a director sticking to the same genre and formula like instead of genre jumping doesnt make them any less of a director
Correct, what you're talking about are 2 different professions - movie stars chase box office by bringing the same persona to each project (Wahlberg, Reynolds, Dwayne, JLo, Keanu, Clooney, Gadot, Schwarzenegger, Redford) and actors chase awards by creating new characters for each project (Bale, Viggo, Cillian, Phoenix, Oldman, Day-Lewis, Rapace, Comer, Riseborough), different professions with opposite goals from each other.
Christian bale bro?
@@thetalentof leo is a movie star yet his characters are different from each other. clooleny is hardly always playing himself
Not in the old-school terms, in which an actor is more ambitious, experimental and selective with their projects due, at least in part, to being the main draw of audiences over the movies themselves. That's a rare breed these days, it seems. But he is a Movie Star in the modern sense of being popular as a big name in a cast, and a reliable lead in big franchises. It might be more risky now than in the past to approach projects like Cruise/DiCaprio when not already at their level of fame. Regardless, many actors, not just Hemsworth, seem to be stars in a different way.
Franchises seem more important than movie stars these days.
I’d argue he’s one of the ONLY rock solid movie stars in today’s age. Even if his stock isn’t as high as someone like Tom Cruise, he’s got enough charisma to carry whichever franchise he chooses.
But he mentions quite a lot of movies where his charisma clearly didn't carry a lot of franchises
But the point is that he's mostly at home in franchises. He's a solid actor, but you don' go to see a "Hemsworth movie" you go to see a movie. Compare that to someone like Julia Roberts or Brad Pitt at the peak of their careers. They were the movies selling points for many people.
he failwd to carry ghostbusters or men in black
You totally missed the point of this video. His argument is that Hemsworth’s characters - Thor especially - are the draw for audiences, not the actor himself. DiCaprio can pull an audience to riskier projects on his appeal alone, like in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood or Revenant
The point is that he obviously doesn't, because he's never once managed to open a movie. His name isn't a selling point. In the MCU the franchise carried him, not vice versa.
Actors I like I will see a movie because they are in it: Steve Carrell, Simon Pegg, Amy Adams, Glen Powell, Ryan Gosling, Michele Yeoh, Ke Huy Quan. And I like younger actors too like Elle Fanning. And yes still will see something with George Clooney in it because he is in it. And I generally am not into independent movies or dramas - but these actors I mentioned I like enough that I might even try some of those. I get your point. Maybe a lot of people are watching some tv shows/ streaming productions because of the actors involved in the way they used to do with the movies. The social media landscape is what drives things now - even older stars like Jamie Lee Curtis use Instagram to engage fans and promote their projects. I think Chris Hemsworth is a movie star - maybe not enough to get you to see a film just for him. But he is great and he has a lot of fans and worldwide recognition. He is doing just fine.
Interesting take, I just saw workout stuff at Wal-Mart yesterday branded by him, he does do a lot of diverse things
This is an interesting topic that I hadn't thought about before. By your definition, no Hemsworth isn't a movie star, but the fact that so few other actors can fit that definition of movie star either does suggest that the definition is outdated, which is definitely because of studios becoming more ip focused which isn't great.
But on the other hand, I don't know if I would mind movie stars dying out so we don't get more weird castings like Chris Pratt as Mario. A choice that shouldn't have been made, but likely only did because of that definition of stardom
Between El Royale and Furiosa, I put Hemsworth in the Brad Pitt camp of "Gifted character actor trapped in a leading man's body." He's better off in a movie he doesn't have to carry.
There was a great video about Miss Piggy and how they've had to retool her because we no longer have the kind of movie stars she originally was parodying.
The safe plays are *very* safe
The artistic projects are widely approachable
It’s a cautious strategy but he won’t be quickly forgotten and with 2 brothers in the game he doesn’t need to take unnecessary risks for accolade. His ambitions are more dynastic
I haven't watched this yet but you missed a great opportunity to put his iconic "is he tho?" face
I just want to appreciate the line about DiCaprio
“There’s no Titanic 2: the Way of Water. There’s no safe harbor for him.”
Beautiful writing
I once read about what makes someone an 'A-list' actor, and it made a lot of sense to me. It helps to understand how an actor ranks within Hollywood and casting circles. There are basically 3 components: 1, are they given lead roles in major movies where the studio doesn't hedge its bets by co-starring big names? 2, do they have the influence to make the movie their own, get changes made, showcase their talents etc.? 3, are they in enough demand that another actor would lose a role if the studio could get them instead?
Look at someone like Tom Cruise. The answers here are 1 - yes, 2 - absolutely, 3 - without a doubt.
Chris Hemsworth. 1 - not yet. 2 - no. 3 - maybe.
But the question isn't really fair, because the number of actual 'movie stars' is diminishing. Hemsworth is just one example of many popular actors who just aren't as big a draw as the top guys.
You never gave a coherent definition of what a movie star is, and that really cuts the legs out from under the whole video. The definition I heard many years ago was that a true star boosts the opening weekend box office (and that is why they help a movie get funded).
I can't think of a single actor in their prime who does that today.
Can you do another one of these but for Hugh Jackman? He kind of disappears into any and every role he does but kind of like RDJ, his most famous(or infamous)role, which happens to be a comic book movie role seems to pop up first in everyone’s minds. They did a good job, some would say their portrayal was the best, with their performances and these Super-Heroes and even do good jobs in all other projects, it seems that, like RDJ, their famous Comic-Book Roles can be Blessings and a Curse in a way. Blessing in the way that they are now universally known and loved and set up financially for life and for generations to come but a Curse in the way that their other art gets overshadowed or overlooked if it’s not them playing their more known Roles with in the Comic-Book Movie Genre
Hugh was great in Reminiscence, Bad Education, The Front Runner, The Son(all very recent), Pan, Real Steel and Les Miserables(Both Criminally Underrated and also Real Steel Directed by Shawn Levy), The Greatest Showman(which should have beaten out The Disaster Artist), Prisoners, Swordfish, The Prestige, Van Helsings, and Chappie-All Criminally Underrated and his no one ever has a problem with his Performance in them and they all Range from Comedy, Drama, Horror, Political Drama, High School Drama, World Problems, Two Musicals, to Family Dramas and to Action
-So is Hugh Jackman a Movie Star? You can make the same video for Robert Downey Jr.
Great Video As Always, Captainmidnight!!!🙌
Great video! I miss the soothing background music tho
It’ll make its return
Wow, I never thought of this concept before good points
The problem is it’s very easy to get shoe horned into a character type. It’s why it’s so important to shift to very different projects after your first big success and not only do franchise work if you want to be seen as an artist.
I think there are actors people will go see because of who they are still, even after getting big in a franchise. Look at Adam Driver for example.
From him I've only watched Rush and Furiousa and I enjoyed his performances in those supportive roles, but I didn't watch those movies because of his involvement, he can be a good actor but he's not a movie star.
Someone who's a movie star who can still apply the one for me one for them idea is RDJ who after winning an Oscar for Oppenheimer, made a well received return to the MCU as part of a really lucrative deal because the people at Disney understand he can really pull audiences in theaters just because he's part of the movie.
I found his character in Bad Times at El Royale very very good and enjoyed that movie a lot more than Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which is in my opinion similar vibe and theme. Also Bad Times at El Royale isn't talked about enough.
Anybody else click out of curiosity?
I also like Chris Hemsworth, seems like a genuine guy.
in my best thor ragnarok: is he though? (yes)
relatively, he's one of the biggest I think. but we really don't have any left, the way we used to think of them. maybe Dwayne Johnson or Jason Statham, maybe. but I honestly don't think it's a huge deal. give more people roles. the huge stars don't need endless hits, but there are lots of smaller actors who need a "big break."
It's a good thing that characters are what drive movies, and not just who is playing them. We cast better now, than ever before. Had he not been Thor, he wouldn't be a movie star most likely. As it is, he is...
Dude worked with George Miller and Michael Mann ten years apart.
Impressive
I was hoping you made a video on James Earl Jones, hopefully next time
I will say I respect an actor who works on a lot of movies. Showing up and doing the work is important. Sometimes being the best part of a middling movie is what you do.
Honestly, that's such a solid observation, I've never even looked at it that way
The only closest young actors to movie star status are Zendaya and Timothee Chalamet. Will be interesting if any more emerge but in general we might be in or entering a filmmaker era where Chris Nolan, Greta Gerwig, Jordan Peele etc is the draw to the movie not the actor.
Studios _want_ movie stars, but they're failing to make them. The Jai Courtneys, Chloe Grace-Moretzes, Taylor Lautners, Rachel Zeglers- you see them on magazine covers, you can all but _feel_ the attempt to make them "click" in the public consciousness by sheer will (and often, PR spending)- and it just doesn't happen. I will say that I don't think Hemsworth belongs in that list, in as much as I've never felt his presence _detracted_ from a film that I saw him in. But I agree that he also doesn't generate the "Oh, _he_ decided to sign on? It must be good!" mojo. Part of the reason we're still watching big movies with DiCaprio, Washington, Reeves, and Cruise is that, despite their advancing age, no one has really risen to take their place.
Idk what ur on about none of those above have been leading movie star material, they’ve been in big movies sure, but they’re never Emma Stone, Timothee Chalamet, Zendaya, Sydney Sweeney type of leading figures, movie stars just DO NOT exist in the same way, i have not seen any actor who came to fame after the early 2000s reach heights that ppl like Cruise, Smith, Washington did, its not possible anymore becuz the way ppl watch movies now has changed so much that with how much content is out there no one is willing to take a risk on buying tickets to original IP just for the star alone. IP is the box office draw now, not movie stars. And you can’t change that anymore becuz of the internet, social media, and how increasingly irrelevant theatrical releases are. Movie stars used to anchor films into big profits, now its the IP that brings the profit, and movie stars are just supporting that IP. Zendaya, probably the most popular young female star rn, can hardly even make a well-liked appealing film profitable in theatrical release, ppl don’t flock to watch her the same way they did movie stars in the 40s-90s where just their name, regardless of how shit the film was, could bring profit. You dont have action stars like Arnold or Sylvester where every film of theirs can make a 100million or so.
He’s a really good actor. He has to take some more serious roles in independent films where he can show his range better. He has the talent. He needs to take more risks.
Rush is one of my favorite movies! Such a good film 🏎️
I reeeally enjoy the first Thor. Now with so much multiversal stuff it's actually nostalgic. But each time I watch it, I like it more. The scene in which he tries to lift mjolnir is awesome.
I very much agree, with your assessment, it galls me a bit that diCaprio is on of the few remaining movie stars, but that’s a personal preference. He can carry a whole movie on his shoulders, he has the appeal to audiences. Former the definition of a movie star was always, the sentence “let’s go see the new John Wayne movie” substitute Wayne, for whoever you please, but it didn’t really matter what the movie was about, it was Wayne who got people excited. Same with some directors today, Nolan, Villeneuve, Tarantino. If you say let’s go see that new Nolan film, instead of we are going to see prestige, you distinguish by the star appeal compared to an interest in the story.
And now cones the part that will get me ripped to shreds, “let’s go see the new Marvel movie”; there is no star appeal at all, people are flocking to the cinema because they are interested in the characters, no matter who plays them, or have a brand loyalty. I think RDJ would have had the quality to become a full blown movie star, but in the head of large parts of the audience he will now always been Ironman. I love that movie, and thoroughly enjoy RDJ in Oppenheimer for example. The MCU might in equal parts have salvaged and barred his career.
Put into perspective he's actually carved out a solid career for himself. I forgot how they were trying to push the likes of Jai Courtney, Sam Worthington (the charisma vacuum), Taylor Kitch, Taylor Lautner, Armie Hammer etc. Hell even Liam Hemsworth had a big push too (studios had a weird fascination with Australians for a stage). I would say Chris has done well even in comparison to the likes of his fellow Chris's in Pine and Evans. Bradley Cooper and Chris Pratt aren't the megastars they had envisaged either. You'd argue Hemsworth is more consistent. The closest actors to that era is probably Christian Bale and Tom Hardy. Henry Cavill I feel has the potential as well.
That’s why I enjoy Christian Bale sooo much besides just being my favorite Batman he does a lot of smaller box office movies. And always puts in 100 percent
I hope you also do a video on Henry Cavill, For someone who has a superstar and Hollywood face he is only remembered for being superman in a mid superman movie, He is a better actor than Orlando Bloom but Bloom has been in franchises that will be seen and remembered till the end of times.
Also love your videos Mr. Captain Midnight.
You dare question our Lord, Dementus?
I just think studios are happy with the death of movie starts. Those are expensive, demanding and know their value. If an actor is a brand then studios depend on them to make money.
If the movie is the start itself...
DiCaprio isn’t a pull for those audiences, the directors Scorsese, PTA, Tarantino are.
A movie star is a person where you’ll go out to their movies because they are in it. You don’t even have to know the plot is, you go because of that Star.
Hollywood has conditioned audience members to look for brands. Actors are expendable to studios but franchises are not viable forever. If you make a new, unknown project it helps to have a Star to draw people in. Not movies that make a billion but they don’t lose 100s of millions either.
But that’s gone and making people interested by bludgeoning them with nostalgia will only work for so long.
I think it’s about time we talked about Leonardo’s downfall
Is he an actor in a lot of movies? Yes
Is he a popular actor? Yes
I would say yes, he is a modern movie star.