BEING AN ACTOR'S NO DIFFERENT THAN BEING A RUGBY PLAYER OR CONSTRUCTION WORKER, SAVE FOR THE FACT THAT MY TOOLS ARE THE MECHANISMS WHICH TRIGGER HUMAN EMOTION: The NYMag folks did a lot of math (and employed not-much subjectivity) to determine who the 100 most valuable movie stars are in Hollywood these days, with some neat tools to re-weigh the criteria employed, and best of all it's not a slideshow.
(Too high: Daniel Radcliffe, Jonah Hill. Too low: Tom Hanks, Anne Hathaway. Oddly missing: Samuel L. Jackson.)
"Best of all it's not a slideshow" - hurrah! Why do some sites insist on slideshow after slideshow? They take longer to load and are a total pain to read on a mobile device...Glad to know I'm not the only one who feels this way.
ReplyDeleteBecause each slide is a separate page view, and more pageviews generally equal a higher ad rate.
ReplyDeleteAs for the substance, it seems to me that they overstate some folks. Did anyone really see Hunger Games or X-Men First Class primarily because Jennifer Lawrence was in them? Yes, maybe some folks, but not most.
I think that if you are using past performance to predict future success for young actors, blockbuster films can play both ways. People are more likely to go to a Jennifer Lawrence film now that they've seen her in the Hunger Games and X-Men First Class than if they hadn't, but whether that will translate into similar successes in the future is another question.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Radcliffe is an interesting question. His post-HP movie (The Woman in Black) did better than expected, which probably can be attributed to him. But we'll see if that keeps up.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes was huge because of the Draco Malfoy halo effect.
ReplyDeleteMe in the case of Hunger Games, but I'm an outlier I realize.
ReplyDeleteThe Woman in Black had the added benefit of being pretty darn good, for what it was. So, a good choice by Radcliffe, which maybe does bode well for his future.
ReplyDeleteIt's why I saw Winter's Bone.
ReplyDeleteRadcliffe has a tricky needle to thread--wanting to grow with his audience, but not grow too fast. He was a sell-out sensation in How To Succeed, which was safe for his young-skewing fanbase, but not in Equus, where he got better reviews, but wasn't safe for kids. Pretty much any person with a YA fanbase is going to have that problem. Emma Watson has thus far played it smart--Perks of Being A Wallflower and Bling Ring are logical choices--but if she goes to 50 Shades of Grey next, that's a bridge too far.
ReplyDelete