Scary stuff if true.
Scary stuff if true.
Who is the next Tom Cruise? No one in Hollywood or British Film is like him. He is a relic from the early days of film, such as Burt Lancaster or Steve McQueen
The better question is who’s the next The Rock, since he’s not exactly box office gold these days either.
Maybe the next Rock is Kumail Nanjiani? He has been getting pumped for more Marvel Universe movies.
Tom Cruise is more like Steve McQueen - a normal looking movie star. The only actor like him is maybe Leonardo DiCaprio?
You are kidding, right?
Chris Pratt a bit.
Ditto for the guy from the Office now in all those tom clancy type shows or movies.
Plus we're talking about the younger generation. The only actor that has exhibited the range and raw talent that could cover Joaquin Pheonix/Tom Cruise/Keanu Reeves roles is Ezra Miller.
Christian Bale proved he could do all of that if he gave a shit. Ezra Miller could too. If they gave a shit.
I also think Office Jim being Jack Ryan is strange. But I don't think people care about the amazon shows. His news thing and production of a Quiet Place was interesting. People fucking love Office Jim if they could put him in something that was not action man.
I find it kind of hilarious to highlight keanu reeves as an actor with range, as someone who loves reeves movies good or bad. Or tom cruise for that matter. The titles that made most of the "big actors" big were not things showing range. It's shit like top gun. Actors showing range are not doing big movies because big movies mostly don't ask for range.
Young actors don't tend to have that much star power either. That comes after a career. I feel like I can't agree on your entire framework here. But I guess if we had to target actors under... 35 that people want to see I would say it's probably shifted a fair bit to women. Perhaps Margot Robbie. Anya Taylor Joy. Jenna Ortega. Emma Stone.
off picks for men: Michael B. Jordan largely for the Black community. Harry Styles perhaps.
You misunderstood what I wrote. I said he could cover Phoenix/Tom Cruise/Keanu Reeves "roles", meaning Ezra Miller could play the characters they play if he wanted to, I wasn't comparing Miller's range to theirs.
I was comparing Miller's range to Christian Bale's, in the sense that Bale has proven he can cover those character ranges.
They don't explicitly ask for it but I think it's a little more subtle than that.
Taking an example you gave, I don't think Michael B Jordan will ever reach the star power of peak Will Smith simply because I don't think he's as talented an actor frankly.
Willis in Die Hard, Smith in Independence Day, Cruise in Top Gun-- they all exhibit more depth to me than Jordan in Creed or the Rock in whatever.
Idk man I think you've got some seriously rose tinted glasses. Most everyone I know who was born after that time thinks Top Gun is a formulaic piece of trash. It's very hard for me to think of this film as something that gives an actor a good opportunity show off their acting talent. There are plenty of good films from the 90s but Top Gun was like a generic DC superhero spectacle film.
Die Hard holds up. Jeff Goldblum is enough to salvage independence day but its largely dropped from popular consciousness among young people.
I'd also add Jodie Comer and Florence Pugh to your list of top tier females.
Compare Cruise with Chris Hemsworth who's probably the closest thing to a bankable action star we've got right now (The Rock doesn't count because he essentially isn't acting, but is just playing the Rock in every movie). Chris Hemsworth makes some good movies but he doesn't choose the directors and projects he works on carefully the way Cruise did with Kubrick, Paul Thomas Anderson etc. Hemsworth is also out there hawking his fitness app, he's doing comedic bit roles and he relies quite heavily on his physique in a way that's closer to Stallone and Arnie. Cruise doesn't do any of these things because he knows that the more you see behind the curtain the less mystique there is. Hemsworth or an actor like him might raise his net worth by creating and selling his own whiskey but his value as a movie star declines when he does it - it cheapens him and his work, which have now become a vehicle to sell things outside of the movie. In contrast, Tom Cruise cares, above all else, in being a movie star. He dedicates himself to it not just inside the movies, but with his entire life outside of it too.
She's since changed, but there was a good interview with Lady Gaga on Johnathan Ross' talk show just after her first album came out. She was sat on the sofa in one of her extravagant costumes and Ross was trying to get her to admit that she went home afterwards and stuck her jogging bottoms on and her takeout stained t shirts and just chilled like the rest of us. Obviously it's true - you'll even see her in her casual attire around the house in her documentary. But at this point in time, pre-social media, Gaga refused to cave. She didn't want her fans to associate her with that - she wanted to be an embodiment, a symbol, an archetype, whatever you want to call it, of the elevated, mysterious pop star. Because that is what feeds the fanatic energy - people want their heroes to be bigger than them, to be above the drudgery of normal life, because that is what inspires them to dream bigger themselves. Tom Cruise is basically the last actor in the lineage of the mysterious movie star, dating right back to the early days of Hollywood with Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton and later, Clark Gable, Cary Grant etc where movies and moviemaking themselves were both novel, mysterious and glamorous.
Until Hollywood stops making every leading role an ironic tongue in cheek comedian and also stops with the relentless "we're just like you" YouTube video press machine, you won't get another Tom Cruise because Tom Cruise is the embodiment of the movie star archetype. Between the current crop of actors and the studios, none of them seem interested in going to the lengths necessary to craft the mystery, spectacle and otherness necessary for a movie star anymore.
This is kind of what I was trying to get at with the word spectacle. When Tom Cruise base jumps off a motorcycle, he is literally putting his life on the line, solely for your entertainment. This is impressive, just as Buster Keatons' many death defying stunts were. When we go to the movies we want to be impressed. Nowadays, everything is CGI, nothing is practical and almost all of the danger, skill or challenge is removed. It's not impressive. It's not even that impressive from a technical artistic standpoint because the artists are relying on all manner of computer tools and now AI to do their job, whereas before the effects would depend solely on the skill of the artists and craftsman working on the production.
Watching a modern day movie is like turning up to an arena expecting to watch a boxing match between world class fighters and then discovering that you'll be watching two amateurs in sumo suits hitting each other with inflatable tubes. It might be entertaining for five minutes but it soon wears thin. There's no risk involved, there's not much skill, there's no consequences, there's no overcoming adversity. There's not much of anything.
AI has no skin in the game of life. The math and science behind these tools might be impressive but that doesn't stir emotions in us, the same way we don't really look at our lightbulbs or cars or computers and feel impressed. Technology is just tools and tools are mundane. We want to see real people using those tools and conquering difficult situations.
I'll cash out.
People will still share the things they find interesting with the people they care about.
Kinda true? Before movies, there was the shared experiences of books, magazines, plays, etc.
"Movie stars" were created as a concept by Hollywood to enable people who otherwise wouldn't be able to suspend disbelief to watch a guy they've seen play 10 characters already play another. This was capitalized on by good actors who knew their worth and made a lot of money. Now you don't go watch a movie and expect a unique person for every role, you actively seek out films with the same face in them.
Imagine every movie you watch is not a recycled face with a cult of personality, it's just a story with people in it. I think movies without celebrities would be much better.
When I was 19, I decided to make my way through the entirety of the imdb top 250 (which actually meant something at the time) as well as a few other big movie lists. To this day, I can remember many of those films and they influence how I see the world. I'm not convinced the Netflix shows I've watched carry such clout.
The cult of personality emerges when the rare talent warrants it. The face may be the same but the character transformation sure isn't. If they haven't got it then the cult soon flounders with all but the Kool-Aid drinkers which seems to be what we're witnessing with the current crop of actors. Try telling me Christian Bale's Batman is the same as his Machinist performance or Jake Gyllenhaal's Nightcrawler is the same as his Jarhead. These two are literally next level at their craft, and watching a top performer in any craft is immensely satisfying. If we lose that to CGI it will be a massive shame.
I recently saw the Wonka trailer that he stars in, and I just don't buy him as Wonka. He doesn't pull off the "weird" or "eccentric" correctly for me. Also, the moment when they are flying in the trailer and he meets an Oompa-Loompa, despite the realism and visual detail elsewhere, made the whole thing look tonally confused.
I don't think that the big studios are worth watching anymore - they're attempting to maximize expected ROI, not make a great movie (which is understandable in their position). Luckily there are many other smaller studios that will continue making much better movies for the sake of making art.
Personally I think Spiderman 1 and 2 were solid, genre defining films. Amazing Spiderman 1 & 2 were ruined by Sony but the art direction was honestly super good. and the MCU Spiderman 1 and 2 were pretty neat.
Because they are in the mindset of protecting existing incomes with minimal risk, rather than a mindset of innovating and challenging the market because the only income is the one you can dig out and grasp with a death grip.
Willy Wonka sold once upon a time, so clearly it will sell again right? Instead of a completely new thing that may or may not sell.
...and yeah, Willy Wonka is a tough role, mostly because Gene Wilder's version has become the standard that you'd be held to.
It would become like books: A single author creates the entire work, except it's audiovisual instead of written. You can already do that now with written text, audio (if you have a talent for voices), and animation (if you can draw), why does adding realistic video make it "scary"?
Why is that bad? It seems great to me - way way way more stuff will be available, and it will be open to anyone (the cost is high now, but it will go down of course).
A movie is not just a book with visuals. They're completely different art forms.
Although, personally, I tend to prefer live theater over modern movies, so am less attached to the movie as an art form. But it does threaten to be a loss of an art form, and that's rarely a good thing.
If actors end up being replaced with simulacra in movies, then that particular form of art is indeed lost, in my view, because there will be no more actors in movies.
The writers are also on strike.
The model here is a writer writes a movies, hires a non-union digital model (since union models are not allowed), and then produces a movie by guiding an AI until it has the look the write likes.
The entire thing is non-union by people working for themselves.
Both the Studios and the actors union are essentially writing themselves out of relevance. And if the writers union prohibits personal AI writing (unclear if they want that) then they too will be left out.
Actors could have a role here those - if they want it. Instead of providing the digital model (those would be easily made from anyone good looking) a new job for an actor would be AI guide, guiding the AI into a nice performance.
This is the model of the future, the only question is if the current unions want to be part of it.
But on the grander scale, I agree with you. It isn't scary. "AI" is poised to democratize art like we've never seen before, and if "AI" can replace human artists that points more to the brutal reality that art actually isn't as valuable as some of us want it to be.
Art has always been based on algorithms, the appeal of art is determined purely by the whims of society and the beholders without any regard for the process.
Art that does not suit the algorithms of its time do not survive the test of time.
>It's also pretty funny to see people like you talk about democratizing art, then in the next breath talk about art as if it has no value, despite that art being extremely valuable to the training of these models in the first place.
When everyone can create art, art has no value. Value is always determined by supply against demand, and art is currently poised to see an absolute oversupply in the coming century.
This is also discounting the fact that the real value of art has always been low, "Artists are destitute." isn't a stereotype for no reason. The brutal reality is art really isn't valuable in the first place (it is after all an unnecessary and inefficient luxury) and "AI" is only going to make that fact even further apparent.
>Hell, this might even make human art more valuable as the price of autogenerated, samey, computer generated sludge goes to zero as the supply explodes.
That assumes human art is somehow more valuable than "AI" art, but I don't necessarily believe that could be a constant forever.
Photographs were considered inferior to illustrations when it was first invented, likewise the invention of block printing and then typewriting to calligraphy, and look where we are now.
In this case, art that succeeds is whatever art is in demand from the people at the time and which the process involved best reflects the ultimate valuation of that art. It's a problem to be solved, aka an algorithm.
Just like how the printing press and the typewriter democratized all forms of writing, where before writing was the sole domain of trained scribes and clerics (hence the terms "inscribing", "clerical error", etc.), so too will "AI" democratize whatever art forms it can satisfactorily produce.
If "AI" ends up replacing artists and creators wholesale, that means the art products thereof were not particularly valuable in the first place. A prominent example would be tabloid and newspaper articles, which have actually been written by "AI"s for quite a long while now.
Is any of this scary? Unless you have money or fame to lose in the shifting sands of time, no it is not. If you are such a person, well you certainly have my sympathy (unless you're a journalist; that occupation is a cancer upon society), but time waits for absolutely noone.
You can certainly come up with algorithms that can result in stuff that conforms to the given restraints, but within the set of those restraints is a large amount of creativity that is no more amenable to algorithmic computation than any other creativity.
it really hasn't. the art that you see in museums are all examples of ideas and forms that broke the mold.
> When everyone can create art, art has no value
everyone _can_ create art today. art still has value.
> Value is always determined by supply against demand
if you view art as a purely capitalist enterprise. most people don't.
> The brutal reality is art really isn't valuable in the first place (it is after all an unnecessary and inefficient luxury)
art is both an expression and driver of human culture. much of our understanding of our species, our ancestors, and our lives comes from art.
It's still hilarious to me that the AI side of this argument thinks artists are gatekeeping when all you need to learn is some pens and ream of printer paper, plus a computer with an internet connection. There are literally thousands of videos on youtube from artists teaching you about art. It's maybe the most accessible it has ever been.
I _also_ think he gets the supply and demand argument very wrong. Even viewing it in terms of purely capitalistic impulse, the attention economy is a winner take all kind of deal. Some random ass holes making some trite, meaningless art using the same model will quickly drive the price of the outputs of that model to zero. There's still going to be a huge market for original work that has something to say.
Or I could use a tool like Stable Diffusion and create whatever image I want. That's what they mean by supply and demand, when it's this easy, the value of each subsequent image that's created decreases, simply because people will have already seen this type of image.
The algorithms don't work for themselves, they are prompted, controlled, and guided by humans, who choose which output lives, which is lost, and which is modified.
Nothing is handed over, it's just another tool.
TL;DR: Unique factors of the stars themselves mostly growing up in poverty, the Cold War, and the film industry coming out of 'funks' in the 70s lead to this hyper-masculine juiced to the gils ur-hero of relatively 'cheap' films. Stalone really isn't like the others but was kinda forced into it by all the money he was making (guy's more of a tender-soul/starving artist in reality). Schwarzenegger is his own beast, as many will attest to. Segal is just woah ... looney tunes. Norris is also a strange duck that was super comfortable doing TV movies for some reason. ETC.
Again, great book, well worth the read!
I bet their other preferences have a lot to do with the decrease in new 80s-type movie stars, because the other thing that we've seen is the retention of stars well past their prime. I mean, they brought back Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher for the new Star Wars.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/296974/us-population-sha...
On a whole, the study showed that 35.2 percent of
U.S. moviegoers are above the age of 50; and 33.8
percent under the age of 25.
So, at least then, the distribution seems very roughly even. And there are fewer boomers living today than in 2019.Anecdotally, I am an older gen-X, not a boomer, but going to the movies is not a frequent thing (anymore) amongst my social group. For whatever that's worth.
https://www.digitalcinemareport.com/news/new-study-tracks-ag...