Sandra Bullock

[luthia]

Yes, I agree very much with that: our ever-decreasing attention span, as well as the lack of mystery that stars have today due to Twitter, Youtube, blogs, websites etc.

[Deleted]

There's too much choice out there in terms of multi-media to keep everyone entertained so it would be harder nowadays to sustain any level of interest for a long period of time.

I do tend to think the previous movie stars were genuinely more charismatic though. I think they also had a lot more energy.

The female stars of today sound like they're about to faint. It saps energy from me just to have to watch them. I think Natalie Portman had the best chance of becoming a big movie star, because it seemed everyone was pushing for her to become one, she had the right people on her side, and she seems to be the only one who keeps a certain mystery but in terms of her actually doing her job, she seems so ....lethargic.

At the same time I don't understand why none of the teen idols are disappearing (i.e Britney Spears).

[bitca]

Jun 20, 2009 12:40:21 GMT -4 divasahm said:

I keep hoping that I'll run into Sandy on the streets of Austin, we'll strike up a conversation, and become lifelong friends on the spot.

If that ever happens, call me and I'll fly down to have drinks.

[twodollars]

Jun 20, 2009 22:04:50 GMT -4 @ds1 said:

There's too much choice out there in terms of multi-media to keep everyone entertained so it would be harder nowadays to sustain any level of interest for a long period of time.

I do tend to think the previous movie stars were genuinely more charismatic though. I think they also had a lot more energy.

The female stars of today sound like they're about to faint. It saps energy from me just to have to watch them. I think Natalie Portman had the best chance of becoming a big movie star, because it seemed everyone was pushing for her to become one, she had the right people on her side, and she seems to be the only one who keeps a certain mystery but in terms of her actually doing her job, she seems so ....lethargic.

I think part of it is that the movies have become so disposable for women. Outside of Juno, I can't remember the last hit movie that starred a young actress. I think V for Vendetta was supposed to be that movie for Natalie, but it just wasn't that good.

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2009 20:40:09 GMT -4 luthia said:

Jun 20, 2009 16:30:31 GMT -4 twodollars said:

I think that has more to do with the the younger generation not having any big movie stars. Sandra, Meryl, and Nicole are going to hang on until there are new movie stars. Reese Witherspoon is probably the closest to a young movie star and she isn't that young. Scarlett, Natalie, Jessica, etc. have yet to be able to open movies like Sandra, Nicole or Meryl can. Surprisingly, Katherine Heigl might have the best chance of becoming a movie star. Both of her movies have done well.

It is a bit sad that Sandra had to have a hit movie with a formula (romantic comedy) that she has exploited since the beginning of her career, but at least she has a hit, I guess.

I don't think it's sad because some actors and actresses just seem to have more mass appeal when they star in a particular genre. It may not be 'artistic', but it gets the job done and pleases the audience. I think that Sandra is decent in pure drama roles, but she shines more when she's doing comedy. It's her strength.

The same thing applies to some actors and actresses who perform better and have hits or critical acclaim with dramas or action films.

Most movie stars play to type most of the time when they have hits because a lot of films are formula, although some are more artistic than others.

[spider]

I don't think it's the actors as much as the movies just sucking hard. If you go back and watch summer movies from the 80s and 90s they hold up pretty well in terms of entertainment value and appeal. Hollywood hasn't written anything as funny and engaging as Beverly Hills Cop, Point Break, Speed, or the first Lethal Weapon and Batman movies in 10 years.

[ahenobarbus]

Jun 20, 2009 21:07:31 GMT -4 @idaho said:

As to finding the next movie superstar? I am not sure that it will ever happen again. I think part of it is because people seem to have the attention span of a gnat when it comes to entertainment. They (we) can't seem to focus enough on any one actor or actress long enough before moving on to the next big thing.

Maybe that's true for people over 30 (I'm not sure) but the major phenomenon among younger people in recent years is unwillingness to give up on their favorite childhood stars. Until the present decade it would have been unthinkable for someone like Britney Spears to remain a viable entertainment franchise for more than a year and a half, and you've got people like the Olsen Twins and Lohan who don't even make movies any more but who can sell products by putting their name on them.

[Deleted]

I just watched 'The Proposal.' It's a good movie, and Sandra really shows that she's still got that 'It' appeal. The film's last forty minutes display the most vulnerability I have seen in Sandra's performances since 'Hope Floats.'

Also, she looked beautiful in the film both face and body-wise. Her face does not look different or frozen, so it's probably good genes and lifestyle choices.

[Deleted]

Haven't seen the movie yet (don't think it has started over here) but I'm just happy that Sandra's got a hit movie AND is getting all the credit for it. Nothing against Ryan Reynolds but it's nice to see the female lead being credited for a film's success. I hate it when people say about, for example, Jennifer Aniston, that the only reason her films do well at the box office are Owen Wilson/Vince Vaughn/etc.

[divasahm]

"The Proposal" No. 1 at the box office