In movies and TV, there has been a noticeable gap in younger talent. Whereas in the past studios marketed stars to lead franchises, now they are putting more effort into marketing a franchise or intellectual property. Which makes sense, with how much movies cost and the risks that come with signing an unknown actor or telling an original story, it reduces the financial risk when you can promote a known actor or existing IP. But what this ultimately will do in the years to come is cause an age gap in talent.
National Research Group (NRG) just released a survey, one they release bi-annually, but what made this survey stick out was a new question they asked, “name up to five actors that would make you most interested in seeing a movie in a theater?” They surveyed 2,000 people and their findings were very interesting. The first thing you notice is that the talent pool skews older, with the average age being 57 years old. Of the top 20 actors, only 4 of them were in their 40’s and 2 were in their 80’s.
As you can see in the figure above, new movie stars aren’t getting created. It was noted that the respondents skewed on the older side, but what I find interesting is that even with that news, there is a real lack of actors in their 30’s or 40’s on this list. What I make from this list is that these are people that lead the box office in its 90’s/early 2000’s hey-day. Take Adam Sandler, he is #14 overall, but #2 for 18-24 year olds. What that shows to me is that a majority of these marketable box office figures is that they have a nostalgic draw, that lures people in the theaters. It’s not Murder Mystery 2 that is drawing Adam Sandler fans to theaters (even though that was released on Netflix), it's the fact that people grew up with Adam Sandler and know what kind of movie they are going to get. Same goes for virtually any actor on this list. What these individuals were given a chance to do is to build their identity and “product” to sell the people.
In addition to that, the adoption of social media has changed what it means to have influence. So the majority of stars on this list have been able to establish themselves, outside of what it means to have influence on social media.
Even this Variety article talks about how we used to treat movie stars like Gods. But what this survey made me think about is whether the ‘movie star’ has changed. With the adaptation and various forms of social media, it has changed what it means to have influence. Especially when it means giving people a call to action to get their butts into seats. But what this question and various discussions miss, is whether being a movie star means something different today, than it meant in the past.
Obviously studios want to make money in theaters but SVOD has completely changed the entertainment industry and what it means to be a movie star. Take Protagonist Pictures COO George Hamilton statement (Vanity Fair) on how movie stars stopped being created after the collapse of the DVD business in 2008, “nearly all of the actors and actresses who are [bankable] now had very successful films when DVD and video was still a huge force.”
But that is what makes Jenna Ortega (#54 NRG) such an interesting case, besides Wednesday and the cultural phenomenon that came with it, she has largely been in ensemble projects. So why is she higher than Margot Robbie and right next to Scarlett Johansson? I think this question is subject to the current trends in popular culture. But I also think that with the success of Wednesday and Jenna Ortega’s talent, having a hit on streaming can make people want to show up in theaters, as long as they are in the pop culture zeitgeist. But as an agent said in the Variety article, “marketing of streaming movies is so limited that it doesn’t really create stars. Actors aren’t burned into our minds like they once were.” So even with the advent of SVOD it’s hard for studios, actors, and the various teams that work with both to enter the zeitgeist and deeply resonate with culture because everything is moving so fast.
What is interesting coming out of this survey and various articles is how hard it is to build up the movie star brand in this day and age. Not only is this reflective of current cultural and social issues, but it’s emblematic of the fragmentation of media, where various forms of media and social media are coming at us from everything,everywhere, all at once. If movies are to be continued to be made they need to be profitable for all parties involved, and if they aren’t marketing the stars of those films, they are marketing the franchise themselves. But what that leads to is unoriginal stories that do not excite people.
Overall, I think there is some younger talent starting to climb the ranks, such as Zendaya, who will test her star power this fall once Challengers comes out. But there is an age gap in talent, and as various actors in the next decade or two start to age out of roles or just move on with their lives. The entertainment industry will have to adapt to the next generation of entertainment. In my opinion historically there has been a baton handed down from generation to generation, but in the last 25 years, the baton never fully made its way down to the younger generation. Which is a good thing because it shows that we are becoming less ageist as a society, but it is troublesome when opportunities are not being distributed fairly and passed down. The last figure shown in the chart shows how younger talent is climbing the ranks, but considering how known, bankable actors skew on the older side, I think in the following decade there is going to be a huge wave of new faces grazing the screen, as the older talent begins to slow down their careers.
All graphics were provided by National Research Group, as a preview to their survey that was talked about in this article. This article was contains information from the various sources below and wouldn't be possible without National Research Group.
Comments