1. Fm2 – Section A – STAR POWER
After the curious case of Edge Of Tomorrow’s surprise
critical popularity, Rob investigates a strange Hollywood
happening…
The release of Edge Of Tomorrow - which opened in the US this past
weekend,following its bow in the UK a week earlier - has brought,not for
the first time,a strange Hollywood trend to light. And it's this: do we trust
big stars to make decentmovies anymore?
Many people,this writer included,took a lot of convincing to venture out and see Tom Cruise in a hugely expensive sci-fi
spectacular (notwithstanding the fact that Cruise has fine form in science fiction).The film in question, Edge Of Tomorrow, is
directed by Doug Liman of The Bourne Identity, and based on a graphic novel with a cool title. So surely this should have been a
movie which audiences were enthusiasticallyanticipating? Yet It didn’tseem thatway, both in certain geeky circles and - off the
back of its US box office numbers - amongstthe broader audience either.
There was something aboutthe movie which some potential audience-members didn’tseem to engage with immediately.The
trailer and publicitydidn't help,but it seemed thatthere was more to it than that. Yet s oon,after the reviews and word-of-mouth
recommendations began coming,itbecame apparentthat Edge Of Tomorrowwas a veritable treasure trove for moviegoers.
Indeed, Edge Of Tomorrowis a strong sci-fi/action flick with splashes ofdark humour,which doesn’ttake itselftoo seriouslyand,
perhaps mostimportantly,hinges on two great central performances.Looking atthe trailers,and the director’s previous form ,it
seems a bitodd that mostof us didn’tpredict this would be a contender for one of the mostgeek-friendlyfilms ofthe year.
Have we, as a cinema-going whole,become disillusioned with ‘star power’ then? Is all we anticipate these days the next superhero
flick or franchise instalment? If so,why? We had a look through recenthistory in search ofsome answers…
The 1990s: Star-driven cinema at a high point
For those growing up in the 1990s,star power was most
certainly a big thing. My generation fervently tuned in to BBC2
day in day out, to follow-up our daily Simpsons fix with a
much-needed dose ofWill Smith in The Fresh Prince Of Bel-
Air. I distinctlyremember putting myschool blazer on inside-
out to try and emulate the star-in-the-making’s seemingly
effortless cool.
Although my peers and I fell shortof the 18 certificate for his
first blockbuster outing Bad Boys, Will Smith's double salvo of
Independence Day (12) and Men In Black (PG) cemented him
as the complete cinematic star to a whole new generation of
cinemagoers.He had the looks,the charm,the comedy-
factor, the family-friendlyrap records.
In short, Smith was everything geeky kids wanted in a star. Let it be stressed - we even liked Men In Black 2. To this new batch of
film-lovers,he was bulletproof.He was our entry-level star, who made the jump from our TV screens,to the local cinema,to our
hearts,with relative ease.

2. And if Will Smith was the king of bringing comedynuances to high conceptactioneers,Tom Cruise was quicklylearning to
dominate the world of the straightaction cinema.The late 1980s had seen Cruise wow audiences with Top Gun and Born On The
Fourth Of July, and now the 1990s handed plentymore opportunities to headline movies (some ofwhich he produced).He
overcame much controversy to emerge triumphantfrom InterviewWith The Vampire and attempted legal thriller with The Firm
before launching Mission:Impossible in 1996.
The film performed well enough,claiming the third spotat the yearly box office behind Bill Paxton-starring disaster flick Twister and,
at the top of the pile,Will Smith’s Independence Day.
Comedyhad its own rising star too, with Jim Carrey climbing through the ranks to become a household name,and a bankable
leading man.Although another popular star Tom Hanks had held the box office top spot in 1994, Jim Carrey had not one, not two,
but three films in the top twenty for the year: Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, The Mask and Dumb and Dumber.
This was a time,then, when studios banked hard on stars – one crowd-pleasing turn could open up countless opportunities near-
immediately,which would mostlyall seem to connectwell with audiences (albeitwith a few blips like The Cable Guy foreshadowing
the more difficultfuture to come).Another example of the 1990s reliance on star power was the Batman franchise which,in the
wake of Tim Burton’s departure,would add Carrey, Clooney and Schwarzenegger across two sequels in an attemptto stay afloat.
And we all know how that turned out.
In 1999, though,the box office crown went to Star Wars: The Phantom Menance. The return of a franchise which had always
endorsed an ensemble castand hadn’trelied on established stars in its original run,butmade their own (and as we've discus sed,
1999 was a year with big ramifications for cinema).
The 2000s: Rise of the huge franchises
So was this the beginning ofthe end? Did the return of a huge franchise
which was based on the principle of casting unknowns and a few
experienced thespians againsta backdrop of spectacular fantasy-action
herald the end of cinema’s dependence on stars?
Well, shortanswer:no.Not immediatelyanyway. The decade began
incrediblywell for star power,with the box office totals for 2000 seeing
Carrey, Hanks and Cruise atthe top of the pile with How The Grinch
Stole Christmas,Castaway and Mission: Impossible II respectively.
If you scroll down to eighth on the listthough, things begin to get
interesting.Bryan Singer’s original X-Men,despite falling shortofthe star vehicles,had taken a very respectable US total of over
$150m.This grew to justshy of $300m worldwide.Like Star Wars, Singer didn’trely on the power of star actors. He welcomed
experienced thespians like Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart (who was already an established geek favourite after 13 years sin ce
Star Trek: The Next Generation had begun) to help guide new talent through an engaging,fantastical plot,withoutthe camp and
disappointmentofthe now-dead Batman franchise.
The film’s success was like a calling card to Hollywood,a potent suggestion thatthere were other ways to make big money
worldwide beyond simplythrusting Cruise,Carrey,Smith, Hanks,or any other star,into a new scenario.Already in production at
this stage,and on their way to huge success,were Harry Potter And The Philosopher’s Stone and The Lord Of The Rings:The
Fellowship Of The Ring. Both delivered a similar message bygrabbing the top two spots in 2001.Tom Cruise’s Vanilla Sky came
20th while Will Smith’s Ali justsnuck into the top 40 and Jim Carrey struggled around the eighty mark with a serious turn in the
underappreciated The Majestic (although,to be fair, all three of these were more projects thatgot made because ofa movie star's

3. involvement, rather than as potentially huge blockbusters).Ben Affleck’s Pearl Harbour did better than any of the stars who had
dominated the previous year. Tom Hanks didn’thave a movie out.
Within a year, the whole system had been flipped,turned upside-down.Audiences were clearlymore up for fantastical franchise fun
(with mixed experience-meets-newcomers casts) than their usual stars.Interestingly,animated efforts in the shape of Shrek and
Monsters, Inc. had come third and fourth respectively, beating all the old favourites, too.
Throughoutthe 2000s,this battle continued to rage,with both sides having their moments ofglory. To look purely at the statistics
though,the franchises generallydid better than the star vehicles.The films which mixed both stars and fantasy elements (I’ m
looking at you, Pirates Of The Caribbean) fared pretty well too.
The other 2000s US box office end-of-year toppers were: Spider-Man, The Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King, Shrek 2, Star
Wars Episode III:Revenge Of The Sith, Pirates Of The Caribbean:Dead Man’s Chest, Spider-Man 3, The Dark Knight, and Avatar.
Tom Cruise movies regularlymade good moneyin the 2000s with Minority Report,War Of The Worlds, The Last Samurai and
Mission: Impossible III,buthenever took the end-of-year crown. War Of The Worlds took a strong $230m+ US gross in 2005 but
came fourth behind notonly the final Star Wars prequel,butalso Harry Potter And The GobletOf Fire and The Chronicles Of
Narnia:The Lion,The Witch And The Wardrobe.2000s film fans clearlyloved fantasy and science fiction but undoubtedlyseemed
to trust recognisable franchise names than studio-endorsed stars,in 2005 at least.
Similarly,Will Smith’s biggestfilm between 2001 and 2009 was zombie flick I Am Legend,which took $255m+ US box office haul,
but lostout to Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third, Transformers,Pirates Of The Caribbean:AtWorld's End and Harry Potter And The
Order of the Phoenix in the end-of-year league table.
Carrey’s Bruce Almighty took $240m+ in the US in 2003,but couldn’tbeat The Lord Of The Rings:The Return Of The King,Finding
Nemo,Pirates Of The Caribbean:The Curse Of The Black Pearl or Matrix Reloaded.Withouta Toy Story sequel (with animation
being the other clear favourite here, alongside the fantasy/sci-fi/comic book franchises),Tom Hanks'biggestfilm from 2001-2009
was The Da Vinci Code,which lostout to Pirates Of The Caribbean:Dead Man's Chest, Cars, X-Men: The Last Stand, Cars and, a
bit of a curveball, NightAt The Museum.
Appreciating that stars were headlining films thatwere still making lots ofmoneyin some cases,there was nonetheless a sen se
that the tide was turning....
The 2010s: Underperforming star vehicles

4. So, the full picture seems to be forming - we’ve begun doubting star vehicles due to the rise of comic book/science fiction/fantasy
franchises which don’trelyon casting stars,butspecialise in making them.Who would have thought a few years back that Ro bert
Downey Jnr would have more consistentappeal atthe box office than Tom Cruise?
We live in a time where studios entrustbig moneyto the likes of Bryan Singer, Jon Favreau, Joss Whedon,Sam Raimi and Marc
Webb, not to ensnare a star, but to find a good match for their characters and make the best spectacle possible with whoever that
mightbe. The casting ofHugh Jackman as Wolverine,albeitnot as the first choice,is another prime example of this modern m ake-
your-own-star mentalityat play. Not many had heard of him before,everyone has now.
In the lastfew years, Hollywood’s stars from the 1990s have seen their films flop in ways that would have seemed unfathomabl e to
many growing up.Tom Cruise’s Oblivion failed to break $100m in the US lastyear, while Will Smith’s After Earth barely broke
$60m on home turf. Without Pirates to prop him up, Johnny Depp has had the unenviable double-bill ofThe Lone Ranger and
Transcendence,neither of which broke the $100m mark in America. Jim Carrey co-starred with some penguins in his latestsolo
vehicle, Mr Popper's Penguins.That didn'tdo too well either.
Audiences,it seems,won’tjustacceptany old rubbish from a star anymore.In comic book and effects -dominated blockbusters,
that bring with them homemade stars,the movie stars ofold are struggling to fit in. Even something as criticallyloved as Edge Of
Tomorrowis struggling to find success in the US. Ten years ago, that would have been a huge box office smash.Now? It's hitting
big in areas outside the US - in China,for instance,movie stars are still big business - but on home turf? It's struggling.
But then maybe the days of the big budgetstar vehicle as we know it are all but done. Only Johnny Depp and Tom Hanks (in the ir
roles as Captain Jack Sparrow and Toy Story’s Woody, respectively) have hit the heady heights of year-end US box office number
one since 2001.
Toy Story 3, Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 2, Avengers Assemble and The Hunger Games’sequel Catching Fire have
been the year-end US box office winners so far this decade,suggesting this pattern offranchises prevailing over star vehicles
looking unlikelyto stop.All the major stars (outside ofcomic book/fantasyroles) are currently outside the top ten for 201 4, although
Edge Of Tomorrow and Malificent will currently be hoping to change that.
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol remains the one huge hit of late for Tom Cruise,during a challenging lastfew years that have
seen Oblivion,Jack Reacher,Rock ofAges, Knight& Day and Valkyrie all fall shortof a $100m total on American soil.
What the positive buzz around Edge Of Tomorrow proves is that audiences and reviewers alike are still open to the idea of popular
star vehicles,but that films need something more than a star name to break through at the box office now.A movie star's name on
a poster doesn'tcut it in an era dominated by the likes ofMarvel Studios,Pixar, sequels and big fan -favourite fantastical
franchises.
This reversal,which has seen these fantastical franchises starting withouthousehold names outperforming the thought-bulletproof
stars of old,doesn’tmean the end for big-name stars like Cruise,Smith,Carrey or Hanks.But it does mean thatit's getting harder.
Edge Of Tomorrow’s slow-building boxoffice total proves that this will be a difficult process.And whilstthat's a film that'll still be
enjoyed for manyyears to come, you can't help but think it would have made twice the moneyalready - in the US at least - had it
had a Marvel logo on it rather than Tom Cruise's name.
Read more: http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/edge-of-tomorrow/30849/when-did-big-budget-star-vehicles-become-the-
underdogs#ixzz3Ob9aIYGt