6 ms·

> People like Tom Holland and Timothee Chalomet just don't seem to cut it compared to the 80s and 90s stars. Who is the next Tom Cruise? No one in Hollywood or

> People like Tom Holland and Timothee Chalomet just don't seem to cut it compared to the 80s and 90s stars. 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

TylerE 3y ago
The Rock was the next Tom Cruise. The better question is who’s the next The Rock, since he’s not exactly box office gold these days either.
- rs999gti 3y ago
  The Rock was more of an Arnold or Stallone replacement from the 80s-2000s. A muscle bound, action star. 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?
  - klipklop 3y ago
    >Maybe the next Rock is Kumail Nanjiani? He has been getting pumped for more Marvel Universe movies. You are kidding, right?
    - ashwagary 3y ago
      Kumail's gains have surprised many people.
spywaregorilla 3y ago
Ryan Reynolds and Leonardo DiCaprio come to mind. Chris Pratt a bit.
- sillyfluke 3y ago
  If there ever is an example of Hollywood trying to force feed audiences actors who have little talent or range Chris Pratt is one of them. Nothing against the guy, but the guy has no acting range at all. 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.
  - spywaregorilla 3y ago
    Chris Pratt's "short" career has more or less been Parks and Rec -> Guardians of the Galaxy -> Jurassic Park. I thought he was pretty great for the first two but the scale of jurassic world being generic trash has managed to completely undermine any interest I had in him. I'm not clear where he stands on public opinion. 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.
    - sillyfluke 3y ago
      >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. 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.
rcarr 3y ago
The issue is that all the modern actors have emerged from the tongue-in-cheek Marvel franchise or similar. Tom Cruise almost exclusively plays dramatic roles (the only comedic role I can think of is the one where he's in Harvey Weinstein-esque prosthetics for Tropic Thunder) and he picks his roles very carefully. He dedicates 100% of his life not just to the movie he's in but to the role and mystique of the movie star which is at complete odds with social media marketing and trying to be a relatable person to get the public to like you. 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.

TylerE 3y ago

The Rock was the next Tom Cruise. The better question is who’s the next The Rock, since he’s not exactly box office gold these days either.

rs999gti 3y ago
The Rock was more of an Arnold or Stallone replacement from the 80s-2000s. A muscle bound, action star. 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?
- klipklop 3y ago
  >Maybe the next Rock is Kumail Nanjiani? He has been getting pumped for more Marvel Universe movies. You are kidding, right?
  - ashwagary 3y ago
    Kumail's gains have surprised many people.

spywaregorilla 3y ago

Ryan Reynolds and Leonardo DiCaprio come to mind. Chris Pratt a bit.

sillyfluke 3y ago
If there ever is an example of Hollywood trying to force feed audiences actors who have little talent or range Chris Pratt is one of them. Nothing against the guy, but the guy has no acting range at all. 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.
- spywaregorilla 3y ago
  Chris Pratt's "short" career has more or less been Parks and Rec -> Guardians of the Galaxy -> Jurassic Park. I thought he was pretty great for the first two but the scale of jurassic world being generic trash has managed to completely undermine any interest I had in him. I'm not clear where he stands on public opinion. 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.
  - sillyfluke 3y ago
    >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. 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.

rcarr 3y ago

The issue is that all the modern actors have emerged from the tongue-in-cheek Marvel franchise or similar. Tom Cruise almost exclusively plays dramatic roles (the only comedic role I can think of is the one where he's in Harvey Weinstein-esque prosthetics for Tropic Thunder) and he picks his roles very carefully. He dedicates 100% of his life not just to the movie he's in but to the role and mystique of the movie star which is at complete odds with social media marketing and trying to be a relatable person to get the public to like you. 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.