base talk Are pop stars the new film stars?

[ArtDeco]

 

Quote

 

How film stars faded - and pop stars took over

 

…

 

Fans are likely to spend hundreds of pounds on tickets, travel, accommodation and merchandise as they attend her record-breaking Eras tour. 

 

But while the public can't seem to get enough of seeing their favourite pop stars on stadium tours, their favourite actors aren't drawing them to cinemas in the same way.

 

While casting a big star used to guarantee some level of success at the box office, the adulation which was once reserved for movie stars now seems to be directed at pop stars.

 

…

 

While many actors rely on IP, music stars such as Swift, Adele, Harry Styles, Beyoncé, Ed Sheeran and Ariana Grande are their own brand.

The Telegraph's Poppie Platt says the success of bands such as the Beatles and the Rolling Stones in decades gone by suggests musicians have always prompted this level of adoration.

 

"But I think it's shifted now to individual pop stars who give more back," she continues, "and you feel as if your money is going towards an investment which is benefitting you."

 

"There's a sense of community. I've been going to Taylor Swift's gigs since I was 11 or 12 years old. And you gain friends at those shows, there's usually a very supportive environment."

 

"You're at a show and you know everybody in the room loves the person as much as you do. It takes away any fear of crowds or big spaces because you know everybody is there for the same reason. You can build friendships from there. There's nothing like music that does that."

 

That experience is less common in cinemas, she notes, meaning you don't necessarily feel a connection with fellow moviegoers.

 

Smith goes a step further, suggesting one reason "the theatre experience is dying" is poor audience behaviour.

 

"I am lucky enough to attend press screenings, where viewers are respectful and mindful of others," she notes. "However, whenever I attend a public screening there are always people on their phone doom scrolling, recording the screen, or even talking. It ruins the movie for others."

 

In contrast, she continues, "Seeing Taylor Swift in person, perform a show live for nearly four hours, when all of her shows are different - and a cathartic experience if you ask me - is much different to going to see a movie in a theatre."

 

One major sign that pop stars now sit atop the celebrity tree is the biggest ones rarely do interviews.

 

Swift, at most, will give two big interviews a year. Styles, similarly, can afford to be extremely choosey with who he speaks to. Beyoncé broadly stopped doing press around 2013. They mostly let their music do the talking instead. 

 

Movie stars, however, are still forced to run the promotional gauntlet, taking part in the endless junket interviews and red carpet appearances written into their contracts.

 

The changes in how audiences consume films is partly due to the "lingering ramifications of the pandemic," Ford suggests. "Over the course of two or three years, a lot of Brits fell out of love with cinema-going."

 

However, it's worth noting how enthusiastic the public is when movie stars appear on stage.

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3gglv8y39vo.amp

 

Why are pop stars now merging into the film industry more?

 

Has the music industry finally gone bust?

 

 

Edited yesterday at 08:57 AM by ArtDeco

[Sheep]

name a single a+++ list legendary pop star who hasn't tried acting, I'll wait 

 

Celine is the only one I can think of.

Edited yesterday at 08:34 AM by Sheep

[LustSpell]

Streaming music barely brings in income. A crazy amount of more work for less gains than acting once you're big enough. Unless you're doing crazy physical numbers and tours like Beyoncé, P!nk etc, you're not making that much bank from music especially if you're in a deal that has to pay back the label.

 

To put it in perspective, it is believed that 1 billion streams on a Spotify song equates to about $4.3m USD, which is then split among the artist, writers, producers, engineers, labels, manager fees, Spotify's cut, and more. Like, Snoop Dogg has mentioned he got under $45,000 for a 1 billion streamed song on Spotify.

 

Way easier for profit if you just do other ventures. Clothing and makeup are part of this too.

Edited yesterday at 10:24 AM by LustSpell

[Devin]

its a lucrative crossover esp for artists who are past and/or at their career peak. 

[Devin]

6 minutes ago, LustSpell said:

Streaming music barely brings in income. A crazy amount of more work for less gains than acting once you're big enough. Unless you're doing crazy physical numbers and tours like Beyoncé, P!nk etc, you're not making that much bank from music especially if you're in a deal that has to pay back the label.

!!!

 

some people forget a lot of artists dont make real $$$ off their product [music]. their main source of income comes from touring and endorsements. unless they start a business of their own and does well financially.

[ArtDeco]

Let's discuss Cardi in Hustlers for example, I don't think the movie did her or J.Lo much justice even though Jennifer has a huge back log of movies from her acting career. However, Lizzo definitely got a shine with her flute. The crossover to film looks like playing soccer at this point, you can either get a red flag and be mocked for it or score a goal and be idolised.

Edited yesterday at 08:43 AM by ArtDeco

[Sailor Moon]

Same reason why many of them tried to venture into the cosmetics market, it's more profitable and less draining than touring and releasing music.

[Katy.Kat.23]

It gives them a creative outlet but usually requires a lot less physical/emotional labor and time. Nowadays to be a popstar you have to write your own music or you're seen as lesser than. So that's coming up with a concept, writing, recording, promoting, rehearsing and touring over a twoish year period for essentially pennies (unless the tour does well) vs filming a movie that was already written for you for a couple months on location usually somewhere nice, then just waiting for the editors to do their job and you go on a quick 3 week promo tour (extended if you have awards buzz) for more money. 

[Princess Aurora]

Kinda

[bleuwaffle]

Absolutely not. Actors on a much higher pedestal in terms of respect with the GP. Pop stars are fickle, their flame wanes and dims. They are easier to be dismissed and erased off a bad career choice.

[Mariano]

Gaga's impact, everyone wanted to have their ASIB moment   

 

42 minutes ago, bleuwaffle said:

Absolutely not. Actors on a much higher pedestal in terms of respect with the GP. Pop stars are fickle, their flame wanes and dims. They are easier to be dismissed and erased off a bad career choice.

On average - absolutely, but the TOP of the TOP in the music industry are definitely as big or even bigger/more loved than the biggest actors, lbr. No actor has ever had the fame and love of MJ/Beatles/Whitney etc. just an example. They are as famous for sure, but not as loved I feel, could be wrong tho, maybe if u can give examples! 

[Taylor fanboy]

More profit in less work.

[bleuwaffle]

34 minutes ago, Mariano said:

Gaga's impact, everyone wanted to have their ASIB moment   

 

On average - absolutely, but the TOP of the TOP in the music industry are definitely as big or even bigger/more loved than the biggest actors, lbr. No actor has ever had the fame and love of MJ/Beatles/Whitney etc. just an example. They are as famous for sure, but not as loved I feel, could be wrong tho, maybe if u can give examples! 

That they're bigger commercial products than actors, yes, there's no denying that. There's less pretense in a top pop star than an actor. But this isn't a new phenomenon as the article seems to imply.

[NoAngelus]

Hollywood brings more prestige, respect, money and less work than music industry. So ofc they all wanna be respected more, paid more but work less. 

[BnPac]

Big female singers used to do this, it was almost standard until recently when singers act less and less : Barbra, Madonna, Cher, Whitney, Mariah, Britney, P!nk, Christina, Beyoncé etc. 

It's not exactly new. 

[k4rmabutterfly]

Well, I think the article is actually questioning why movie stars are not getting the same devotion from the public as music stars nowadays… 

 

The title is literally:

How film stars faded - and pop stars took over

"While casting a big star used to guarantee some level of success at the box office, the adulation which was once reserved for movie stars now seems to be directed at pop stars."

 

[chaklux]

3 hours ago, bleuwaffle said:

Absolutely not. Actors on a much higher pedestal in terms of respect with the GP. Pop stars are fickle, their flame wanes and dims. They are easier to be dismissed and erased off a bad career choice.

You are really underestimating the reach of pop stars and seem to be judging based on their acclaim in USA. Pop stars have a more global reach than actors. Beyonce , Taylor, Rihanna, will pull more crowd solo outside of US than Hollywood actors.
 

The other day, Gunna, the rapper, had a show in Nigeria , and thousands came out en masse to attend. A meet and greet with Cardi B in most random countries outside of USA will pull more crowd than a meet and greet with Emma Stone for example. 
 

Although monoculture is dead but music is still way more global than movies . 

[Feanor]

I'm confused why people are saying that Hollywood brings more money? Maybe that's true if we compare the average working musician to the average working actor, but if we concentrate on A-listers only, the biggest musicians make far more money than the biggest actors.

[Khal]

This just seems to correlate with the fact that there are barely any "movie stars" anymore, just actors.

[Velvet Night]

Pop stars are increasingly venturing into film because it's diversifying their income streams and it allows artists to expand their brand and audience. 

They can connect with existing fans, as well attracting new ones, and showcase their creativity beyond music.

Edited yesterday at 02:55 PM by Velvet Night

[Tm4074]

Pop stars have always been bigger commercial juggernauts than movie stars since both became a thing. If you look at the net worth of celebrities pop stars monopolize the top of the list. They have more global reach since pop music travels all around the globe while movies can be limited due to language barriers, culture, etc. Pop stars also utilize social media and the parasocial-ness of it all. Movies stars are too detached from the audience which doesn't work in our current climate. 

 

The "movie star" isn't what it used to be due to our fractured culture. Pop stars have managed to adjust to this change while movie stars have struggled. This also might have to do with music streaming being centralized while streaming for movies isn't. Music streaming has almost every song that exists on Spotify or Apple Music for less than $10/month. Music is just more accessible than movies nowadays. That's why all the biggest movies are established IP's and the movies that smash at the box office are because of the IP, not the stars attached. 

[swissman]

Film stars haven't been "pop stars" since about the 1950s when the Hollywood industry began to falter, TV was taking over, international films proved more interesting than the overly sanitized mainstream American films and musicals were still popular.

 

After that, the wave of actors coming up may have been legitimate stars, but not in the same way as the stars of the 1920s-1950s, not with such defined brands, and with far less mystery and glamour, though many people harkened back to certain legends, most of whom at the time of their heyday were signed into contracts, which is an interesting parallel to the music industry of today where contracts are very much the way it operates.

 

 

[Tm4074]

8 minutes ago, swissman said:

Film stars haven't been "pop stars" since about the 1950s when the Hollywood industry began to falter, TV was taking over, international films proved more interesting than the overly sanitized mainstream American films and musicals were still popular.

 

After that, the wave of actors coming up may have been legitimate stars, but not in the same way as the stars of the 1920s-1950s, not with such defined brands, and with far less mystery and glamour, though many people harkened back to certain legends, most of whom at the time of their heyday were signed into contracts, which is an interesting parallel to the music industry of today where contracts are very much the way it operates.

This. Movie stars from the Golden Age of Hollywood like Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, Elizabeth Taylor, etc. had recognizable images and brands. No surprise they are still widely remembered and referenced mostly due to having iconic images/brands that stood the test of time and impacted culture. Most people have never seen a Marilyn Monroe film but everybody knows who she is and her story because her image/brand is incredibly iconic. This isn't true of the modern movie star, however it is true of pop stars hence why pop stars are the bigger force commercially and culturally. Pop stars took over the movie star after the Hollywood studio system dissolved. We started getting pop stars like Elvis and it just continued from there. Movie stars haven't been able to measure up to the reach of pop stars since this shift, imo.