I've seen the new HOT sexy names come and go, but who are the solid "youths" who'll drive folks to the theatre based on their talent and not just sexual or momentary popular appeal, who'll most likely become the classic long standing name, in your opinion?

I believe James McAvoy is one.

On the men's side:

Michael Fassbender

James McAvoy (who has gotten massive after eating 6,000 calories a day)

Jack Quaid

Jamie Dornan

Henry Cavill (gawd, he's so delicious, too)

Tom Holland

Elijah Wood

Josh Gad (I think he's a dark horse with his talents that people are still overlooking)

Idris Elba

Thomas Middleditch

Kumail Nanjiani

Tom Hiddleston

Chris Evans

John Boyega

Chris Pine

Dave Franco

Ezra Miller

Tom Hardy (This guy can act better with just his eyes than any other current "actor" alive with their entire presence...)

Jennifer Lawrence (I don't like her movies except for "mother!" which I see as the best movie of the year together with "Dunkirk", she can really act even though she's in shitty movies...)

Neversin.

Uh...

TrivialPursuit said:

On the men's side:

Michael Fassbender

James McAvoy (who has gotten massive after eating 6,000 calories a day)

Jack Quaid

Jamie Dornan

Henry Cavill (gawd, he's so delicious, too)

Tom Holland

Elijah Wood

Josh Gad (I think he's a dark horse with his talents that people are still overlooking)

Idris Elba

Thomas Middleditch

Kumail Nanjiani

Tom Hiddleston

Chris Evans

John Boyega

Chris Pine

Dave Franco

Ezra Miller

Interesting list though a few of these I'm not familiar with. Fassbender and Elba, I think of as old guys. (DiCapiro too for that matter)

Surprised by Wood, though I've been following his career off and on, nice to see a once child actor not all screwed up, just doing their thing. And Pine, which I'll have to admit I only know his ST stuff.

TrivialPursuit said:

On the men's side:

Michael Fassbender

James McAvoy (who has gotten massive after eating 6,000 calories a day)

Jack Quaid

Jamie Dornan

Henry Cavill (gawd, he's so delicious, too)

Tom Holland

Elijah Wood

Josh Gad (I think he's a dark horse with his talents that people are still overlooking)

Idris Elba

Thomas Middleditch

Kumail Nanjiani

Tom Hiddleston

Chris Evans

John Boyega

Chris Pine

Dave Franco

Ezra Miller

Cavill,that guy is beautiful and super hot , but a great he is not, that ass though.

vic mignogna

Pacino and DeNiro ... that's lofty company indeed! We're talking all time greats.

I'd put Christian Bale and Daniel Day Lewis in their league, but they probably aren't considered "new".

In terms of younger actors with the potential to join the greats I'd keep an eye on Jack O'Connell and Taron Egerton. Depends on the parts they go for I guess.

In talking with someone else about it, we came to the conclusion that one would have to wait until actors were older to know who were the stand outs since the market has so many it's hard to tell which are pop culture favorites and which are long-standing exceptional actors.

morningsong said:

Interesting list though a few of these I'm not familiar with. Fassbender and Elba, I think of as old guys. (DiCapiro too for that matter)

Fassbender is barely 40. That's not old. I think that some of these people haven't always been on people's radars until more recently (however that's defined), but the reality is that they've been around making movies and honing what they do for a long time. They're just more popular now to the general public, but the talent has always been there. I don't think it's fair to keep the list to actors under 30 or even 25.

Chris Pine has done some great movies. Bottle Shock and Unstoppable are both based on true stories. Elijah Wood seems to be picking stranger jobs. A lot of voiceovers, shorts, and TV series (ie: Wilfred, Tron Legacy), and is just now trying to do more movies again. Maybe all the LOTR grueling schedules fried him a bit.

For me, I think DiCaprio is overrated. Some of his movies are just unbearable. There are few movies of his that I can sit through. He's talented, but I just don't think all of his movies are great choices. He's going for these mega-budget sagas, when it'd be nice to just see him in some independent sleeper movie that stands on its own without the benefit of Scorcese at the helm, or a lot of CGI tricks around him.

TrivialPursuit said:

morningsong said:

Interesting list though a few of these I'm not familiar with. Fassbender and Elba, I think of as old guys. (DiCapiro too for that matter)

Fassbender is barely 40. That's not old. I think that some of these people haven't always been on people's radars until more recently (however that's defined), but the reality is that they've been around making movies and honing what they do for a long time. They're just more popular now to the general public, but the talent has always been there. I don't think it's fair to keep the list to actors under 30 or even 25.

Chris Pine has done some great movies. Bottle Shock and Unstoppable are both based on true stories. Elijah Wood seems to be picking stranger jobs. A lot of voiceovers, shorts, and TV series (ie: Wilfred, Tron Legacy), and is just now trying to do more movies again. Maybe all the LOTR grueling schedules fried him a bit.

For me, I think DiCaprio is overrated. Some of his movies are just unbearable. There are few movies of his that I can sit through. He's talented, but I just don't think all of his movies are great choices. He's going for these mega-budget sagas, when it'd be nice to just see him in some independent sleeper movie that stands on its own without the benefit of Scorcese at the helm, or a lot of CGI tricks around him.

Yeah, 40 isn't old. I was just using Streep and DeNiro as a measuring stick. They were considered exceptional I think in their 30s, but after my other discussion I can see the difference in time periods, there are just simply more people more forms of entertainment so it's difficult just to put a finger on who is on the "great" pedestal at this time. Every generation has their pop culture favorites that's nothing new, but then every generation has had their considered "geniuses" and I was just wondering what are today's. Today it definitely is a time will tell kind of thing.

What made those actors great was charisma. Something you don't see in a lot of young actors today. You can't teach charisma. It comes from the sum of experiences of these people's lives who use acting as a vessel to express it. Either you have it or you don't. Actors like Fassenbender and Tom Hardy are very very great at their craft but arent very charismatic to me. As good as Hardy is, I always feel like I'm watching a performance with him. He can be a little over the top with his mannerisms and character ticks.

Also great actors tend to look beyond what is in the script and try to embrace a greater arc that is universal. In terms of music, Prince is the perfect example of any extremely talented artist who used his talents to express something greater. There's a consistent line that can be drawn through all of his work no matter what form it takes.

We are in an age now where great actors no longer sell movies. It's only about spectacle, nostalgia, and branding. The actors you named all hail from the 70s, the absolute peak of American film. You can't have a great actor without a great film to put them in. You can't have a great actor if you don't have a great director guiding the performance. You can't have great actor if you don't have a great writer putting down memorable dialogue. You can't a have great actor if you don't have a film studio willing to fund challenging, unique films.

Hopefully, it will swing back around. It seems like Hollywood goes through these phases rampant commercialism, collapse, refelection and then back to rampant commericalism.

lrn36 said:

What made those actors great was charisma. Something you don't see in a lot of young actors today. You can't teach charisma. It comes from the sum of experiences of these people's lives who use acting as a vessel to express it. Either you have it or you don't. Actors like Fassenbender and Tom Hardy are very very great at their craft but arent very charismatic to me. As good as Hardy is, I always feel like I'm watching a performance with him. He can be a little over the top with his mannerisms and character ticks.

Also great actors tend to look beyond what is in the script and try to embrace a greater arc that is universal. In terms of music, Prince is the perfect example of any extremely talented artist who used his talents to express something greater. There's a consistent line that can be drawn through all of his work no matter what form it takes.

We are in an age now where great actors no longer sell movies. It's only about spectacle, nostalgia, and branding. The actors you named all hail from the 70s, the absolute peak of American film. You can't have a great actor without a great film to put them in. You can't have a great actor if you don't have a great director guiding the performance. You can't have great actor if you don't have a great writer putting down memorable dialogue. You can't a have great actor if you don't have a film studio willing to fund challenging, unique films.

Hopefully, it will swing back around. It seems like Hollywood goes through these phases rampant commercialism, collapse, refelection and then back to rampant commericalism.

I don't think its only about that ... there are still great films getting made today, you just have to look a little harder to find them.

And I think its always been that way. People look at the 70s and only remember the great films that came out and forget about the dross that was being advertised to the hilt and filling cinema screeings. Don't think the likes of The Conversation and Serpico were massive films when they came out ... they've grown in stature in subsequent years.

Take a look at the seventies box office takings ... Love Story, Diamonds Are Forever, Earthquake, What's Up Doc, Herbie Rides Again, To Fly, King Kong (1976), The Goodbye Girl, The Deep, Exorcist II: The Heretic, Every Which Way But Loose, Star Trek: The Motion Picture ... all took tons of money at the box office and were "big" films at the time, a lot of them made on the back of spectacle and branding.

I'm confident that in forty years time people will have largely forgotten the likes of Pitch Perfect and Fifty Shades of Grey, but will fondly remember films like Nightcrawler, Everybody Wants Some, A Walk In The Woods, etc.

DaveT said:

lrn36 said:

What made those actors great was charisma. Something you don't see in a lot of young actors today. You can't teach charisma. It comes from the sum of experiences of these people's lives who use acting as a vessel to express it. Either you have it or you don't. Actors like Fassenbender and Tom Hardy are very very great at their craft but arent very charismatic to me. As good as Hardy is, I always feel like I'm watching a performance with him. He can be a little over the top with his mannerisms and character ticks.

Also great actors tend to look beyond what is in the script and try to embrace a greater arc that is universal. In terms of music, Prince is the perfect example of any extremely talented artist who used his talents to express something greater. There's a consistent line that can be drawn through all of his work no matter what form it takes.

We are in an age now where great actors no longer sell movies. It's only about spectacle, nostalgia, and branding. The actors you named all hail from the 70s, the absolute peak of American film. You can't have a great actor without a great film to put them in. You can't have a great actor if you don't have a great director guiding the performance. You can't have great actor if you don't have a great writer putting down memorable dialogue. You can't a have great actor if you don't have a film studio willing to fund challenging, unique films.

Hopefully, it will swing back around. It seems like Hollywood goes through these phases rampant commercialism, collapse, refelection and then back to rampant commericalism.

I don't think its only about that ... there are still great films getting made today, you just have to look a little harder to find them.

And I think its always been that way. People look at the 70s and only remember the great films that came out and forget about the dross that was being advertised to the hilt and filling cinema screeings. Don't think the likes of The Conversation and Serpico were massive films when they came out ... they've grown in stature in subsequent years.

Take a look at the seventies box office takings ... Love Story, Diamonds Are Forever, Earthquake, What's Up Doc, Herbie Rides Again, To Fly, King Kong (1976), The Goodbye Girl, The Deep, Exorcist II: The Heretic, Every Which Way But Loose, Star Trek: The Motion Picture ... all took tons of money at the box office and were "big" films at the time, a lot of them made on the back of spectacle and branding.

I'm confident that in forty years time people will have largely forgotten the likes of Pitch Perfect and Fifty Shades of Grey, but will fondly remember films like Nightcrawler, Everybody Wants Some, A Walk In The Woods, etc.

Yes, there are still great films being made, but they are becoming less so every year. The diversity of genres is decreasing as well. Yes, there were plenty of bad movies in the 70s but there was a balance with good to great movies.

Here are the highest grossing films of 1973.

1. The Sting

2. The Exorcist

3. American Graffiti

4. Papillion

5. The Way We Were

6. Magnum Force

7. Last Tango in Paris

8. Live and Let Die

9. Robin Hood

10. Paper Moon

Highest Grossing Films of 2016

1. Rogue One

2. Finding Dory

3. Captain America: Civil War

4. The Secret Like of Pets

5. The Jungle Book

6. Deadpool

7. Zootopia

8. Batman v Superman

9. Suicide Squad

10. Sing

Do you see a difference in the type of movies being made? See the diversity of films in the 70s. Hollywood didn't have a clue what would be a hit so they invested different types of films to see what clicked with audiences. Now with branding, nostalgia, and spectacle, movie studios have figured out the formula to a hit film and narrowed the type of films being produced. You're not going to find, great, generation defining actors with movies like Suicide Squad, Rogue One, or Sing.

Not Kevin Hart.

lrn36 said:

DaveT said:

I don't think its only about that ... there are still great films getting made today, you just have to look a little harder to find them.

And I think its always been that way. People look at the 70s and only remember the great films that came out and forget about the dross that was being advertised to the hilt and filling cinema screeings. Don't think the likes of The Conversation and Serpico were massive films when they came out ... they've grown in stature in subsequent years.

Take a look at the seventies box office takings ... Love Story, Diamonds Are Forever, Earthquake, What's Up Doc, Herbie Rides Again, To Fly, King Kong (1976), The Goodbye Girl, The Deep, Exorcist II: The Heretic, Every Which Way But Loose, Star Trek: The Motion Picture ... all took tons of money at the box office and were "big" films at the time, a lot of them made on the back of spectacle and branding.

I'm confident that in forty years time people will have largely forgotten the likes of Pitch Perfect and Fifty Shades of Grey, but will fondly remember films like Nightcrawler, Everybody Wants Some, A Walk In The Woods, etc.

Yes, there are still great films being made, but they are becoming less so every year. The diversity of genres is decreasing as well. Yes, there were plenty of bad movies in the 70s but there was a balance with good to great movies.

Here are the highest grossing films of 1973.

1. The Sting

2. The Exorcist

3. American Graffiti

4. Papillion

5. The Way We Were

6. Magnum Force

7. Last Tango in Paris

8. Live and Let Die

9. Robin Hood

10. Paper Moon

Highest Grossing Films of 2016

1. Rogue One

2. Finding Dory

3. Captain America: Civil War

4. The Secret Like of Pets

5. The Jungle Book

6. Deadpool

7. Zootopia

8. Batman v Superman

9. Suicide Squad

10. Sing

Do you see a difference in the type of movies being made? See the diversity of films in the 70s. Hollywood didn't have a clue what would be a hit so they invested different types of films to see what clicked with audiences. Now with branding, nostalgia, and spectacle, movie studios have figured out the formula to a hit film and narrowed the type of films being produced. You're not going to find, great, generation defining actors with movies like Suicide Squad, Rogue One, or Sing.

I don't think that's down to less good movies being made these days though ... as I said, you need to know where to look for them.

Back in the seventies there was no internet, fewer TV channels, etc. Cinema had little competition in terms of visual entertainment, so studios could take more risks with what they put on screen. People had little to no alternative so you watched what was in cinemas or you went without.

Now there are lots of alternatives, so studios have to be smarter in how they invest their money. They'll probably only invest in products guaranteed to bring in the viewers (hence the 2016 money grabbers list you posted) ... because if the viewers don't like what's in cinemas or its an unknown product they can go to Netflix, Amazon, etc instead to find great alternatives for less of a financial gamble. £12 for a cinema ticket on one film that might be an undiscovered classic, or £10 a month for Netflix for as many potential undiscovered gems as you like.

I consider cinema to be art, like a lot of movie fans do, but I still accept that Hollywood is first and foremost a business.

So, if you want to find those great movies today you need to cast your net a bit wider. And why not? Home TVs in the seventies were grainy 20" boxes with a single mono speaker. Today you have a 55" flat HD beauty with surround sound. And being in the comfort of your own home allows for the format to be developed and widened ... hence some "movies" now encompassing the 4 or 8 part mini series format.

I don't think movies have gotten worse, its just a changing of the format.

casey affleck
jake gyllenhaal
i think james franco is going to mature nicely...

tough call on the ladies' side. i like michelle williams quite a bit.

They are all white, I do know that.

sho nuff.

2freaky4church1 said:

They are all white, I do know that.

Hey, you have Idris, Boyega, and Gambino. lol

peedub said:

casey affleck
jake gyllenhaal
i think james franco is going to mature nicely...

Too bad he's a drunk sexual deviant with women.

Franco - I put Dave on my list, but James deserves a spot too. You have these crazy off-film moments with him, but on screen, he can really envelop a comedic or dramatic role.

Gyllenhaal - he's getting better. His sister is just horrible in every regard. But Jake is honing his stuff more.

TrivialPursuit said:

peedub said:

casey affleck
jake gyllenhaal
i think james franco is going to mature nicely...

Too bad he's a drunk sexual deviant with women.

Franco - I put Dave on my list, but James deserves a spot too. You have these crazy off-film moments with him, but on screen, he can really envelop a comedic or dramatic role.

Gyllenhaal - he's getting better. His sister is just horrible in every regard. But Jake is honing his stuff more.

yeah, he's probably done for. i'd like to see him redeem himself, though. if not, we'll always have 'the assassination of jesse james...'.

james is just a dilettante...if he ever decides to stop wanting to do everything, i think he'll settle in well.

gyllenhaal won me over with 'enemy' and then 'nightcrawler' and then 'nocturnal animals'. he's on a roll.

peedub said:

gyllenhaal won me over with 'enemy' and then 'nightcrawler' and then 'nocturnal animals'. he's on a roll.

I think Demolition is part of that, too. But I agree.

2freaky4church1 said:

They are all white, I do know that.

Idris isn't.

DaveT said:

lrn36 said:

Yes, there are still great films being made, but they are becoming less so every year. The diversity of genres is decreasing as well. Yes, there were plenty of bad movies in the 70s but there was a balance with good to great movies.

Here are the highest grossing films of 1973.

1. The Sting

2. The Exorcist

3. American Graffiti

4. Papillion

5. The Way We Were

6. Magnum Force

7. Last Tango in Paris

8. Live and Let Die

9. Robin Hood

10. Paper Moon

Highest Grossing Films of 2016

1. Rogue One

2. Finding Dory

3. Captain America: Civil War

4. The Secret Like of Pets

5. The Jungle Book

6. Deadpool

7. Zootopia

8. Batman v Superman

9. Suicide Squad

10. Sing

Do you see a difference in the type of movies being made? See the diversity of films in the 70s. Hollywood didn't have a clue what would be a hit so they invested different types of films to see what clicked with audiences. Now with branding, nostalgia, and spectacle, movie studios have figured out the formula to a hit film and narrowed the type of films being produced. You're not going to find, great, generation defining actors with movies like Suicide Squad, Rogue One, or Sing.

I don't think that's down to less good movies being made these days though ... as I said, you need to know where to look for them.

Back in the seventies there was no internet, fewer TV channels, etc. Cinema had little competition in terms of visual entertainment, so studios could take more risks with what they put on screen. People had little to no alternative so you watched what was in cinemas or you went without.

Now there are lots of alternatives, so studios have to be smarter in how they invest their money. They'll probably only invest in products guaranteed to bring in the viewers (hence the 2016 money grabbers list you posted) ... because if the viewers don't like what's in cinemas or its an unknown product they can go to Netflix, Amazon, etc instead to find great alternatives for less of a financial gamble. £12 for a cinema ticket on one film that might be an undiscovered classic, or £10 a month for Netflix for as many potential undiscovered gems as you like.

I consider cinema to be art, like a lot of movie fans do, but I still accept that Hollywood is first and foremost a business.

So, if you want to find those great movies today you need to cast your net a bit wider. And why not? Home TVs in the seventies were grainy 20" boxes with a single mono speaker. Today you have a 55" flat HD beauty with surround sound. And being in the comfort of your own home allows for the format to be developed and widened ... hence some "movies" now encompassing the 4 or 8 part mini series format.

I don't think movies have gotten worse, its just a changing of the format.

I don't disagree with your assessment, but Hollywood is no longer investing the type of filmaking that great actor could emerge. Who's producing films like Chinatown, Apocalypse Now, Do the Right Thing, the Godfather, Raging Bull, Goodfellas,or Full Metal Jacket? Those movies that were larger than life and epic in their execution, but also very much about human frailties.

Hollywood is no longer investing in mid-budget films in the 30 to 50 million range that would produce the kind of movies I listed above. Low budget movies are getting even less money than they did in the 80s and 90s.

I agree that there is still good to great movies coming out. Hollywood is just not making the kind of films that would produce a new DeNiro, Pacino, Streep, Washington, Lewis, or Hackman.

lrn36 said:

DaveT said:

I don't think that's down to less good movies being made these days though ... as I said, you need to know where to look for them.

Back in the seventies there was no internet, fewer TV channels, etc. Cinema had little competition in terms of visual entertainment, so studios could take more risks with what they put on screen. People had little to no alternative so you watched what was in cinemas or you went without.

Now there are lots of alternatives, so studios have to be smarter in how they invest their money. They'll probably only invest in products guaranteed to bring in the viewers (hence the 2016 money grabbers list you posted) ... because if the viewers don't like what's in cinemas or its an unknown product they can go to Netflix, Amazon, etc instead to find great alternatives for less of a financial gamble. £12 for a cinema ticket on one film that might be an undiscovered classic, or £10 a month for Netflix for as many potential undiscovered gems as you like.

I consider cinema to be art, like a lot of movie fans do, but I still accept that Hollywood is first and foremost a business.

So, if you want to find those great movies today you need to cast your net a bit wider. And why not? Home TVs in the seventies were grainy 20" boxes with a single mono speaker. Today you have a 55" flat HD beauty with surround sound. And being in the comfort of your own home allows for the format to be developed and widened ... hence some "movies" now encompassing the 4 or 8 part mini series format.

I don't think movies have gotten worse, its just a changing of the format.

I don't disagree with your assessment, but Hollywood is no longer investing the type of filmaking that great actor could emerge. Who's producing films like Chinatown, Apocalypse Now, Do the Right Thing, the Godfather, Raging Bull, Goodfellas,or Full Metal Jacket? Those movies that were larger than life and epic in their execution, but also very much about human frailties.

Hollywood is no longer investing in mid-budget films in the 30 to 50 million range that would produce the kind of movies I listed above. Low budget movies are getting even less money than they did in the 80s and 90s.

I agree that there is still good to great movies coming out. Hollywood is just not making the kind of films that would produce a new DeNiro, Pacino, Streep, Washington, Lewis, or Hackman.

I've seen a good handful of films this year alone that fit that definition ... Burning Sands, Split, Detroit, Raw, Dunkirk, Okja, American Made ...

Whether these produce another De Niro or Streep I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens with some of the cast members featured in the years to come.

Lots of great films being made, and certainly lots of great newer actors.

Kid-marketed movies/animation and PG blockbusters are big money makers, so yes it seems like there is an overabundance of them at the top of the "highest grossing" lists, but since when has popular been synonymous with better quality.

Many of the big award winners of the last few years have been incredible, and it's nice that gradually (although, still too slow) actors of color are emerging in more quality roles. Denzel can play every black man in a drama forever.

DaveT said:

lrn36 said:

I don't disagree with your assessment, but Hollywood is no longer investing the type of filmaking that great actor could emerge. Who's producing films like Chinatown, Apocalypse Now, Do the Right Thing, the Godfather, Raging Bull, Goodfellas,or Full Metal Jacket? Those movies that were larger than life and epic in their execution, but also very much about human frailties.

Hollywood is no longer investing in mid-budget films in the 30 to 50 million range that would produce the kind of movies I listed above. Low budget movies are getting even less money than they did in the 80s and 90s.

I agree that there is still good to great movies coming out. Hollywood is just not making the kind of films that would produce a new DeNiro, Pacino, Streep, Washington, Lewis, or Hackman.

I've seen a good handful of films this year alone that fit that definition ... Burning Sands, Split, Detroit, Raw, Dunkirk, Okja, American Made ...

Whether these produce another De Niro or Streep I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens with some of the cast members featured in the years to come.

Yeah, that's the point. There are still good to great films being made (although fewer than before), but not the kind that that would produce iconic actors like those listed. Just like we will never see a bankable, singer, dancer, and actor like Gene Kelly because Hollywood doesn't produce musicals like they used to. There's no infrastructure of writers, directors, songwriters, and choreographers who honed their craft for years creating musicals so instead you get Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone struggling through dance numbers in LaLa Land. It's not that Ryan and Emma are bad actors, they're just not Fred Astraire and Ginger Rogers, two performers who existed because the studio system could take people with a raw talent like dancing and singer and refine them into actors on the silver screen. They invested in their actors become well rounded performers.

The 70's produced so many iconic actors because a lot of them came from theater and studied the method and you had the first generation of directors to come from film school. Directors who studied film, literature, art, and symbolism. And for a few years they were given the keys to the whole system because the studios were losing audiences and were willing to try anything.

minnesota's own Josh Hartnett, very talented guy

[Edited 12/14/17 17:04pm]