A light bulb moment

[mrsl]

.
It's not difficult, but after spending three very boring hours watching the Emmy awards show, which had an entirely new and unusual format this year, I got to wondering. Is there a formal ceremony where when an actor turns 35, he or she is automatically kicked out of the 'movie' registry, and forwarded to TV? All this time I've been wondering why most movies have actors who are just out of their teen years, with the exception of older actors who have enough cash to finance their own movie choices. Now, I've found them - - they're all on Television :!: :!: :!: , and they're winning awards for it. There was Claire Danes accepting, and there was Al Pacino, and hello Kyra Sedgewick. Seriously, there are still a lot of actors over 35 in movies, but most of them are in supporting roles nowadays, yet on TV their stars are shining. Of course, I'm being facetious, and TV is pretty evenly spread between newcomers and displaced movie stars. But the fact still remains that the writing for many shows and mini-series is superior, and when you get a top notch group of actors who can play off each other, you are pretty much sure of a winner. Hopefully these shows that have won best actor, actress, and mini-series will be played again to make use of the Emmy status. This all makes me mindful of the 50's when writing was sagging, and folks gravitated to TV even though they had sworn never to adorn it's screen during a lifetime. But the funny thing is, many got their start on the small screen, left to try the big screen, and are now returning to a more comfortable place.
.

[klondike]

Days with light bulb moments are good . . . sometimes they can turn around an entire day that was lookin' brown & smellin' bad, as my Uncle Hollis used to say.
After weeks & weeks of feeling like "Sherman", a light bulb moment can help you feel more like Mr. Peabody!

[MichiganJ]

A quick look at films in theaters right now, their headliner stars and their ages seems to indicate that 35 may not really ring the death nell for aging actors. At one time it seemed that actors were either TV or movie actors with little crossover but it seems to me that actors now are comfortable in both mediums (and for many, you can toss in the stage and even voice acting.) I think that ageism is also lessoning somewhat, although you'll always have the next best thing waiting in the wings.

Dinner For Schmucks--Steve Carell (48), Paul Rudd ( 41)
Eat, Pray Love--Julia Roberts (43)
The Expendables--Sly Stallone (64), Mickey Rourke (58)
Inception--Leonardo DiCapro (36)
Nanny PcPhee--Emma Thompson (51)
The Other Guys--Will Farrell (43), Mark Wahlberg (39)
Piranha 3D--Elizabeth Shue (47)
Salt--Angelina Jolie (35)

[srowley75]

I recently saw an article indicating that Hollywood is making/releasing more films featuring older stars - the film at the center of the article was this new one with Bruce Willis and Helen Mirren (can't remember the name of it, but I do want to see it - I should be working by then). This could possibly be motivated in part by the less-than-stellar box office reports I've been reading about - why make more films with younger, hotter stars when you can't afford them? While I don't know if there were too many outright bombs, apparently so many films this summer were expected to gross much more. At least one article blamed lack of original material (there were quite a few sequels released earlier this summer) and indicated that next year, we might not see so many rehashes (it also lamented that, according to their research, people just don't seem that impressed any more by special effects and technical wizardry since they've seen so much - who'd have thought). But all that to say - if these reports are true and Hollywood's embracing originality results in more feature roles for aging stars, I'd be even more excited.

Of course, the problem is getting people's brains to shift over to something new, no matter who the stars may be. Scott Pilgrim is a terrific example. I've not heard one bad report about that film from any of my online acquaintances (whose ages are varied), but it was released then gone before I could so much as turn around. I guess Kick-Ass didn't do well, either (or as well as studios had gauged) and that's another film that I heard great things about, despite Roger Ebert's scathing review.

I never would've guessed that Steve Carell was 48. Good Lord.

[mrsl]

.
MichiganJ and Srowley:

I see two movies on your list that people might be sitting around and discussing 50 years from now because of their subject matter, Eat, Love and Pray (which I've just started reading), and Nanny McPhee Returns. E-L-P covers one womans' journey of discovery of her innermost feelings and beliefs, and Nanny might just return from time to time for new generations to enjoy.

It doesn't surprise me that people are tiring of CGI finally since it had become just a feud to see who could do more and bigger with each movie. The plot or actors didn't matter as long as that imitation stuff was there. The shame of it is that it was movies like the Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Disney type movies that CGI was a joyful addition and now kids may no longer be attracted to such films due to overkill.

Last week I asked my daughter if she knew what 'held over' meant in relation to movies, but she did not know, do you? Back in the day, movies were played at various theaters downtown or uptown (whatever the case is), and later spread out to the neighborhood movie houses, and finally to the outskirts (country towns). However, if a movie was bringing in crowds of people even after two or three weeks, it was 'Held Over', until those crowds had thinned out a lot. This phenomenon also occurred at the neighborhood theaters, sometimes for as long as two or three months or longer, but not any longer today, because if you blink, the movie you want to see may easily already have gone the way of the DVD, or pay TV channels. My daughter and her friend went to see a specific movie, but found out it had already left the theater, so they have to hunt for a 'cheap' theater and see it for a dollar. I'm not surprised that actors demand such high salaries since the life of a movie is so short. At one time they received a dividend every time that movie played, for as long as it was in the theaters, but not any longer. Now it's a salary and a portion of the money collected for only two weeks.

I realize there are some actors still working hot and heavy who are over 35, I certainly didn't mean that as a definite cutoff - this is not Logans Run, after all. You must admit though, that the average actor today is under - I'll say 40, how's that?
.