Soderbegh committed same mistake as Ridley Scott in thinking audiences cared about Fassbender in PROMETHEUS so making him the lead in ALIEN COVENANT was a good idea.

Nobody buys a ticket to a movie with Fassbender because of him. Same for Cate Blanchett.

The era of stars powering movies is basically over because stars are basically over -- but Hollywood keeps acting like "the audiences have changed!" Well, not entirely...stars have. Or the lack of them.

Pretty good write-up by John Nolte on this:

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment ... ag-tanked/

Some good points (in the event you can't access thru the paywall):

I’m not here to argue with any of this. Not a single word. Bottom line: Black Bag is a great movie, and almost everyone who’s seen it loves it. Period. No sarcasm. Nevertheless, Black Bag grossed just $21.4 million domestic on a $60 million budget. It tanked even harder overseas with just $16.3 million—and no one with half a brain is in any way confused over why it bombed…

Michael Fassbender is a wonderful actor. In the right role, like the cyborg in those Alien sequels/prequels?/whatever, he’s perfect. But he is not a movie star, and you can’t — this is how Soderbergh put it — “get people over the age of 25 years old to come out to theaters” without movie stars.

Michael Fassbender is no Sylvester Stallone, Denzel Washington, Kevin Costner, Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Mel Gibson, Richard Gere, Brad Pitt, Harrison Ford, Michael Douglas, Leonard DiCaprio, or Bruce Willis…

And as wonderful as Cate Blanchett is, she is no Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, Ashley Judd, Sharon Stone, Drew Barrymore, Goldie Hawn, Sigourney Weaver, Demi Moore, Kathleen Turner, or Meg Ryan.

Some of you might be looking at those names above, thinking: 1) Those stars are past their box office prime, and 2) they’re not right for the parts.

Sure, Fassbender’s chilly, rather sexless presence might be a perfect piece of casting for Black Bag, but that doesn’t matter.

What also doesn’t matter is the fact that many of the stars listed above are too old for the part.

My point is this…

In 1998, Black Bag would’ve made $150 million domestic for one straightforward reason: movie stars.

Also:

Normal Men don’t want to be Michael Fassbender. They want to be Bruce Willis or Robert Mitchum or Steve McQueen or Brad Pitt or Kurt Russell. Even after 20 years of Hollywood’s obsession with the girly-man metrosexual, human nature has not been rewired. (see: Stone, Yellow.) There’s no wish-fulfillment to be had through a Michael Fassbender.

Normal Men want to fall in lust or love with the leading lady. Preferably both. Going back 100 years, this has been true for the movies. Cate Blanchett is beautiful and sexy, and one of the top five in the acting profession today. But on the Movie Star Scale, she is no (in their prime) Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts, Goldie Hawn, or Ashley Judd. And don’t get me started on the wealth of womanly treasures delivered during the Golden Age–actresses who still capture our fantasies.

Tell me I’m wrong… Tell me a 40-year-old Mel Gibson and a 35-year-old Kathleen Turner would not have turned Black Bag into an early summer hit.

Black Bag died for one reason: there is no one to replace an in-their-prime Kathleen Turner and Mel Gibson.

Actually, there are two reasons, the second being a director so isolated he doesn’t understand why his Michael Fassbender movie wasn’t a big hit.

Hey, we’re still the same audience who find the same things appealing that we always have.

It’s y’all who changed, and it’s y’all who need to get out more.

Cate Blanchett is beautiful and sexy...

Uh...ok.

Anyway, he makes a few good points. But the idea that all hits require stars is not uniformly the case...

Lord of the Rings
Harry Potter
The Passion of the Christ
Match Point
The Mummy
Home Alone
Shanghai Surprise
RoboCop
Amadeus
The Road Warrior
Poltergeist
E.T.
Chariots of Fire
Alien
Star Wars


And the presence of stars doesn't guarantee success:

Cloud Atlas
The Bridges of Madison County
Nothing But Trouble
Revolution
The Mission
Blade Runner
Mayerling
The Greatest Story Ever Told
Many (most?) Sean Connery movies


The recent Dune movies did well, despite he casting of Timothy Chamalet -- who embodies what the author of that article would consider a "girly man metrosexual". I'd personally classify Leonard DeCapprio as a "girly man metrosexual" as well -- yet that article lists him among the "real movie stars" whom audiences come to watch.

And even Pitt and Gibson -- while very masculine -- were unquestionably "pretty boys" in the early years of their careers.

I think the larger point is this Soderbergh movie in terms of subject matter and tone wouldve fit right into being a star driven vehicle 20 or 30 years ago. Its impossible to sell this kind of film today without having actors there who people will pay to see. Up until the last 10 or 20 years, movies did open and were successful at times just because of the stars who were in them.

That kind of movie is dead today.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:07 am I think the larger point is this Soderbergh movie in terms of subject matter and tone wouldve fit right into being a star driven vehicle 20 or 30 years ago. Its impossible to sell this kind of film today without having actors there who people will pay to see. Up until the last 10 or 20 years, movies did open and were successful at times just because of the stars who were in them.

That kind of movie is dead today.

I get where you're coming from; it's just the author of that article seemed to be shooting from the hip, without having done much research.

He is right though that there is a lack of "stars" these days, who can play those larger-than-life characters which the audiences wish they could be.

I can't see it lasting though. We've had "matinee idols" since Shakespeare's day.

He's a Breitbart culture columnist who does "shoot from the hip" but I do think he was just making a general point on this movie being the type of picture that would've been a big hit 30 years ago when big stars -- and not Michael Fassbender -- would've been attached to it. And generally, yeah, you did need stars to sell a project. Back when we had 1000 movies coming out a year there were always exceptions going both ways, but it certainly helped to have actors that people liked appearing in a given film. The days of the star-driven Hollywood movie are dead.

Even Ryan Gosling, who I don't care for but is viewed by Hollywood as their current "matinee idol", is now making BARBIE and STAR WARS movies (this after having starred in revivals of "80s properties" BLADE RUNNER and even THE FALL GUY which bombed). It's become an industry dominated by "toy movies" and I don't see the genie being put back in the bottle. Good for SINNERS but the exceptions over the last few years we can count on one hand.

25 years ago, a big summer movie like What Lies Beneath was anchored by star turns from Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer, who both had their own dedicated, built-in audiences who bought tickets to see a pair of attractively aging 80s/90s stars appearing together in a slick, supernatural mystery. If the same movie were made today with Fassbender and Blanchett, it certainly would not have grossed almost $300 million. And that's not because Fassbender and Blanchett are not accomplished, talented actors, but it's due to them not being that kind of accomplished, talented actors, the kind that audiences will see their names on a poster or trailer/TV spot and immediately go, "Oooo, let's see this, honey!"

Hollywood just doesn't nurture that kind of "Movie Star" glamour and mystery anymore. I blame social media...when you have admittedly attractive and talented actors and actresses constantly spouting off on Twitter about social issues that will immediately turn off a significant chunk of the paying audience (aka "Pulling A Zegler" ), that's not a good way to slowly build a fanbase. The smartest actors are the ones who studiously avoid social media and allow their work to speak for itself. You almost never hear anything from Leonardo DiCaprio outside of a movie's press tour, and that's a big part of the reason he's one of the few "old-school" Hollywood stars who does bring in an audience, no matter the subject matter or genre. You don't hear Leo shouting "Phuck Palestine" (or whatever) on his Twitter feed. There are celebs who have embraced social media and have used to to better their careers, but they tend to be the ones who don't comment on hot-button social issues and who just promote themselves and their movies. Sydney Sweeney being a ubiquitous (and voluptuous ) presence on social media is probably a big part of the reason why Anyone But You took off like it did (as well as a romcom audience being starved for a good, big-screen example of the genre). And when she's on social media, it's not her grinding a political/social axe, it's just her in photoshoots and on red carpets looking sexy as hell and acting bubbly and enthused about things.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 3:16 pm Soderbegh committed same mistake as Ridley Scott in thinking audiences cared about Fassbender in PROMETHEUS so making him the lead in ALIEN COVENANT was a good idea.

Nobody buys a ticket to a movie with Fassbender because of him. Same for Cate Blanchett.

The era of stars powering movies is basically over because stars are basically over -- but Hollywood keeps acting like "the audiences have changed!" Well, not entirely...stars have. Or the lack of them.

Pretty good write-up by John Nolte on this:

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment ... ag-tanked/

I struggled with The Agency, also with Fassbender. I see it's been renewed for a second season. I believe it's based on the French tv series, The Bureau (Le Bureau des Légendes), which is now on Paramount Plus. The series is into it's fifth season. To me, the French series seems more interesting.