You're always hearing media folks declare that a certain actor's going to be "the next James Dean," or "the next Marylin Monroe" and directors are always seen as "the next Hitchcock" or "the next Spielberg."
Well now is your turn.
Tell me who do you think will be the next whoever, and be sure to include your reasons.
Now get going!
I'll be writing more about the movie business as soon as someone screws up.
UPDATE: Judging from the impassioned, and sarcastic, reactions, I think my little game made its point.
You see, you can't really tell which actor is going to be the next Cary Grant or what writer is going to be the next JK Rowling. They and their work exist as the product of certain people working within a certain zeitgeist. Trying to recreate that rare combination is like trying to put toothpaste back into the tube, impossible.
So what can a wannabe media mogul do if not try to rehash the classics of the past, if only in publicity?
Well, those "classics" came along because someone saw something new, and figured it was the right time to run with it. And I think this obsession with the past is one of the things killing Hollywood.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Now, someone in the business end of Hollywood better do something dumb, or this is going to have to turn into another gossip blog. ;)
Well now is your turn.
Tell me who do you think will be the next whoever, and be sure to include your reasons.
Now get going!
I'll be writing more about the movie business as soon as someone screws up.
___________________________________
UPDATE: Judging from the impassioned, and sarcastic, reactions, I think my little game made its point.
You see, you can't really tell which actor is going to be the next Cary Grant or what writer is going to be the next JK Rowling. They and their work exist as the product of certain people working within a certain zeitgeist. Trying to recreate that rare combination is like trying to put toothpaste back into the tube, impossible.
So what can a wannabe media mogul do if not try to rehash the classics of the past, if only in publicity?
Well, those "classics" came along because someone saw something new, and figured it was the right time to run with it. And I think this obsession with the past is one of the things killing Hollywood.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Now, someone in the business end of Hollywood better do something dumb, or this is going to have to turn into another gossip blog. ;)
Next "whatevers" always get to me. Rarely is anyone the next anything, since they usually don't live up to the hype. Just looking at directors:
ReplyDeleteShyamalan was "the next Hitchcock" until "Lady In The Water". David Lynch was "the next Spielberg" until he made "Dune", which was marketed as "the next Star Wars". And then Aronofsky became "the next Lynch" after "Pi".
In an ideal world, everyone should be themselves, and not have to market based off of a pre-established brand name. Either that, or be so damn original they can't think of what to call you. Who was Kubrick "the next" of?
That being said, I do think Uwe Boll is "the next Ed Wood". Certainly notoriety-wise.
Brian DePalma is the next Arthur Fonzarelli, because he jumped the shark. He nailed the coffin shut with the colossal failure of "Redacted."
ReplyDelete- Flamen Dialis
Jason Ritter is the next John Ritter. ;)
ReplyDeleteI don't want to be the next David Lynch or the next JK Rowling or even the next Tay Zonday. I just want to be the first Jacob Churosh.
ReplyDelete