What Makes An Actor/Actress Marketable?

7 Dec

By Ozzie

First to begin to understand what makes an actor marketable, we must understand what “marketable” in the acting world means. In Hollywood, it means whether the actor can be “packaged up” and sold to the film executives and later on, to the public. It’s the way an actor is presented to make them desirable which helps on securing future roles and the promotion of the film when it is later released. So what makes an actor marketable? Well, it all comes down to a few key pieces that will make the actor whole.[1]

Talent: It is the most obvious part and the most important! It’s the ability to present themselves as an entirely different person on camera and for the audience to believe it. The aim of a film is to make the audience forget where they are and to be fully immersed in it. It can be in the form of escapism from everyday realities or a piece of work that makes them explore a different way or how they think and their approach to life. Of course there are many elements that go with film making (i.e. direction, script, cinematography, costume/set design, editing etc.) to make a film have that effect on the audience, but acting is a very important part too, as they are the ones who guide the viewers through the journey on screen. No theatre goer wants to sit there and see the actor rather than the character as it detracts from the film. Actors need to have the ability to create and bring to life a fully rounded character. However, there are a few actors out there that may not have enough talent to do that, yet are still marketable. Those actors tend to be very good at the next few parts.[2]

Dedication: Actors need to have motivation. They tend to be constantly honing their craft and spend time to properly research their roles. This helps with the quality of the film and it helps the audience to understand the film when promotion comes round. When working on set, the hours can be long and can be in some bad weather or difficult locations. Having the dedication to not moan and to be part of the team, helps tremendously with crew moral, making the work a bit more pleasant and tolerable. Dedication is what lets other people know (both in the industry and the public) that they are serious about their craft. It brings a positive reputation which can take them far in the industry.[3]

Presentability: There are many good looking actors in Hollywoodbut that is not 100% necessary as there are many types of characters to be played. What counts is how they present themselves to the public. Whenever and actor goes out into the street, they are working and must have a normal to good appearance and act professionally. Walking around looking dirty and being rude doesn’t help the image that the studios are trying to sell at the time. Plus they are interacting with the public which is essentially the actors “customers”.  Any shoddy and ill presented product in a store, with rude sales people isn’t going to sell and will ultimately get a bad reputation.[4] Unfortunately for the actor they are the product and the sales person, so they have to be presentable in both parts of their life. It is unfair but that is how Hollywood works. This also applies to when they are working on set or doing the promotion rounds. Acting like diva is going to get you a bad reputation in the industry, the one place you do not want to annoy! Being able to be professional and well-spoken goes a long way.

And finally the X Factor: This is something that sets apart the actor from the others. Often it is hard to describe but it’s usually a personality trait (i.e. humorous, intelligence, sensitive, hardworking etc.) or a presence. This unique quality can help their performance and connecting to the audience. Whatever this stand out trait is, it is usually what makes the actor shine.[5]

So if an actor possess these four elements, they are most likely to be very marketable. This will be able to help them sustain long and successful careers with admiration from the industry and the public![6]

127 Responses to “What Makes An Actor/Actress Marketable?”

  1. littlebells December 7, 2011 at 1:06 PM #

    Excellent! Can’t wait to discuss!

  2. Sony December 7, 2011 at 2:10 PM #

    Yes, excellent topic! I can’t wait to discuss the stupid Forbes-list that was published yesterday…I think you know the reason why.

    • littlebells December 7, 2011 at 2:24 PM #

      Re Forbes: really? REALLY???

      • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 7:09 PM #

        LOL! This one was quite tough to research so when I came across that Forbes article, I was quite excited……until I opened the page. Took one look at it, laughed then closed it!

        • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 7:10 PM #

          P.S. I’m so glad to see you here Sony! *hugs*

  3. comic relief December 7, 2011 at 6:09 PM #

    “In Hollywood, it means whether the actor can be “packaged up” and sold to the film executives and later on, to the public.”

    Hmmmm? Why does this statement bother me so much? Of course all actors are young and fairly unknown for a time but when I think of actors and actresses like Robert Deniro, Susan Sarandon, Meryl Streep, and Denzel Washington; I don’t consider them either market czars, old hands at or masters of marketing. If people wanted to say they were master actors I doubt, given their histories of visibility, I would disagree.

    If others can, maybe I can get over this too. I also look forward to the discussion.

    • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 7:28 PM #

      I can understand how it bothers you because it kind of makes me feel a little sick about it. Putting aside the great established talented actors, it is potentially seedy (I’m not sure if that’s the exact word I’m looking for but it is the first that came to mind) business. I think it’s because it can be kind of harmful on both side. You have a young actor/actress potentially being sold as something they are not, which in the long run will know doubt crumble and the true nature revealed. It makes the actor/actress vunerable. On the other side you have the public and let’s face it there are alot of niave people out there. People are not going to be happy when they found out that what they have “worshipped” isn’t what they really are, I guess it can be damaging to them. You can talk a faulty good back and shout at the sales person but in this case really it is only themselves to blame for being taken advantage of. Both sides are being used.

      If we’re talking about the established actors/actress, I do agree it’s not like we are being sold something. Of course we are but I think as they grow in confidence and talent, it becomes more subtle. They don’t need a fake persona as their work speaks for it’s self.

      I really hope I’m making sense here. I feel like I’m going round in circles with out making my point, lol!

      • Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 7:30 PM #

        You made complete sense. 🙂 And isn’t it the work and acting itself that is more important anyway? Longevity folks, longevity!

        • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 7:33 PM #

          You would assume so but if you don’t have it, you have to fall back on something and if you don’t have something to fall back on, it’s created for you.

          • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:42 PM #

            Well they do have something to fall back on. After they get the typical (non-thinking run of the mill deal) they usually fall on their back side.

            • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 8:21 PM #

              LOL! Yes, how could I forget their backsides!

      • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 7:33 PM #


        I still liked the article; for some reason I thought their might be some ambivalance here. Now you confirmed my suspicion, i think were both relieved.

      • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:36 PM #

        Standing O! Ozzie!!!

        ITA!! Especially with this part. ” If we’re talking about the established actors/actress, I do agree it’s not like we are being sold something. Of course we are but I think as they grow in confidence and talent, it becomes more subtle. They don’t need a fake persona as their work speaks for it’s self.”


        • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 7:46 PM #


          • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 8:22 PM #

            Thank you! 🙂

  4. comic relief December 7, 2011 at 6:29 PM #

    Great topic Ozzie,

    Now I’m thinking about Sean Penn, Antonio Banderas, Renée Zellweger, and Michelle Pfeiffer. Does it occur to me that acting artists should resist Schick and easily marketable clichés? All of these actors might be associated with a certain subject matter or directorial direction because of some incredible performances, yet I think many have resisted that as well.

    I don’t know this might be a head scratcher for me? I can’t wait to discuss this.

  5. Open Book December 7, 2011 at 8:09 PM #

    Hi Sony!

    Big WAVES!!! Welcome! Welcome! Welcome!

    I’m so glad to see u here and hope u will join us for our discussion tomorrow. U always have such in depth thought provoking perspectives on things. A pleasure to have u.

    • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 7:36 PM #

      Yes, it will be great to have another European here! I think it’s just me at the moment, lol! 🙂

      • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 8:20 PM #

        Ozzie u are a gem…..the world can change with one. It’s the ripple effect.

        I’m learning so much from both of u!! Truly great to have u both.

        • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 8:23 PM #

          Awww, you are just too sweet! 🙂

  6. Open Book December 7, 2011 at 8:15 PM #


    Great job!! Lot’s to discuss tomorrow.

  7. Sony December 8, 2011 at 1:18 PM #

    Littlebells, Open Book and comic relief, first of all I wanted to thank you dearly for you kind welcome greetings! I’m glad that I conquered my shyness to join your discussions here – I wasn’t sure whether my knowledge of English would be good enough.
    cr, since I’ve read your first comment above of actors like Robert deNiro, Susan Sarandon et al. this morning I was thinking about it. What is the reason why I don’t look upon them as “packaged up” in contrast to many younger actors who became famous – let’s say – over the last 10 to 15 years? IMO the ones you mentioned aren’t the “stunningly beautiful” type but a type with characteristical looks and “mannerisms” you don’t forget. Perhaps they were at the right places at the right time and directors and executives realized their talent, their dedication and they got the roles to convince also the audience? And then the public learned that these were actors who could deliver “incredible performances” so there wasn’t much of “marketing” necessary?
    Maybe also the audience has changed over the past two decades? For me it started with the massive success of video games when people wanted to see these characters come to live, looking exactly like the comic figures (best example for this is IMO Angelina Jolie who in Tomb Raider totally looked like the Lara Croft of the video game), I think it changed the way actors were casted a lot. A new type of actors got leading roles but even after their- maybe – successful movie noone was really recognizing them because they all looked somewhat “boring” (I don’t know how to say it in English), perhaps “bland” is the correct description. Therefore a massive amount of “marketing” was necessary for them because the moviegoers would have forgotten them otherwise…

    • Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 1:59 PM #

      Sony and CR,

      I completely agree with you about not liking the term “packaged up” and how many of the actors you have mentioned became stars based on their TALENT. You bring up some excellent points, particularly on the “type casting”.

      The actor or actress I take seriously is the one who strives to break from type casting and being pigeon-holed into a particular role. They don’t take on stupid, worthless movies or roles, and constantly challenge themselves in their craft. One of my favorites is Holly Hunter. I think of her in The Piano and then Raising Arizona. She’s not a gimmick or some wrapped up pretty package to put on display in the store window.

      I think actors who will have longevity will be those who are known for their talent and not what marketing and Studio Heads want to sell to the public.

      Oh man! I can’t wait for this discussion! Sony I know you will most likely be asleep when this happens, but please pop in when you can! 🙂

    • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 2:31 PM #


      Hallelujah, I guess the thoughtfulness rumors about you are true.

      Anyway, in their youth I think both Robert and Susan were lookers like many other young actors. To cover my bases, I think a lot of actors like it that, coincidentally the talent and charisma are also evident.

      Robert Deniro:

      Susan Sarandon:

      Like you, I can identify why we may be challenged to not invest in the marketing mindsets of business office and executive “bean counters” but if recent memory serves me right these calculator carrying business types have destroyed a lot of interesting movies also. I remember the firestorms surrounding the acceptance of actors like Bruce Willis, Michael Keaton and Uma Thurman. None of which were conventionally attractive. I absolutely agree with your “incredible performances” assessment.

      • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 2:42 PM #

        Whether this is practically possible, feasible or not, I’m wondering if the non-artists should keep their hands out of the soup.

        Hollywood may not work this way; but I may try to keep playing conscientious objector (at least until Ozzie shows up).

        • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 7:54 PM #

          “I’m wondering if the non-artists should keep their hands out of the soup.!

          Hmmmm, let me think………DEAR GOD YES! In my opinion anyway.

        • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 8:22 PM #

          Yes the non-artist as u call them do serve a purpose. They make soup sandwiches out of art.

      • Sony December 8, 2011 at 3:06 PM #

        Hi cr, thank you so much for your agreement and for posting these videos of Robert deNiro and Susan Sarandon, they are TERRIFIC in them. RdN in Taxi Driver gave one of the best performances ever, didn’t he? I have to admit that the first movie I saw Susan Sarandon in was “Bull Durham” with Kevin Costner and Tim Robbins and I can only say that I loved her! I really loved her. She wasn’t “mainstream” at all but she was so good, so fierce and at the same time vulnerable.
        And I absolutely agree with you that these executive “bean counters” surely have destroyed a lot of interesting movies because they couldn’t see further than the end of their noses!

        • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 3:12 PM #


          • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 7:53 PM #

            Yes, I agree with you all. Of course there’ll be a few honest/decent excutives but there’s alot were all they care about is the money. I think who those focus on that will normally fail because they look for the quick and easy marketable side. It’s hard work to get people to see something that may stimulate some brain cells. The promotion can’t really be summed up in a 30 second sound bite. I assume it takes longer to promote and will take more money for the word to get out. Unfortuantely, I don’t think many want to go to that effort.

            Hang on, I’ll reply next to the comments, I’m starting to confuse myself!

        • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:56 PM #


          I’m going to get a T-Shirt with this printed on it.

          “And I absolutely agree with you that these executive “bean counters” surely have destroyed a lot of interesting movies because they couldn’t see further than the end of their noses!”

          LOVE IT!!

          • Littlebells December 13, 2011 at 12:32 AM #

            We need to start selling T-shirts! hahaha!!! 🙂

    • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 8:01 PM #

      Very good point Sony about the blandness of it all. If the aim is to reproduce the latest “in” thing, then you do tend to end up with something vapid, after all it is a fad and they pass just as quickly as they come. It takes someone with talent to stand out in those, in my opinion.

  8. Sony December 8, 2011 at 2:21 PM #

    Hi littlebells, 🙂
    Holly Hunter is a good example, I loved her in “The Piano”! She reminds me a bit of Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre in the new movie with Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester. As a contrast I remember the version of “The Three Musketeers” with Charlie Sheen and Kiefer Sutherland where I wasn’t ever able to tell who played D’Artagnan or any of the female leads! The actresses looked so similar that I always got them mixed up. That is the type of actors that IMO need a lot of marketing because nobody remembers them.
    I’m so sorry that I’m in the wrong time zone for your discussion, but I will try to pop in!
    One thing I would like to add here: My favourite scene of an actor who should of course be added to the list above: Jack Nicholson in “The Shining”. There is a “behind-the-scenes-video” where you see him between takes and he’s joking with someone and then the director starts the new scene and Nicholson only turns his head and looks straight into the camera and you get goose bumps when you see his face – totally crazy and threatening!

    • Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 3:04 PM #

      “The Shining” is my favorite scary movie and it’s all because of Jack! The guy can be a major creeper! hahaha!!!

    • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:51 PM #


      Love these actors and great examples.

      “Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre in the new movie with Michael Fassbender.”

      • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 8:04 PM #

        I love Jack Nicholson and The Shining! I think it shows true talent if an actor can switch in and out of character at the drop of a hat.

        • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 8:07 PM #

          Yep!! I think good preparation allows actors that freedom to explore their characters further and that’s where u see more range. IMO!!

  9. Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:00 PM #

    Hi Everyone!

    Welcome new and returning visitors to our discussion tonight. Please feel free to chime in don’t be shy to ask questions we welcome different perspectives.

  10. Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 7:00 PM #

    Hi everyone.

  11. Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 7:02 PM #

    Where’s Ozzie, I want to get talking?

  12. Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 7:04 PM #

    Hi everyone!

    Are actors “packaged up” because they have no real talent?

    Also, here is the Forbes list:

    Someone MUST have paid to have Kristen Stewart 1) included on the list and 20 put at the top because it makes no friggin’ sense otherwise! She does not get best actor for the buck! If they had included WTTR and TR, she would definitely NOT be on the list…

    • Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 7:05 PM #

      AAAHHH!!!! THEY USED HER STUPID TWILIGHT MOVIES!!!! so. mad. :/ Sorry, I will not make this my KS rant fest.

      • Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 7:07 PM #

        “She ranks higher than her costar Robert Pattinson (even though they earn the same amount on the films) because HE HAS BRANCHED OUT MORE only one of his Twilight films is eligible for this list.”

        good job Rob! 🙂

        • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:21 PM #

          LB- Forbes is really not a reliable source. Especially when it comes to HW. They are quite pliable. They need to get peoples attention and will do anything including. What HEAVEN forbid? Lie!!!

      • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:16 PM #

        Take a deep breath LB and step away from the computer for a second!! LOL!!

        • Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 7:17 PM #

          “Serenity now! Serenity now!” 🙂

          • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:25 PM #

            Ahh! That’s funny LB!!

    • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 7:10 PM #

      Hey LB, I’m reading your link.

      • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 8:09 PM #

        Obviously she and deviant marketers will be claiming (this year) that she the highest paid actress in hollywood.

        This marketing perspective seems to produce the most predictable yet dubious presumptions.

    • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:12 PM #

      WHAT BULL CRAP ARE THEY SELLING? LOL!! This is for the dope on a rope crowed obviously. Hmm! Let me see. What was the name of that movie Cherry Bomb? I can’t even remember if it grossed a profit? IDIOTS!

      • Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 7:17 PM #

        I think they got their list backwards!!! hahahahahha! 🙂 (The Runaways, btw)

        • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:24 PM #

          I know, I was being tongue-n-cheek. Given the movie bombed at the BO!! I felt Cherry Bomb was more appropriate.

          • Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 7:31 PM #

            *smacks forehead* Duh…don’t mind me. 🙂

            • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:59 PM #

              That’s ok! U got brain freeze from drinking a “Forbes Icee”

              • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 8:06 PM #

                Lol! I love your reactions!

  13. Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:04 PM #


    U did it again. LOL!! Love this article.

    So I have to pick your brain. LOL!! In your vast research for this topic (Ozzie is a master researcher). I would like to know if Comedians are packaged or marketed to consumers differently and why? Meaning do they fit them into a specific film genre?

    • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 8:19 PM #

      Thank you OB!

      If I remember rightly (I read so much that everything is blurring into one massive article!), it works for anyone who has to sell their image to the public. Ideally, you have someone with a talent in what ever area, then you take them as a person and find their good points and that is what you work with to sell them as a whole. It’s good for the artist to know themself or at least be confident to say no and also have an idea of what route they want to take too. However, if your desire is fame and especially you have no talent, there isn’t much to work with. They tend to be all over the place, never just staying in one area and working on it because they are so desperate. This is where people start to be taken advantage of.

      I’m pretty sure, I haven’t exactly answered you fully on that but that information came from a source talking about many different areas for example, comedians and magicians.

      • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 8:46 PM #

        This is good info Oz!

        Thank U!

      • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 8:49 PM #


        Love these clarifications.

        One of the things I appreciated the most about this article was your section titled “And finally the X Factor.” Somehow I don’t imagine one can have an X factor without having some talent to begin with. I’m not sure it’s ever easy to define the X factor is but I’ll try (IMHO) for the actors I first mentioned; please tell me if I go astray.

        – Robert Deniro: YEAH HE CAN ACT; but his intuition regarding character motivation is truly remarkable

        – Susan Sarandon: YEAH SHE CAN ACT; but her sensitivity to the emotional burdens produced by social justice commitments is exceptional.

        – Meryl Streep: YEAH SHE CAN ACT; but her perceptions about the frailties brought on by emotional comprise, and her ability to reenact and display those responses is glorious.

        – Denzel Washington: YEAH HE CAN ACT; but his ability to watch, internalize, and truly empathize with the everyman is close to freakish.

        • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 8:51 PM #

          WOW! Beautifully said CR!!

  14. ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 7:06 PM #

    Hello all! Let me get caught up with the comments! 🙂

    • Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 7:08 PM #

      Hi Ozzie!

    • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 7:11 PM #

      Hi Ozzie.

      • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 7:30 PM #

        Hi LB and CR!

        I seem to be in a slow writting mode today so the replys may not be quick!

        • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 7:44 PM #

          Take your time, we have al leat another hour and 15 minutes to go.

  15. Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 7:07 PM #


    “In Hollywood, it means whether the actor can be “packaged up” and sold to the film executives and later on, to the public.”

    What are the implications of this statement to you or what does this sentence mean to you?

    • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 7:27 PM #

      Well you’re here now.


      What was your take on this article inspired by? I like your sober point of view yet this article was like nogin cat nip. Like LB, the article brought up alot of my own apprehensions.

      • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 8:51 PM #

        Well before writing it, I was truely interested in how actors are marketed because some of the people around….How do I put this politely?….They don’t have talent and they don’t seem to have any positive attributes! Now, I’ve always known to make it in Hollywood you have to have thick skin. I think this one is going to be tough to describe! Erm…It was like I was aware that this went on but actually researching it, really rammed it home hard and it’s wasn’t something I’m entirely comfortable with. I think it’s because you’re selling a human being at the end of the day. If they have the talent, some positve thing that makes them shine and the right frame of mind, fair enough. Go for it! But it’s those that don’t have the talent, that don’t something positive thing to push or that don’t have the courage (or even worse are unaware they are being taken advantage of) to say “enough is enough, I won’t do that” that makes me uneasy. Also, the audience buying into that charade makes me feel that way too. It takes very little for the public to turn on someone. People on both sides could be hurt by it.

        At the same time, it is kind of fascinating to see how an actor is initially sold. Writing this, I just concentrated on the facts. I didn’t want my opinion to influence the reader. However, once I finished it, I started to acknowledge what I actually thought about it and allowed it come through to the front of my mind. All I know now is that it kind of unsettles me.

        • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 8:57 PM #

          Wow! Another great intuitive and insightful diagnosis Oz!!

          Do u think young actors are more at risk for being poorly packaged? If so can u give some examples? Not the actors names just an example of the situation?

          • Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 9:05 PM #

            Those are great questions. I would think, the young, naive, inexperienced person who doesn’t have a smart parent or two to guide them might be packaged poorly.

    • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:29 PM #

      Well often times it’s seen as branding a person. Meaning they cater to a certain niche or genre. For example Tom Cruise, Jason Statham, Daniel Craig, Jackie Chan etc…. Does that make sense?

      • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 7:43 PM #

        Ok, I’ll follow your lead. How would you charcterize the branding of:

        – Tom Cruise
        – Jason Statham
        – Daniel Craig
        – Jackie Chan

        Are you saying they are all branded action stars?

        • Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 7:46 PM #

          here’s my branding:

          -crazy nut
          -adrenaline junkie
          -rico suave

          hahaha! 🙂

          Oh my gosh, please ignore me today, I’m in a weird mood.

          • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:47 PM #

            Love it!!

            • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:48 PM #

              CR- I conquer with LB’s very scientific formulaic assessment.

              • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 7:51 PM #


                no one’s complainin, go to town. …and I appreciated the clarity.

                • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 8:53 PM #

                  Love it, LB! 🙂

  16. Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 7:28 PM #

    Much like LB mentioned earlier, I was concerned about market packaging can align with the kinds of type casting and stereo typing that Hollywood has successfully carries out in the most seamless fashion throughout its history. For the last four weeks the Sci fi world has been waiting (with batted breathe) to find out whether series favorite Khan would be rebooted into the new series. Movie producers thought for sure the way to do this was cast another Latino into the alien role (hmmmm, you may hear where this is going).

    Just to make sure you know what I am talking about, here’s a clip from one of the Star Trek feature films, “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.” Starring Ricardo Montalban who is reprising the character he made famous from the TV show. Please ignore Shatner, he’s a nice guy but he just can’t help himself.

    • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:32 PM #

      LOL!! This is great CR!

      • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 7:37 PM #

        Did you watch it? You’re usually such a acting critic.

        stage note: …he says while being overcome by wave of concern…

        • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:46 PM #

          I will reserve my criticism over the lovely video u have provided for us tonight, given this is Ozzie’s article and she has done such great research.

      • Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 7:44 PM #

        AWESOME! hahahahahaha!!!!

  17. Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 7:29 PM #

    In terms of negotiations, until this week the favored Latino for this Star Trek role was award winning Puerto Rican actor, Benicio del Toro. He has certainly played his share of Latino leads including “Che Guevara” from Che, Vincent Roche from Excess Baggage, and Javier Rodríguez from Traffic. And he has played many whom were not Latino as well. Imagine the challenge he endured trying to figure out whether he would continue the tradition of casting Latino men as villainous aliens as what has happened for the last 50 years. Fortunately he turned the role down and fortunately we can wait for him in his next award winning role. He won an Oscar for this role in “traffic”.

    Unfortunately another actor, Edgar Ramirez is now under the same consideration for the role, and he will likely reaffirm the villainous Latino alien.

  18. Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 7:35 PM #


    When you have a moment:

    Are there any actors you feel that have not been “packaged” correctly? Is it due to those bts doing the packaging or their deficiency in the talent, dedication, presentability, or X-factor categories?

    • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 7:44 PM #

      Good Q LB!!

      • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 7:49 PM #

        I second that.

        • ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 9:04 PM #

          I think it is down to those behind the scene and just a smidgen the actors too. I think if I had to narrow it down to a category it would be dedication because to truely have dedication, I think you must know what you want and how you are going to go about it. Therefore, if the actor feels they are not being “sold” in the right way or that they are being taken advantage of, they should speak up. After all it is their direct life they are dealing with and they have to protect themselves.

          As for actors/actresses, I’ll have to get back to you on that one as my brain is starting to turn to mush! But I am sure there are many out there who I think have been under or mis-sold.

  19. Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 7:56 PM #

    While were waiting for Ozzie, here another question for the group?
    Speaking of “packaged up” here’s an example of another marketing recipe for age cliché’s and stalled careers. Underage actress Brooke Shields and actor Christopher Atkins were the stars of 1980’s teen sexcapade “Blue Lagoon.” This film was so popular in its day it spawned two copycat films (one of which was a sequel). Though both actors would be seen again they were never seen together again. Nor would either enjoy the sheer fame adulation they experienced during the heyday of the movie.

    Working to enforce ridged types, or retiring into discernible types, when actors don’t work to demonstrate their versatility (like the actors mentioned above) they may be the kissing for their career’s away.

    Here are yesterday’s sexy teen heartthrobs before public impatience or boredom ushered away their careers.

    • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 8:01 PM #

      ….feel free to ignore, but this makes me feel better..

      “….HERE’S another question for the group…..”
      ” …may be the kissing their career’s away.”

    • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 8:04 PM #

      Ahh! Those were the day’s before the Internet. Their careers would have lasted much longer. Given how we are obsessed with seeing minors have sex on screen. They would have made 2 billion today and made the Forbes list. I will stop now and go sit in the corner.

      • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 8:15 PM #

        Come back from the corner. There was alot more “exposure” in that movie than the present movie that shall remain nameless. In fact even that clip was pretty graphic.

        Movie theatre’s weren’t nearly as policed as they are today so most tweens could have gotten their sex ed watching that movie.

        • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 8:37 PM #

          Well the truth is for the obsessive fans they would have manipulated the accidently leaked nudity scenes on the Internet in Photoshop. To prove the actors were really having sex off screen to extend the fantasy couple. This would have sold more tickets!! Etc…..

          No seriously, this was a bit more graphic back then but minors were less regulated in HW. This is why the MPAA was created sorta, not, maybe so. However, I have issues with them as well in regards to violence. Really, I should sit in the corner now.

          • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 8:55 PM #

            I think 2 billion is an observent assessment.

          • Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 8:56 PM #

            I’m buying you a whip!

      • Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 8:55 PM #

        Omg, I love you. 🙂

  20. Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 8:48 PM #

    Sorry I had to leave for a little bit! Gonna get caught up.

    • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 8:48 PM #

      There u are!

  21. Open Book December 8, 2011 at 8:48 PM #

    LB! Where are u? Put down the “Forbes Icee” and come back.

    • Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 8:52 PM #

      MMMMMMMMM. I think I want one too.

      (please ignore me)

    • Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 8:56 PM #

      *snort* that is the worse Icee I’ve ever had!!! hahaha!!! I had to pound my head against the wall to make it go away.

      • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 9:05 PM #

        LOL!! LB….

        Everyone. I have to go.

        Ozzie this was a great and informative article. Great research. I will check back tomorrow to answer any Q.

        Goodnight All!

  22. Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 9:01 PM #

    For everyone,

    How do you feel actors like Daniel Radcliff, Emma Watson, Carey Mulligan, Michael Fassbender, and yes, Robert pattinson been “packaged”?

    • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 9:06 PM #

      Good Q LB-

      I will come back tomorrow and answer.


    • Comic Relief December 9, 2011 at 1:31 PM #

      Man, what a hard question? Sorry, this will take me awhile.

      • Comic Relief December 11, 2011 at 6:11 PM #

        Marketing Evaluation: Daniel Radcliff & Emma Watson #1:

        Off the bat, if wizard fantasy doesn’t do it for you, you may not have seen a lot of the “Harry Potter” franchise; that doesn’t mean you don’t recognize the immense action drama business entertainment spectacle that J.K. Rowling’s property was to the feature film world. It may also mean you may have only seen that Radcliff and Watson were consistently passionate, proficient, and useful actors within that enterprise.

        On the other hand, if you have a tendency to minimize the work of child actors you might tend to be want to reserve your judgment. Acting is an extremely subtle craft and it’s understandable that few achieve anything significant before adulthood. This is exceptional for some (Jennifer Lewis, Hailey Steinfeld), yet let’s face it the “Potter” actors were always surrounded by seasoned adult actors so we shouldn’t be too concerned about them.

        The video produced by Ink below demonstrates that the Harry Potter kids were always well looked after.

        • Comic Relief December 11, 2011 at 6:13 PM #

          Marketing Evaluation: Daniel Radcliff & Emma Watson #2:

          Many of the things I will say may seem intentionally hurtful, but my only intention is to be discuss what I have seen, yet (even when critical) I respectfully do not wish to cause any one distress, harm, or discomfort.

          In terms of a marketing evaluation, British actors really have to watch out for what I call the Ralph Fiennes effect (I will describe this in detail later). Because of our long relationship, Hollywood tends to both secretly hate and publically revere British culture. Genealogically and culturally we were a colony of the British Empire, so it’s hard not to see the English as older and wiser grandparents. And many worship aspects of British culture such as the custom of tea drinking, and many absolutely loose it if an English accent can be detected in someone’s speech in casual conversation. Unfortunately unexamined this cultural awe can breed both respect and enormous ethnic hostility. If you saw American’s response toward the French in the Gulf War, then it should be of no surprise that though much of this overt expression has diminished, American’s still frequently express racial and ethnic hatred in broad daylight as though it is no issue at all.

          I believe most believe Ralph Fiennes is a fine actor as his list of awards denotes but in recent years he has been sidelined. His success and his appetite for period roles (which many American’s will interpret as high brow pretentiousness) probably did not digest well for an audience that has so much respect and so many unexamined animosities toward the British. Easily being defined as what Guy Ritchie calls a “lofty toff,” it’s been easy to consensually withhold his potential contributions from so many contemporary projects especially when they don’t call for the use of a British character. Yeah, racial and ethnic bigotry can be really ugly.

          Evidence of a fantastic actor Ralph Fiennes from “The Constant Gardener.”

          • Comic Relief December 11, 2011 at 6:14 PM #

            Marketing Evaluation: Daniel Radcliff & Emma Watson #3:

            Moving forward with their careers in the international film industry, despite a history of effective performances Radcliff and Watson should artistically proceed with confidence and caution. Radcliff was wise to break off ties with teen star marketing when he did “Equiss,” yet I VERY PERSONALLY fear his camp may be making a mistake by continuing to support occult content with “The Woman in Black”. On the other hand having more economic might make it easier to influence and fashion content that highlights his strengths as an actor.

            Video of Daniel Radcliff from “The Woman in Black”

            I don’t believe Emily Watson should take any more roles like the third banana character she assumed for “Marilyn”. Her people are probably telling her better to take a highbrow role in a respected ensemble rather than drop out of sight. I’ve already mentioned the lofty toff evaluation, yet it’s hard to know how much of a challenge this evaluation is for women.

            Video of Emma Watson from “Marilyn”

            • Comic Relief December 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM #

              Marketing Evaluation: Carrie Mulligan

              Carrie Mulligan is really fascinating yet I haven’t seen her in enough roles to even begin to wonder what defines her x-factor. It’s a little frustrating because we may be waiting for the director who will really be able to unlock for this generation, what her long-term contribution will likely to be as an actress.

              • Comic Relief December 11, 2011 at 6:27 PM #

                Marketing Evaluation: Michael Fastbender:

                Should anyone be impressed with Michael Fassbender’s talents? I think so.

                Michael Fastbender from Jane Eyre.

                • Comic Relief December 11, 2011 at 6:28 PM #

                  Marketing Evaluation: Robert Pattinson:

                  Perpetually difficult to assail, he is certainly a frequent topic of conversation at this site.

                  As the character Edward Cullen of the Twilight franchise, Robert has the usual accomplishment of sustaining an enormous audience with one of the hardest roles an actor should ever have to play.

                  Obviously many actors rely on a vocabulary of stage “tricks” to seduce audiences into feeling what is being portrayed for them. Robert on the other hand seems to have had most of the bag restricted from him because of the odd definition(s) of Stephanie Myer’s breed of Vampire.

                  I think Open book has compiled this best but, these vampires have no moisture in their bodies so these undead characters can’t sweat; diminishing many ways of distinguishing physical exertion. They also can’t cry, one of the means of displaying emotional sadness, duress, or even joy. These vampires don’t breathe either, another way to clarify surprise, demonstrate normal receptiveness, or even suggest exception or even denial. Ultimately all of the vampires had to be actors themselves, mimicking the behavioral norms of live humans so that humans did not recognize that their natural enemies surrounded them. In an exemplary since, Pattinson led this troop.

                  Yet one of the most common insults I have heard launched at the collective of Twilight actors in the series is “wooden acting”, but let’s face it Pattinson barely has any other choice in terms of appearance and presentation. Yet because of differing character definition, the other actors have no such excuse. An odd contradiction, even this acting influence clarifies Pattinson’s persuasive leadership and impact within that collective of actors.

                  A one hundred year old vampire of these physical characteristics isn’t going to have the opportunities to fly into variety of emotional rants frequently seen in the characters of James McAvoy or Leonardo Dicaprio. That the directors were not able to direct the other actors to perform in a contrary manner (to highlight the restrictions in Edward’s vampire performance) is water under the bridge now. But never the less we know the character Edward wasn’t actor kryptonite because audiences empathized and were still drawn to the actor and character anyway. As acting feats go, Pattinson deserves a lot of praise for having the fortitude to follow through with an exceptionally hard job.

                  Like Mulligan, we still may not know what Pattinson’s x-factor gifts are due to Edward’s limitations, yet I’m not sure that matters. There’s already enough diversity in his portfolio to make it clear he isn’t looking to brand the kind of easy British knock offs Hollywood so frequently wanted to hand British actors. Though “Bel Ami” should have raised some “Fiennsian” concerns, “Cosmopolis” will likely nullify and redeem all of the excesses of that acting choice. Why should we be concerned about Pattinson’s x-factor if a director of Cronenberg’s caliber feels he has already found it and incidentally compares him to Fassbender (who is now defined as having this generation’s greatest potential) in the broadest evaluative since?

                  Watch Pattinson effortlessly cycles between different emotions, concerns and motivations within one scene.

                  Does Pattinson understand how emotional hypocrisy can influence this kind of anger; absolutely. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ1opMuXQZU&feature=related

                  Jacob the negotiator.

                  • Open Book December 12, 2011 at 2:31 PM #

                    CR-U are a man of few words……

                    Great evaluation!

  23. Comic Relief December 8, 2011 at 9:04 PM #

    Sorry, Troop I have to go.


    I’m always impressed by the way your articles seem so unassuming yet are always packed with layers of info that only become apparent after the discussing begins. Great job again. Eventually I will stop being suprised.

    Night all.

    • Open Book December 8, 2011 at 9:07 PM #

      Bye CR!

  24. Littlebells December 8, 2011 at 9:07 PM #

    Good night everyone! See you later. 🙂

    Great article Ozzie, thank you.

  25. ozzie20 December 8, 2011 at 9:10 PM #

    Cheers! Thanks all and have a good night!

    • Sony December 9, 2011 at 10:30 AM #

      Hi Ozzie,
      (hugging you back), I’m so sorry that I wasn’t able to participate in the live discussion yesterday but it’s also very interesting to read all the comments afterwards!

      • Open Book December 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM #

        We missed u too. Hopefully u can join us another time. Your contribution and comments were also great to read as well.

  26. Open Book December 9, 2011 at 3:47 PM #

    How do you feel actors like Daniel Radcliff, Emma Watson, Carey Mulligan, Michael Fassbender, and yes, Robert pattinson been “packaged”?

    Emma Watson and Carey Mulligan: are quite different. Watson is really hard because she has not done enough. But I do like how measured she’s being about what she does next. Carey Mulligan is wonderful. She’s really establishing herself as a dramatic actress to be taken seriously. Her roles are heavy and rich in narrative and complexity and it reflects well on her as an artist. I don’t know anything about her personal life, I just see her work and it’s impressive. Daniel Radcliffe? Well I think he’s being very discrete and trying to figure out what he wants to say and what he wants to play? He reminds me of Henry Thomas from E.T. Thomas has taken his time in maturing as an actor after such recognizable success as a child.

    Michael Fassbender-Hmm! I will follow him to the ends of the earth. LOL!! No, seriously!! Quite a force to be reckon with on screen. His selection in roles and films are multifarious and vivid. I came to know him through watching Steve McQueen’s work before Shame. I’ve seen all of his films ever since. He is well seasoned, prepared, has tones of charisma and not afraid to use it. I guess I like the “packaging.”He adds contour and shape to narrative and characters where it did not exist before. I’ve nicknamed him “The Sorcerer.” LOL!!

    Robert Pattinson: I DO NOT KNOW ROB! NEVER MET HIM! I DO NOT WORK FOR HIM! Etc…. Again I first took an interest in him after watching the first Twilight film…… Yeah, I know! However, it was his interviews that really displayed the magnetism, aptitude and humility I saw a hint of in Twilight. What he’s managed to do with opportunities since Twilight (while being under such incredible pressure) speaks volumes regarding his preparation, interest in growing and capacity to go the distance. Choosing Remember Me, Water for Elephants and now Cosmopolis with Cronenberg? I like the packaging!

  27. Littlebells December 13, 2011 at 12:35 AM #

    OB and CR,

    If I were in college and needed to write a paper, you two would be the first ones I would ask to help me! Oh my gosh, I don’t even know where to begin in response to your answers. Wow. Such fantastic and articulate, concise, observant analysis.

  28. Littlebells December 13, 2011 at 12:42 AM #

    Question for everyone:

    Do you think how we package actors now is any different than how HW did it in the early years (I’m thinking 30s and 40s)? If so, is it better now or then?

    Also, which actors do you think take a very serious, proactive role in how they are shown to the public? For example, I was just watching “Eat, Pray, Love” at the nail salon (haha!) and I truly love Javier Bardem. I could watch that man sell fruit in a potato sack and still be impressed. I think he has definitely been packaged as a very thoughtful, passionate about his craft, well-rounded, serious actor. His private life is private and when he performs, he gives 150%. I loved him in “No country For Old Men” and to then see him act so completely different in EPL and “Biutiful”…impressive. I think he takes a very controlled effort to be seen as an actor and not a movie star. Ok, I think I may have gone off topic…sorry…

    • Open Book December 13, 2011 at 5:40 PM #

      Good Q LB. Hmmm! Let me think?

    • Open Book December 13, 2011 at 6:59 PM #

      Here’s my answer LB!

      “Do you think how we package actors now is any different than how HW did it in the early years (I’m thinking 30s and 40s)? If so, is it better now or then?”

      OB-I believe HW never stopped packaging actors they just changed the terms. Meaning actors can choose how they want to be represented today. Where as in the past actors had no other option other than a studios PR and marketing teams. Today, the more independent and unconventional u are as an actor the riskier it is. Why is it risky? Because it requires u to know what u want to say and how u want to be defined by audiences? If audiences base their definition of u on over saturated tabloid stunts and a trail of cliché rom com or action films…. than guess what? U risk being defined as a gimmick!

      IMO more independence allows for more flexibility and longevity as an actor. I believe the younger the actor in HW the more susceptible they are to studios branding, tabloid marketing and limiting them to fit into whatever mold that’s popular in the moment. They rarely consider their long term viability or career. That’s why a young actor has to do their homework so they won’t fall into these pitfalls that’s hard to dig yourself out of. Take for example Zac Efron! His career is all over the map and he just appeared in this horrible rom com New Year’s Eve film that got a 6% on rotten tomatoes. Not good for building long term viability but it is a popular in the moment type film. Anyway, my point is, if u go independent (in terms of packaging) not relying on studios marketing gimmicks. U better have more than acting in your bag of tricks and have something to say. Meaning, in addition to acting? Add writing, producing or directing to your bag, which can give u greater control over packaging and longevity IMO. Does that make sense?

      • Littlebells December 13, 2011 at 7:02 PM #

        Great answer, OB!

        I agree. I know before that Studios “owned” their stars and they had to do whatever the studio told them to do. Now I think there is more flexibility.

        I really can’t add to what you already put! 🙂

        • Comic Relief December 13, 2011 at 7:05 PM #


          I whole heartedly agree with OB.

        • Open Book December 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM #

          Thanks LB and CR!

          Part 2 answers your other Q.

          “Also, which actors do you think take a very serious, proactive role in how they are shown to the public?”

        • Open Book December 13, 2011 at 10:11 PM #

          Here’s Part 2-LB!

          “Also, which actors do you think take a very serious, proactive role in how they are shown to the public?”

          George Clooney/Steven Soderbergh, Leo DiCaprio/Martin Scorsese, Johnny Depp/Tim Burton, Denzel Washington/Spike Lee, Russell Crowe/Ridley Scott and Cate Blanchett/Peter Jackson (she’s produced two films so far) just to name a few.

          However, if u are not ready to produce or direct? Most actors will repeatedly work with an auteur they admire to perfect their craft and to maintain greater control over their packaging. Some of the actors listed above who are producing and directing worked with auteurs and are still working with them today. TBH it’s a win, for both the auteur and the young actor if an auteur finds a diamond in the rough and if the actor likes the results after working with them. However, I think some actors who are producing now and who have worked with a lot of different directors come off as fickle and unreliable to audiences IMO.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: