Would movies be better if we didn't have "stars"?

There's certainly some merit to those points.  But an actor becomes a star because they themselves bring something that an audience wants (and hasn't tired of).   There's no escaping that.
And the presence of a star can get financing for worthwhile films that might otherwise never get made.

Madison was also part of the trio of actors, along with Williams and Stockwell, who gave rise to the axiom that actors named Guy are terrible.
(Guy Pearce finally broke the jinx.)

That would definitely not go over well today.

It does annoy me sometimes when a major star is cast instead of a lesser known actor, seemingly just for box office reasons. But as Isapop mentioned, some high profile actors have a commanding screen presence.

There is the “ I could have played that better” fallacy ,common among second string actors , dancers , musicians, etc. Sometimes, maybe a lot of times it is true that performers with equal or greater talent and presence wait outside.  But a lot of time it’s just the unknown not seeing , or refusing to see what makes the great one great.  



See Broadway Melody of 1940.   George Murphy lucks into a part meant for Fred Astaire and Astaire politely steps aside. Murphy is good looking, engaging, and matches Astaire step for step. But it ain’t the same. You could make the same story with many Hollywood figures,



You coukd make the case that Sammy Davis was a better singer than Frank Sinatra. DAVIS handles rhythms better, had better adlibs, a little more range.  But Sinatra had a magic you simply could not beat in the great American song book. It was not just knowing his voice. It was his superb reading of a lyric, his phrasing and breath control, and his way of making a three act play out of a ballad. 

I gave thought about this too-occasionally I watch a movie with someone unknown in it yet they have a certain quality that makes them stand out. Salzmank's infamous Charlie Chan in Paris example comes to mind.


I was thinking whether the star system and the assembly line approach to movie acting that they used to have-whether it was a bonus or a minus--I think it was useful for creating a location where those of certain types could be gathered and groomed.

If you want to hire a carpenter, you need to encourage carpentry as a trade and the development of those who would excel at it.
I think art works the same way to some degree.

They say the original star structure in movies was the actor-producer---Fairbanks, Chaplin, Pickford..people went to see them---and what they chose to make---and then the studios created their own stars who were under their control. But without that system, would we really have all these well-known movie actors--or would they have done something else?

But as to the question of whether a movie is harmed by the use of a well-known person-sometimes.

I think the use of celebrity voices in animation is a negative because the celebrity voice becomes the focus, not their voice. Would most people have known who Hans Conreid was when he did Captain Hook?


And there are examples where an unknown comes along and by fluke becomes a notable figure. Christopher Lee--Dracula, Sean Connery--James Bond...Christopher Reeve--Superman.
Hugh Jackman - Wolverine--that's one of the best examples because he was surrounded by better known people and yet became the center of attention.

My feeling is that on average, there's a lack of "alpha" performance in entertainment now. They mumble their lines, they lack intensity in voice and the eyes.
There are a few exceptions--James McAvoy reminds me of the old school kind of performer. Mackenzie Crook is another. I think the latter stole every scene he had in the Pirates movies.

These days I definitely feel they are pushing stars into roles they are unsuited for.

I have mentioned the example of Jay Silverheels, Jonathan Frid, and Warren Oates.

That Frid would never have been considered for playing Tonto or John Dillinger, and Oates would never have been considered for playing Tonto or Barnabas Collins and likewise for Silverheels with Barnabas and Dillinger.
Yet Johnny Depp portrayed all three!

I think that definitely robs audiences of new faces.

Leonardo DiCaprio does the same thing.
They are pushing CGI and makeup gimmicks to milk out more from these "stars."

As for earlier times, I like Charlton Heston's performance in The Agony and the Ecstasy. He is totally unlike the real Michelangelo in appearance but I think they wanted to have a romanticized leading man depiction--and for that, I think Heston worked out well. He draws one into the character in ways that probably wouldn't have worked had they picked someone like maybe John Cassavetes (although I think Cassavetes should have played Odysseus). On the other hand some might say he distracts you from the character because he is so famous..

Ditto with Gregory Peck in Moby Dick. He is a leading man romanticized Classics Illustrated kind of depiction of the character.

On the other hand they could have found someone unknown for both roles--who were interesting to watch but unfamiliar to the public. I think someone with strong charisma does not need to be familiar--they will attract notice immediately.

Economically speaking, it is too much of a risk most of the time to go with an unknown.

One of the main reasons I like watching foreign films is that I'm generally much less familiar with the actors and their screen personas, so I can focus on the story instead of comparing their performances from one film to the next.