There have always been individuals who are well exposed in the public domain but how and why they got there changes with time. Even thought the types of celebrities changed their relationship with our culture and economic system did not. It is on this premise that I began my search for the new definition of “celebrity” and means to achieve such status in contemporary culture. There are three general stages in the creation of the “new celebrities.” First, fall of the star era and change in Hollywood stars. Secondly, the emergence of a new generation of famous people who are successful in their respectable fields, and last but not least the rise of mass media and mass celebrity. There is an inherent connection between the rise of a new cast of celebrities and the economic forces behind them. The stardom of Hollywood provides us with a sufficient starting point to where it all began.

The history of Hollywood and film making goes back to about 100 years ago with the birth of first film The Great Train Robbery (1903). This new, experimental medium was promoted as an illusion, a magic of some sorts that are offered in places such as vaudeville theaters. However, the rise of stars such as Charlie Chaplin and Mary Pickford changed everything. Stars like such promoted the cinema around the world. Their success is associated with the public’s growing interesting in the magic of cinematography, as well as the personal lives of its stars. It is because of this interest that people go to the movies as they have no other means of access to the stars. “By the 1930s, numerous studios enlisted A-listed stars to ensure stability.” Studio owners realized that paying a premium on famous actors could greatly increase the box office income. By the 1950s, the cinema scene is different again, with top talents like John Wayne, Burt Lancaster becoming their own producers. These individuals are celebrities by their own right, without studio support. This is really the Golden Age for Hollywood and its stars. Countless people went to Hollywood in search of fame, even if it is short lived. Fast forward to today, the world changes again to a new era where A-listed stars no long guarantees box office hits while no name epics dominated the movie industry.

Take a quick look at the box office today, one would quickly realize that the old business model of putting up a star studded line up no longer guarantees a productions success. George Clooney, in the Good German, an classical spy thriller, earned 1.3 million in the box office. He might as well have just paid for it himself and have everyone watch it for free. After all, it is the trend of Hollywood stars to indulge themselves with personal film projects. This is much the same with his next release the Leatherheads, though there are no box office predictions yet. For another example, Brad Pitt in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, earned merely four million dollars. This is not a figure that would please any producer.

On the other hand, Gerard Butler in 300, perhaps epic of the year, earned $211 million in box office alone. That is not counting the upcoming DVD release, the merchandise, and the fan fare. He was not known for anything in particular except couple minor roles in the beginning of 2000s. For another example Shia LaBeouf, the new comer, became the main character in the special effect filled epic about robots-Transformers. The movie is not about the characters and their stories, but rather about the visuals and explosions. Last but not least, Tobey Maguire, in the third installment of the Spider-Man movie, earned $337 million at the box office. That is a whole lot of cash if you add all three movies together. Again it is not counting the DVDs, the T-shirts, and all the licensed products.

As I am writing this, I feel there is a counter argument to the point I just made. When the non-stars became center of a Hollywood hit, they become a “star.” Gerard Butler is going to be in two movies this year and at least two more next year. Compare to his five in total in the past six year that is definably a much welcomed change. However, the star in his case is very much different compare to the stars of the past. The old studios made movies that are tailored to the actors and the film is often about how great of the star is. In Gerard Butler’s case, it is more about the Spartans in 300 than who “Gerard Butler” is. For another example, Shia LaBeouf’s role could not have been carried out with tons of CGI effects. This is vital as part of the argument because the focus of the movie is on the robots, not the characters. Without it, Transformers would have fallen into the typical high school romance and below average at best. I personally never quite understood why LaBeouf must carry the cube to the helicopter for extraction when obviously a helicopter is vulnerable to a flying evil Decepticon. In fact I am not too sure if he was needed at all except to provide some “human element” to a robotic epic.

As important as human elements can be in a movie, it is none the less telling that the old model of contracting expensive movie stars no longer works. Of course it is not to so there are no value in having a big name in the production, but the value of the star effect has changed.