A World Without Heroes - Cultural Mythmaking, Then and Now

[Anacardo]

I doubt this is an original observation, but I have yet to see it discussed, so I'll toss this one out there.

It seems to me that an earlier age of the American media-entertainment empire produced a pantheon of cultural icons that has yet to be duplicated. Figures from the 40s, 50s and 60s are enshrined in our collective consciousness, without any seeming equivalents from later eras. Perhaps this is merely the effects of backward-looking relative youth, and one day Tom Cruise, Madonna and Dr. Dre will take their respective places on nostalgic swaths of Americana beside James Dean, Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley, but I instinctively doubt it. (Only in sport, perhaps, can we find exception; Michael Jordan is every bit as iconic as, say, Joe DiMaggio, but the self-inflating hype machine of modern American professional sport likely has no equal past or present.) Am I wrong? Too myopic as a child of the '80s and '90s? Or was there something special about that era that produced these monolithic entertainment figures? Somebody older who's done some thinking about Hollywood, Motown, etc., pls chime in. (Dominic, please report to the white courtesy phone. Dom to the white courtesy phone.)

[fish2plus2]

there were less famous people back then, so they got more attention. for the music stars, they actually made great music and were influential. these days, its more commercialized. thats the only difference i see. maybe its just the difference between the social aftermath of world war II vs vietnam?

[Colt McCoy]

Your thread title confuses me. Are you talking about heroes or pop icons? If anything I think hollywood has perfected the creation of pop icons to the point where they can create them at will.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

With the postmodern fragmentation of society, there is no mainstream, no collective consciousness anymore.

Colt McCoy has it backwards. Back then, Hollywood studio moguls, record label chiefs, and the like decided who was going to be a star. Now, anyone can be a star for a short while, but few can be a superstar because no one is guarding the gates to keep back everyone else clamoring for attention.

[El Diablo]

Cardo,

Largely it's just pure numbers and access to information. When you had a limited number of studios, a limited number of movies, and a limited number of infromation outlets/options, being a star was a much more rarified thing.

Nowadays that level of iconic status is reserved for the top of the top. Tiger Woods in sport has reached that status. But, overall, in entertainment, the lifespan of stars burning at their brightest is often a far shorter timeframe than in the past. Some like Michael Jackson, Bono, Madonna, Mick Jagger, Paul McCartney etc. are in the running, though. Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Leonardo DiCaprio, and a few other movie stars too.

But, overall, it's all about the money, man. And it's more effective to churn out a bunch of short-lived superstars than develop megastars.

[Colt McCoy]

One thing that probably impacts this is that back in the eras Anacardo is talking about, movie stars were under long-term contract to their studio. It made much more sense for the studio to invest in building them up to megastar status. Also the studios made most of the profits from the movies. Today major stars take a cut of the box office and are just as likely to be making their next movie for a competing studio.

[El Diablo]

Colt,

It largely comes down to the fact that the cost of developing a star and the risk involved was so much higher that it made more economic sense within the studio system to create a small number of megastars. Now, that cycle is far shorter and there are tons of ministars created, out of which a very small number filter up over time to become megastars.

[Dominic]

I hink it really has to do with the media today. We know all about Lindsay Lohan's drinking and we've seen Britney's hoo-haw, and we read all about that terrible Hollywood divorce in the papers and see what it's like behind the scenes of Desperate Housewives on Entertainment Tonight.

There's no more mystery. There's no studio cultivating a persona for Gable, Stewart and Davis anymore.

Back then, you NEVER saw these people in the news except as part of a promotion for their next movie.

Mystery creates idolatry. Since we have no mystery regarding today's stars they are no more than human to us.

[tsearcher]

[ QUOTE ]
I hink it really has to do with the media today. We know all about Lindsay Lohan's drinking and we've seen Britney's hoo-haw, and we read all about that terrible Hollywood divorce in the papers and see what it's like behind the scenes of Desperate Housewives on Entertainment Tonight.

There's no more mystery. There's no studio cultivating a persona for Gable, Stewart and Davis anymore.

Back then, you NEVER saw these people in the news except as part of a promotion for their next movie.

Mystery creates idolatry. Since we have no mystery regarding today's stars they are no more than human to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

There were gossip magazines and radio shows back then. The studies probably had more control of the content, but all that stuff existed.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hink it really has to do with the media today. We know all about Lindsay Lohan's drinking and we've seen Britney's hoo-haw, and we read all about that terrible Hollywood divorce in the papers and see what it's like behind the scenes of Desperate Housewives on Entertainment Tonight.

There's no more mystery. There's no studio cultivating a persona for Gable, Stewart and Davis anymore.

Back then, you NEVER saw these people in the news except as part of a promotion for their next movie.

Mystery creates idolatry. Since we have no mystery regarding today's stars they are no more than human to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

There were gossip magazines and radio shows back then. The studies probably had more control of the content, but all that stuff existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

There were, but the magazines and gossip columnists were controlled and paid for by the studios.