'Popstar': Comedies continue to take chances on stars, not familiar stories

In franchise-dominated Hollywood, the comedy genre is one of the few that seems to rely on the names on the poster, not the story of the film, to attract moviegoers. 

Glen Wilson/Universal Pictures/AP
'Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping' stars (from l.) Jorma Taccone, Andy Samberg and Akiva Schaffer.

The film "Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping," which stars Andy Samberg, arrives in theaters on June 3 and is the newest comedy with an original story, depending on the stars on its poster to attract moviegoers. 

In "Popstar," Mr. Samberg portrays a music artist who has a lavish lifestyle but is struggling in his career after his new album is viewed as a failure. Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone, the other members of the Lonely Island comedy group, also star, as do actors including Imogen Poots, Sarah Silverman, and Bill Hader. 

Mr. Taccone and Mr. Schaffer co-directed the film and the Lonely Island wrote the script for the movie. 

In a franchise-dominated Hollywood, comedy is interesting in that many original stories are used for wide-release films. While sequels are of course made from successful films, as with, for example, the "Hangover" series, many are based on stories never before seen on the screen. This can be seen with the 2015 box office hits "Trainwreck," "Spy," and "Daddy's Home" as well as the recent successes "Neighbors" and "We're the Millers." 

Because these films are based on original stories, those behind the movies rely on the names on the poster to make the films successes. And some of these actors have proven they can do so – Melissa McCarthy, who starred in "Spy," among others, and Will Ferrell, who starred in "Daddy's Home," among others, are usually viewed this way. "When married to the right material, director, and concept, there is potential for a McCarthy comedy to blow the roof off the theater," Deadline writer Anthony D'Alessandro wrote, though he noted that McCarthy's movie openings have recently decreased. 

This is interesting particularly because some critics have found that the last years in the movie business have seen a decline of star power at the box office – actors whose appearances in movies meant that the film had a good chance of doing well financially, because audiences would go to see just them rather than a concept.

"Big stars may not be worth the massive amounts of money studios are paying them," Forbes writer Dorothy Pomerantz wrote in 2012 when Tom Cruise's "Rock of Ages" and Adam Sandler's "That's My Boy" did not do well at the box office. "Sandler comes with a built-in audience, built-in marketing and built-in expectations for what each of his films will be like … but what happens when these movies start to fizzle?"

The question of whether an actor alone can bring in moviegoers continues to be asked as recently as last month, when George Clooney and Julia Roberts starred in the film "Money Monster."

"Fifteen years ago, a movie starring George Clooney and Julia Roberts would have been automatic box office gold – a guaranteed $35 million opening weekend," Gary Susman of Moviefone wrote, noting that "Monster" "opened in third place, with an estimated $15 million, and even that was better than analysts predicted."

However, Mr. Susman pointed out that if these movies don't do well, it can't all be traced back to the idea of actors not opening movies anymore. "What was overlooked [with 'Tomorrowland,' also starring Mr. Clooney, and 'Aloha,' starring Bradley Cooper and Emma Stone] was that neither of those movies turned out to be very good … the right star in the right role – in the right movie – can still sell tickets," he wrote. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to 'Popstar': Comedies continue to take chances on stars, not familiar stories
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today