What is the difference between a "movie star" and an "actor"?
 

Movie stars seem to have a draw for being what they look like and how they are generally perceived (coasting on charisma). They seem to be more of a comfort food (you know what you're going to get, where "actors" are more like chameleons (disappearing into the role).

Is this fair? Are there more and better distinctions? Is the general distinction one without a difference?

The Rock is an example of a movie star who can hardly be considered having elite acting chops.


A guy like say... Paul Giamatti, is a quality actor but far from a movie star, and never will be.


And then of course you have guys Nicholson, Newman, Redford, Pacino, aka guys who were both movie stars and great actors.

Re: What is the difference between a "movie star" and an "actor"?
 

An actor is a person who deceives you on the screen.

A movie star is a person who deceives you in real life.

Movie Stars make movies, Dwayne Johnson, Tom Cruise, Samuel.L.Jackson, etc
Actors make movies, star on Broadway, perform Shakespeare and Tolstoy, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Dame Helen Mirren etc.

Then there are those that can do neither, Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Melissa McCarthy, etc. :)

Re: What is the difference between a "movie star" and an "actor"?
 

There's no 'i' in "actor".



Also, the letter 'c'. One has it and one doesn't.

thats so true

Re: What is the difference between a "movie star" and an "actor"?
 

Movie star: Plays the same lead character in every movie.

Actor: Plays a different character in every movie and even without any different makeup or hair should be almost unrecognisable between movies. Ben Kingsley is the best IMO.

There is some crossover though, some stars liking to prove themselves as actors occasionally (Theron in Monster).

Also some widely respected actors like Anthony Hopkins who always seems to play the same articulate, smart, and witty character in everything he does. I'd like to see Hopkins play some inarticulate wretch one day.

Salary.