Submit Your
2000s
List
The deadline for the Top Films of the 2000s list is TODAY! Submit your ballot now, or read about it here

Why is jeremy renner not a hollywood superstar yet?

Tools    





I always find that this actor always misses the mark when it comes to making him a hollywood superstar, maybe his career choices of roles, i d never know, but after he did the bourne film, the guy just lost the edge i think....what do you guys think?



I always find that this actor always misses the mark when it comes to making him a hollywood superstar, maybe his career choices of roles, i d never know, but after he did the bourne film, the guy just lost the edge i think....what do you guys think?
I was happy to see Renner in The Bourne Legacy (2012)-- partly because I thought he was good, and partly because I don't like Matt Damon.

My guess is that he may not have had enough charisma or machismo to make superstardom. He really was rather milquetoast in Arrival (2016), although the part itself was fairly weak. But he was great in Wind River (2017). So some of his 2nd tier status may have been due tot he parts he took.

Now at 50 his train may have passed the station. I still enjoy his acting though.



I always find this distinctions of what makes an actor a "superstar" interesting, but rather dubious. I mean, what exactly are we referring to here? The man has been averaging 2 to 3 films per year for a while now, is super recognizable, has been in countless of successful (and not successful) films, from critically acclaimed films like Arrival, The Hurt Locker, and The Town (with the last two earning him Oscar noms) to known franchises like Mission: Impossible, Bourne, and obviously the MCU, for which he made millions of dollars; not to mention that he has a show coming up. So I kinda get where the question is coming, but I think the guy has all he could want at the moment.
__________________
Check out my podcast: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot!



I mean he isn't a Superstar but he has to be a notch below. B+ list. I do think Cruise was suppose to hand the Mission Impossible franchise to him but changed his mind.

Also dude isn't as young as you might think. Guy is 50. Probably past his chance to be a big time superstar, but who really is these days anyways? Movie superstars are sparse, it's all on the internet now.
__________________
I came here to do two things, drink some beer and kick some ass, looks like we are almost outta beer - Dazed and Confused

101 Favorite Movies (2019)



ᗢWanda Maximoff-Scarlet WitchᗢᗢElizabeth Olsenᗢ
i know his focusing his music more then his movies , he is aLWAYS gonna be my favorite no matter what he does.
__________________
https://youtu.be/f1DM1amU4VM Wanda Maximoff - Scarlet Witch
https://youtu.be/2vq4kYomwv8 Natasha Romanoff-Black Widow
https://youtu.be/0LXhnd-CMrQ Agatha Harkness

https://youtu.be/V8BhIsWTGUI Clint Barton-Hawkeye
https://youtu.be/Zy66zOMkGsM Loki Lufeyson



i know his focusing his music more then his movies , he is aLWAYS gonna be my favorite no matter what he does.
I didn't even know he had a band, but read that yesterday when I was replying to this.



I always find this distinctions of what makes an actor a "superstar" interesting, but rather dubious.
Same. The boring answer (contra the armchair psychoanalysis and post-hot narrative fiction a lot of people engage in) is that there's more than enough potential star actors than there is capacity to elevate them to that level, so the things that lead one rather than another to achieve that level (hazy though it is, especially today) are marginal and probably pretty random.

Get a butterfly to flap its wings 10 years ago and Renner's the superstar and we're asking the same question about someone else.



You ready? You look ready
He's got two left feet.
__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza



Jeremy Renner reminds me of Kurt Russell. A steady, competent, strong actor, but doesnt have that extra intangible flair that makes them a megastar. That could be a blessing though because his career may last longer not being the center of attention.



I always find this distinctions of what makes an actor a "superstar" interesting, but rather dubious. I mean, what exactly are we referring to here? The man has been averaging 2 to 3 films per year for a while now, is super recognizable, has been in countless of successful (and not successful) films, from critically acclaimed films like Arrival, The Hurt Locker, and The Town (with the last two earning him Oscar noms) to known franchises like Mission: Impossible, Bourne, and obviously the MCU, for which he made millions of dollars; not to mention that he has a show coming up. So I kinda get where the question is coming, but I think the guy has all he could want at the moment.
One consideration to this "superstar" business is that there really are only a handful of them today: probably DiCaprio, Cruise, Brad Pitt, and a few actresses. One reason is that seemingly every little detail of stars' lives and activities are known across the various media practically in real time. One could probably look up what Tom Cruise had for breakfast.

In the old studio system --fairly or not-- stars were carefully groomed and protected. Anything negative was usually hidden, and very little of their private lives was known, outside of what was in a relatively few gossip magazines. Gable, Betty Davis, Bogart, Stanwyck, etc. were like gods and goddesses. No one could ever imagine meeting them. Nowadays stars are normally so accessible that it's hard to put them on pedestals.

Plus most big stars from the past had impressive numbers of top popular films behind them. Now, someone stars in 5 pictures and they want a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Plus, a big thing for me is that few have any style or class-- at least in the contemporary U.S. How can someone be a superstar in film, and act like a bum or a whiner?

Anyway there's a lot more to this subject, but it's an interesting one.



All I know is I didn't like him cast as Hawkeye. Not much to do with Renner really, but Hawkeye has always been a wise ass, he has trouble with authority (especially with his buddy, Captain America), and was always a rebel and a bit of a loose canon.

Renner just seems too low key, self-controlled, and laid back for such a role.



I'm not that familiar with Jeremy Renner, but I think that a variety of things could factor into this. In many cases, though not always, super stars tend to be much better looking than the average person, so if the person is moderately good looking, but not necessarily seen as gorgeous by the majority, they may not command the kind of following that sometimes precedes that level of fame. In other cases, the talent may not be at the same level, or they may have the talent, but may not have the same level of relatability across a broad enough spectrum. In order to be a super star, I think you have to have a passionate following that is shared by a broad cross section of people, women and men, across ages, and across a variety of demographic groups, and often across countries.

I think part of the answer to these types of things, that might be a little less subjective and less esoteric, is that not everyone aspires to be a superstar necessarily. They are kind of content with a moderate level of fame that allows them to make a few million dollars a film, but they don't necessarily desire to be the next Tom Cruise. For example, I think Rachel McAdams would be a much bigger star if she aspired to that level of fame, but most of the time when she was offered the kinds of roles that could launch her career to another level, she turned them down. She was offered "The Dark Knight," but turned it town. I think she was offered a role in "Spider Man," but turned it down. She was offered "The Devil Wears Prada," but turned it down. I think they offered her a role in one of the "Mission Impossible" movies as well.

I agree with Yoda that some of this is difficult to predict in advance and that it might not be as easy beforehand to predict as it appears to be after the movies come out and are successful, but I think even Rachel McAdams would know that if she did "The Dark Knight" that would have been hugely popular and would have increased her following. But, she appears to prefer more idiosyncratic films that appear more to her. In some cases, I also think it's the selection of material.

For example, I think George Clooney is a pretty good director. I think the talent is there to be really well known and well respected, but his selection of material is typically quite poor. With the exception of "Good Night and Good Luck." he's never really had a hit as a director, and many of his directorial efforts have received poor reviews. I think it's because his judgment is off regarding his selection of projects.