Do I think the West End relies too heavily on star names? Yes, I do, and it can result in miscasting and sub-standard stuff. Not always, but occasionally.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Some people are very good at being 'stars' and it suits them. I'm grudging about it and I find it annoying.
Westerns are a type of picture which everybody can see and enjoy. Westerns always make money. And they always increase a star's fan following.
East Hampton happens to have been the first place in the world where I was a star, a real star with a star pasted above my name on the dressing-room door.
Every star has that certain something that stands out and compels us to notice them.
The kids today all seem to think they should be stars, but I wasn't brought up that way.
I had a big problem working with stars, because they are too expensive and have too many demands. Their names help you raise the money to make the movie, but then they demand close-ups. They change things. You end up doing things at their service instead of servicing the film.
As it gets closer and more probable, being a star is really losing its meaning.
I tell myself that some names can be mistakes, like Mxyplyzyk, a store in New York that lost customers because few could spell its name to look up the address. I tell myself that lots of writers agonize over titles, and often get them wrong at first.
There are so many venues in which stars are exposed today, that we just know much more and the studios don't have the control over stars like they used to, in the 30s, 40s, and 50s.
I don't mind being called 'Supernova.' If one nickname is going to stick, that's not a bad one!
No opposing quotes found.