In reading a retrospective on John Hughes' films, I came across this:

After his attempt to transition out of teen-themed fare (and into more mature territory with 1988's She's Having a Baby) flopped at the box office, Hughes' script for the family farce Home Alone gave him a much-needed career boost, while also giving the world its first mega-child-star, a 10-year-old named Macaulay Culkin.

"...giving the world its first mega-child star..."???

Yes, that's shirley a mistake.

Or maybe even Jackie Coogan. Hardly Culkin though LOL.

Was Shirley Temple or any of the other early child stars as mega as Macaulay?

Mega was an understatement with regard to Shirley Temple. She had about 50 movie credits BEFORE turning 18. No child star before or after had the kind of impact she did.

Shirley Dolls

Shirey Temple movie credits (IMDb)

Shirley Temple Black led an amazing life! (And still does!)

Shirley Temple grew up without all the psychological problems, rumors or controversy that seem to plague so many young actors.
After her acting career, she married and entered politics, including ambassadorship. She also served on the board of directors for several companies.
Along with all that, she won a battle with breast cancer.

She did so much that added good to the world. In deed, I would call Shirley Temple a mega-child-star!

I believe that Mickey Rooney could be considerd here also.

R0oney has about 45 film credits before he was 19. I think the claim for Culkin is juuust a tad over the top.

Maybe they aren't talking in terms of how many movies he did but how much money Home Alone made w/ Culkin as the main actor.

Home alone grossed over 285 million at the box office. Over 476 million worldwide.

Home Alone was also the #1 movie for the 1990 year, in America and the #2 movie worldwide for 1990.

So perhaps they are saying he is a mega child star because of how much money Home Alone Grossed?

I think (but don't know) that the gross of all of Temple's movies (made before she turned 18) would beat Culkin's gross, if the gross were adjusted for inflation.

He didn't work as hard as Shirley Temple. The imdb filmography lists 12 films as an actress and one as herself for 1934 alone. She topped the box office for three straight years.Given the change in value of the dollar over some 55 years (using the Comparative Price Index it's 95 fold 1934-1990) it may well be that her total grossing is higher than Culkin's, and all of it from ticket sales.

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
He didn't work as hard as Shirley Temple. The imdb filmography lists 12 films as an actress and one as herself for 1934 alone. She topped the box office for three straight years.Given the change in value of the dollar over some 55 years (using the Comparative Price Index it's 95 fold 1934-1990) it may well be that her total grossing is higher than Culkin's, and all of it from ticket sales.

That wasn't that uncommon in the early century. Films were usually cheaper and took less time to film. And if you look closer, only six were feature films where she starred. Two were shorts, she wasn't even a credited character in two more and one more had her scenes deleted.

Yes, Justin, but that was for one year. From 1935 through 1939, she starred in 15 movies. Of course, her career lasted much longer than that. But compare that 5 year period to Culkin's entire career to date: 27 screen appearances, including about 6 episodes of TV doing guest shots (and in at least one of those, his was a minor role). In her next 11 films, Temple was first-billed in 7 of them, with one of the remaining 3 having the cast in alphabetical order. Above her in that one was Ingrid Bergman, Eddie Cantor, Katharine Hepburn, Van Johnson, Jennifer Jones, Walter Pidgeon, Edward G. Robinson, and James (Jimmy) Stewart. Five of that group were far bigger stars than Culkin. In the other 3, she was no lower than 4th-billed.

Temple's career before reaching 18 shows her to have starred in 13 films; Culkin's career to age 18 shows him starring in 5 films, and 3 videos billed under Michael Jackson. To be honest, if it weren't for the difference in non-adjusted dollars, there would be no question that Temple was easily the bigger star.

I'm wondering though if the differences in film making made much of a difference. I'm not super well versed in early movie development but I've noticed most stars from that time made a lot of movies in a short amount of time, especially when the movies had a low budget, which was most. If they made movies now like they did back then, I bet they would've made more movies with him.

You may be right. Maybe if he was around then, he would have been a bigger star than her. Maybe if she was a kid when Culkin was a kid, she wouldn't have been a star. But neither of those things happened. What did happen was that she was a much bigger star in the 30s than he was in the 90s. When Temple was a star, all of America knew her name and her face. I don't think that was true for Culkin when he was a star. All of this makes the statement (above) "...giving the world its first mega-child-star, a 10-year-old named Macaulay Culkin" look like the statement of someone whose idea of history started with his own birth.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Maybe if he was around then, he would have been a bigger star than her. Maybe if she was a kid when Culkin was a kid, she wouldn't have been a star. But neither of those things happened.

I'm sure she would be a star regardless of how many movies she made. The issue was who was working harder and that if Culkin was a star in the 30s, he probably would've made as many films per year as she did then, or at least more than he did, and vice versa for her.

Anyway, even if he didn't stay in Hollywood long enough to be as big as Shirley Temple, or the first mega-child star, he was definitely by far the biggest child star of my generation.

No one was arguing that Culkin wasn't the biggest child star of your generation. I think the issue was the first child mega-star, and Temple was certainly a child mega-star and certainly before Culkin. Temple was the top box office star for 4 years. Few adults have done that.
****
Cooper made about 40 films before he turned 18, many of them shorts. Until 13-year-old Keisha Castle-Hughes was nominated for Best Actress in 2004, he was the only actor to earn a Best Actor/Actress nomination for an Academy Award before his/her 18th birthday. Seventeen other actors have earned Oscar nominations as children, but all except Keisha were in the supporting categories. (imdb.com)


When he refused to do a crying scene on the set of Skippy (1931), director Norman Taurog, who was also his uncle, threatened to shoot his dog. It was a different world for child actors then.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:

When he refused to do a crying scene on the set of Skippy (1931), director Norman Taurog, who was also his uncle, threatened to shoot his dog. It was a different world for child actors then.

What? Not threaten to shoot the kangaroo (and do us all a favour) ?

I do think the wording of "first child mega-star" was very inaccurate.

Of "my generation", Tatum O'Neal might be considered the biggest. Though the number of films as a minor might be small, she had an Oscar for one, and by the time she turned 18 she had been in some huge hits ("Paper Moon", "Bad News Bears", "International Velvet", and "Little Darlings"). I think that each generation has had several, they are just hard to recall in an instance.

Hell, Elizabeth Taylor was a HUGE star by the time she turned 18, with a dozen or so films

After appearing in "Miracle on 34th Street" Natalie Wood, who first appeared in movies at age 4, was in great demand, appearing with James Dean, John Wayne, Paul Newman, etc.

Heck, even Heather O'Rourke, best known for the "Poltergeist" films died at age 12 with appearances on TV's "CHiPS", "Fantasy Island", "Webster" and "Happy Days" (12 appearances there), as well as several others. At the rate she was going she would likely be among the biggest child stars ever.

Many stars have burned bright young... few have parlayed that into careers as adults. I think Culkin might ONLY be remembered as a child star before it is through.

"I'm through talkin' now." (With apologies to Janis Joplin)

Macaulay Culkin has done more than a fair share of acting, true. But he's not the only one in the last several years.
Take a gander at the list of credits for Haley Joel Osment.
Also Dakota Fanning, who is still a "child" with more credits yet to come.
And Drew Barrymore had gotten at least 30 credits by the time she was just 20.

I think the magnitude of a child's stardom may be measured in two ways:
- The immediate popularity of the actor as a child;
- And the ability of his/her accomplishments to be remembered throughout the ensuing decades.

Each generation has its "Brat Packs." Each generation also has its group of child stars. And each generation thinks its stars are the best!