question of the day: Is Ashton Kutcher the new Clark Gable? And if not, who is?

I dunno. Clark Gable never nauseated me to the point where I want to throw up, so...ya know.

I'm too young to really decide on the Gable part, but I can admit Kutcher kind of has enough charm not to make me want to punch him. The problem is the roles he keeps choosing have this smug quality instead of the "not taking too seriously, joke of life" that's claimed.

So I can see this as a possibility, as in he's an actor that you pay to see once a year in an enjoyable comedy/semi-drama, but he hasn't reached it yet, nor is it clear that this type of star can exist in Hollywood anymore. It just barely works for Clooney.

Clark Gable was clearly, identifiably a man. Kutcher, like most in his generation in Hollywood, is an overgrown pretty boy.

(Actually, that would be my generation . . . He's exactly my age.)

I'm hard pressed to think of any genuine leading man ("man" being the key word) under the age of 40 or so. Hugh Jackman and Daniel Craig are both 42. Russell Crowe is 47. Clooney's 49. Bruce Willis is 55. Mel Gibson is 54 and insane. Patrick Dempsey is 44, and still isn't so much a movie star as a TV star, despite Hollywood's best efforts. The best I can come up with among the under-40 crowd are Matt Damon and Christian Bale. Not bad, but not the radioactive cores of charisma that emanated from the likes of Mr. Gable.

The easiest answer to the "Clark Gable" question right now would be Robert Downey, Jr. (45).

And just so I'm not only including white guys in my stats . . . Laurence Fishburne is pushing 50 and Sam Jackson is over 60. Even Will Smith and Jamie Foxx are 42.

No. But Spread is easily his best, most interesting work, so O'Hehir isn't all wrong.

David Tennant.

Nope, not Clark Gable....he's more like a Zeppo. On a good day, maybe Red Buttons.

Brian nails it with "overgrown pretty boy."

Ashton Kutchner = Johnny Weismuller

...maybe.

Clark Gable DEFINATELY not!

If he is self-aware, then I'd possibly vote for him being a latter day Victor Mature (without the bedroom eyes).

I think Robert Pattinson comes closer, provided his Twilight popularity doesn't ruin his career.

@Brian, I think it makes perfectly good sense for mature actors to be in the over 40 crowd. Hollywood is not a hotbed of maturity, and I think the indulgences that are allowed actors (and rock stars) would inhibit emotional growth rather than encourage it. Even in the real world, people are talking about college life really just being an extended high school, emotionally.

It's kind of a ridiculous premise to begin with, but that aside . . . the name that comes to mind is Gerard Butler.

George Clooney--an actor of whom I'm not really fond--is the closest equivalent to Gable I can think of.

And let's not forget that like Humphrey Bogart and Cary Grant, Gable started out playing thug roles and only later on moved on up to lead roles. Thug roles are hardly a thing I'd associate with Kutcher.

For what it's worth, actress Barbara Stanwyck supposedly swooned at the prospect of playing opposite Gable when they acted together in Night Nurse. I can't imagine her doing the same thing for Kutcher. Nor can I imagine Kutcher pulling off, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" or all those other lines we associate with Gable.

Someday Kutcher might get all the roles Tom Cruise currently plays--but even Cruise would have a hard time convincingly playing a modern-day Gable-like role.

Anybody else remember a few years back, when they were saying the same kinds of things about Ben Affleck being the new Gary Cooper? And look how that turned out.

To be honest, I don't think that there will be a new Clark Gable or Gary Cooper. The movies are no longer trying to appeal to those audiences, they're trying to appeal to 12-year-old boys. Not exactly an audience who is clamoring for a new Clark Gable.

He may be more of a TVish star at this point in his career, but Nathan Fillion=21st century Clark Gable

There are no more movie stars in the classic sense, and I don't think there will be again. Once upon a time you could imagine that stars had interesting and glamorous lives: now you can know every little detail, and you know that every little detail has been massaged through the publicity machine before you were allowed to know it. No mystery, no excitement.

Doesn't help that most of them have never done stage work.

@Paul: There's nothing at all wrong with the fact that most of the best leading men are over 40. (Well, except when they try to pair them on screen with 20-something women, which can get creepy.) I was just pointing out the contrast between those men and the crop of mostly boyish-looking and/or boyish-acting stars in the under-40 crowd. With that crop of talent, it's hard to imagine anyone being a "next" leading man in the mold of any of the truly manly stars of the past.

I wasn't so much trying to disagree with you, as explain how it might have come about.

I wonder if there might be any parallels with the music industry. It's not as if the pretty boy bands or sex kittens they trot out for us stand much comparison to times of yore. These days good music has to fight out from the din.