Probably not that rare a commodity, it's just nobody's all that concerned with giving any of them enough of a stage or spotlight that we might know who they are offhand.
Is Nolan the guy to try changing that? That's a good question. Would he even care to be that guy?
Again: the dilution of the phrase "movie star" is what I'm getting at. The idea that Paul Rudd is a recognized movie star isn't really in question. It's what that reality means for the potency of the term "Movie Star." I know they had the marvel brand to fall back on. That's basically my argument: If the concept/branding is strong enough, the bar for what you call "Movie Star" can (and does) move lower and lower.
Basically, you keep arguing for a star system that doesn't really exist in Hollywood, and a star-driven approach that Hollywood's proven isn't even really all that necessary, and I'm arguing that we're very much in the era of branding more than anything, and I don't think the "full-stop" you're trying to draw is as boldfaced and underlined as you're suggesting.
I don't think this is true. Apparently neither does Warners. Or, if this rumor is even slightly true, Nolan. Who has turned his own name into a brand in and of itself.