Subject: Difference between teen stars of 90s and 2000s (and beyond)

My theory is today's young entertainers are expected to start out younger and do more once they get there.

Versatility: Think of the famous Mickey Mouse Club alumni. They were expected to be double and triple-threats, but they tended to stay in one lane after leaving the show. Keri Russell and Ryan Gosling stuck to acting. Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Justin Timberlake, and J.C. Chasez mostly stuck to music. Britney only did that awful Crossroads movie and that was it (not counting her various TV cameos). Christina waited all the way until 2010 to dabble in acting again with Burlesque, and that movie flopped. Justin has done more acting nowadays, but that was long after his *N'SYNC days. Even Kelly Clarkson only did her one movie in 2003 (longer ago than you think) and that was it.

It seems like it was around the Hilary Duff/Lindsay Lohan era of the mid-2000s that young stars and starlets started getting into doing the singing and acting (and I guess dancing by proxy too) gigs simultaneously.

From the late 2000s to now, we've seen the Jonas Brothers, Miley Cyrus, Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato, and Big Time Rush do the same deal. Won't be long before Justin Bieber tries his hand at comedy or doing an action flick.

Age: Today's stars seem to be getting younger and younger when they hit it big too. The Britney's and Justin's of the late 90s were around 18 when they became popular. Compare that with a Miley Cyrus, who was what, 13 or 14 when Hannah Montana started? Bieber was 15 when he debuted. Many of the recent Disney and Nickelodeon stars became household names as younger teens (like Britney's younger sister Jamie Lynn).