thirdsun

Well, part of what you may be responding to (especially in the "classic" photos) is the method of photography.

First of all, often these photos were made with large format studio cameras (which means the negative and resulting print are exceptionally detailed).

Secondly, the lighting was usually stage and movie studio lighting (not photo studio lighting) so that the classic images have a theatrical and more dramatic look, inkier shadows, and exceptional highlighting (for example hair lights, complicated back lighting, etc.). It usually took them an hour or more to setup a mere headshot. Often they were taken on the movie set itself.

Third, the photos were extensively retouched by artists who did nothing else but make these photos and their subjects look exquisite.

Which is not to say that the subject being photographed didn't have oomph...they were charismatic and extremely photogenic people, chosen for their acting ability as well as their ability to look great on-screen and on camera.

As a point of comparison, look at these classic photos of Humphrey Bogart (considered to be the greatest male star of all time):







Then compare them to these photos of Robert Downey, Jr. Today's typical movie-star shots are usually created in a hurry. The photographer might have 10 or 15 minutes with a star. True, an all-day photo shoot is more typical of magazines like Vanity Fair, but many of the photos you see today are snap-shots by comparison with the old movie classic photographs. Personally, I don't think RDJ has any less oomph than Bogey.

But the methods (and results) in these photographs from two different eras are obviously worlds apart.