You're back pedalling now. The points of your argument I'm highlighting is your assertion that the DLC is not relevant anymore that that most ppl have forgetten about GTA IV. You're original statement with only the last sentence would have made sense.

Lol what? he can be considered a star of the movie y not? what defines a star of the movie? its someone who moves the plot along.....(a speeking part is a plus)

They were cousins, not brothers. Mistershine owns all(esp ssj12)!

The star of the movie is the headliner. The feature. The leading man. The Main character

At best occasionally they will also give a second person a "star of the movie" treatment if that other person is of a different sex and plays nearly as big a role as the main character.  That would be a Co-star in anycase.  They would say "Co-starring".

That's it though.

Willem Defoe is a movie star... he is not the star of Spiderman.

Seriously... what defines the star of the movie is the definition of star.

^^The main star can be a villain though.

It can be a villain, however the villain has to be the driving force of the movie.  The protaganist.

Like the main character of Death Note for example.  He is the star and the Villain.

So Kirsten Dunst wasn't a star in Spiderman either?

Who Stared in Interview with the Vampire? Pitt or Cruise?

The article also says it is a "character", it says nothing about "Main character".

She didn't play a starring role no.  You could consider her a "Co-star though."

In a "Co-starring" role.

As for Interview with a Vampire... I don't know.  I haven't seen the movie.  Both were likely emphasized in the advertising due to boths popularity.  Though only one was the Star.  Seeing as this biker isn't going to be a famous person... it seems unlikely that this is a case of marketing to make it look like there are more stars.

"GTA4 DLC will Star a biker main character."  is redundent.

If the biker isn't the protaganist it's simply just a misuse of the word.

Co-stars, this shows that this Biker character can in fact just be another character of importance, but not the main character as some seem to believe. I  don't think it would be smart to out of nowhere cut Niko from the main role.

Interview with the Vampire also considers it as "Starring Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise" same as Spiderman did with Dunst and Peterson. In "IWTV" case, without Louis or Lestat there is no advancement in the story, period. Lestat is just as important as Louis. Dunst and Christian Slater were in there too, but their roles was fairly minor compared to Pitt or Cruise. I can understand them not being considered stars.

Definitely watch it. Excellent movie, my favorite Vampire movie by far. I would like to hear your take on it, even if Pitt does wind up being the character of most importance, as the movie is told through him to a reporter.

Edit - Disregard like 75% of what I just wrote, I just realized while eating I just made myself look foolish, lol.

You know what, I was just thinking while eating that what I just wrote makes it seem as though I have no idea what Interview with the Vampire is about...

Pitt's character is the MAIN character, but I am trying to say that even though you are not the main character you can still be considered a "Star".

This is why I think this new Biker character is not the MAIN character, but just a character of importance to the added storyline.

Either way... you should still watch it.

Jeez... I had to run back quick before any fans of the movie chimed in and make me look more foolish than I just made myself look.