I think its unfair to compare actresses of Lauren's era with actresses in Nicole's. Lauren is considered a legend, but from what I remember seeing her roles didn't seem all that hard, and at times it seemed like she was being type casted. Women barely ran in movies back then, unless they were dancing, let alone do some of the stuff the women today have to do AND pull off sexy, mysterious, fun, whatever.
In short, Lauren Bacall didn't call herself a legend, but I think Nicole is going to have a far better career than she did (though it won't be as romanced, because Lauren was in the "golden era" and there's a special place in film history for that). And so in a way it does sound like a snotty thing to call Nicole a beginner (afer 20 years working) and not acknowledge the quality of her work, which was really at question.
You don't have to be old to be a legend. You're a legend for what you did in your prime, or youth. But you just don't really get acknowledged for that work until that's all in the past.
Not trying to knock Lauren Bacall, but the notion that actresses were better back in the day I don't agree with. A lot of the time it looks like stage acting: overdramatic, and unrealistic. A lot of the actresses then were type casted and were loved for their personalities and romantic liasons more than their talent. Which... I guess is still true today about a lot of actors/actresses.
Point of this post: I think quality actresses are better now than the screen legends of the past. There has been more to learn from. But the problem is that there is just so much crap too... can i say that here?
Added: For fear of getting blasted for this, I will go and rent some older movies that I don't get to see so often to refresh my memory on why I have that view.