Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Chas411

Future of Movie Stars: Who Will Shine? Who Will Fade Away?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

On network t.v. and Direct-to-Redbox movies. Not prestige cable dramas or wide-release motion pictures.

Katherine's best bet is just work with her "bitch" label and own it. No one's going to buy her as the heroine now, so maybe she just needs to embrace that and start playing bitchy bosses and such.

Heigl has a movie coming out this month with Rosario Dawson. It looks like she plays a psycho ex-wife, so maybe she's taking your advice! 

Share this post


Link to post

11 minutes ago, cynic said:

Heigl has a movie coming out this month with Rosario Dawson. It looks like she plays a psycho ex-wife, so maybe she's taking your advice! 

It's worked well for Emma Roberts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, cynic said:

Heigl has a movie coming out this month with Rosario Dawson. It looks like she plays a psycho ex-wife, so maybe she's taking your advice! 

She was also in Home Sweet Hell with Patrick Wilson and Jordana Brewster, where she played a psycho wife. So there you go.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/3/2017 at 3:26 PM, methodwriter85 said:

once upon a time, Jessica Lange and Susan Sarandon were once continual Oscar contenders, netting 3 Oscars between them. But neither of them were able to maintain the movie pedigree like Meryl Streep or Helen Mirren did. (Glenn Close is also still able to get there- she got nominated as recently as 2011.) At this point I can't see it happening again for either of them...which made watching them play two characters who will never see an Oscar nom or win again pretty poignant, I thought.

But that's pretty standard for older actresses and not unique to them. I remember an Oscar host joking a few years ago that getting  older in Hollywood is fine for actresses, as long as you're Meryl Streep! Helen Mirren is kinda a special case too in that she has found her footing as she has gotten older. I don't think she had as strong a profile as the other actresses back in the '80s.  And Glenn Close did get nominated for a tiny little indie that I think she pushed forward by sheer force of will, but it's not like she hasn't been primarily taking television roles for the better part of two decades, either.  Getting older just sucks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/7/2017 at 0:41 PM, vb68 said:

Helen Mirren is kinda a special case too in that she has found her footing as she has gotten older. I don't think she had as strong a profile as the other actresses back in the '80s. 

Helen Mirren's first Oscar nomination didn't come until she was 49, and she was 56 by the time she got her second nomination (of a total of four).  She's quite unusual, as far as serial nominees go for actresses.

Actually, an even better case would be Judi Dench, whose first nomination came when she was 63.  Six more nominations followed, the last at age 79.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 22/03/2017 at 6:32 PM, VCRTracking said:

You can bite Judd Apatow's hand and get away with it. You can bite Shonda Rhimes hand and get away with it. You can't do both.

I think it would be more accurate to say you can't be a woman and do both. Because then stories start getting circulated about you being difficult and ambitious and having an attitude problem. If you're a guy, you'd have to do much, much worse than piss off a couple of 'names' to hurt your career in any significant way.

I imagine that what hurts Heigl almost as much is the fact that her age will soon begin with a 4. Can't be a woman and 'difficult' and forty, all at the same time.

Not that I've ever been much of a fan of hers, but the couple of things I've seen her in, she's been okay. Had decent presence and comedy timing.

Edited by Danny Franks
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

54 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

I think it would be more accurate to say you can't be a woman and do both. Because then stories start getting circulated about you being difficult and ambitious and having an attitude problem. If you're a guy, you'd have to do much, much worse than piss off a couple of 'names' to hurt your career in any significant way.

Not to disagree at all the women are judged by different standards, but Heigl's attitude wasn't the cause of her career troubles.  She was successful at the box office for a while in spite of her apparently being difficult to work with, but she made too many critically and commercially unsuccessful films, and at that point her having burned bridges kicked in, because when people don't like you they don't have much incentive to extend a helping hand when you're down.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Jessica Lange and Susan Sarandon were once continual Oscar contenders, netting 3 Oscars between them.

The studio that made Frances and Jessica's PR people made one of the great promotional blunders of all time, IMO.  They insisted on releasing Frances late in the year (1982) so it could qualify her for an Oscar.  Which she likely would have won - IF they had been patient and waited until the following eligibility period.  The chosen release date of Frances put Lange up against Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice.  Stupid, stupid people.

Not that Lange hasn't had a great career, she has. But I have always wondered WTF were they thinking?

Edited by amaranta

Share this post


Link to post

But how would they know that the following eligibility period wouldn't have similarly strong performances as competition?  You're basically blaming them for not predicting the future accurately, for choosing to go with the known rather than the unknown.

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/10/2017 at 1:53 PM, amaranta said:

The studio that made Frances and Jessica's PR people made one of the great promotional blunders of all time, IMO.  They insisted on releasing Frances late in the year (1982) so it could qualify her for an Oscar.  Which she likely would have won - IF they had been patient and waited until the following eligibility period.  The chosen release date of Frances put Lange up against Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice.  Stupid, stupid people.

Not that Lange hasn't had a great career, she has. But I have always wondered WTF were they thinking?

Lange was also nominated for Best Supporting Actress for her role in Tootsie the exact same year. Most people believe that her winning the Supporting Oscar for Tootsie was the Academy's way of acknowledging her work in Frances, since everyone knew that no one would beat Meryl Streep that year. 

(That said, I DO like Lange in Tootsie a lot--I'll bet you anything that if any scene got her the Oscar, it was the "I really love you Dorothy, but I can't...I can't love you" scene near the end.) 

Edited by UYI
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Spoiler

 

 

Quote

But how would they know that the following eligibility period wouldn't have similarly strong performances as competition?  You're basically blaming them for not predicting the future accurately, for choosing to go with the known rather than the unknown.

I see what you're saying and you might be right.  I just think it would have been the better gamble to go against the unknown rather than be up against Streep in Sophie's Choice.

More on Chris Pratt - love him from P&R, think he's a good choice for franchises like Guardians and the Jurassics.  But I'm still waiting to see if he has the chops  to carry a "serious" film.  Something I can't quite put my finger on seems to be missing; I'm not sure what word I'm looking for, or how to describe it.  Gravitas, maybe?

Edited by amaranta · Reason: Ignore the spoiler tag; there's nothing there. I moused over it, too heavy a touch, and now it won't go away!

Share this post


Link to post

He's good as an asshole though so while I don't know if he could carry the film as a good guy I could see him making a decent bad guy in a serious role.

Share this post


Link to post

On 4/12/2017 at 10:59 AM, amaranta said:

I see what you're saying and you might be right.  I just think it would have been the better gamble to go against the unknown rather than be up against Streep in Sophie's Choice.

It's just hard to know, though. Shirley Maclaine won the next year, and really had the overdue factor in her corner. Terms of Endearment really swept it, too. So maybe Lange would have won that year, but it certainly wasn't a guarantee.  I'm happy that Lange got the double nominations, and managed to win one.

That that reminds me of when Debra Winger was the IT Girl. I remember the one -two punch of Officer and a Gentlemen and Terms. She was fascinating to watch on the big screen. I'd love for her to have a big comeback. She might have been a better choice for the role of Bette Davis in Feud. I still remember Bette's quote about her. "Debra Winger has been called very difficult to work with, and you don't get anywhere in Hollywood until you're very difficult." Heh. Maybe she was too difficult?

Edited by vb68

Share this post


Link to post

Per Debra Winger, she was difficult AND she took a 5-year break at a pretty critical time- the first half of her 40's. It seems the women who fight to stay in the game at that stage of their career seem to have a better chance of staying there. (See: Meryl Streep's 1990's bobble she weathered through, leading eventually to her comeback in Bridges of Madison County.) She seems to have managed a steady amount of work but the last thing I remember seeing her in was Dawn Anna, where she plays the real-life woman who suffered through disease and then the murder of her daughter in the Columbine High School shooting.

I don't think there's a lot of room for diva behavior unless you're a proven box office draw, which seems to be almost non-existent these days.

She was supposed to play Peggy Sue in When Peggy Sue Got Married, which managed to get Kathleen Turner an Oscar nomination. That had to be kind of bitter. Although Kathleen did a wonderful job in the part. I did think Debra Winger at that time in her life could've managed looking more believable as a teenager, but eh.

Edited by methodwriter85
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

She was supposed to play Peggy Sue in When Peggy Sue Got Married, which managed to get Kathleen Turner an Oscar nomination. That had to be kind of bitter. Although Kathleen did a wonderful job in the part. I did think Debra Winger at that time in her life could've managed looking more believable as a teenager, but eh.

Trivia: Kathleen Turner was 32 in 1986, a year younger than Jessica Lange was in 1986 when Frances was released. When the movie opened, Farmer was supposed to be.....sixteen. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

She seems to have managed a steady amount of work but the last thing I remember seeing her in was Dawn Anna, where she plays the real-life woman who suffered through disease and then the murder of her daughter in the Columbine High School shooting.

Doesn't Debra Winger play Ashton Kutcher's mother on that Netflix series The Ranch? Yeah I would hope she could find a better gig than that.  

16 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

She was supposed to play Peggy Sue in When Peggy Sue Got Married, which managed to get Kathleen Turner an Oscar nomination. That had to be kind of bitter.

That's just one of several movies she was suppose to be in. She dropped out of A League of Their Own to protest "the stunt casting" of Madonna. Holly Hunter's master work in Broadcast News was specifically written for her, which I could sorta see. I think James L Brooks tried again with As Good As It Gets. And the list goes on.  But she really was that good. Especially in Urban Cowboy and An Officer and a Gentleman, she showed this very raw sex appeal that I think many actresses today would struggle to project about half as well. 

Edited by vb68
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, vb68 said:

 

That's just one of several movies she was suppose to be in. She dropped out of A League of Their Own to protest "the stunt casting" of Madonna. 

Which is hilarious, because Madonna is barely in the movie, AND it's considered one of her better movies--and despite the joke that her smaller role is a reason for that, she did star in Evita, and many people praised her for that (the fact that it was a musical where almost every line of it was sung probably helped there--she was in a much better comfort zone overall). 

Share this post


Link to post

I really thought Ansel Elgort was set to take off big after The Fault in Our Stars. The guy has an immense amount of charisma and decent enough acting chops. He did get a bunch of movie offers after that, but it seemed like most of them were stuck in development hell.

He does have a few movies coming out though, although nothing that seems to be getting buzz. I think it might be a combination of a few things: being stuck in the sinking Divergent franchise, his interest in other stuff like music, and in all honesty...the roles for guys in his age group aren't really that good, especially if he doesn't want to play teenagers again.

Nicholas Hoult is another guy I'm still baffled isn't huge yet. I thought for sure the great notices he got in Mad Max (I haven't seen it but he was apparently really great in it) finally would have done it. He's getting close to the age where it seems like leading men roles start to get much better, so maybe in a few more years he'll finally break out.

Seriously though, it really does seem like Leading Men/A-list guys really don't get there until around their early/mid-30's.

Edited by methodwriter85
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

He does have a few movies coming out though, although nothing that seems to be getting buzz. I think it might be a combination of a few things: being stuck in the sinking Divergent franchise, his interest in other stuff like music, and in all honesty...the roles for guys in his age group aren't really that good, especially if he doesn't want to play teenagers again.

Nicholas Hoult is another guy I'm still baffled isn't huge yet. I thought for sure the great notices he got in Mad Max (I haven't seen it but he was apparently really great in it) finally would have done it. He's getting close to the age where it seems like leading men roles start to get much better, so maybe in a few more years he'll finally break out.

Seriously though, it really does seem like Leading Men/A-list guys really don't get there until around their early/mid-30's.

I do think that's more recent following trends in movies. All the teen movies that were coming out when I was young aren't really popular anymore. I think that's due to a decline in the romantic comedy genre and also a decline in the mid-tier movie (not a blockbuster, not a low-budget indie). Sure, there are horror movies and movies like Power Rangers for younger actors, but they're less likely to produce heartthrobs or movie stars, especially when the franchise is the star. I think that's why the guys in the more successful Hunger Games franchise didn't really take off either. Younger actors seem to launch on TV more than they do in movies. Though, even there I think it's tough with a show like Glee gone. Aside from the Disney channel, etc. kiddie stuff I don't watch, I feel like a lot of actors have already gotten a chance to make it somewhere else (see: Grant Gustin from the Flash who started on Glee). So they're not that young or undiscovered. The guys that all the young girls seem obsessed with seem more likely to come from music like One Direction and Shawn Mendes. We'll see how Harry Styles does in Dunkirk. That might be the new path to A-list movie star now. I don't really see a lot of Titanic equivalents to launch Leonardo DiCaprio (I know he was working a lot before then but you get what I mean). The romances now tend to even cast older established actors like Chris Pratt in Passengers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Younger actors seem to launch on TV more than they do in movies. Though, even there I think it's tough with a show like Glee gone. Aside from the Disney channel, etc. kiddie stuff I don't watch, I feel like a lot of actors have already gotten a chance to make it somewhere else (see: Grant Gustin from the Flash who started on Glee). So they're not that young or undiscovered.

Looking at recent high profile young male actors: like Eddie Redmayne, Riz Ahmed, Taron Egerton and Dev Patel. They broke out in movies but in Indies, or supporting roles in studio movies . They didn't really have that single major star making role but ascended up the ranks more slowly. 

But I feel that actors benefit from not getting too big too quickly. Paul Rudd and Ryan Reynolds are not going to get typecast as their latest superhero characters like many past actors who had similar success  in that genre but for their break out role since we have seen them do other things. There is the added benefit of having time to get get used to being famous. So many promising stars crash and burn because they can't seem to handle the pressure.  

Edited by Pink ranger

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't really put Eddie Redmayne in that group. Sure, he's an adorable bunny rabbit. But he's already 35. I think in movies, Dev Patel had Slumdog Millionaire as his breakout role though that didn't materialize into movie star status for various reasons. And going with my other theory on the options available for young actors, he did start out on TV. 

I don't know much about Riz Ahmed but wikipedia tells me he's 34. 

Unless there's a lot missing from his imdb, I think Taron Egerton is one of the lucky ones to find a role that asks for a younger actor in Kingsman. I think Aaron Taylor-Johnson and especially Jesse Eisenberg have managed to find those roles as well. Eisenberg is now 33 but he got here off of the momentum that built in his late 20's.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, Eddie Redmayne took awhile. His breakthrough with Les Miserables and then the cementing of status with The Theory of Everything didn't happen until he was already in his early 30's.

Miles Teller had momentum and then everything just kind of slammed shut- between his dickish Vanity Fair interview and the utter failure of Fantastic Four. (And again, being tied to the sinking Divergent franchise couldn't have helped much.) He's also at that stage where he's starting to get a bit long in the tooth to play college guys/guys just out of college, which tends to be a big chunk of the kinds of role he plays.

Speaking of Miles Teller, man...I love Analeigh Tipton, and I wish romantic comedies were still popular. She makes a fantastic romantic comedy heroine. I hope she finds that breakout, memorable role that people actually see.

Back to Divergent...Shailene's said no to Divergent 4: TV Movie Boogalo (don't blame her) and I think she was really smart to do Pretty Big Lies. It's garnered some pretty good reviews and it's a nice way to recoup a little after Divergent and Snowden sinking like a stone.

Edited by methodwriter85
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Katherine Heigl Admits She Wanted To Quit Acting After Her Diva Reputation Went Public

I now have the mental image of her getting down on her hands and knees begging for a Knocked Up 2.

I'm actually watching the Ugly Truth right now. Again, it boggles me how much she blew it. She was thisclose to the A-list. Three hit movies in a row should've had everyone clamoring for her, but not when you get a bad diva rep.

Share this post


Link to post

10 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

Sir Laurence Olivier once said he did Inchon because the Moonies paid him a lot of money to do it.  I've always respected his honesty.  It's the big paycheck crap that makes the good stuff possible for a lot of actors.

His words: "People ask me why I'm playing in this picture. The answer is simple. Money, dear boy. I'm like a vintage wine. You have to drink me quickly before I turn sour. I'm almost used up now and I can feel the end coming. That's why I'm taking money now. I've got nothing to leave my family but the money I can make from films. Nothing is beneath me if it pays well. I've earned the right to damn well grab whatever I can in the time I've got left."

Olivier didn't half-ass it either since he did his research and had a lot of health problems before and during the production.

I give actors a ton of slack when they choose crappy roles; I am disappointed if they don't show their potential. I don't hold it against them though. Taking pay cheques does allow them to do other things. Also, not taking roles can be damaging for careers even if you are at the top of your game.

Keanu Reeves recently said in an interview that after he rejected Speed 2 and the money, he didn't make a movie for Fox for 15 years. He emphasized that there really is no actor who can be guaranteed to make money or get roles.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think that there is some merit in actors being choosy with roles though.

Jared Letos career path is an interesting case. He spent many years focusing on his band and only acted every now and then. The money he earnt from music, allowed him to be super selective with what acting projects to take and that strategy eventually lead to an academy award win. 

I guess they have to say no in a way that doesn't burn bridges and keep networking so that casting directors still know that they exist.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

"First of all, I choose the great roles, and if none of these come, I choose the mediocre ones, and if they don't come, I choose the ones that pay the rent."--Michael Caine

(For the record, he became more choosy after he missed accepting his Oscar for Hannah and Her Sisters because he was in the Bahamas shooting Jaws 4. His quote on that movie is great too, though:  "I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific.")

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post

I'm fine with actors taking roles just for the money in a crappy movie as long as the acting is at the same caliber as it would be if the movie was good. People got to pay the rent and if this is your career then you should never phone it in no matter how crappy the project. It will always be out there to be seen.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, festivus said:

I'm fine with actors taking roles just for the money in a crappy movie as long as the acting is at the same caliber as it would be if the movie was good. People got to pay the rent and if this is your career then you should never phone it in no matter how crappy the project. It will always be out there to be seen.

Virginia Madsen always seems to give it her best.

I do think that's what impressed me about Dakota Johnson in Fifty Shades of Grey- as someone who read the book, I knew that Dakota had done A LOT of work to make Ana seem like a real, somewhat normal 22-year old girl as opposed to the seriously odd non-person she was in the book. And that was without Ana being significantly re-written. Crappy movie or not, that shit is always going to be seen, and she went away from the role with people knowing that she'll do her best to spin crap into gold.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I do think that's what impressed me about Dakota Johnson in Fifty Shades of Grey- as someone who read the book, I knew that Dakota had done A LOT of work to make Ana seem like a real, somewhat normal 22-year old girl as opposed to the seriously odd non-person she was in the book. And that was without Ana being significantly re-written. Crappy movie or not, that shit is always going to be seen, and she went away from the role with people knowing that she'll do her best to spin crap into gold.

I've never read those books but I heard that about her, that she did her best with a poorly sketched character.  So to get back to the topic of this thread I think Dakota Johnson will probably end up doing well in the business. I have seen her in some other things and she has a likable quality to her plus she is a lovely girl.

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

I'm fine with actors taking roles just for the money in a crappy movie as long as the acting is at the same caliber as it would be if the movie was good. People got to pay the rent and if this is your career then you should never phone it in no matter how crappy the project. It will always be out there to be seen.

That reminded me of this video with Chris Evans. 2:47. I wonder how much things changed when actors realized that not only would home videos (VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, streaming, etc.) be a thing but that the internet and pop culture particularly relishes dredging up that movie you made when you were a teenager or that time you sang badly or when you chewed up all the scenery and screamed about bees. ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/3/2017 at 11:12 AM, cynic said:

There were rumors about Heigl's attitude and how difficult she could be all the way back to her Roswell days. She still got tons of chances and even now that she has several flops, she is still getting chances. I don't get that at all.

I think she has a likable screen presence and is a decent actor. I wish she wasn't an asshole because Then I'd get to see her in more projects. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I'm upset that Heigl's show Doubt was yanked off the CBS schedule so quickly. Now it'll probably be years before the show hits the UK, probably on some low-rated cable channel. Nevermind when the last eleven episodes will air in the US. At least Heigl is getting some really nice reviews for Unforgettable, although who knows where that will take her career. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, pivot said:

I think she has a likable screen presence and is a decent actor. I wish she wasn't an asshole because Then I'd get to see her in more projects.

I've always liked her which I know is an unpopular opinion. She seems to just get in her own way a lot, she should be a bigger star. I know one thing though and that's that I don't blame her for One For The Money tanking. I've read all of those books and they are hella funny. I wish they wouldn't have picked the first one to start with because there's not much Lula in it and I honestly think that's what did that movie in. I thought KH was actually a good choice to play Stephanie Plum since they waited so long to make a movie that Sandra Bullock aged out of the role (She's always been my picture of Stephanie Plum). They should have started with To The Nines when Lula was on the all meat diet. I laughed so hard. Okay yeah, it still makes me sad that that movie franchise didn't work out. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, festivus said:

I've always liked her which I know is an unpopular opinion. She seems to just get in her own way a lot, she should be a bigger star. I know one thing though and that's that I don't blame her for One For The Money tanking. I've read all of those books and they are hella funny. I wish they wouldn't have picked the first one to start with because there's not much Lula in it and I honestly think that's what did that movie in. I thought KH was actually a good choice to play Stephanie Plum since they waited so long to make a movie that Sandra Bullock aged out of the role (She's always been my picture of Stephanie Plum). They should have started with To The Nines when Lula was on the all meat diet. I laughed so hard. Okay yeah, it still makes me sad that that movie franchise didn't work out. 

Me too. I love that series and I would have started with Book 2 when they kept finding all the dead bodies. I still watch One for the Money a couple times a year.

Share this post


Link to post

I maintain the Stephanie Plum books would have made a better TV series than movie.

I was thinking about the 2011 movie Like Crazy, which starred a then unknown (or barely known) Felicity Jones, the late Anton Yelchin (sniff), and super-recent Oscar nominee Jennifer Lawrence. While Jones was more established (she has been acting since 13), some critics griped about how this "nobody" was billed above bright, shiny newcomer Lawrence. Then Lawrence was in The Hunger Games and Silver Linings Playbook, and she shot to the top of the A-List, while Jones just played big parts in small movies, or small parts in big movies. Skip ahead to now, poor J-Law is suffering a bit of backlash due to overexposure and Passengers (looking back, I agree she was terribly overhyped, but I refuse to blame her for that or Passengers), while Jones not only got a well-deserved Oscar nod for The Theory of Everything, but starred in a certain, beloved franchise that easily leaves The Hunger Games in the dust. 

My point is, you never know what the trajectory of someone's career will be, and sometimes it's foolish to try to predict.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

 

I maintain the Stephanie Plum books would have made a better TV series than movie.

 

True. Somebody should get on that!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, festivus said:

True. Somebody should get on that!

I've never read the books, but from what I understand, Stephanie Plum always stays 32 in them. It probably would have made more sense to adapt the books as a series instead of a movie franchise...at most they could have only done maybe 3 before the actress aged out of the part. You could have reasonably done about 4 or 5 seasons of a t.v. show before it started to look ridiculous.

I really wouldn't say "poor" J-Law. Passengers wasn't a hit, but it wasn't a flop, either. She probably won't be able to get 20 million for another picture if she can't strike on a mega-hit but she's not exactly desperate right now.

Edited by methodwriter85

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/16/2017 at 1:13 PM, methodwriter85 said:

I really thought Ansel Elgort was set to take off big after The Fault in Our Stars. The guy has an immense amount of charisma and decent enough acting chops. He did get a bunch of movie offers after that, but it seemed like most of them were stuck in development hell.

He does have a few movies coming out though, although nothing that seems to be getting buzz. I think it might be a combination of a few things: being stuck in the sinking Divergent franchise, his interest in other stuff like music, and in all honesty...the roles for guys in his age group aren't really that good, especially if he doesn't want to play teenagers again.

Baby Driver seemed to get a pretty great reception at SXSW, although that was probably the perfect audience for an Edgar Wright film, since his movies tend to be more cult favourites than major hits.

Also, a discussion about potential breakout younger actors should probably include Alden Ehrenreich, who went from getting a handful of best-in-show reviews in a Coen brothers movie to landing to landing probably the most coveted role for a twenty-something actor in years in the Han Solo movie. This one does come with more risk than a typical franchise role, since the original performance is so iconic, but Ehrenreich seems to have both talent and charisma* so hopefully it works out for him.

*Plus a knack for comedy:

Share this post


Link to post

Alden...I think he's been pretty lucky  and has managed to get himself into the right projects like Blue Jasmine and Hail Caesar. (It may have flopped but it did get him work with some very high-caliber stars particularly Geroge Clooney who is definitely someone you want on your side in Hollywood.) He doesn't have a typical pretty boy's face- which is kind of a liability at his age when everyone wants guys who look like Tiger Beat pin-ups for lead parts, but it's going to be an asset for him the older he gets. His quirky face does make him memorable and distinct.

Baby Driver does look good. I hope it takes off. Ansel Elgort does also seem like he's still willing to play teenagers...he's got something coming out with Chloe Grace Moretz called November Criminals.

CGM...I'm still super-annoyed she went back on her promise to take a break. I still wonder if she's the human form version of Fetch, or if she'll wind up like Saoirse Ronan. Saoirse being the former child actresss who got a lot of adulation as a child and got a lot of parts when she hit ingenue age but none of them exactly set the world on fire, but then finds the adult break-out role that reaffirms the praise they got as a kid. Hailee Steinfield is the most recent version of this.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, methodwriter85 said:

CGM...I'm still super-annoyed she went back on her promise to take a break. I still wonder if she's the human form version of Fetch, or if she'll wind up like Saoirse Ronan. Saoirse being the former child actresss who got a lot of adulation as a child and got a lot of parts when she hit ingenue age but none of them exactly set the world on fire, but then finds the adult break-out role that reaffirms the praise they got as a kid. Hailee Steinfield is the most recent version of this.

I'm not sure that's comparable. Saorise might not have gotten as much attention as she did initially had she not landed the role of the universally hated Briony in Atonement, and 'universally hated' might not be an exaggeration. Ronan was only ten when the film came out, four years younger than Steinfield when she played Mattie Ross in the True Grit reboot. I'm not sure many ten year olds could have played such a role, one that was pretty much doomed to be detested since she ruins the leads' chances of being happy together. Briony's awful, and a little scary, but Ronan played it with more gravitas than you'd think was possible from a kid.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

On 4/18/2017 at 6:34 PM, methodwriter85 said:

Katherine Heigl Admits She Wanted To Quit Acting After Her Diva Reputation Went Public

I now have the mental image of her getting down on her hands and knees begging for a Knocked Up 2.

I'm actually watching the Ugly Truth right now. Again, it boggles me how much she blew it. She was thisclose to the A-list. Three hit movies in a row should've had everyone clamoring for her, but not when you get a bad diva rep.

Thinking about how people have joked that Lindsay Lohan's drug problems allowed Emma Stone to move in and take over her career(which I don't really believe BTW), Heigl might have survived her rep as a diva except right about the time her films started to tank there came bursting onto the scene another 5'9'' pretty, statuesque actress with a bombshell body, except she was a decade younger, who not only wowed the critics with her impressive dramatic acting chops in an indie film but charmed the public with her goofy, likable "I'm just a relatable dork" persona on talk shows.

Edited by VCRTracking
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Jennifer Lawrence ? At that point in time I think that there could have been space for both of them since like you said there is a decade age difference. It's not like Heigl would have been in contention for the Hunger Games. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, and Jennifer Lawrence hasn't been in or gone after the type of romcom movies that Heigl was in but you need a hook in Hollywood, something to make you standout and Heigl's coming off Grey's Anatomy was as the girl who was a statuesque stunner but was also relatable.

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, Pink ranger said:

Jennifer Lawrence ? At that point in time I think that there could have been space for both of them since like you said there is a decade age difference. It's not like Heigl would have been in contention for the Hunger Games. 

Right, JLaw has spent most of the 2010s bouncing between prestige fare and franchises, while fans happened to sour on Heigl in a big way around the time that DVD sales began to crater, which made mid-budget movies a lot less lucrative if they weren't going to be players in Oscar season. I don't really think it's that Lawrence replaced Heigl in any way, just that JLaw ascended as the next big thing and the major studios severely curtailed production of the sort of movies that Katherine used to headline.  The only overlap in their careers I can see is stand-alone action: talent wise, I think Heigl would done well in Passengers and if Killers were being made now, the studio would probably try to get Lawrence on board.

Edited by Dejana
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Hollywood seemed to have endless space for blondes, I think they could have made room.

The Emma Stone/Lindsay Lohan argument makes more sense to me. Though there has been an uptick in comedic redheads, I think they're all older... Isla Fischer, Ellie Kemper, etc. As for the blondes argument, I think it still kind of works. It's not that there was one big replacement, like someone stepping in to be the next Marilyn Monroe. It's that there are so many other options that if you're difficult and your talent can't back it up, then they'll find someone else even better. Charlize Theron, Margot Robbie, etc. Though I also think that's why you try and avoid to make a career on sheer likability. It works for some people but eventually the audience might turn or the roles might dry up. The rom-com actresses had this problem but the ones who could branch out managed to avoid it to varying degrees of success. Compare Julia Roberts to Sandra Bullock. I suppose the musicals might count, but Anna Kendrick might want to add a few more prestige roles. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size