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

[methodwriter85]

23 hours ago, aradia22 said:

Amanda Leigh is a decent album but of all those manufactured pop stars at the time, I thought she was one of the weakest singers/performers and I found her acting in all those bad romantic comedies awful. And she was real bad in Tangled. I never had any reason to resent her as a person just as one of those "why is this seemingly untalented person repeatedly getting work" annoyances.

Hey now, her rip-off of Roman Holiday was pretty fun, though:

Mmm. Matthew Goode. I wouldn't mind being stuck in a road trip with THAT.

I don't think Mandy's been awful, but she did pick a lot of seriously awful movies. She acquitted herself pretty well as the bitch in The Princess Diaries and Saved! (I never saw A Walk to Remember, which she seems to get a good amount of praise for, because I'm not usually into following terminally ill characters find love just before they die.)

She has done a LOT of voice work as Rapunzel and other characters, which seemed to have kept her afloat in her lean times.

Edited November 16, 2017 by methodwriter85

[Athena]

11 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

Mmm. Matthew Goode. I wouldn't mind being stuck in a road trip with THAT.

I don't think Mandy's been awful, but she did pick a lot of seriously awful movies. She acquitted herself pretty well as the bitch in The Princess Diaries and Saved! (I never saw A Walk to Remember, which she seems to get a good amount of praise for, because I'm not usually into following terminally ill characters find love just before they die.)

She has done a LOT of voice work as Rapunzel and other characters, which seemed to have kept her afloat in her lean times.

I enjoyed Chasing Liberty. When it came out, a couple of girls I knew rewatched it a lot on DVD because of the mix of European travel porn and Matthew Goode. A decent teen chick flick to be honest and I was always surprised Goode didn't really achieve any good roles after that. 

I don't know if Moore had the options to pick better movies. She was more well connected but it doesn't seem like anyone took her seriously outside of teen roles for a long time. She isn't an awful actor but she's not going to be winning awards soon. I think she's serviceable in a lot of the roles I've seen her including A Walk to Remember. Her and Shane West elevated that material as best they could. I do think she is a better actor than as a pop star or musician. 

[aradia22]

Chasing Liberty was the bad movie I was thinking of. :p

Her part in Princess Diaries was thankless but she didn't make the most of it. A better actress might have been a more memorable villain. A Regina George instead of a... any generic blonde actress could have played this part. 

Admittedly, I have not seen A Walk to Remember or This is Us. 

[amaranta]

On ‎11‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 0:00 AM, aradia22 said:

And she was real bad in Tangled.

Aw. I love Tangled. But then I'm a sucker for just about anything with Zachary Levi.  It will be interesting to see what happens to his career now that he's part of the Superhero universe (Shazam.) 

But no, I don't think Moore is headed for stardom.  And I also have never seen A Walk to Remember.

[Pink ranger]

Moore was nominated for a Golden Globe this year for This is Us. Maybe she’s found her strengths as an actor.

[VCRTracking]

On 11/15/2017 at 2:48 AM, paulvdb said:

For example, how many people know who played Bill Engvall's daughter on The Bill Engvall Show? Or have even heard of the Bill Engvall Show? It ran for three seasons on TBS around ten years ago and the daughter was played by Jennifer Lawrence before she became famous as Katniss in the Hunger Games movies.

The fact that the Bill Engvall Show and Lawrence was completely under the radar worked in her favor. She was able to just emerge "out of nowhere" with Winter's Bone and get the acclaim without any baggage. If she starred in a CW show there would have been a stigma as a "teen actress" and she would have not been taken seriously.

In the latest Hollywood Reporter actress roundtable with Lawrence, Jessica Chastain, Mary J. Blige, Allison Janney, Saoirse Ronan and Emma Stone Jennifer revealed she auditioned for Easy A, which of course went to another up-and-comer, Emma Stone, whom she would become friends with later. That would have put on her on a slightly different career trajectory.

Edited November 16, 2017 by VCRTracking

[aradia22]

Side note: I did not know Mary J. Blige was in Mudbound and God, the Hollywood Reporter needs to do SO much better with these roundtables. They suck at diversity.

[JustaPerson]

7 hours ago, amaranta said:

It will be interesting to see what happens to his career now that he's part of the Superhero universe (Shazam.) 

 

Technically he was already part of it since he was the Thor movies, well before he got unceremoniously killed off.

[raezen]

I'm now trying to imagine Emma Stone as Ree Dolly and I'm just getting an image in my mind when Mia in La La Land was auditioning for Dangerous Minds.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

7 hours ago, aradia22 said:

Side note: I did not know Mary J. Blige was in Mudbound and God, the Hollywood Reporter needs to do SO much better with these roundtables. They suck at diversity.

Isn't she mostly known as a musical performer, though? I checked her IMDB page, and she's done quite a bit of soundtrack work but in comparison has few acting credits outside of TV work and music videos, and in some of those TV roles she played herself.

[methodwriter85]

On 11/16/2017 at 2:18 PM, amaranta said:

Aw. I love Tangled. But then I'm a sucker for just about anything with Zachary Levi.  It will be interesting to see what happens to his career now that he's part of the Superhero universe (Shazam.) 

But no, I don't think Moore is headed for stardom.  And I also have never seen A Walk to Remember.

I think the window for that passed, but I do think Mandy Moore could have something like Lea Thompson's career, doing a lot of supporting roles in movies and t.v. shows, usually as the Mom. That kind of career tends to have pretty good longevity.

[memememe76]

With Room and Wonder, Jacob Tremblay is really establishing himself. Also, I love that Julia Roberts has such a big hit.

[tongueincheek]

Every single day Sarah Gadon isn't cast in everything is another day of misfortune to me. How she hasn't broken out yet when she's generally the highlight of anything she's in is just gobsmacking to me. Hoping "Alias Grace" is what will do it. 

[methodwriter85]

22 hours ago, memememe76 said:

With Room and Wonder, Jacob Tremblay is really establishing himself. Also, I love that Julia Roberts has such a big hit.

He's going to hit that weird 12-15 year old stage pretty soon, where you're kind of between being a kid and being a young man. It will be interesting to see if he runs into problems when puberty hits, or if he'll manage to find good roles for that junior high age group, like the cast of Stranger Things and It.

[qtpye]

On Friday, June 09, 2017 at 2:03 AM, methodwriter85 said:

Ooh, good call. Micheal Fassbender is totally this decade's Jude Law.

 

On Friday, June 09, 2017 at 3:17 AM, JustaPerson said:

I guess you could make the comparison, with the big difference being that Michael Fassbender has never been considered traditionally handsome. I mean hot as hell, but not pretty the way Jude Law was. MF never had a pretty boy period, and the pretty boy roles that come with that. He's always done quirky, intense work. I mean his big leading man break in the US was playing a sex addict (Shame) and before that he played a guy sleeping with an underage girl and a prisoner on a hunger strike. 

Jude Law's stuff was always a bit more conventional. I remember him being like unnaturally beautiful in The Talented Mr. Ripley. Gwyneth Paltrow and Matt Damon looked cute too, but next to Jude they both paled in comparison.

I have nothing against him but the last Alien movie had a much too long scene of Fassbender teaching Fassbender to play the flute.

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 10:58 PM, topanga said:

I'm glad to see Elisabeth Moss continuing to have a  successful TV career. She's a great actress, and I actually like her more because she's (IMO) pretty but not drop-dead gorgeous. 

In Mad Men she was always done up fairly dowdy compared to the other gorgeous females on that show.  On a good day, she was really cute, however they could really give her some awful clothes and bad hair.  I think it is interesting that she is doing so well and maybe being the girl next door as opposed to one of the great beauties on that show helped instead of hurt.  Also she is quite talented.

[methodwriter85]

I saw Lucas Hodges in Three Billboards. It's really exciting to see him and Timothe Chalamet breaking out right now. It's been awhile since there's been an multiple American male ingenue breakout like right now. You could argue Jessie Eisenberg and Michael Cera back in the mid/late 2000's, but of course, that was 10 years ago.

There's actually an Entertainment Weekly article I read a few years ago that talks about why it seems like American male actors aren't breaking out as opposed to their U.K./British/Aussie counterparts coming over here and doing American accents.

What Does the Latest British invasion say about American acting talent?

This part especially struck me:

Quote

In a Hollywood that feeds on young stars—many of which are groomed as kids on television—early success can stunt artistic growth. “The kids that start out as stars when they’re 19 or 20, they never had a chance to learn their craft, and because they become stars, there’s never a chance to catch up,” says Lipton. “They’re not going to knock off for a year and study. They’re going to keep on making movies, as many as they can, as fast as they can. Some learn on the job. Some are geniuses, so they figure it out.”

But for every Jennifer Lawrence or Leonardo DiCaprio—instinctual wunderkinds whose talent and work ethic keep them at the top—there is a huge middle class of popular American actors who reach the age of 30 and suddenly find themselves overmatched by more disciplined foreign-educated artists. Actors who spent three years in their early twenties, for example, just learning how to properly speak and move while their American counterparts were auditioning for a Coke commercial and the new fall pilot.

I remember seeing an interview from the 60's with Hayley Mills where she talked about her regret in not going back to school and doing her acting training at home in England with REP, instead of being a movie star in America.

I do think "too much, too soon" plays a factor. Shia LeBeouf basically had a career handed to him on a silver platter in his early 20's, and he wrecked it.

Then with Josh Hutcherson did a lot of really interesting work as a teenager, but it kind of seems like the Hunger Games, even though it kept him employed and in the public eye for 3 years, kind of stifled him, if I'm making sense. The role of Peeta just got stripped down of any of the charm and street smarts that made his character stand out.

But yeah, it's kind of exciting to see a breakout right now with Lucas and Timothe.

[Pink ranger]

If an actor breaks out after the age of 30 I think that their type tends to have a greater shelf life than those that where younger and famous for playing teenagers. Them having a longer high profile career might not mean that they are more versatile as actors or have had more technical training.  How many times now has Tommy Lee Jones played the grizzled old grouch  for instance? 

Edited December 3, 2017 by Pink ranger

[caracas1914]

This buzzfeed take on Armie Hammer;

https://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/ten-long-years-of-trying-to-make-armie-hammer-happen?utm_term=.ay5yvWZ4Nj#.lr5yMPJvp9

On the one hand , the journalist does a very personal hit job on Hammer, so she actually looks petty and 

weakens her take...

 

But I think  the overall arc (somewhat lost ) how white male actors of a certain type are groomed and reset for stardom over and over again and the PR working relentlessly on them is a valid point.

 

If I have to read one more article downplaying Hammer’s privileged background....

[Ohwell]

Wow, what a hit piece on Armie Hammer.  While I don't think he's that great of an actor, I don't see why he gets slammed because he came from money and a privileged background.  Oh, and he's white and somewhat handsome.  It's not his fault if he gets the work, blame the producers and directors.

[Pink ranger]

Armie Hammer earn’t his stripes with the social network. I can’t think of anything that’s more worthy of being given staring roles than having a critically acclaimed role on a pop culture Impacting best picture nominee.  

If having a string of bombs means getting blacklisted then the non white Will Smith or female  Jennifer Aniston should qualify  too. 

Edited December 3, 2017 by Pink ranger

[caracas1914]

8 hours ago, Pink ranger said:

Armie Hammer earn’t his stripes with the social network. I can’t think of anything that’s more worthy of being given staring roles than having a critically acclaimed role on a pop culture Impacting best picture nominee.  

If having a string of bombs means getting blacklisted then the non white Will Smith or female  Jennifer Aniston should qualify  too. 

Who said anything about being “blacklisted”?  I hope we are not comparing Armie Hammer to Will Smith as far as getting chances.     Will Smith was at one point  near or at the top of  box office pull worldwide, not just stateside;  he’s got world wide fame and recognition; so he’s going to be given roles for upteen years based on his overall track record, the same way a Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, George Clooney, etc , I.e. an established big name can withstand flops and slips after getting to the top.  A lot of those stars, including Will Smith actually breakeven when you count the world.wide take on some of their lesser films.

 

As to Jennifer Aniston, there’s this urban legend that  all her films lose money.  She got her start from being a very big TV star , so she had that; so while not all her films were critical smashes,( some of them actually getting pretty bad reviews), she  has appeared in many moderately successful box office movies along with the occasional bigger grossing hit  for the last 15 years.  In the last 10 years she’s starred in box office smashes such as Marley and Me, Horrible Bosses, We’re the Millers, etc.  She usually doesn’t star in mega budget movies and is usually part of ensemble casts, which explains some of her longevity.

 

I do agree that a leading  man type white male in a “critically acclaimed role in pop culture impacting best picture nominee” can ride that puppy for upteen years and starts and restarts.   A POC or a woman, not so much to say the least....they certainly don’t seem to “earn” that many tries or attempts.

Edited December 4, 2017 by caracas1914

[Irlandesa]

That piece was a mess.  Straight white good looking men do have  privilege but I don't think Armie was the best person to use to make that argument--or at least not currently.  He was given two big budget chances that didn't pan out, although I think only Lone Ranger was truly the flop. And Johnny Depp had first billing.  Man from U.N.C.L.E. appears to have made more than its reported budget.  It just didn't make enough to make it worth turning into a franchise.  Maybe then was the time to write the article but now he's back doing indies with small budgets. 

It reads to me that she wanted to make her point about privilege and chose Armie to get hits since he's getting a lot of attention these days for his critically celebrated performance in his critically celebrated movie (that was made for a small 3.5 million dollars).  That made it kind of weak.  What made it come off like a hit piece is some of the random personal details she chose to throw in there. 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Irlandesa

[raezen]

I thoughtRyan Reynolds was the favourite example of chance aft chance thrown at a white male in Hollywood.  Is he too well liked or his background too humble to use or did Deadpool just reset everything? Either way I'm kind of glad he wasn't picked on even though that sucks for Armie, because these decisions are not made by either of these men and they shouldn't be blamed for being on the right side of a rigged system.   The men running it should. 

[afterbite]

10 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

That piece was a mess.  Straight white good looking men do have  privilege but I don't think Armie was the best person to use to make that argument--or at least not currently.  He was given two big budget chances that didn't pan out, although I think only Lone Ranger was truly the flop. And Johnny Depp had first billing.  Man from U.N.C.L.E. appears to have made more than its reported budget.  It just didn't make enough to make it worth turning into a franchise.  Maybe then was the time to write the article but now he's back doing indies with small budgets. 

I agree. The thesis was undercut by the choice of subject. I think it would have resonated more with me if the author had picked someone who did not fit the 'handsome, straight, white' mold who deserved to have a more fruitful career. For example: Naomie Harris. I first saw her as Selena in 28 Days Later and assumed she'd blow up. IMDB seems to indicate that she works steadily, with some supporting roles in some fairly big/influential films, but she has top billing talent, imo. Explore why she's playing Moneypenny in Bond films while someone like Blake Lively got co-lead on Green Lantern, maybe. (I realize I've switched genders here and don't necessarily want to take the focus away from white male privilege - she's just always the actress that comes to mind when I think 'why weren't they a bigger star?')

[AshleyN]

10 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

That piece was a mess.  Straight white good looking men do have  privilege but I don't think Armie was the best person to use to make that argument--or at least not currently.  He was given two big budget chances that didn't pan out, although I think only Lone Ranger was truly the flop. And Johnny Depp had first billing.  Man from U.N.C.L.E. appears to have made more than its reported budget.  It just didn't make enough to make it worth turning into a franchise.  Maybe then was the time to write the article but now he's back doing indies with small budgets. 

It reads to me that she wanted to make her point about privilege and chose Armie to get hits since he's getting a lot of attention these days for his critically celebrated performance in his critically celebrated movie (that was made for a small 3.5 million dollars).  That made it kind of weak.  What made it come off like a hit piece is some of the random personal details she chose to throw in there. 

Yeah, to me that's the oddest thing about choosing Armie Hammer in particular to focus on. I think anyone would agree that straight, white, men tend to get a lot more chances that anyone else in Hollywood, but I don't think he's necessarily the best example to use (I think someone already mentioned him in this thread, but I always consider Ryan Reynolds to be the poster boy for this phenomenon). Since his two well-publicized studio flops Hammer has pretty much been doing supporting roles in indie movies, which doesn't seem all that egregious to me? And while he'll probably get a boost from Call Me By Your Name, as of now it looks like the biggest upcoming project on his IMDB page is playing the husband in the Ruth Bader Ginsberg biopic.

Edited December 4, 2017 by AshleyN

[Pink ranger]

On 04/12/2017 at 4:45 AM, caracas1914 said:

Who said anything about being “blacklisted”?  I hope we are not comparing Armie Hammer to Will Smith as far as getting chances.     Will Smith was at one point  near or at the top of  box office pull worldwide, not just stateside;  he’s got world wide fame and recognition; so he’s going to be given roles for upteen years based on his overall track record, the same way a Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, George Clooney, etc , I.e. an established big name can withstand flops and slips after getting to the top.  A lot of those stars, including Will Smith actually breakeven when you count the world.wide take on some of their lesser films.

After The Social Network, Hammers biggest movie roles where in J, Edgar,  Mirror Mirror, Lone Ranger,  U.N.C.L.E.  and now Call Me by your Name. 

Only the Lone Ranger had him in the lead and was a let’s try to make him a superstar attempt by Hollywood. The rest where either ensembles or he was supporting an A-list lead. 

I know that Will Smiths career is much more successful than his. I was trying to say that given Hammers level of success  I don’t think that his job offers as above where uncalled for or that he was being  over pushed. He was a supporting player on middling movies getting more of the same and then one bigger opportunity that failed so he went down a notch. 

My point was that he shouldn’t have not got say Mirror Mirror just because J Edgar wasn’t a big success. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by Pink ranger

[Ohwell]

16 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

What made it come off like a hit piece is some of the random personal details she chose to throw in there. 

Exactly.  It's as if she knew him personally and didn't like him; hence, the hit piece.  

[raezen]

Okay, while Buzzfeed decided to pick on someone like Armie Hammer for privilege The Daily Beast pointed out the privilege displayed by all the chances given Bryan Singer.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bryan-singer-the-epitome-of-hollywoods-white-male-privilege-problem

[methodwriter85]

On 12/4/2017 at 6:13 PM, Ohwell said:

Exactly.  It's as if she knew him personally and didn't like him; hence, the hit piece.  

Yeah, the tone of the whole thing feels like, "Well, he was an asshole to me once so I'm going after him." Honestly, the truth is, acting careers seem to be very much a peak and valley kind of game. Especially now, with the comfort and security of a studio career being long gone and the massive upheaval of the television industry. Unless you're someone who lucks into either a Marvel movie franchise or a t.v. series that lasts a decade, you're pretty much always going in fits and starts. Hell, even people that seem A-list are on pretty shaky ground- Jennifer Lawrence was thought of as being a surefire box office star back in 2016, and she had one of the biggest flops this year.

Armie Hammer is an actor. His agents and publicists are people he hired to act in the interest of keeping him employed as an actor. If one track doesn't work, then you pick another track. Or another one. You have to find something that works eventually, or the "business" (in this case being Armie Hammer's acting career) folds. Yes, he's been given more chances than he probably would have if he wasn't a handsome white blond conventionally handsome dude. However, it's hard to begrudge him and his team for working to keep him working. It doesn't look like he just expects to be handed roles, and he and his team are working hard to keep him in the game. And he needs the work. Honestly, before the buzz around Call Me By Your Name, his movie career seemed to be running on fumes. I can't really dog on him or his team for seizing on the most positive buzz he's gotten in his career since his nascent Social Network days.

Anyway, Laura Dern seems to be having a pretty good revival right now. I kind of love that she's an actress of the age of 40 who let her face age naturally- and that includes avoiding botox and fillers.

I'll also be interesting in seeing what Julia Roberts does with the success of Wonder.

Edited December 18, 2017 by methodwriter85

[aradia22]

If I had to pick an actor off the top of my head... I might go with Chris Hemsworth outside of Thor. I'm not sure about all the budgets for his movies but I feel like he's got a decent amount of lead roles without much to show for it. 

Joel Edgerton isn't getting lots of lead roles but he's usually my choice when I lament "who keeps giving all these roles to (insert moderately talented white male actor here)?" When I think of actors getting lots of chances, it's the middle of the road actors that really come to mind. The guys who fill out a cast when a director, studio, etc. argues that they couldn't possibly have hired a more diverse cast. 

Where would you consider Matthew McConaughey? He's made a lot of dreck. But my impression is that it's been moderately successful (not losing too much money) and he earned his way back to relevance with smaller roles that proved his talent. Same with Colin Farrell but I'm biased because I like him. 

Johnny Depp feels like he's in a similar space to McConaughey but that depends on the budget of his movies because there are some real critical stinkers/low earners in his resume. 

Isn't there an annual list of how much an actor is paid vs. how much they return on that investment (i.e. how much the movie makes in relation to their salary)?

[Pink ranger]

On 20/12/2017 at 0:06 PM, aradia22 said:

 

Isn't there an annual list of how much an actor is paid vs. how much they return on that investment (i.e. how much the movie makes in relation to their salary)?

 

Apparently Emilio Estevez is the most profitable male Hollywood actor since 1980. If you only want to count the 2010s then  Kevin Hart, Matthew Mcconaughey and James Mcavoy are the top 3.

http://www.eonline.com/uk/news/888068/emilio-estevez-may-still-be-the-most-profitable-hollywood-actor

Edited December 25, 2017 by Pink ranger

[aradia22]

Ooh, McAvoy's an interesting case. I don't think you can blame him for Penelope and Becoming Jane not setting the world on fire, especially since he wasn't really a "name" then. I feel like Atonement was solid. I think Wanted was his first real swing and a miss but he didn't accumulate a lot of losses before X Men. Arguably, Eleanor Rigby could have done better but he and Jessica Chastain aren't really "popular" names as much as they are "known." Victor Frankenstein can definitely be laid on him. For all it was a weird, quirky movie it definitely could have done better. You can't get away with calling that a small indie or prestige pic. I think he's been smart about not overloading with too many flops and this definitely shows the benefit of having a franchise to juice your box office numbers. 

[dusang]

On 12/25/2017 at 6:43 PM, Pink ranger said:

 

Apparently Emilio Estevez is the most profitable male Hollywood actor since 1980. If you only want to count the 2010s then  Kevin Hart, Matthew Mcconaughey and James Mcavoy are the top 3.

http://www.eonline.com/uk/news/888068/emilio-estevez-may-still-be-the-most-profitable-hollywood-actor

Wait - that seems to be by total budget, rather than the specific pay for the actor. Or am I misreading it? It seems a bit unfair to go by total budget for someone like Jackman, who is probably well paid but can't be on the hook for the total budget of every X-Man movie made.

[Pink ranger]

With X-man you can say that the brand recognition and inherent commercial appeal of action movies gives it an advantage at the box office compared to the indie or modest studio movies that Mcconaughey and McAvoy where in. That even-outs the disadvantage that Jackman had  with his salary being lumped in to the big budget for their calculations. 

But it’s very difficult to accurately gauge  how much percentage of a movies box office can be attributed to an individual actor. There is always a mix of factors for how a movie performs  so lists like that will always be flawed. 

[memememe76]

I am shocked about Matthew Mcconaughy. 

McAvoy should be credited for the success of Split. If he can get a lead in a really good romantic drama like Atonement, he could really rise to the top. I think he has generated a lot of good will.

[methodwriter85]

McAvoy honestly seems to be going for the "long star" route than the big star one. Most UK actors seem to. The XMen movies kept him employed as he aged out of the male ingenue roles he built his initial career on (Atonement,) and Split seems to be the movie that cemented that he's not going to fade away once the boyishly good looks do.

He's been pretty smart about his career , honestly. He's kept a relatively low-profile and he's heading towards his 40's with a pretty solid hit he can build on. I think it really helps him that he didn't really get the "hype" machine built around him in his 20's. That seems to destroy a lot of American actors.

Edited January 3, 2018 by methodwriter85

[AshleyN]

So Saoirse Ronan just missed (by about four months I believe) breaking Jennifer Lawrence's record as the youngest three-time Oscar nominee. All three of her nominations have come for Best Picture nominees, two of which she carried as the sole lead (and in the case of Brooklyn at least, I highly doubt it would have been in the Best Picture conversation were it not for the attention her performance brought to it).

She may not have any box office smashes on her resume yet (though there are several indie hits), but damn, what a start to a career. I've been a fan of hers since Atonement, and I think what's most impressive to me is that all three of her nominations have come for completely different characters and performances. I think Lady Bird in particular is going to be really important for her, since it should help her avoid getting trapped in the "British/Irish Period Queen" box.

I'm kind of starting to wonder though if she's going to follow the Kate Winslet path of racking up nominations while they make her keep waiting on a win.

[Athena]

Saoirse Ronan has been one of my favourite actors for a couple years. She has a great young career for someone who started as a child actor. I really don't think she's had a bad role yet. She is talented, but she has a very quiet charisma even when she is playing characters that are not well written or when they are questionable. I liked Kate Winslet, but I think Ronan has more at this point in her career than Winslet did when she had three nominations. Getting an Oscar is more than talent, there is a lot of marketing and pole dancing as well so maybe Ronan will have to do that at some point.

[JustaPerson]

I was just going to post about Ronan @AshleyN, when saw this Buzzfeed article about her oscar noms!

Edited January 24, 2018 by JustaPerson

[methodwriter85]

On 1/23/2018 at 10:46 PM, Athena said:

Saoirse Ronan has been one of my favourite actors for a couple years. She has a great young career for someone who started as a child actor. I really don't think she's had a bad role yet. She is talented, but she has a very quiet charisma even when she is playing characters that are not well written or when they are questionable. I liked Kate Winslet, but I think Ronan has more at this point in her career than Winslet did when she had three nominations. Getting an Oscar is more than talent, there is a lot of marketing and pole dancing as well so maybe Ronan will have to do that at some point.

As much as the Host was savaged, I thought she acquitted herself quite well in the part. Honestly, I thought it was a pretty decent movie.

Anyway, I got back from seeing the Greatest Showman and thought about how whenever I start really worrying about Zac Efron, he manages to put in a strong supporting  performance in a hit movie. Good for him- he definitely needed a boost after both the Neighbors 2 and Baywatch bombed. He's a good example of someone that seems to have a good reputation that makes older, established box office draws want to hire him for their movies.

[Athena]

7 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

As much as the Host was savaged, I thought she acquitted herself quite well in the part. Honestly, I thought it was a pretty decent movie.

Me too. She really made the most of it, but the movie wasn't as awful as everyone said it was.

[methodwriter85]

On 1/25/2018 at 8:53 AM, Athena said:

Me too. She really made the most of it, but the movie wasn't as awful as everyone said it was.

I really think the movie was a victim of the Twilight backlash. Also, that the biggest villain of the piece folded pretty quickly.

There are so many child stars who show so much promise but become "meh" as adult actors. Saorise's definitely not of that brand.

Unfortunately, I'm thinking Abigail Breslin is. And I totally rooted for her back in the day over Dakota Fanning.

Edited January 27, 2018 by methodwriter85

[pivot]

Saorise was the lone bright spot in Atonement. Well, her and Keira's amazing green dress. Man, did I hate that movie so much so that I've avoided movies by the entire cast since then. But, Lady Bird looks interesting. I may have to finally give up that boycott. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

1 hour ago, pivot said:

Saorise was the lone bright spot in Atonement. Well, her and Keira's amazing green dress. Man, did I hate that movie so much so that I've avoided movies by the entire cast since then. But, Lady Bird looks interesting. I may have to finally give up that boycott. 

You should also watch Byzantium if you get the chance, where she co-stars with Gemma Arterton.

[methodwriter85]

12 hours ago, pivot said:

Saorise was the lone bright spot in Atonement. Well, her and Keira's amazing green dress. Man, did I hate that movie so much so that I've avoided movies by the entire cast since then. But, Lady Bird looks interesting. I may have to finally give up that boycott. 

I was spoiled by the ending and I pretty much decided that I'm not watching this. Life is too short to watch movies that are THAT depressing, at least for me.

Speaking of Keira, it's going to be interesting to see how she develops her career now that she's starting to age out of the ingenue roles that made her famous. She's lucky, in a sense, that she's not really known for teenage roles. Other than playing a teen in Bend It Like Beckham, she always played 20-something women even when she was a teen or young enough to pull off being one. Keira does seem to be doing a LOT of indies these days.

[aradia22]

I liked Atonement.

Keira seems to be fine in indies and period pieces. I don't know how viable that will be longterm. If she would ever do TV, I could see her on the equivalent of Downton Abbey or The Crown since that seems like the path for successful period pieces these days. At least more so that The Duchess, A Dangerous Method, Anna Karenina, etc.

[SeanC]

4 hours ago, aradia22 said:

Keira seems to be fine in indies and period pieces. I don't know how viable that will be longterm. If she would ever do TV, I could see her on the equivalent of Downton Abbey or The Crown since that seems like the path for successful period pieces these days. At least more so that The Duchess, A Dangerous Method, Anna Karenina, etc.

Period pieces are a reliably employable genre for British actresses from the ingenue phase all the way through the Dame Judi Dench/Maggie Smith phase.

[tongueincheek]

Jessica Rothe of HAPPY DEATH DAY is going to be a star. I give her a minimum of two more years of par-for-the-course type projects before she gets that breakthrough. And Blumhouse would be crazy not to do the sequel, which according to her, turns the movie into a BACK TO THE FUTURE type franchise that I'd be totally into. 

[UYI]

30 years ago today. 

I sometimes wonder what would have happened had Heather O'Rourke lived, and once the Poltergeist movies were done (Poltergeist III was apparently going to be the last movie anyway). She DID have dreams of becoming a director, so it's nice to imagine that her old mentor Steven Spielberg (who discovered her in the first place) would have guided her through the process.

[VCRTracking]

On 1/27/2018 at 8:10 PM, pivot said:

Saorise was the lone bright spot in Atonement. Well, her and Keira's amazing green dress. Man, did I hate that movie so much so that I've avoided movies by the entire cast since then. But, Lady Bird looks interesting. I may have to finally give up that boycott. 

Yeah,  but should probably still avoid The Lovely Bones, because it's even more depressing when Saoirse is a victim.

From last month in EW.com:

Atonement 10th anniversary: The inside story on that iconic green dress

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by VCRTracking