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

[methodwriter85]

On 12/28/2019 at 11:42 AM, katha said:

Portman was terrible in those movies as well, but she had stronger performances in other movies, so she wasn't as affected.

I think Portman's trajectory is similar to Hailee Steinfield- both had breakout performances in critical acclaimed movies as children (The Professional, True Grit) that they were cushioned by when they choose some not-so-great roles, both were propped up by franchises (Star Wars, Pitch Perfect), and then both managed to hit on that indie role that established them critically as leading ladies (Garden State, Edge of 17) and restored their cred, leading them to not just be dismissed as a former child star that didn't quite have the goods.

 

[AimingforYoko]

After the underperformance of Spies in Disguise, I noted in the Box Office thread that Will Smith needs a win. He's got Bad Boys For Life coming out in a couple of weeks, then late in the year he's got the Oscar-baity King Richard, a movie about the first black King of EnglandRichard Williams, Venus and Serena's father. 2020 could be a big year for him.

[Danny Franks]

On 12/28/2019 at 4:42 PM, katha said:

The constant influx of big franchises made me think of how that works out for the actors there, particularly if they are young and get their big break on these movies.

I've always thought Hayden Christensen got a raw deal. Yeah, his performance in the SW prequels was...not good. But he got ridiculously awful material that even much stronger/experienced actors would have probably struggled with. Portman was terrible in those movies as well, but she had stronger performances in other movies, so she wasn't as affected.

And compare him with Orlando Bloom, who wasn't exactly setting the world on fire with his acting skills in LOTR, but for a moment there the industry wanted to make him happen. Then noticed that he doesn't have the skills/charisma to pull it off.

Has anyone who didn't already have an established career take off after landing a Marvel role? I'm guessing one of the Chrises, if that?

Jury's probably still out on Ridley and Boyega in the new Star Wars movies. They're appealing in those, now time will show if they can translate that to success outside the franchise. And gotta say, looking back at the original trilogy: It's kinda understandable that Hamill couldn't make the transition. IMO he's neither a good enough actor nor charismatic enough (like Ford).

Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston were pretty much unknowns, prior to the first Thor movie. Although both seem to have had some struggles with breaking their careers out beyond the MCU.

Karen Gillan is probably a good example of an actor with a fairly minor profile who has really made the most of the opportunities the MCU offered.

The Star Wars prequels were effectively proofed against anyone having breakout performances. Lucas' stodgy writing and lifeless direction, as well as his refusal to let his actors do anything outside the specifics of the scripts, pretty much killed any chances of them impressing anyone. Ewan McGregor was fine, because he was already a star and made little effort to hide how frustrating he found the entire endeavour. Natalie Portman made some risky choices that were clearly attempts to avoid being considered "that Star Wars girl" - Closer, V for Vendetta, Goya's Ghosts etc - and that worked out for her.

But Hayden Christensen really had no chance. Star Wars made his name... in a stiff, wooden role, as a performer who struggled with awful dialogue and a character that was petty, childish and clearly mentally unstable. It's really no surprise that his career never took off.

I think Daisy Ridley is set up quite nicely, because it seems like she has avoided most of the criticisms levelled at Star Wars. Even the harshest critics (except the incels) seem to consider her to have been the best part of the trilogy. She's got a couple of big movies coming up (including one with Tom Holland). 

John Boyega, I'm less confident of. Because Hollywood still has racists in positions of power, and he had a bit of a flop with the Pacific Rim sequel. It will be harder for him to get as many high profile opportunities as some other actors get.

 

[emjohnson03]

3 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

 

But Hayden Christensen really had no chance. Star Wars made his name... in a stiff, wooden role, as a performer who struggled with awful dialogue and a character that was petty, childish and clearly mentally unstable. It's really no surprise that his career never took off.

I think Daisy Ridley is set up quite nicely, because it seems like she has avoided most of the criticisms levelled at Star Wars. Even the harshest critics (except the incels) seem to consider her to have been the best part of the trilogy. She's got a couple of big movies coming up (including one with Tom Holland). 

John Boyega, I'm less confident of. Because Hollywood still has racists in positions of power, and he had a bit of a flop with the Pacific Rim sequel. It will be harder for him to get as many high profile opportunities as some other actors get.

 

I like your take on Hayden. Getting back into the SW fandom, I almost forgot about him. Lucas for sure did him no favors and he didn't play Anakin with any kind of dynamic....not to make any comparison but I see Kylo being a similar character with conflict and confusion but it works better -and not sure if it's because of Adam Driver or if because Kylo/Ben is older.  I do think this helped showcase Adam more and because he has so many recent projects, it really has elevated him. He would do fine without SW but it has given him a boost (though I suspect Adam embraces the SW attachment but he's not here for the forever of it and would like to be known for more than just that)

Daisy I think will be fine but she will always be Rey and that's ok. She might need a few really amazing movies to get away from that but anyone who is in SW will always be star wars first and foremost. But I think she will always embrace Rey and would never want to run from it.

Oscar Issac was always doing good things before this and he will do good things after. I think SW helped him but he was well received before it. 

John is an interesting one. I could see him doing good things but not a breakout star like the others. 

It will be interesting to see who in 10 years what these 3 looks like. I suspect Adam will do the best of the three. Heck, he could have all the awards this year for "Marriage Story".

 

 

[absnow54]

8 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

She's got a couple of big movies coming up (including one with Tom Holland). 

I’d be surprised if that movie ever gets released, since it’s been delayed two years and called “unreleasable” by the studio. Amazing, when it’s got two of the biggest rising stars. 

[ShadowHunter]

10 hours ago, emjohnson03 said:

I like your take on Hayden. Getting back into the SW fandom, I almost forgot about him. Lucas for sure did him no favors and he didn't play Anakin with any kind of dynamic....not to make any comparison but I see Kylo being a similar character with conflict and confusion but it works better -and not sure if it's because of Adam Driver or if because Kylo/Ben is older.  I do think this helped showcase Adam more and because he has so many recent projects, it really has elevated him. He would do fine without SW but it has given him a boost (though I suspect Adam embraces the SW attachment but he's not here for the forever of it and would like to be known for more than just that)

Daisy I think will be fine but she will always be Rey and that's ok. She might need a few really amazing movies to get away from that but anyone who is in SW will always be star wars first and foremost. But I think she will always embrace Rey and would never want to run from it.

Oscar Issac was always doing good things before this and he will do good things after. I think SW helped him but he was well received before it. 

John is an interesting one. I could see him doing good things but not a breakout star like the others. 

It will be interesting to see who in 10 years what these 3 looks like. I suspect Adam will do the best of the three. Heck, he could have all the awards this year for "Marriage Story".

 

 

I agree about Adam. As of now he is my pick for doing the best out of the three as well. Still it is hard to predict these things so time will really tell. 

I think Daisy is okay just okay, I need to see her in more things. Same goes for John. 

[katha]

22 hours ago, emjohnson03 said:

I like your take on Hayden. Getting back into the SW fandom, I almost forgot about him. Lucas for sure did him no favors and he didn't play Anakin with any kind of dynamic....not to make any comparison but I see Kylo being a similar character with conflict and confusion but it works better -and not sure if it's because of Adam Driver or if because Kylo/Ben is older.  I do think this helped showcase Adam more and because he has so many recent projects, it really has elevated him. He would do fine without SW but it has given him a boost (though I suspect Adam embraces the SW attachment but he's not here for the forever of it and would like to be known for more than just that).

The comparison is interesting. I purposely didn't put either Driver or Isaacs in the "breakout" category, because they already came with kudos from other projects and IMO weren't as dependent on SW for "making them". "Girls" put Driver on the radar and without SW he would have been able develop on that, probably slower, but still. He had already established his cooperation with Baumbach before SW. He did really well with what he was given in SW, however, so that helped and now he can use that as leverage for his career. And yeah, at this point he probably is glad to be done with it.

I do think that Kylo/Ben works better is down to Driver being a much more experienced, better actor who can elevate clunky material. Because IMO he was given plenty of clunky nonsense, all the cast had to deal with that. OTOH, I don't think it was half as horrifying as what Christensen had to deal with. Like, Driver gets no lines as Ben Solo, so he has to make something out of nothing. But it's probably still better to make something out of nothing than having terrible stuff you have to sell. And it's really sad because Christensen was so young, he was tied for three films to this nonsense and it probably really unfairly established him as a joke without talent.

[Danny Franks]

Driver is clearly a much, much better actor than Hayden Christensen, but I think even he would have struggled if these movies were written and directed by George Lucas. Lucas himself admits he's not good at writing dialogue, yet he insisted on actors saying the lines as written, all the time. And his direction gave them very little leeway to put their own ideas into their characters. Any actor would struggle to give a good performance, in that situation. Even if the material you're working with isn't great, an actor having the freedom to interpret and play things the way they want can make a remarkable difference.

But I do agree that Adam Driver is the Harrison Ford of the new trilogy, in that he won't always be seen as his Star Wars character. He already seems to be moving beyond it, with a series of memorable and acclaimed roles. And it's odd in a way because he doesn't have movie star looks. He's kind of odd looking, with that big nose and narrow chin. While I can see why plenty of people find him attractive, he's not the sort of attractive that movie producers usually like. He obviously has the talent, and the connections, to get where he wants to go. 

But even less likely to be forever connected to Star Wars, I would say, is Oscar Isaac. Because he had already made a name for himself, before this trilogy came along - He had a star turn in Inside Llewyn Davis, then a very memorable performance in Ex Machina (and when I think of Isaac, I always picture that scene where he's dancing with the robot girl). It seems like he's just not stopped working, since about 2010.

[Mabinogia]

17 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

But I do agree that Adam Driver is the Harrison Ford of the new trilogy, in that he won't always be seen as his Star Wars character. He already seems to be moving beyond it, with a series of memorable and acclaimed roles.

I think that is a big part of it, he isn't just doing SW while doing SW. He is out there doing a wider variety of work. He's not an action star by any means. I think his niche will be more indie type, quieter, more introspective films. He's not Harrison Ford sexy but I think he appeals to a certain type of audience who aren't action fans. Because of this, he will easily move away from Kylo Ren, which is a good thing because KR sucks balls! 

I think he is very smart to be doing other films that are in a different genre while doing SW. He is building up a nice resume for himself, keeping his options open, and building a career that will last. I'm not a fan of his but I hear he's been quite good in other films and I do think he's being a smart business man in handling his career. 

[ShadowHunter]

It is nice to see some support for Hayden Christensen. I too have always felt a little bad for him so it is nice to see kind understand posts. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

I will say this: Hayden Christensen is really, really good in Shattered Glass. All the things that made him annoying as Anakin Skywalker are excellently utilized as Stephen Glass. 

[absnow54]

I always liked him in Life as a House too, and the Canadian teen drama Higher Ground, where, surprise surprise, he played a troubled, petulant teen, but with better writing and direction. 

[ShadowHunter]

2 hours ago, absnow54 said:

I always liked him in Life as a House too, and the Canadian teen drama Higher Ground, where, surprise surprise, he played a troubled, petulant teen, but with better writing and direction. 

I like him and thought he was good in Life as a House and Shattered Glass as well.  

[methodwriter85]

There's this model/upcoming actor that reminds me of a mix of Channing Tatum with Chad Michael Murray. His name is Matthew Noszka. He was discovered as an Instagram model in 2015 and he made moves into acting about two years laters with the show "Star", and now he's got a small part in the Netflix movie Let It Snow. I can see him doing an array of lightweight features for about a 5-7 year period so long as he keeps that hunky bod up.

I mean, usually we're on the lookout for serious dramatic actors but there's nothing wrong with some fun eye candy, right? LOL. He definitely reminds me a little of prime "She's the Man" era Channing Tatum.

[haje]

Re: The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy cast, Driver and Isaac will be fine. They were established before Star Wars and Driver especially has established good working relationships with directors who seem to love him. His career was probably going to be fine without Star Wars anyways, his trajectory seemed to always be indie character actor and if you remove Star Wars from his resume, it's pretty much exactly that. As for Isaac, I'm glad he's free from this franchise because I thought pre-Star Wars he was making really interesting decisions with his career and then Star Wars happened and it started to be less interesting. 

Boyega also has projects coming up that seems to be promising. As for Ridley, I do worry about her post-Star Wars. Her roles outside of SW haven't been great and I'm not sure if it's because she just hasn't been getting interesting offers or if she's just not good at choosing the right projects. I think she's been really good in the trilogy so I do hope she manages to carve out a career for herself outside of the franchise. 

[methodwriter85]

On 1/4/2020 at 5:15 PM, haje said:

As for Isaac, I'm glad he's free from this franchise because I thought pre-Star Wars he was making really interesting decisions with his career and then Star Wars happened and it started to be less interesting. 

I thought Operation Finale was a pretty cool movie and par for the course for him- it just didn't catch on the year it came out.

He said he wanted to take a year or two off but he might have gone back on that because his IMDB 2020 dance card looks pretty full. (I remember Brad Pitt said he was going to retire from films when he turned 50. Ha!)

[methodwriter85]

Is it weird that part of the reason why I'm rooting for Florence Pugh is because I think her rise might FINALLY get Hollywood to stop pushing Chloe Grace Moretz? She fulfills a similar character/looks type, but I find her much more talented and versatile than Chloe.

Edited January 21, 2020 by methodwriter85

[methodwriter85]

Well, damn. Jim Carrey finally got a comeback hit. Good for him.

There was this weird air of desperation to him in his "joke" video declaration of love to Emma Stone, and his personal life/professional life have been pretty rocky throughout this past decade, so good for him to start the new decade out with something good.

[Ms Blue Jay]

19 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

Well, damn. Jim Carrey finally got a comeback hit. Good for him.

There was this weird air of desperation to him in his "joke" video declaration of love to Emma Stone, and his personal life/professional life have been pretty rocky throughout this past decade, so good for him to start the new decade out with something good.

I never knew about that Emma Stone video and holy shit.  He was just on "Lights out with David Spade" and he spoke about how his personal life has been rough for the past 8 years .  I just read about it, and wow.  I had no idea.  He's releasing his memoirs soon.

On 1/4/2020 at 5:15 PM, haje said:

As for Ridley, I do worry about her post-Star Wars. Her roles outside of SW haven't been great and I'm not sure if it's because she just hasn't been getting interesting offers or if she's just not good at choosing the right projects. I think she's been really good in the trilogy so I do hope she manages to carve out a career for herself outside of the franchise. 

I thought that Daisy was amazing in The Rise of Skywalker.  Not kidding.  I absolutely adore her.

[methodwriter85]

27 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I never knew about that Emma Stone video and holy shit.  He was just on "Lights out with David Spade" and he spoke about how his personal life has been rough for the past 8 years .  I just read about it, and wow.  I had no idea.  He's releasing his memoirs soon.

It is incredibly uncomfortable to watch. I get that Hollywood pretty much treats 50 year old men chasing women half their age as default, but there was something so off about him in this video. He claimed the whole thing was a joke, but...dude...there was a sad echo of realness in that video.

I do think Jim was incredibly frustrated at the fact that the hard work he put into dramas just didn't get much recognition.

And his slapstick style of comedy fell out of favor for the bro style and Judd Apatow Shared Universe style that was pretty dominant for a good while.

[VCRTracking]

On 2/17/2020 at 11:08 PM, methodwriter85 said:

It is incredibly uncomfortable to watch. I get that Hollywood pretty much treats 50 year old men chasing women half their age as default, but there was something so off about him in this video. He claimed the whole thing was a joke, but...dude...there was a sad echo of realness in that video.

I do think Jim was incredibly frustrated at the fact that the hard work he put into dramas just didn't get much recognition.

And his slapstick style of comedy fell out of favor for the bro style and Judd Apatow Shared Universe style that was pretty dominant for a good while.

This behind the scenes video of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and at 13:11 mark there's a too real and raw moment:

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by VCRTracking

[AshleyN]

On 1/4/2020 at 6:45 PM, haje said:

As for Isaac, I'm glad he's free from this franchise because I thought pre-Star Wars he was making really interesting decisions with his career and then Star Wars happened and it started to be less interesting. 

This is where I am with Oscar Isaac too. After that short run he had with Inside Llewyn Davis, A Most Violent Year, and Ex Machina he was one of my favourite actors around and seemed like he was really on the verge of breaking out and potentially being the next great American actor (a position that, ironically enough, seems to have been taken by Adam Driver). Then Star Wars happened, and not only has he not managed to hit on any of his projects outside of the franchise, even within it he had the least interesting/memorable role of the main four. I'm hoping that he can get things back on track now that his Star Wars obligations are behind him, because I really do think he's a great actor and I'd like to see him get to show it in good projects again.

Edited February 29, 2020 by AshleyN

[katha]

22 hours ago, AshleyN said:

This is where I am with Oscar Isaac too. After that short run he had with Inside Llewyn Davis, A Most Violent Year, and Ex Machina he was one of my favourite actors around and seemed like he was really on the verge of breaking out and potentially being the next great American actor (a position that, ironically enough, seems to have been taken by Adam Driver). Then Star Wars happened, and not only has he not managed to hit on any of his projects outside of the franchise, even within it he had the least interesting/memorable role of the main four. I'm hoping that he can get things back on track now that his Star Wars obligations are behind him, because I really do think he's a great actor and I'd like to see him get to show it in good projects again.

Just watched Llewyn Davis, he was so great in that! I think the other stuff is just...usual career trajectory tbh. If you have a long career, there won't be only interesting films and smash hits. As for that breakout stuff: Outside of franchises and, I guess, DiCaprio and Pitt, it's difficult to be a leading man or leading lady nowadays. And even people like DiCaprio and Pitt worked for decades on their status and produced plenty of duds. Jennifer Lawrence seemed invincible there for a minute, now she's had her share of struggling films as well. No one is safe, LOL.

But yeah, his roles have seemed "safer" after a great string of performancers. Sometimes stuff looks good on paper, then doesn't pan out.

[VCRTracking]

On 3/1/2020 at 9:28 AM, katha said:

 

There is a certain thrill in witnessing someone ascend from mere unknown actor to STAR. Jennifer Lawrence a decade ago then Margot Robbie, now Florence Pugh. Even if you're not a fan you live vicariously through them as they climb each step, becoming bigger and more famous.  Then when they reach the highest point it's like "Okay, next!"

Edited March 3, 2020 by VCRTracking

[methodwriter85]

Margot Robbie is an interesting case because she has yet to produce a big hit that she led. (I Tonya was a boutique indie hit.) I don't think her career is singed too much by the flopping of Harley Quinn (which at least got good views and recouped the production budget), but it's a reminder that it's really hard to hit on a box office streak as a lead actress, especially because romantic comedies are no longer seen as reliable money makers at the box office, and mid-budget dramas aren't getting made like they used to. You COULD become a scream queen/king, but that has its own drawbacks. Then again, Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson have been set this past decade.

It's kind of funny though. Patrick Wilson seemed destined to play the blandly handsome Perfect Guy who gets rejected by the Lead Heroine in romantic comedies, and instead he became a Scream King. Who would've thunk? I never would've predicted that career trajectory just going by his type.

 

[Danny Franks]

I think the Harley Quinn flop was less tied to Robbie than it was to the generally shitty reputation that DC movies have. They've all been pretty bad, and even Wonder Woman was a case of a strong central performance in a very formulaic movie.

There's also the fact that some comic book fans (including me) were turned off by this being branded as a Birds of Prey movie when it categorically was not. It seems like the producers belatedly realised that and tried to rebrand the movie, even giving it a new title. But it was too late in the day to make much difference.

If Robbie had been cast as Captain Marvel, I have few doubts that the movie would still have made over $1billion, because of the structure around it and the cachet that MCU movies have.

I think Robbie is a good actress, and has more going for her than a lot of the men who have been given the same 'make this person a star!' treatment over the last few years.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Danny Franks

[Mabinogia]

9 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

If Robbie had been cast as Captain Marvel

Oh, if only! I adore Margo Robbie. I find Brie Lawson extremely...competent.

 

[methodwriter85]

7 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

Oh, if only! I adore Margo Robbie. I find Brie Lawson extremely...competent.

I think the best comparison I've seen is Amy Ryan. Brie's fine, and she's good in a low-key kind of way, but...yeah, competent. Just like Amy Ryan.

Quote

I think Robbie is a good actress, and has more going for her than a lot of the men who have been given the same 'make this person a star!' treatment over the last few years.

I think she's the real deal for sure.

Edited March 17, 2020 by methodwriter85

[Danny Franks]

So this isn't about a specific actor, but more an observation on the rise of a certain type of actor - the skinny, floppy haired, slightly nebbish, beta guy who is not relegated to 'best friend' roles. 

Timothee Chalamet, Finn Wolfhard, Alex Wolf, Wyatt Oleff, you could almost think these guys were brothers. It's interesting because they don't fit the established model of leading men, but all look like they have big careers ahead of them. I guess Jesse Eisenberg was the prototype.

[methodwriter85]

6 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

So this isn't about a specific actor, but more an observation on the rise of a certain type of actor - the skinny, floppy haired, slightly nebbish, beta guy who is not relegated to 'best friend' roles. 

Timothee Chalamet, Finn Wolfhard, Alex Wolf, Wyatt Oleff, you could almost think these guys were brothers. It's interesting because they don't fit the established model of leading men, but all look like they have big careers ahead of them. I guess Jesse Eisenberg was the prototype.

I've mentioned earlier in this thread that I think Kyle Gallner would have had a really big career if he had been born in 1996 instead of 1986, instead of being relegated to supporting parts on t.v. shows.

I do think male movie stardom from the late 90's through the early 2010's was mostly for guys who looked like they could have been in a fraternity and/or modeled for Abercrombie and Fitch when they were 21. LOL.

 

[absnow54]

7 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I've mentioned earlier in this thread that I think Kyle Gallner would have had a really big career if he had been born in 1996 instead of 1986, instead of being relegated to supporting parts on t.v. shows.

To be fair, he's about the same age as Robert Patinson, who I would put in the same category as the other actors listed, but he got cast in the right franchise at the right time.

[kiddo82]

Daniel Radcliffe falls into that category too although he is slightly older. But like Patinson his career also started off with right franchise/right time.   

[methodwriter85]

On 3/25/2020 at 7:51 AM, absnow54 said:

To be fair, he's about the same age as Robert Patinson, who I would put in the same category as the other actors listed, but he got cast in the right franchise at the right time.

True, although I personally think Robert's conventionally leading man in the face, despite his initial twink bod. His first two characters that the public know him for (Cedric and Edward) were in part defined by the fact that they were really good-looking and all the girls were swooning over him.

There's actually been articles about the rise of twinks as actors, as kind of a reaction against the roided out Alpha Male bods that we've come to expect.

"The Revenge of the Twinks", Vulture, July 2017

Tom Holland, Ansel Elgort, and the new Skinny Movie Stars.

 

 

[Ambrosefolly]

On 3/24/2020 at 6:25 PM, Danny Franks said:

So this isn't about a specific actor, but more an observation on the rise of a certain type of actor - the skinny, floppy haired, slightly nebbish, beta guy who is not relegated to 'best friend' roles. 

Timothee Chalamet, Finn Wolfhard, Alex Wolf, Wyatt Oleff, you could almost think these guys were brothers. It's interesting because they don't fit the established model of leading men, but all look like they have big careers ahead of them. I guess Jesse Eisenberg was the prototype.

 

On 3/25/2020 at 12:42 AM, methodwriter85 said:

I've mentioned earlier in this thread that I think Kyle Gallner would have had a really big career if he had been born in 1996 instead of 1986, instead of being relegated to supporting parts on t.v. shows.

I do think male movie stardom from the late 90's through the early 2010's was mostly for guys who looked like they could have been in a fraternity and/or modeled for Abercrombie and Fitch when they were 21. LOL.

I think that Timothee Chalamet is a lot like Robert Patison he has somewhat of a conventionally handsome face while looking like a twink. While Kyle Gallner might have done better if he was born a decade later, he always had something of sociopathic, a little too dangerous vibe to him.

[VCRTracking]

I always think of how Robert Redford didn't become a star until Butch Cassidy. He'd been in movies before like Barefoot the Park and it's not like he suddenly became handsome, but  playing a badass like the Sundance Kid elevated him in the minds of both male and female moviegoers. Before that I think the impression of him was a pretty boy like Troy Donahue.

Conversely Sylvester Stallone was usually typecast in thug parts like a mugger in Woody Allen's Bananas. Then he showed a tender, vulnerable side in ROCKY and became a star.

Edited April 21, 2020 by VCRTracking

[aradia22]

Quote

There is a certain thrill in witnessing someone ascend from mere unknown actor to STAR. Jennifer Lawrence a decade ago then Margot Robbie, now Florence Pugh. Even if you're not a fan you live vicariously through them as they climb each step, becoming bigger and more famous.  Then when they reach the highest point it's like "Okay, next!"

I feel like people really want me to care about Florence Pugh but I only know about the huge age difference between her and Zach Braff. I will probably see Little Women if it is available on streaming (vs. for rental for a ridiculous price on Amazon) but other than that, her movies aren't that appealing. 

Quote

There's actually been articles about the rise of twinks as actors, as kind of a reaction against the roided out Alpha Male bods that we've come to expect.

Aren't they all just baby Leo DiCaprios? I think age plays a role. Even though they're in their 20's or sometimes even 30's, they can still play teenagers or have a baby-faced look. I don't think most of them seem like adult leading men. 

Quote

Margot Robbie is an interesting case because she has yet to produce a big hit that she led. (I Tonya was a boutique indie hit.) I don't think her career is singed too much by the flopping of Harley Quinn (which at least got good views and recouped the production budget), but it's a reminder that it's really hard to hit on a box office streak as a lead actress, especially because romantic comedies are no longer seen as reliable money makers at the box office, and mid-budget dramas aren't getting made like they used to. 

Whatever happened to that Mary Queen of Scots movie? I mean, God bless her for trying to make things happen for herself. If she sticks around, I feel like she'll have the kind of career where she's not a dependable box office draw or hit maker but she'll definitely have things to discuss on the future equivalent of Inside the Actor's Studio or those GQ career break downs. Some actors star in a string of hits or consistently do interesting work. Other actors are known for their major credits and you just forget the other stuff. I think Robbie might be the latter. 

[VCRTracking]

58 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

I feel like people really want me to care about Florence Pugh but I only know about the huge age difference between her and Zach Braff. I will probably see Little Women if it is available on streaming (vs. for rental for a ridiculous price on Amazon) but other than that, her movies aren't that appealing. 

Aren't they all just baby Leo DiCaprios? I think age plays a role. Even though they're in their 20's or sometimes even 30's, they can still play teenagers or have a baby-faced look. I don't think most of them seem like adult leading men. 

Whatever happened to that Mary Queen of Scots movie? 

It got overshadowed by The Favourite, which was the better costume drama about a queen.

[methodwriter85]

I will say that Margot Robbie has been pretty proactive with her career and Hollywood definitely seems to see her as Oscar material given her two nods. She's got a good chance of winning before she's 35. Margot managed to get taken seriously while also being considered a sex pot, which doesn't happen that much. She only had to glam down in one of her two Oscar noms, too. 

[Ohiopirate02]

The Mary Queen of Scots movie was flat out not good.  The script was bonkers and not rooted in any historical accuracy, the costumes sucked, etc.  I could go on, but the movie faded into obscurity because of this.  Years from now this will be one of the movies that both Margot and Saoirse pretend to forget they ever starred in.  

[methodwriter85]

Yeah, I wasn't a fan, either. My one thing I liked about it was how cute Joe Alwyn was. (Though you could also ogle him in The Favourite.)

Edited April 21, 2020 by methodwriter85

[aradia22]

Quote

I will say that Margot Robbie has been pretty proactive with her career and Hollywood definitely seems to see her as Oscar material given her two nods. She's got a good chance of winning before she's 35. Margot managed to get taken seriously while also being considered a sex pot, which doesn't happen that much. She only had to glam down in one of her two Oscar noms, too. 

I definitely have a lot of respect for the way she's been proactive... not just greenlighting vanity projects but projects where she thinks she's going to shine and do good work. I'm trying not to be too influenced by Wolf of Wall Street, but I think she has the energy of a Scorsese actress... especially Michelle Pfeiffer. But it'll be interesting to see what happens to actresses who are currently in their 30's and 40's. I feel like there was a wave of 70's and 80's actresses in particular who really disappeared. Aside from outliers like Meryl Streep their careers hit a wall or they gave it up to mainly focus on raising a family. I don't think this generation of actresses is as likely to retire or retreat quietly but I don't know what that's going to look like. 

I'm very interested in the Margot Robbie, Reese Witherspoon, Gwyneth Paltrow, etc. model of trying to build a lifestyle brand and/or producing your own projects. 

Of course, as much as Hollywood is becoming the slightest bit more accepting of older women on screen, most actresses still defy time and don't look their age at all. Do Rachel Weisz and Cate Blanchett look 50? I'm not sure that really counts as a win. 

[methodwriter85]

I feel like most of the actresses who are in their 50's and 60's basically have to pass as about 40 in order to still work as leading ladies i.e. they have to look like the "change" hasn't happened. Modern skin care and cosmetic surgery has made that possible. Thus we're getting 55-year old Sandra Bullock playing a pregnant woman in Bird Box. (Yes, I get that there are women who naturally conceived in their 50's but you get my drift.) And then there's Hollywood casting 70-year old Meryl Streep and Glen Close as 50-somethings. Is it really a win if instead of getting them roles for women in their 70's, we're just pretending they're middle-aged? 

Edited April 22, 2020 by methodwriter85

[VCRTracking]

On 4/22/2020 at 1:45 AM, methodwriter85 said:

I feel like most of the actresses who are in their 50's and 60's basically have to pass as about 40 in order to still work as leading ladies i.e. they have to look like the "change" hasn't happened. Modern skin care and cosmetic surgery has made that possible. Thus we're getting 55-year old Sandra Bullock playing a pregnant woman in Bird Box. (Yes, I get that there are women who naturally conceived in their 50's but you get my drift.) And then there's Hollywood casting 70-year old Meryl Streep and Glen Close as 50-somethings. Is it really a win if instead of getting them roles for women in their 70's, we're just pretending they're middle-aged? 

Thanks to modern visual effects actors in their 60s and 70s can pretend to be 30 or 40 something again. Although their body movements give them away. They still move like old men!

[AimingforYoko]

4 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

They still move like old men!

Gee, I wonder who you could be talking about?

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 4/21/2020 at 6:27 PM, aradia22 said:

Of course, as much as Hollywood is becoming the slightest bit more accepting of older women on screen, most actresses still defy time and don't look their age at all. Do Rachel Weisz and Cate Blanchett look 50? I'm not sure that really counts as a win. 

Renee Zellweger's also fifty, so I'm not sure what you mean. At least Blanchett and Weisz haven't messed with their faces to the point where they look entirely different.

[Ms Blue Jay]

On 4/22/2020 at 4:45 AM, methodwriter85 said:

I feel like most of the actresses who are in their 50's and 60's basically have to pass as about 40 in order to still work as leading ladies i.e. they have to look like the "change" hasn't happened. Modern skin care and cosmetic surgery has made that possible. Thus we're getting 55-year old Sandra Bullock playing a pregnant woman in Bird Box. (Yes, I get that there are women who naturally conceived in their 50's but you get my drift.) And then there's Hollywood casting 70-year old Meryl Streep and Glen Close as 50-somethings. Is it really a win if instead of getting them roles for women in their 70's, we're just pretending they're middle-aged? 

I was rewatching one of my favourite romcoms, "Failure to Launch" where the whole premise is that a 35 year old man who lives with his parents has apparently some deep-seated psychological issues.

Of course, the woman who for some reason has some moral standing to judge and rescue this man was a woman played by Sarah Jessica Parker who was 41 at the time and for some reason had a 26 year old roommate.  And I was wondering, LOL, why is that such a better deal?  I feel like they were trying to make SJP seem extremely young and hip by having Zooey Deschanel as her roommate but wouldn't a 41 year old woman in Maryland with her own business in 2006 have her own place?  And if Maryland in 2006 was so supposedly expensive that you need a roommate then why is living with your parents so bad? I thought that was kind of funny. 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Ms Blue Jay

[Scarlett45]

2 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Of course, the woman who for some reason has some moral standing to judge and rescue this man was a woman played by Sarah Jessica Parker who was 41 at the time and for some reason had a 26 year old roommate.  And I was wondering, LOL, why is that such a better deal?  I feel like they were trying to make SJP seem extremely young and hip by having Zooey Deschanel as her roommate but wouldn't a 41 year old woman in Maryland with her own business in 2006 have her own place?  And if Maryland in 2006 was so supposedly expensive that you need a roommate then why is living with your parents so bad? I thought that was kind of funny. 

I get what you’re saying, but having another adult roommate indicates something very different than living with your parents. Another adult roommate is a peer and you have equal financial responsibilities. Living with ones parents in the manner Matthew McConnehy was is like being forever 16- you can drive and have some pocket money but are dependent on your parents for survival and they are the head of the household. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

I just think that the point of independence could be made a little stronger if SJP's character lived alone.  I don't think it's that out of the ordinary for a 40 year old single woman to live alone.

[Scarlett45]

On 4/25/2020 at 4:18 PM, Ms Blue Jay said:

I just think that the point of independence could be made a little stronger if SJP's character lived alone.  I don't think it's that out of the ordinary for a 40 year old single woman to live alone.

Oh yeah I get you. I think most 40 year old single women live alone (or with their children if they have any). 

[Avabelle]

Was she meant to be 40 in it? I haven’t seen the movie in years but thought they were hoping to convince us she was younger.