Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Chas411

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

Recommended Posts

He has a great tan and adorable puppy eyes but I haven't seen either Maleficent or The Giver so I can't judge.

I've seen both and, I don't know, I think he's pretty bland. Cute, but bland. IMO he doesn't have the necessary charisma to carry a movie. I'm not a huge fan of Ansel Elgort, but I see the charisma there. Nothing could make me like Augustus Waters, but Ansel at least made the character less completely hateable. 

Share this post


Link to post

Well, that's just disappointing. Seriously though, if they were going to cast a baby-faced 20-something to play Jonas, they should have just gotten Logan Lerman.

 

I thought Ansel Elgort was pretty weird-looking when I first saw pictures of him, but the more I saw the guy talk and smile in videos, the more attractive I thought he was, until I got a full-on crush for him in The Fault in Our Stars. I think he has "IT", whatever that is.

Edited by methodwriter85

Share this post


Link to post
I do think this year's flavor-of-the-month seems to be Brenton Thwaites. Check out his IMDB listing- he went from relative obscurity to somehow booking major movies in a really short time. He has a great tan and adorable puppy eyes but I haven't seen either Maleficent or The Giver so I can't judge.

 

Having seen "The Signal", "The Giver" & "Maleficent", I'm been pretty impressed with Brenton overall.  "The Giver" was clearly the breakout role for him, even if the movie itself did mediocre.  HE totally captured the innocene and naivete of Jonas, while still holding his own against a cast of big-name stars.  (And he's AT LEAST as good as any of his Aussie peers [i'm looking at you, Worthingon and Hemsworths!])

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Sam Claflin has been gifted with some major roles opposite big time stars yet managed to be forgettable every single time. When he was cast in THG I had no idea who he was even though I'd seen him in Pirates and Snow White. The character Finnick should have caused Rob Pattinson-level mania among fangirls but alas they cast bland-as-wheat-toast Claflin and it was not to be. He's going to join Hemsworth and Hutcherson as the most forgettable male leads in a major movie franchise ever. I think Chris Pratt has more charisma in his pinkie than all three of THG guys combined.

Edited by savinggrace
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I actually feel a little bad for Josh Hutcherson, because I feel like he's getting screwed by the series cutting out a lot of Peeta's natural humor and charm. In interviews, I can totally see why they picked Josh Hutcherson; he practically is Peeta, in the sense that he's very personable, and is a totally charming and funny guy. But they cut all of that out in the series, which sucks.

I do think what will hurt him in the long run is that he's not that tall. He's definitely good looking, and I know Jennifer Lawrence and Liam Hemsworth are tall, but I would be shocked if the guy is over 5'6.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

 

I do think what will hurt him in the long run is that he's not that tall. He's definitely good looking, and I know Jennifer Lawrence and Liam Hemsworth are tall, but I would be shocked if the guy is over 5'6.

 

I  pretty agree with that in his case, but at the same time, if an actor has a ton of charisma or something really working for him, his height doesn't matter.  Think (early) Tom Cruise.  

Edited by vb68

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair to Sam Claflin, Finnick wasn't really shown all that much in the movie. And he's not the love interest, so I get why he's not getting the Robert Pattinson-level mania. I think he's fine, but his real test is the next movie, where Finnick gets an expanded role.

 

And I agree that Josh Hutcherson got screwed because most of Peeta's charm and character development was cut from the movie. Mockingjay will hopefully restore at least a little bit of that, because really, they've got four hours and that should be enough time to show what happened to Peeta and how he developed the way he did.

 

I think what really works against Josh is still looking like the Hollywood version of 16, which is the same thing that held back Joseph Gordon Levitt until he was close to 30. Guys are just not taken seriously until they no longer look like kids.

Edited by methodwriter85
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

   Reese Witherspoon may no longer be America's Sweetheart, but damn, she's got to be pretty damn happy right about now. Gone Girl is on place to make 30+ million this weekend.

 

   Maybe this will be Reese's new direction? I loved 90's Reese as an actress, but she really might be well-served to ride the wave as a successful producer.

 

    As for others...it's great to see Denzel Washington's still got it. Good for him on the Equalizer doing well.

 

    Finally, Scoot McNairy seems to become destined to be the definitive "Hey, It's That Guy!" for the 2010's.

Edited by methodwriter85
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

   Reese Witherspoon may no longer be America's Sweetheart, but damn, she's got to be pretty damn happy right about now. Gone Girl is on place to make 30+ million this weekend.

 

   Maybe this will be Reese's new direction? I loved 90's Reese as an actress, but she really might be well-served to ride the wave as a successful producer.

 

    As for others...it's great to see Denzel Washington's still got it. Good for him on the Equalizer doing well.

 

    Finally, Scoot McNairy seems to become destined to be the definitive "Hey, It's That Guy!" for the 2010's.

 

I still love Reese, but I see what you're saying. She's having a good fall, with Wild, The Good Lie and Inherent Vice all getting great reviews and Gone Girl doing well. I absolutely love her in romantic comedies, but those types of films aren't really being made right now. I do think she is shifting to more of a 90's Reese, with performances more akin to her roles in Election and Cruel Intentions. I think she is a better actress than a lot of people know, so this new direction of being more selective with roles in addition to developing and producing material (which she seems to have a bit of a knack for) could serve her well. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

    Finally, Scoot McNairy seems to become destined to be the definitive "Hey, It's That Guy!" for the 2010's.

With a name like Scoot, can you really expect to be more than a well known character actor though?

Share this post


Link to post

I like to think her How Do You Know?/This Means War era was a really hard lesson from Reese, because after that she seems to have gotten a lot more picky after that. And the truth is, she's hit that space where she can't be the young girl in love anymore, but she doesn't feel old enough yet to pull off the whole "mature woman finds new love" space that Diane Lane in Under the Tuscan Sun or Cher in Moonstruck did. (Which is actually kind of funny, because Diane Lane was about 37/38 in that, while Reese is 38, but Diane Lane just seemed so much older and mature.)

 

Yeah, like I said, Scoot is like becoming the Bruce Davidson of his generation. (Seriously, Bruce has been in a ton of stuff, especially during the 1980's and 1990's.) I think he's going to be like "Where's Waldo?" for the movies for the next couple of years.

Edited by methodwriter85

Share this post


Link to post

I think Reese might have that problem where people can't really buy her as an older, more mature woman even if she's at the age where that should be what she is. But I think people look at her as that perky ingenue type still. That can be hard for actresses with those types of personas as they get older.

Edited by ruby24

Share this post


Link to post

 

I like to think her How Do You Know?/This Means War era was a really hard lesson from Reese, because after that she seems to have gotten a lot more picky after that.

 

I totally think she did How Do You Know? to work with James L Brooks.  And I get it.  Yes, he hasn't had a hit since As Good As It Gets, but with his track record with actresses especially, it was certainly worth a shot.  i just can't blame her for that one.

 

(And while I'm thinking about it, I would LOVE an update of Broadcast News.)

Edited by vb68
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Reese is on the cover of October's Vogue issue, and she talks about her mid/late 2000s flops. I think she touches on some of what we've talked about, but I thought I'd put some of her quotes here. She said, "It's not that the roles dried up. They just weren't as dynamic or as interesting as anything I felt I could do." She attributes that to the film industry not being too interested in creative dynamic roles for 30-something women. She also said it partly had to do with her being stereotyped, and one Hollywood director refused to let her audition for a part because she's too "Southern and sweet and huge." Because of this, I'm a lot less hard on Reese for accepting some less-than-great roles, and I'm proud of her for standing up for herself and saying that if no one is going to offer her the roles she wants, then she'll create them herself. That's great, IMO.

Edited by PepSinger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Reese is on the cover of October's Vogue issue, and she talks about her mid/late 2000s flops. I think she touches on some of what we've talked about, but I thought I'd put some of her quotes here. She said, "It's not that the roles dried up. They just weren't as dynamic or as interesting as anything I felt I could do." She attributes that to the film industry not being too interested in creative dynamic roles for 30-something women. She also said it partly had to do with her being stereotyped, and one Hollywood director refused to let her audition for a part because she's too "Southern and sweet and huge." Because of this, I'm a lot less hard on Reese for accepting some less-than-great roles, and I'm proud of her for standing up for herself and saying that if no one is going to offer her the roles she wants, then she'll create them herself. That's great, IMO.

Except some quick googling tells me that Reese Witherspoon has had her own production company since 2000. So that being the case what was stopping her and her company from finding good scripts and getting them made? Or is she saying there were no good scripts out there?

Share this post


Link to post

It could be an issue of good scripts.  Also it is incredibly hard to get a movie made even for big A list celebrities.  Also I think that production companies are only as good as their reputations and it takes a while to build up a good one.  For example, we know George Clooney as a great producer now but he has had his production company for a while.  It takes time to build up.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Also it is incredibly hard to get a movie made even for big A list celebrities.

 

That's a big reason more and more high caliber stars are willing to take on television work.  I keep reading that actors were fighting to get in the second season of True Detective.  I think Colin Farrell got a choice part.  True, he may not be McConaughey , but he's still thought of as a  movie actor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I thought film actors (particularly women) were going into TV because there's just more work and opportunity.  TV offers way more content these days with a thousand cable channels, premium channels, as well as on-demand streaming content providers like Netflix and Amazon producing their own shows.  I realize some TV programs get more accolades than others, but I can understand why an actor might get tired of fighting for the limited film roles, and go to TV.  

Share this post


Link to post

It could be an issue of good scripts.  Also it is incredibly hard to get a movie made even for big A list celebrities.  Also I think that production companies are only as good as their reputations and it takes a while to build up a good one.  For example, we know George Clooney as a great producer now but he has had his production company for a while.  It takes time to build up.

I think that is true to an extent. But at the same time I think money is a factor. Kevin Smith used to always talk about how he never had any problems getting his movies greenlit because they would usually only cost the studio a few million bucks and they almost always made money. To me it would seem that if you are expecting to make a certain amount of money or only work on scripts with above a certain budget then yes it would be very hard to get a movie made. I mean looking at some of  Reese Witherspoons work: Four Christmases Cost 80 million dollars, This Means War cost 65 million and Just Like Heaven cost $58 million. To me that makes no sense. I have seen both Just Like Heaven and This Means War and I don't understand where that money went.  Maybe there is something there and she needs to dial back what her expectations are as far as what a movie should cost and what she would make. 

Share this post


Link to post

I think that is true to an extent. But at the same time I think money is a factor. Kevin Smith used to always talk about how he never had any problems getting his movies greenlit because they would usually only cost the studio a few million bucks and they almost always made money. To me it would seem that if you are expecting to make a certain amount of money or only work on scripts with above a certain budget then yes it would be very hard to get a movie made. I mean looking at some of  Reese Witherspoons work: Four Christmases Cost 80 million dollars, This Means War cost 65 million and Just Like Heaven cost $58 million. To me that makes no sense. I have seen both Just Like Heaven and This Means War and I don't understand where that money went.  Maybe there is something there and she needs to dial back what her expectations are as far as what a movie should cost and what she would make. 

I think it is also the types.  Kevin Smith's movies, while I enjoy them are independent movies at their core.  Kevin Smith may be able to find the crowd funding to make a five million dollar movie, because his investors know that they will recoup that.  I will use the George Clooney example again.  George makes really good movies that are not big budget or summer tent poles and he is always talking about how hard it is for him to put out quality work.

 

I agree with you that there CAN be a lot of waste on movie making but the landscape of making movies has changed dramatically over the last 10-15 years.  Studios just aren't making as many movies as before.  Now what is happening is that those "studio movies" are now looking to independent investors to get their movies made, which then eats up all the money that has historically gone to "independent" movies.

Share this post


Link to post

Hm.  Ezra Miller's star is on the rise.  He's been cast as the young lover in "Madame Bovary", and is the new movie "Flash".

 

He also has a couple of films filming that are due out next year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

I agree with you that there CAN be a lot of waste on movie making but the landscape of making movies has changed dramatically over the last 10-15 years.  Studios just aren't making as many movies as before.  Now what is happening is that those "studio movies" are now looking to independent investors to get their movies made, which then eats up all the money that has historically gone to "independent" movies.

I read somewhere that the producer of Milk said it would be harder to get that movie made today and it was released only six years ago. 

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is also the types.  Kevin Smith's movies, while I enjoy them are independent movies at their core.  Kevin Smith may be able to find the crowd funding to make a five million dollar movie, because his investors know that they will recoup that.  I will use the George Clooney example again.  George makes really good movies that are not big budget or summer tent poles and he is always talking about how hard it is for him to put out quality work.

 

I agree with you that there CAN be a lot of waste on movie making but the landscape of making movies has changed dramatically over the last 10-15 years.  Studios just aren't making as many movies as before.  Now what is happening is that those "studio movies" are now looking to independent investors to get their movies made, which then eats up all the money that has historically gone to "independent" movies.

I totally get your point about less movies being made, and it is obviously not as simple as can be expressed on a message board. But at the same time if Reese witherspoon is saying there are no good, dynamic interesting  roles for her is that really the truth or does she mean there are no good,dynamic roles with the kind of budget (and the kind of paycheque) she is used to. I mean if interesting work is your goal instead of doing a Christmas romantic comedy that costs 80 million dollars why not try to find a good script with an interesting role for you that you can make for say 8 million?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Hm.  Ezra Miller's star is on the rise.  He's been cast as the young lover in "Madame Bovary", and is the new movie "Flash".

 

That's interesting casting for DC's Flash.  I haven't seen enough of him to know if he's a good or even great choice, but it does strike me as an offbeat choice very similar to some of the casting choices that Marvel has used to great advantage. 

 

 

ut at the same time if Reese witherspoon is saying there are no good, dynamic interesting  roles for her is that really the truth or does she mean there are no good,dynamic roles with the kind of budget (and the kind of paycheque) she is used to.

 

I'm not sure, but I would bet she was probably alluding to the brick wall actresses hit when they reach a certain age ( around 40) in addition to the budgets.  Having said that, I still think she's done pretty well this year.  She has been finding work in smaller pictures  and has at least some Oscar buzz for Wild.

Share this post


Link to post

Hm.  Ezra Miller's star is on the rise.  He's been cast as the young lover in "Madame Bovary", and is the new movie "Flash".

 

He also has a couple of films filming that are due out next year.

Not to make it about this but I'm happy that DC has cast an openly gay actor in a high profile super hero role.  I haven't been that impressed with DC's choices but I applaud them for this one.

Share this post


Link to post

Happy for Ezra Miller. We actually have a few mutual friends/acquaintances, and he is a really nice guy but absolutely incredibly incredibly shy, which I find interesting for such a "big" screen presence. Also, I don't think he completely identifies as gay (I was corrected by a friend of his to use the term "queer") but I absolutely see what you mean about him being a different kind of casting choice for Marvel. I think it will be great.

 

What do you guys think of Margot Robbie? She is getting a lot of work post-WOWS and has Focus coming out next with Will Smith. I think she is (obviously) absolutely breathtakingly beautiful, but actually a surprisingly good actress as well. She made her role in WOWS a lot more sympathetic and dynamic than she was in the book. Do you think she will be typecast as the hot girl, or does she have a shot at a serious career? 

Share this post


Link to post

 

Happy for Ezra Miller. We actually have a few mutual friends/acquaintances, and he is a really nice guy but absolutely incredibly incredibly shy, which I find interesting for such a "big" screen presence. Also, I don't think he completely identifies as gay (I was corrected by a friend of his to use the term "queer") but I absolutely see what you mean about him being a different kind of casting choice for Marvel. I think it will be great.

 

He has identified himself as "queer", but he sounds like he's more bi.

Share this post


Link to post

Someone else who seems to be getting lots of work is Sam Claflin. In addition to Pirates of the Caribbean and the Hunger Games, he has The Riot Club coming out and just landed the lead in Me Before You, which many young actors supposedly tested for. I've only seen him as Finnick in THG and thought he was fine, but nothing particularly amazing. I hope to see more of what he can do in Mockingjay.

 

It's also worth noting that his costar in Me Before You will be Emilia Clarke, who is also set to take on Sarah Connor in Terminator. What do you guys think of her prospects? I think she could have a great post-GoT career if she keeps up an interesting mix of projects in between seasons.

 

      I finally got around to reading Me Before You. It was great- I absolutely loved it.

 

      I have mixed feelings about Sam Claflin, though. I think he's a bit young for the part (Will Traynor is supposed to be 35), and I kinda liked the dynamic of Will being the older guy trying to get Young Louisa to try new things.

 

     It's a hell of a part, though. I really, really hope that Hollywood

doesn't chicken out and Will decides he wants to live after all.

I think after the success of the Fault in Our Stars, there's a good chance they won't take the easy way out. If Sam Claflin can hack this part, and they don't gut the story to be "safe", there's a great chance this could do very well.

Edited by methodwriter85

Share this post


Link to post

      I finally got around to reading Me Before You. It was great- I absolutely loved it.

 

      I have mixed feelings about Sam Claflin, though. I think he's a bit young for the part (Will Traynor is supposed to be 35), and I kinda liked the dynamic of Will being the older guy trying to get Young Louisa to try new things.

 

     It's a hell of a part, though. I really, really hope that Hollywood

doesn't chicken out and Will decides he wants to live after all.

I think after the success of the Fault in Our Stars, there's a good chance they won't take the easy way out. If Sam Claflin can hack this part, and they don't gut the story to be "safe", there's a great chance this could do very well.

Totally agree on all counts! It's one of my favorite books so I'm hoping they don't change a thing!

Share this post


Link to post

Here is the latest Most Valuable Stars List from Vulture for 2014.

 

It doesn't seem that different from last year although there is a new #1.

 

I think there are some oddities.  I'm not sure why Kevin James is still on the list, and why he's higher than several actors who seem much more valuable than him IMO.

 

I also happened to notice  that Tina Fey's likability took a beating in the past year.  I'm just curious why she's below 50%.  Even James Franco is higher on that score.  Didn't make sense to me. 

Edited by vb68

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting list.  Thanks for posting it, vb68.  IA, some of the rankings are weird.  Can't imagine Johnny Depp being ranked over Bradley Cooper, and definitely not Matthew McConaghey, since he just won the Oscar.

 

Also can't imagine Chloe Moretz, the Rock, or Emma Watson ranking over Julianne Moore, Naomi Watts, or Joaquin Phoenix, who are all critical darlings. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I did get a kick of the comment for Emma Stone that she really could give Jennifer Lawrence a run for her money if she put her back into it.

 

Likewise the analysis under Bradley Cooper is very telling.  Only he and Jennifer Lawrence represent any new blood in the top ten who wouldn't had been there five or ten years ago.   They really aren't growing or developing new stars that well.  

Share this post


Link to post

It's an odd list.  I think they're prioritizing this past year, but then I'm not sure why Will Smith is so high up.  Scarlett Johannson seems a bit low, considering she's had the MCU franchise and Lucy this year, plus Her was a recent critical hit.  But I guess she's not a tabloid/social media fixture.

Share this post


Link to post

   Will Smith can still have hits, but he doesn't seem to have any kind of actual momentum anymore...it kind of feels like he's coasting, after spending the 1990's and the 2000's steadily progressing to the top and delivering big money hits and lots of Oscar bait roles. Which hey, more power to him as Will Smith has hit that level where he'll always be a star no matter what a la Tom Hanks, but I think about Denzel Washington and how he's still chugging away at it and still proving himself relevant and find Will Smith wanting in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post

That's sort of how I feel about Johnny Depp. People wonder why he's still so high, but I honestly think he's at that level where people will always know him. The Pirates movies were SO huge that I think it pretty much solidified that, plus the other stuff he did before and during, up through Sweeney Todd I guess.

Share this post


Link to post

It did say that Will Smith had the strongest likeability ratings, which is probably why he placed so high on the list.  Career-wise, he's not doing anything of note right now, and his last movie was a huge failure.  But he's also one of the least controversial people in the business and he doesn't make waves.  He's a safe choice.  I can see how that would appeal to people.

Share this post


Link to post

I think what has benefitted Will Smith is his being very calculated about his career.  He made it a point early on to star in and focus on movies that will have an international appeal and to build up a worldwide fan base, not just a national one.  So even if he has a few duds nationally, those movies still make the studio money internationally.  I think it is also an odds game.  Will's movies make so much money around the world, even if he turns in a dud every once in a while, not a huge deal.

 

I think Will is starting to enter into a different phase of his career.  It seems his latest choices are more script and director dependent.  Focus will be out soon, and he is about to star as the real life doctor in the "NFL concussion movie" which is shaping up to be a big drama for next year.

Share this post


Link to post

And then supposedly he'll do The Suicide Squad for WB/DC in 2016.

 

It's interesting.  I could make a case for Julia Roberts being up there with Tom Hanks or Denzel.  I think she's definitely in the always will be famous club.   I  know she's semi-retired or whatever, but it's certainly not inconceivable that she could land a Captain Phillips -type boxoffice vehicle.  

Edited by vb68
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I thought she proved in Valentine's Day that she can still do good work, as IMHO she turned in the only really moving and layered performance in that steaming pile of a movie.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think Julia's work has ever really been in question, especially lately.  She has done most of her best work in the last decade.  August Osage County wasn't a big blockbuster but Julia managed to outshine Meryl Streep as the best performance in the movie.  This last year she was nominated for an Oscar and an Emmy for "The Normal Heart". 

 

Julia is my favorite actress and as much as I have loved the "America's Sweethearts" period of her earlier career, I am really loving and am impressed with her latest more darker choices in parts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I found the Vulture list to be odd as well.  I was surprised how low Scarlett Johannson was ranked with the MCU movies and Lucy, plus the critical success of Her and Under the Skin.  I thought she would have been higher, especially because she seems to be one actor from the MCU movies that is making both critically and commericially successful films outside of the Marvel movies. 

 

I'm also confused about why Zoe Saldana ranks so high when she's had success as part of ensembles in franchise pictures.  It's tougher for women to get those roles unless you can front a Hunger Games/Divergent franchise. 

 

I think that their likability score is harder to explain.  It's always going to be tougher for women to be seem as more likable than men.  I think it's tied in with their tabloid/social media value.  Look at Kristen Stewart - she had one of lowest likability scores and she's had a low profile year.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know if it's a woman thing- doesn't Sandra Bullock have the highest likeability score of anyone on that list? The low likeability scores seem tied to the person's personality- right off the top of my head I'd assume people don't like Kristen Stewart because of the way she acts offscreen rather than the tabloid thing.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, Stewart wouldn't be my go-to example for actresses being tried more harshly in the court of public opinion than actors—if she's ever done anything that would merit the public liking her, it's escaped my notice.

Edited by Bruinsfan

Share this post


Link to post

Gotta say I think Channing Tatum is going to go the was of Josh Hartnet. A big whatever happened to. I could be wrong, but I don't see his career lasting longer than his looks.

On the other hand I can see Shia LaBoufe(or however the fuck it's spelled) pulling a Robert Downey Jr. and having some staying power if he lives long enough. Kid may be annoying, but I actually think he's got the goods.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I see Channing Tatum sticking around because he's paying attention to the business of making movies and he seems to have a good network.  Sort of the Clooney career model.

Share this post


Link to post

I've heard rumors that Hartnett has been unprofessional and horribly unlikeable when the cameras weren't rolling, which may have contributed to his disappearance. I don't see Channing Tatum having any difficulties along those lines.

Edited by Bruinsfan

Share this post


Link to post

They keep trying to make Blake Lively into this big thing, but she's just too bland to me. I have nothing against her. Perhaps she's a lovely person and actress. However, every time I see this woman, I have to look at the credit or caption and that's when I find out it's Blake. Maybe it's just me who finds her very forgettable. It's very puzzling how I can see her face so many times and still can't remember. But perhaps that's a good thing? That the audience (me) is seeing a character and not the actress? 

Share this post


Link to post

Channing Tatum has been plugging away as a C, then B, then finally A-List movie star since about 2006 (Step Up was the movie that officially made him a low-level star), so at this point I'd say his fame has already outlasted Josh Hartnett's, who's career fame was abut 1998 to about 2002. What he lacks in raw talent, he makes up for in his eagerness to learn and ability to build bridges.

 

It's really nice to see the Wes Bentley Revival. (Speaking of a Josh Hartnett contemporary who also got hyped fast and then became an "Whatever Happened to?") I loved Ricky in American Beauty, and his Seneca Crane was great. I hope he's finally overcome his demons.

 

J.Lo doing a Las Vegas residency. I guess this means she's really given up any hope of reviving her acting career, huh? I have such mixed feelings about her- I haven't been able to stand her since about 2003, but I also thought she really did have some potential there that just got lost underneath all the piles of diva crap.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I've heard rumors that Hartnett has been unprofessional and horribly unlikeable when the cameras weren't rolling, which may have contributed to his disappearance.

 

I remember him getting dissed on Entourage, and it making  me snicker. I wish I remember  the joke.  It was something about during the auditions for Aquaman he was scared to get wet or something like that.  

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