|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 25, 2020 1:50:34 GMT
Even if Gibson hadn't become a pariah, I get recasting him. He had 3 films (a nice run), and a total reboot made sense. Fuck, if only Harrison Ford would retire the Indiana Jones role with grace and maybe let new blood take over. But we are going to have to keep sitting through geriatric Indy, because a movie star's ego is unwilling to give up the glory days. As for Miller, yeah, yeah, I get that it's his "vision". Doesn't have to stop me from still thinking he comes off ungrateful as fuck, because without Theron, nobody gives enough of a shit about Furiosa to merit a tentpole blockbuster about her younger days. He'd have to keep only milking the Max character instead. I mean, it's your viewpoint, but I can't see how that is ungrateful. Theron was magnificent in the role and deserved to win the Oscar that year, but she's merely one facet of why Fury Road was as amazing as it is, and if he feels that exploring the character at a period where casting Theron would make no sense given the technological limitations of de-aging CGI, then that's perfectly fine, and he shouldn't have to rewrite the story that he's got in his mind to accommodate an actor if he feels that Furiosa's story at that point in her life is told. It'd be one thing if he wanted to make a follow-up to Fury Road featuring an age-appropriate Furiosa and then dismissed her, but that's not the case here. That's not how this buisiness works in reality, especially at the budget level of these films. You often make story choices and decisions and comprimises to accommodate stars, who were vital cogs in making films work. It's a collaborative process and these are dystopian action movie franchises, not Citizen Kane. Like I said, Miller can do whatever the fuck he wants, but to me, it feels ungrateful and disrespectful to Theron, and I 'm not sure a studio would have signed off on completely jettisoning her for any follow-ups after one movie (prequels, sequels, whatever) if was an equivalent male star that had given the character it's iconic cache. And I wouldn't be remotely surprised if Theron feels exactly the same way, even if she never openly expresses it.
|
|
Pasquale
Full Member
Posts: 539
Likes: 227
|
Post by Pasquale on Dec 25, 2020 21:04:38 GMT
I mean, this is the franchise that literally discarded an actor who originated the role and played it for three films because he was too old (and yes, other factors were in play, but the point stands). Dr. George wisely realized that the technology was not there to convincingly make Charlize Theron looks two decades younger, and he even cited The Irishman as proof that the tech wasn't there. I'm sure Charlize would have loved to have reprised the role (having said as much), but in the end, it's Miller's vision and his decision, and if he's making a prequel film set twenty years before the events of Fury Road, then he's going with what he feels is the right call. Even if Gibson hadn't become a pariah, I get recasting him. He had 3 films (a nice run), and a total reboot made sense. Fuck, if only Harrison Ford would retire the Indiana Jones role with grace and maybe let new blood take over. But we are going to have to keep sitting through geriatric Indy, because a movie star's ego is unwilling to give up the glory days. As for Miller, yeah, yeah, I get that it's his "vision" and he can do what he chooses. Doesn't have to stop me from still thinking he comes off ungrateful as fuck, because without Theron, nobody gives enough of a shit about Furiosa to merit a tentpole blockbuster about her younger babe days. He'd have to keep only milking the Max character instead. I'd feel salty as fuck if I was Theron, and I initiated this character's iconic cache, only for Miller to give it away to some twenty-something, auteur fucking "vision" be damned. My opinion is that Charlize came off ungrateful to Miller, before and after the premiere of Fury Road. Miller was like 'fuck off'. Charlize is salty, indeed, she said..
Last thing. How is Miller milking the Max character, when the next film features no Max? It's not like George Miller, keeps popping these every couple of years
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,628
Likes: 1,793
|
Post by dazed on Dec 25, 2020 21:16:19 GMT
I mean, this is the franchise that literally discarded an actor who originated the role and played it for three films because he was too old (and yes, other factors were in play, but the point stands). Dr. George wisely realized that the technology was not there to convincingly make Charlize Theron looks two decades younger, and he even cited The Irishman as proof that the tech wasn't there. I'm sure Charlize would have loved to have reprised the role (having said as much), but in the end, it's Miller's vision and his decision, and if he's making a prequel film set twenty years before the events of Fury Road, then he's going with what he feels is the right call. Even if Gibson hadn't become a pariah, I get recasting him. He had 3 films (a nice run), and a total reboot made sense. Fuck, if only Harrison Ford would retire the Indiana Jones role with grace and maybe let new blood take over. But we are going to have to keep sitting through geriatric Indy, because a movie star's ego is unwilling to give up the glory days. As for Miller, yeah, yeah, I get that it's his "vision" and he can do what he chooses. Doesn't have to stop me from still thinking he comes off ungrateful as fuck, because without Theron, nobody gives enough of a shit about Furiosa to merit a tentpole blockbuster about her younger babe days. He'd have to keep only milking the Max character instead. I'd feel salty as fuck if I was Theron, and I initiated this character's iconic cache, only for Miller to give it away to some twenty-something, auteur fucking "vision" be damned. Furiosa was a badass female character in arguably the greatest action movie of all time. Sure, Theron gave an amazing performance, but put another actress (one that wouldn’t give as great of a performance) in that role and you’d still have people giving a shit about Furiosa and a tentpole blockbuster about her due to how well received fury road was and how well her character was written and the mysteriousness behind her.
|
|
franklin
Badass
Posts: 1,770
Likes: 861
Member is Online
|
Post by franklin on Dec 25, 2020 22:40:44 GMT
I struggle to see a male star who defined a role so clearly being discarded so easily in the role they made viable. I mean, this is the franchise that literally discarded an actor who originated the role and played it for three films because he was too old (and yes, other factors were in play, but the point stands). Dr. George wisely realized that the technology was not there to convincingly make Charlize Theron looks two decades younger, and he even cited The Irishman as proof that the tech wasn't there. I'm sure Charlize would have loved to have reprised the role (having said as much), but in the end, it's Miller's vision and his decision, and if he's making a prequel film set twenty years before the events of Fury Road, then he's going with what he feels is the right call. I don't know what Miller thinks of The Irishman as a film overall, but it's pretty clear that in this specific film the purpose of the effects was to reproduce a younger version of Frank Sheeran, not bringing back DeNiro to the Taxi Driver or Goodfellas days. Plus, everyone should read The Film Stage interview at Pablo Helman, the VFX supervisor of the film, it's illuminating and eye-opening. The use of the effects and the deliberate stiffness of DeNiro movements are Scorsese's artistic decision to emphasize that this film is a memory from an old man in a wheelchair. So those effects work since they want to convey the passage of time in this film that deals with old age, looking back, obsolescence, and mortality. In other words Miller making this big decision based on only having seen The Irishman according to his expectations of the VFX effects is pure bullshit.
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 1,045
|
Post by chris3 on Dec 26, 2020 1:03:45 GMT
Wasn't it widely reported that both Theron and Hardy were horrible on-set? I remember an interview with I think the DP(?) where he talks about the star of the movie willingly holding things up by arriving two hours late on set everyday, etc. but he didn't specify if it was Hardy or Theron doing it. If those rumors were true I don't blame Miller wanting to work with a totally different cast.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 26, 2020 3:20:36 GMT
Wasn't it widely reported that both Theron and Hardy were horrible on-set? I remember an interview with I think the DP(?) where he talks about the star of the movie willingly holding things up by arriving two hours late on set everyday, etc. but he didn't specify if it was Hardy or Theron doing it. If those rumors were true I don't blame Miller wanting to work with a totally different cast. I feel Theron knows as a woman, she might not ever come back career wise from playing the time-wasting diva routine on a major studio blockbuster. And I've never really heard any stories about Theron being problematic or unprofessional on set. So I'm inclined to believe it was Hardy trying to be the "alpha male" of the set, and Theron was just standing her ground against him. He's problematic himself, but Shia Labeouf was asked which actor he found most intimidating to work with on one of those Hollywood Reporter actor roundtable things, and he said Hardy, because he gets really "alpha" and lets you know it's his set, and he's the guy in charge. So it sounds very much like Hardy, if he feels he is supposed to be no.1 on the call sheet, will throw his weight around. Also, Zoe Kravitz said it was Hardy (in relation to his anger), "who really took it out on George the most, and that was a bummer to see". Sounds like Hardy was the main problem. Even so, Hardy is still officially attached to Mad Max: The Wasteland, so either Miller has gotten over Hardy's behavior or is understanding of it (which happens on contentious and pressurised movie sets, and people can get over it if the film is a success) or WB won't let Miller recast him. Once the movie turned out so well, I can fully imagine Hardy sucking up to Miller and telling him he'll be on his best behaviour on a sequel. So all the on-set drama may be behind them now.
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 1,045
|
Post by chris3 on Dec 26, 2020 3:53:06 GMT
Wasn't it widely reported that both Theron and Hardy were horrible on-set? I remember an interview with I think the DP(?) where he talks about the star of the movie willingly holding things up by arriving two hours late on set everyday, etc. but he didn't specify if it was Hardy or Theron doing it. If those rumors were true I don't blame Miller wanting to work with a totally different cast. I feel Theron knows as a woman, she might not ever come back career wise from playing the time-wasting diva routine on a major studio blockbuster. And I've never really heard any stories about Theron being problematic or unprofessional on set. So I'm inclined to believe it was Hardy trying to be the "alpha male" of the set, and Theron was just standing her ground against him. He's problematic himself, but Shia Labeouf was asked which actor he found most intimidating to work with on one of those Hollywood Reporter actor roundtable things, and he said Hardy, because he gets really "alpha" and lets you know it's his set, and he's the guy in charge. So it sounds very much like Hardy, if he feels he is supposed to be no.1 on the call sheet, will throw his weight around. Also, Zoe Kravitz said it was Hardy (in relation to his anger), "who really took it out on George the most, and that was a bummer to see". Sounds like Hardy was the main problem. Even so, Hardy is still officially attached to Mad Max: The Wasteland, so either Miller has gotten over Hardy's behavior or is understanding of it (which happens on contentious and pressurised movie sets, and people can get over it if the film is a success) or WB won't let Miller recast him. Once the movie turned out so well, I can fully imagine Hardy sucking up to Miller and telling him he'll be on his best behaviour on a sequel. So all the on-set drama may be behind them now. Nice, thanks for this. I have a hazy memory of all the on-set conflict from that film. Seems like Hardy was the prima donna (I remember there were similar issues on The Revenant too).
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Dec 26, 2020 4:10:36 GMT
I mean, this is the franchise that literally discarded an actor who originated the role and played it for three films because he was too old (and yes, other factors were in play, but the point stands). Dr. George wisely realized that the technology was not there to convincingly make Charlize Theron looks two decades younger, and he even cited The Irishman as proof that the tech wasn't there. I'm sure Charlize would have loved to have reprised the role (having said as much), but in the end, it's Miller's vision and his decision, and if he's making a prequel film set twenty years before the events of Fury Road, then he's going with what he feels is the right call. I don't know what Miller thinks of The Irishman as a film overall, but it's pretty clear that in this specific film the purpose of the effects was to reproduce a younger version of Frank Sheeran, not bringing back DeNiro to the Taxi Driver or Goodfellas days. Plus, everyone should read The Film Stage interview at Pablo Helman, the VFX supervisor of the film, it's illuminating and eye-opening. The use of the effects and the deliberate stiffness of DeNiro movements are Scorsese's artistic decision to emphasize that this film is a memory from an old man in a wheelchair. So those effects work since they want to convey the passage of time in this film that deals with old age, looking back, obsolescence, and mortality. In other words Miller making this big decision based on only having seen The Irishman according to his expectations of the VFX effects is pure bullshit. Look, I really like The Irishman but the effects simply weren't all that. Regardless of whether they were trying to make it look like Frank Sheeran or a young De Niro, it just ended up looking like a plastic version of old De Niro's face. As for the stiffness of his movements, I brought up like 2 years ago that Pacino and especially De Niro move like old men and that their stiffness were going to be a problem (side note: I think Pacino largely overcame that and showed pretty good vitality despite playing the older role). Whether it was an artistic decision or just a practical one that they then made an artistic excuse for is moot since De Niro cannot move like a 40-year-old even if he wanted to. Again, I personally do not find it to be interfering with the film since I think enough of the emotional truth of the performances came through, but I certainly get anyone feeling like it ruined the immersion especially given the VFX's mixed-at-best results.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Apr 19, 2021 10:40:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Apr 19, 2021 11:38:22 GMT
Geez, everything is filming here nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 19, 2021 16:08:18 GMT
Geez, everything is filming here nowadays. Get yourself that sweet sweet extra gig.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,725
Likes: 4,834
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Apr 19, 2021 16:23:35 GMT
mmm...hmmm
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Apr 19, 2021 23:09:58 GMT
Geez, everything is filming here nowadays. Get yourself that sweet sweet extra gig. I mean I do already have a connection to the project, considering I know the stunt coordinator of Fury Road, and his son who was a stunt performer/one of the war boys.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Apr 20, 2021 0:20:29 GMT
Get yourself that sweet sweet extra gig. I mean I do already have a connection to the project, considering I know the stunt coordinator of Fury Road, and his son who was a stunt performer/one of the war boys. Jump on that connection, dude. Sounds like you are awaited in Valhalla.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 15, 2021 20:52:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Nov 29, 2021 20:57:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 29, 2021 21:01:36 GMT
That's a shame. Also, weird recast choice. Not simply for the obvious reasons, either -- Burke has an entirely different vibe from Abdul-Mateen II. Very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 23, 2022 17:24:53 GMT
Welp!...as often is the case, turns out I was right about the situation between Hardy and Theron.Hardy is a fucking cunt. Feel really bad that Theron had to deal with his diva bullshit. Turning up 3 hours late on set and keeping the crew waiting that long . Incredibly unprofessional. And his lateness was a regular thing. Crazy. And it's not like he was some massive A-lister either. The fact that he thought he could get away with this behavior and still have a career (and he was right) says a whole lot about the dynamics of Hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Feb 24, 2022 0:47:01 GMT
lol, no wonder he and Shia clashed. Both are crazy.
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,830
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Feb 24, 2022 2:50:47 GMT
lol, no wonder he and Shia clashed. Both are crazy. He doesn't sound crazy to me, just a prick.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 24, 2022 4:34:32 GMT
For me, the fucked up thing is somehow they (being Hollywood PR spinmasters) allowed or spun this whole situation to become a " clash of egos" thing in the public eye, which had the effect of unfairly apportioning much of the blame to Theron for what was going on, when it's clear that Hardy was 100% the problem. It wasn't a clash of egos. Hardy was being a time-wasting, disrespectful, egomanical prick and Theron was standing up for herself and the crew (rightly so). Was Hardy such a valuable commodity that he was really worth throwing Theron to the wolves to make him look less bad I'm kinda contrasting this with Wesley Snipes on Blade 3, and how he was thrown to the wolves in PR terms, despite him understandably being irritated by being sidelined ( for Ryan Reynold and Jessica Biel) by David S Goyer in a franchise Snipes was largely responsible for making a success. If Snipes was acting like he was on that movie under duress, he at least had good reason to. Hardy just seems like he acted like a prick just because he could.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Feb 24, 2022 5:28:05 GMT
I mean, Hardy's career hasn't advanced whatsoever. He has his shitty Venom franchise and Nolan, that's it; and Nolan will probably lose interest in him sooner than later. He's been cast by zero non-Nolan notable directors since the Mad Max/Revenant year. Hardy worked with more notable directors when he was literally an unknown.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 24, 2022 5:43:59 GMT
I mean, Hardy's career hasn't advanced whatsoever. He has his shitty Venom franchise and Nolan, that's it; and Nolan will probably lose interest in him sooner than later. He's been cast by zero non-Nolan notable directors since the Mad Max/Revenant year. Hardy worked with more notable directors when he was literally an unknown. Hardy is still a major star. It doesn't matter how much you think the Venom films aren't great (they aren't)....they are massive hits for Sony, that he is solely responsible for carrying. That Venom sequel made nearly a billion dollars at the Box Office. During a pandemic. Hardy had a cameo in Spider-Man: No Way Home, which means he'll be likely appearing in other Marvel films now. Hardy can sustain stardom just playing Venom alone for the next 10 years. Obviously the IP is more important than Hardy in the films box office success, but you could say that for Chris Hemsworth or Tom Holland or any actor that carries these comic book super characters. As long as these films make money, the industry still considers them stars. At least commercially, I'd say Hardy has probably become more bankable since Mad Max, based on Venom alone. Maybe great directors have stopped hitting him up for prestige roles for now, but as long as he is still making Hollywood money as Venom, he'll still be in the game and eventually probably be cast in prestige/Oscarbait material again.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Feb 24, 2022 5:51:30 GMT
I mean, Hardy's career hasn't advanced whatsoever. He has his shitty Venom franchise and Nolan, that's it; and Nolan will probably lose interest in him sooner than later. He's been cast by zero non-Nolan notable directors since the Mad Max/Revenant year. Hardy worked with more notable directors when he was literally an unknown. Hardy is still a major star. It doesn't matter how much you think the Venom films aren't great (they aren't)....they are massive hits for Sony, that he is solely responsible for carrying. That Venom sequel made nearly a billion dollars at the Box Office. During a pandemic. Hardy had a cameo in Spider-Man: No Way Home, which means he'll be likely appearing in other Marvel films now. Hardy can sustain stardom just playing Venom alone for the next 10 years. Obviously the IP is more importantly than Hardy in the films box office success, but you could say that for Chris Hemsworth or Tom Holland or any actor that carries these comic book super characters. As long as these films make money, the industry still considers them stars. At least commercially, I'd say Hardy has probably become more bankable since Mad Max, based on Venom alone. Maybe great directors have stopped hitting him up for prestige roles for now, but as long as he is still making Hollywood money as Venom, he'll still be in the game and eventually probably be cast in prestige/Oscarbait material again. I don't doubt that, but it's hardly the trajectory his stans were hoping for. He certainly is far lower on the totem pole than Charlize. Alot of these Adam Driver roles could have been poached. I object to calling Hardy a star, though. He's never really had the impact to warrant that designation.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 24, 2022 6:05:57 GMT
Hardy is still a major star. It doesn't matter how much you think the Venom films aren't great (they aren't)....they are massive hits for Sony, that he is solely responsible for carrying. That Venom sequel made nearly a billion dollars at the Box Office. During a pandemic. Hardy had a cameo in Spider-Man: No Way Home, which means he'll be likely appearing in other Marvel films now. Hardy can sustain stardom just playing Venom alone for the next 10 years. Obviously the IP is more importantly than Hardy in the films box office success, but you could say that for Chris Hemsworth or Tom Holland or any actor that carries these comic book super characters. As long as these films make money, the industry still considers them stars. At least commercially, I'd say Hardy has probably become more bankable since Mad Max, based on Venom alone. Maybe great directors have stopped hitting him up for prestige roles for now, but as long as he is still making Hollywood money as Venom, he'll still be in the game and eventually probably be cast in prestige/Oscarbait material again. I don't doubt that, but it's hardly the trajectory his stans were hoping for. He certainly is far lower on the totem pole than Charlize. Alot of these Adam Driver roles could have been poached. I object to calling Hardy a star, though. He's never really had the impact to warrant that designation. The star system isn't what it used to be. If you are carrying a successful comic book movie franchise these days, you are a "star", even if people aren't running to the theatres to see you carry anything else. Jason Momoa is a "star". Gal Gadot is a "star". Are they stars carrying other films outside their franchise? Not as of yet, but it doesn't matter to the industry right now. They will take what that can get. By that same designation, Tom Hardy is a "star". Yes, he isn't a "star" of the Leo or Hanks or even Mark Wahlberg level, but in the current Hollywood ecosystem, he's a bankable commodity because of Venom. Therefore, a "star". I'd agree that if anyone had dreams of him being perceived as the Greatest Actor Of his generation or whatever based on his early acclaim, that no longer seems on the cards with his current trajectory. But Hardy himself may be happy cashing his Sony/Marvel checks for Venom films and appearances and still having the clout to get projects he produces himself made.
|
|