|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Nov 5, 2023 22:12:33 GMT
I thought he was awesome and pretty much tied with Zendaya for the best performance on Euphoria, so I'm glad to see the masses as well as cinephiles too lame to appreciate Euphoria start to appreciate his talent. I think at this point he's joined the Chalamet/Butler competition.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 6, 2023 3:35:03 GMT
I thought he was awesome and pretty much tied with Zendaya for the best performance on Euphoria, so I'm glad to see the masses as well as cinephiles too lame to appreciate Euphoria start to appreciate his talent. I think at this point he's joined the Chalamet/ Butler competition. He may well join that competition, but I don't think he's there yet based on what he's achieved to date. Chalamet and Butler have not only both recieved Oscar nominations, but carried films as the leads to major box office success. They are now both movie stars. Elordi has achieved neither and I would not yet call him a movie star. He's still in the list of up and coming "it boys" trying to make it into that sphere like Kelvin Harrison Jr, who has achieved more acclaim than Elordi, but I wouldn't call a movie star either. |
|
LaraQ
Badass
English Rose
Posts: 2,304 
Likes: 2,838
|
Post by LaraQ on Nov 6, 2023 18:02:57 GMT
I thought he was awesome and pretty much tied with Zendaya for the best performance on Euphoria, so I'm glad to see the masses as well as cinephiles too lame to appreciate Euphoria start to appreciate his talent. I think at this point he's joined the Chalamet/ Butler competition. He may well join that competition, but I don't think he's there yet based on what he's achieved to date. Chalamet and Butler have not only both recieved Oscar nominations, but carried films as the leads to major box office success. They are now both movie stars. Elordi has achieved neither and I would not yet call him a movie star. He's still in the list of up and coming "it boys" trying to make it into that sphere like Kelvin Harrison Jr, who has achieved more acclaim than Elordi, but I wouldn't call a movie star either. Agree.He's starting to show some promise, but he's not on the level of Chalamet or Butler yet.I'm hoping he doesn't go the Marvel/DC route and keeps on working with interesting directors. |
|
|
|
Post by TylerDeneuve on Nov 6, 2023 18:07:32 GMT
LaraQ - Heath Ledger is his idol - I think he's definitely hoping to mold his own career after his - so I really doubt he will (Ledger famously turned down the 2002 Spider-Man film to do Monster's Ball). pupdurcs - I'd throw Paul Mescal and Charles Melton in the mix, as well. Lots of interesting young men to watch! Though I have to say that Mescal and Elordi have a masculine edge to them that the others simply lack.
|
|
|
|
Post by TylerDeneuve on Nov 13, 2023 16:12:31 GMT
New profile just published in British GQ. He reveals that he was asked to audition for Superman, but he declined. “That was immediately, ‘No, thank you.’ That’s too much. That’s too dark for me.”So reminiscent of Heath.   |
|
LaraQ
Badass
English Rose
Posts: 2,304
Likes: 2,838
|
Post by LaraQ on Nov 13, 2023 16:19:49 GMT
I don't know what he means when he says it was too dark for him.It's not exactly The Joker.  |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 13, 2023 16:40:40 GMT
Didn't Josh Hartnett used to boast in interviews about how in his early noughties prime he was turning down offers to play all the big iconic superhero roles ( Superman, Batman etc).
When Hartnett did it, I always used to think he was flexing a bit, as if to say, when he was at his peak in Hollywood, he was so "hot" and in demand, studios were offering him all the big tentpole roles, and he was turning them down left and right. It's felt like a humblebrag.
I'm not sure this is the sort of thing you brag about in interviews at such an early stage of your career. Save that humblebrag for when you are more established. It makes you seem a bit up yourself. You're not a superstar yet....why brag about turning down the opportunity to be seen for starmaking roles that 99% of actors at his stage of his career would kill for. After a few missteps like Pearl Harbour, I bet Josh Harnett probably regretted not being a bit more open to doing Batman Begins with Christopher Nolan.
Still, I understand if Elordi wants to avoid the superhero genre. It's definitely become oversaturated. But even "serious young artist" actors like Robert Pattinson are doing it, and Elordi is not Robert Pattinson .
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 13, 2023 16:45:52 GMT
Didn't Josh Hartnett used to boast in interviews about how in his early noughties prime he was turning down offers to play all the big iconic superhero roles ( Superman, Batman etc). When Hartnett did it, I always used to think he was flexing a bit, as if to say, when he was at his peak in Hollywood, he was so "hot" and in demand, studios were offering him all the big tentpole roles, and he was turning them down left and right. It's felt like a humblebrag. I'm not sure this is the sort of thing you brag about in interviews at such an early stage of your career. Save that humblebrag for when you are more established. It makes you seem a bit up yourself. You're not a superstar yet....why brag about turning down the opportunity to be seen for starmaking roles that 99% of actors at his stage of his career would kill for. After a few missteps like Pearl Harbour, I bet Josh Harnett probably regretted not being a bit more open to doing Batman Begins with Christopher Nolan.Still, I understand if Elordi wants to avoid the superhero genre. It's definitely become oversaturated. But even "serious young artist" actors like Robert Pattinson are doing it, and Elordi is not Robert Pattinson . There's something to be said for the idea that superhero movies have become the safe choice, which is anathema to any daring bold young artist. We talk about how hardly anyone lists Tom Hanks as their acting idol because he is perceived as playing it safe in comparison to edgier, grittier actors, and I think it's the same sensibility here. DiCaprio told Chalamet never to do a superhero movie, and I doubt he's the only young actor he's given that advice to. That machine just chews you up and spits you out, turning you into a product spokesperson for whatever cinematic universe it is. I do think it's funny that Elordi thinks Superman of all things is too dark, though. |
|
|
|
Post by TylerDeneuve on Nov 13, 2023 17:19:24 GMT
I don't know what he means when he says it was too dark for him.It's not exactly The Joker. My assumption is that he isn't talking about Superman the character, but rather the fame and pressure that would come along with starring in such an expensive, high-profile project. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 13, 2023 17:28:14 GMT
Didn't Josh Hartnett used to boast in interviews about how in his early noughties prime he was turning down offers to play all the big iconic superhero roles ( Superman, Batman etc). When Hartnett did it, I always used to think he was flexing a bit, as if to say, when he was at his peak in Hollywood, he was so "hot" and in demand, studios were offering him all the big tentpole roles, and he was turning them down left and right. It's felt like a humblebrag. I'm not sure this is the sort of thing you brag about in interviews at such an early stage of your career. Save that humblebrag for when you are more established. It makes you seem a bit up yourself. You're not a superstar yet....why brag about turning down the opportunity to be seen for starmaking roles that 99% of actors at his stage of his career would kill for. After a few missteps like Pearl Harbour, I bet Josh Harnett probably regretted not being a bit more open to doing Batman Begins with Christopher Nolan.Still, I understand if Elordi wants to avoid the superhero genre. It's definitely become oversaturated. But even "serious young artist" actors like Robert Pattinson are doing it, and Elordi is not Robert Pattinson . There's something to be said for the idea that superhero movies have become the safe choice, which is anathema to any daring bold young artist. We talk about how hardly anyone lists Tom Hanks as their acting idol because he is perceived as playing it safe in comparison to edgier, grittier actors, and I think it's the same sensibility here. DiCaprio told Chalamet never to do a superhero movie, and I doubt he's the only young actor he's given that advice to. That machine just chews you up and spits you out, turning you into a product spokesperson for whatever cinematic universe it is. I do think it's funny that Elordi thinks Superman of all things is too dark, though. Ironic advice DiCaprio gave Chalamet, as DiCaprio was once solidly attached to play Spider-Man for James Cameron. I definitely think Leo was open to doing the genre, when less people were doing it. Now it's so common place for actors to do the genre, I think he feels above it now. I almost feel like if this were the 1950's he'd tell Chalamet not to make westerns, because they are too common place. I also think it feels a little elitist and snobbish for DiCaprio to give that advice to a young actor (and also suggests a lack of respect for his "best friend" Tobey Maguire). Even one at the cusp of stardom as Chalamet was. Leo has been at the top of the A-list since he was a teenager. He's never really had to struggle for opportunities, paydays, great directors etc. I don't think he can truly comprehend what the landscape is for most actors that aren't him and can't handpick and choose the best auteurs alive to work on projects developed for him. He's forgotten that even other "stars" still have to struggle to stay bankable and keep their careers afloat. That these Superhero roles/movies have kept the careers of a lot of daring and great actors viable and given them a shit ton of opportunities to do more challenging films and work. Christian Bale,Chadwick Boseman etc...playing those superhero roles made them bankable enough stars to be cast in things that got them Oscar nominations or wins. Shit, you've got a 2-time Oscar winner in Mahershala Ali begging for the opportunity to star as Blade.
I think as blanket advice from Leo, it's silly. Imagine how stupid Bale or Heath Ledger would have felt if they missed out on being in The Dark Knight, because of DiCaprio's "too cool for school" no superhero movies edict. It depends on the superhero film in question. The character, The director, the script, how long the commitment is. etc
But doing frigging Willy Wonka is literally no better than doing a superhero film as far as crass commercialism goes. It's not daring, it's very safe, and it's still just franchise and theme park material for a multi-national conglomerate. So yeah, Chalamet would probably be doing something more challenging and interesting in Matt Reeves Batman films than he will be rewarming Charlie And The Chocolate Factory.
|
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Nov 13, 2023 17:44:43 GMT
It wasn't blanket advice, more of a general suggestion. DiCaprio praised Ledger's performance in TDK, saying it was amazing and very nuanced, and has maintained that he wouldn't rule out doing a comic book film, it just would have to be up to his standards. Also, The Batman is fine, but Matt Reeves has made nothing remotely as good as Paul King's Paddington movies. Avoiding superhero films has to do with the directors being mediocre journeymen 90% of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 13, 2023 18:02:00 GMT
It wasn't blanket advice, more of a general suggestion. DiCaprio praised Ledger's performance in TDK, saying it was amazing and very nuanced, and has maintained that he wouldn't rule out doing a comic book film, it just would have to be up to his standards. Also, The Batman is fine, but Matt Reeves has made nothing remotely as good as Paul King's Paddington movies. Avoiding superhero films has to do with the directors being mediocre journeymen 90% of the time. Unfortunately none of this context is given in how Chalamet retells his anecdote of DiCaprio's advice to him. So maybe he says one thing in public and another thing to young actors in private. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 13, 2023 18:06:36 GMT
There's something to be said for the idea that superhero movies have become the safe choice, which is anathema to any daring bold young artist. We talk about how hardly anyone lists Tom Hanks as their acting idol because he is perceived as playing it safe in comparison to edgier, grittier actors, and I think it's the same sensibility here. DiCaprio told Chalamet never to do a superhero movie, and I doubt he's the only young actor he's given that advice to. That machine just chews you up and spits you out, turning you into a product spokesperson for whatever cinematic universe it is. I do think it's funny that Elordi thinks Superman of all things is too dark, though. Ironic advice DiCaprio gave Chalamet, as DiCaprio was once solidly attached to play Spider-Man for James Cameron. I definitely think Leo was open to doing the genre, when less people were doing it. Now it's so common place for actors to do the genre, I think he feels above it now. I almost feel like if this were the 1950's he'd tell Chalamet not to make westerns, because they are too common place. I also think it feels a little elitist and snobbish for DiCaprio to give that advice to a young actor (and also suggests a lack of respect for his "best friend" Tobey Maguire). Even one at the cusp of stardom as Chalamet was. Leo has been at the top of the A-list since he was a teenager. He's never really had to struggle for opportunities, paydays, great directors etc. I don't think he can truly comprehend what the landscape is for most actors that aren't him and can't handpick and choose the best auteurs alive to work on projects developed for him. He's forgotten that even other "stars" still have to struggle to stay bankable and keep their careers afloat. That these Superhero roles/movies have kept the careers of a lot of daring and great actors viable and given them a shit ton of opportunities to do more challenging films and work. Christian Bale,Chadwick Boseman etc...playing those superhero roles made them bankable enough stars to be cast in things that got them Oscar nominations or wins. Shit, you've got a 2-time Oscar winner in Mahershala Ali begging for the opportunity to star as Blade.
I think as blanket advice from Leo, it's silly. Imagine how stupid Bale or Heath Ledger would have felt if they missed out on being in The Dark Knight, because of DiCaprio's "too cool for school" no superhero movies edict. It depends on the superhero film in question. The character, The director, the script, how long the commitment is. etc
But doing frigging Willy Wonka is literally no better than doing a superhero film as far as crass commercialism goes. It's not daring, it's very safe, and it's still just franchise and theme park material for a multi-national conglomerate. So yeah, Chalamet would probably be doing something more challenging and interesting in Matt Reeves Batman films than he will be rewarming Charlie And The Chocolate Factory.
Yeah, I don't think DiCaprio's so much telling him blockbuster movies are bad (and it would be kind of hypocritical of him to do so, considering that he garnered ironclad A-list status off the back of the biggest movie at the time) but that in the current landscape, the character and the brand are the focus, not the actor specifically. This is not too different from the comments Tarantino made about the MCU and how there aren't really movie stars anymore. We look at someone like Tom Holland, who is a legitimately talented actor but who got swept up by the Marvel machine and has had difficulty getting anything outside of Peter Parker to stick the way that it should ( Cherry, The Devil All the Time, Uncharted to an extent). Holland and Chalamet have similar hurdles in that they look far younger than they really are and that will likely pigeonhole them for quite some time. Also, it should be noted that Chalamet's big blockbuster push is an auteur project, as DiCaprio's was with Cameron and Bale/Ledger's were with Nolan. Nolan's Batman movies are Nolan movies first, Batman second. They were the (pardon the pun) prestige comic-book adaptations, so they're exceptions rather than the norm, especially at that time. As for Mahershala Ali, we see just how difficult things have been to get that film off the ground. He clearly wants Blade to not just be another MCU flick but its own free-standing property, focusing on the quality of the script before he even films anything. But I feel like that has set him up for potential failure down the line because, as we see with The Marvels now, superhero exhaustion triggers backlash against the wrong people. Brie Larson, Nia DeCosta, Iman Vellani have all copped flak for this, and before that Chloe Zhao and the Eternals crew did as well. And I feel like unless Blade sticks the landing, we could be looking at a potential Edward Norton situation against with Ali. An unjust comparison perhaps, but it's clear Ali wants more creative say in the character and the storytelling aspect, but we see what happens when anyone bridles against the Mouse and Feige. I do agree that Wonka isn't that much different in practice, as it is an existing IP, but Paul King does bring something to the proceedings and we saw how well he did with Paddington, so maybe we're underrated it at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Nov 13, 2023 19:50:14 GMT
Ironic advice DiCaprio gave Chalamet, as DiCaprio was once solidly attached to play Spider-Man for James Cameron. I definitely think Leo was open to doing the genre, when less people were doing it. Now it's so common place for actors to do the genre, I think he feels above it now. I almost feel like if this were the 1950's he'd tell Chalamet not to make westerns, because they are too common place. I also think it feels a little elitist and snobbish for DiCaprio to give that advice to a young actor (and also suggests a lack of respect for his "best friend" Tobey Maguire). Even one at the cusp of stardom as Chalamet was. Leo has been at the top of the A-list since he was a teenager. He's never really had to struggle for opportunities, paydays, great directors etc. I don't think he can truly comprehend what the landscape is for most actors that aren't him and can't handpick and choose the best auteurs alive to work on projects developed for him. He's forgotten that even other "stars" still have to struggle to stay bankable and keep their careers afloat. That these Superhero roles/movies have kept the careers of a lot of daring and great actors viable and given them a shit ton of opportunities to do more challenging films and work. Christian Bale,Chadwick Boseman etc...playing those superhero roles made them bankable enough stars to be cast in things that got them Oscar nominations or wins. Shit, you've got a 2-time Oscar winner in Mahershala Ali begging for the opportunity to star as Blade.
I think as blanket advice from Leo, it's silly. Imagine how stupid Bale or Heath Ledger would have felt if they missed out on being in The Dark Knight, because of DiCaprio's "too cool for school" no superhero movies edict. It depends on the superhero film in question. The character, The director, the script, how long the commitment is. etc
But doing frigging Willy Wonka is literally no better than doing a superhero film as far as crass commercialism goes. It's not daring, it's very safe, and it's still just franchise and theme park material for a multi-national conglomerate. So yeah, Chalamet would probably be doing something more challenging and interesting in Matt Reeves Batman films than he will be rewarming Charlie And The Chocolate Factory.
Yeah, I don't think DiCaprio's so much telling him blockbuster movies are bad (and it would be kind of hypocritical of him to do so, considering that he garnered ironclad A-list status off the back of the biggest movie at the time) but that in the current landscape, the character and the brand are the focus, not the actor specifically. This is not too different from the comments Tarantino made about the MCU and how there aren't really movie stars anymore. We look at someone like Tom Holland, who is a legitimately talented actor but who got swept up by the Marvel machine and has had difficulty getting anything outside of Peter Parker to stick the way that it should ( Cherry, The Devil All the Time, Uncharted to an extent). Holland and Chalamet have similar hurdles in that they look far younger than they really are and that will likely pigeonhole them for quite some time. Also, it should be noted that Chalamet's big blockbuster push is an auteur project, as DiCaprio's was with Cameron and Bale/Ledger's were with Nolan. Nolan's Batman movies are Nolan movies first, Batman second. They were the (pardon the pun) prestige comic-book adaptations, so they're exceptions rather than the norm, especially at that time. As for Mahershala Ali, we see just how difficult things have been to get that film off the ground. He clearly wants Blade to not just be another MCU flick but its own free-standing property, focusing on the quality of the script before he even films anything. But I feel like that has set him up for potential failure down the line because, as we see with The Marvels now, superhero exhaustion triggers backlash against the wrong people. Brie Larson, Nia DeCosta, Iman Vellani have all copped flak for this, and before that Chloe Zhao and the Eternals crew did as well. And I feel like unless Blade sticks the landing, we could be looking at a potential Edward Norton situation against with Ali. An unjust comparison perhaps, but it's clear Ali wants more creative say in the character and the storytelling aspect, but we see what happens when anyone bridles against the Mouse and Feige. I do agree that Wonka isn't that much different in practice, as it is an existing IP, but Paul King does bring something to the proceedings and we saw how well he did with Paddington, so maybe we're underrated it at this point. Plus, we have to consider that doing a superhero film used to be just a 3-film commitment assuming it goes well. Now playing a superhero means you're pretty much on call for any Marvel/DC property at any time for a decade (Pattinson/Reeves being an exception since they're not part of the shared DC universe). Elizabeth Olsen talked to the NYT about how being contractually obligated to Marvel prevented her from taking roles she'd rather be doing. And as has been pointed out by plenty of people ruing how the "movie star" is dying, being a superhero doesn't elevate a star as much as you'd think given the sheer exposure provided. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 13, 2023 20:20:06 GMT
Yeah, I don't think DiCaprio's so much telling him blockbuster movies are bad (and it would be kind of hypocritical of him to do so, considering that he garnered ironclad A-list status off the back of the biggest movie at the time) but that in the current landscape, the character and the brand are the focus, not the actor specifically. This is not too different from the comments Tarantino made about the MCU and how there aren't really movie stars anymore. We look at someone like Tom Holland, who is a legitimately talented actor but who got swept up by the Marvel machine and has had difficulty getting anything outside of Peter Parker to stick the way that it should ( Cherry, The Devil All the Time, Uncharted to an extent). Holland and Chalamet have similar hurdles in that they look far younger than they really are and that will likely pigeonhole them for quite some time. Also, it should be noted that Chalamet's big blockbuster push is an auteur project, as DiCaprio's was with Cameron and Bale/Ledger's were with Nolan. Nolan's Batman movies are Nolan movies first, Batman second. They were the (pardon the pun) prestige comic-book adaptations, so they're exceptions rather than the norm, especially at that time. As for Mahershala Ali, we see just how difficult things have been to get that film off the ground. He clearly wants Blade to not just be another MCU flick but its own free-standing property, focusing on the quality of the script before he even films anything. But I feel like that has set him up for potential failure down the line because, as we see with The Marvels now, superhero exhaustion triggers backlash against the wrong people. Brie Larson, Nia DeCosta, Iman Vellani have all copped flak for this, and before that Chloe Zhao and the Eternals crew did as well. And I feel like unless Blade sticks the landing, we could be looking at a potential Edward Norton situation against with Ali. An unjust comparison perhaps, but it's clear Ali wants more creative say in the character and the storytelling aspect, but we see what happens when anyone bridles against the Mouse and Feige. I do agree that Wonka isn't that much different in practice, as it is an existing IP, but Paul King does bring something to the proceedings and we saw how well he did with Paddington, so maybe we're underrated it at this point. Plus, we have to consider that doing a superhero film used to be just a 3-film commitment assuming it goes well. Now playing a superhero means you're pretty much on call for any Marvel/DC property at any time for a decade (Pattinson/Reeves being an exception since they're not part of the shared DC universe). Elizabeth Olsen talked to the NYT about how being contractually obligated to Marvel prevented her from taking roles she'd rather be doing. And as has been pointed out by plenty of people ruing how the "movie star" is dying, being a superhero doesn't elevate a star as much as you'd think given the sheer exposure provided. Excellent point. And not only that, but I feel like if you attach yourself to something like the MCU, your creative freedom to be in potentially riskier projects is stifled. Imagine if Elizabeth Olsen had wanted to do something like Nymphomaniac with Lars von Trier while she was attached to Disney's biggest moneymaker. There's no telling how much red tape there would be there. You're not signing up for a one-off film; you're committing at least a decade of your working life to something that is, by and large, artistically restrictive. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 18, 2023 11:32:19 GMT
Hosts SNL Jan 20th w / Renee Rapp as a musical guest who was once a pacinoyes Celebrity Crush btw.......hmmmmmmm
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Dec 18, 2023 14:18:23 GMT
Plus, we have to consider that doing a superhero film used to be just a 3-film commitment assuming it goes well. Now playing a superhero means you're pretty much on call for any Marvel/DC property at any time for a decade (Pattinson/Reeves being an exception since they're not part of the shared DC universe). Elizabeth Olsen talked to the NYT about how being contractually obligated to Marvel prevented her from taking roles she'd rather be doing. And as has been pointed out by plenty of people ruing how the "movie star" is dying, being a superhero doesn't elevate a star as much as you'd think given the sheer exposure provided. Excellent point. And not only that, but I feel like if you attach yourself to something like the MCU, your creative freedom to be in potentially riskier projects is stifled. Imagine if Elizabeth Olsen had wanted to do something like Nymphomaniac with Lars von Trier while she was attached to Disney's biggest moneymaker. There's no telling how much red tape there would be there. You're not signing up for a one-off film; you're committing at least a decade of your working life to something that is, by and large, artistically restrictive. ScarJo was able to do Under the Skin so it might not be a major issue if there are no scheduling conflicts |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 18, 2023 14:28:01 GMT
Excellent point. And not only that, but I feel like if you attach yourself to something like the MCU, your creative freedom to be in potentially riskier projects is stifled. Imagine if Elizabeth Olsen had wanted to do something like Nymphomaniac with Lars von Trier while she was attached to Disney's biggest moneymaker. There's no telling how much red tape there would be there. You're not signing up for a one-off film; you're committing at least a decade of your working life to something that is, by and large, artistically restrictive. ScarJo was able to do Under the Skin so it might not be a major issue if there are no scheduling conflicts Johansson was a much bigger name than Olsen was. In point of fact, the MCU getting Johansson was a big get, so she had a lot more leeway than someone like Olsen would have. Also, a film being called Nymphomaniac directed by a known provocateur like Lars (whose immediately preceding film had him making ill-advised self-comparisons to Hitler on the red carpet) would carry a lot more weight to it than a film by Jonathan Glazer. Also, the MCU's landscape looked a lot different when Johansson signed on than when Olsen did, so contractual obligations were probably a lot looser at the outset. |
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Dec 18, 2023 14:38:00 GMT
Plus, we have to consider that doing a superhero film used to be just a 3-film commitment assuming it goes well. Now playing a superhero means you're pretty much on call for any Marvel/DC property at any time for a decade (Pattinson/Reeves being an exception since they're not part of the shared DC universe). Elizabeth Olsen talked to the NYT about how being contractually obligated to Marvel prevented her from taking roles she'd rather be doing. And as has been pointed out by plenty of people ruing how the "movie star" is dying, being a superhero doesn't elevate a star as much as you'd think given the sheer exposure provided. Excellent point. And not only that, but I feel like if you attach yourself to something like the MCU, your creative freedom to be in potentially riskier projects is stifled. Imagine if Elizabeth Olsen had wanted to do something like Nymphomaniac with Lars von Trier while she was attached to Disney's biggest moneymaker. There's no telling how much red tape there would be there. You're not signing up for a one-off film; you're committing at least a decade of your working life to something that is, by and large, artistically restrictive. Boiiiiiiiiiii. Don't play with my emotions like that. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 21, 2024 15:31:43 GMT
TylerDeneuve - I mean it's about acting AND looks, and Rachael McAdams....... it has it all really 
|
|
|
|
Post by TylerDeneuve on Feb 5, 2024 15:09:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 15, 2024 8:40:28 GMT
Classic daft shit "Is Jacob Elordi TOO TALL to be a movie star?  MAR thoughts? TylerDeneuve : www.vulture.com/article/jacob-elordi-height-essay.htmlIn June 2022, Sofia Coppola placed a worried call to her cinematographer, Philippe Le Sourd. They were preparing to shoot her new biopic of Priscilla Presley, and the director was close to casting the all-important role of Elvis. “She didn’t tell me who she had in mind,” says Le Sourd, “but she asked if it would be a problem to shoot with a tall actor.”
You can understand her concern: Cailee Spaeny, the actress who was slated to play Priscilla, is just five-foot-one. The actor in question was Jacob Elordi, the 26-year-old Australian heartthrob, who is classically handsome with a whiff of Elvis’s charisma — and is six-foot-five. In Hollywood, that is not just tall but towering, unapologetically altitudinous in a way that few leading men have ever dared to be. Could the cinematographer cram such differently sized humans into the same frame? Le Sourd took a can-do approach. “I told Sofia, ‘There’s always a technical solution, and we’ll make it look as good as possible,’” he says. “But I’m sure that for some directors, the height difference could’ve been too much.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Feb 15, 2024 13:48:46 GMT
Classic daft shit "Is Jacob Elordi TOO TALL to be a movie star? MAR thoughts? TylerDeneuve : www.vulture.com/article/jacob-elordi-height-essay.htmlIn June 2022, Sofia Coppola placed a worried call to her cinematographer, Philippe Le Sourd. They were preparing to shoot her new biopic of Priscilla Presley, and the director was close to casting the all-important role of Elvis. “She didn’t tell me who she had in mind,” says Le Sourd, “but she asked if it would be a problem to shoot with a tall actor.”
You can understand her concern: Cailee Spaeny, the actress who was slated to play Priscilla, is just five-foot-one. The actor in question was Jacob Elordi, the 26-year-old Australian heartthrob, who is classically handsome with a whiff of Elvis’s charisma — and is six-foot-five. In Hollywood, that is not just tall but towering, unapologetically altitudinous in a way that few leading men have ever dared to be. Could the cinematographer cram such differently sized humans into the same frame? Le Sourd took a can-do approach. “I told Sofia, ‘There’s always a technical solution, and we’ll make it look as good as possible,’” he says. “But I’m sure that for some directors, the height difference could’ve been too much.”
SHORT KINGS RISE UP |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 15, 2024 14:06:40 GMT
Classic daft shit "Is Jacob Elordi TOO TALL to be a movie star? MAR thoughts? TylerDeneuve : www.vulture.com/article/jacob-elordi-height-essay.htmlIn June 2022, Sofia Coppola placed a worried call to her cinematographer, Philippe Le Sourd. They were preparing to shoot her new biopic of Priscilla Presley, and the director was close to casting the all-important role of Elvis. “She didn’t tell me who she had in mind,” says Le Sourd, “but she asked if it would be a problem to shoot with a tall actor.”
You can understand her concern: Cailee Spaeny, the actress who was slated to play Priscilla, is just five-foot-one. The actor in question was Jacob Elordi, the 26-year-old Australian heartthrob, who is classically handsome with a whiff of Elvis’s charisma — and is six-foot-five. In Hollywood, that is not just tall but towering, unapologetically altitudinous in a way that few leading men have ever dared to be. Could the cinematographer cram such differently sized humans into the same frame? Le Sourd took a can-do approach. “I told Sofia, ‘There’s always a technical solution, and we’ll make it look as good as possible,’” he says. “But I’m sure that for some directors, the height difference could’ve been too much.”
SHORT KINGS RISE UP I picture some Mom telling her son "You have the looks...........you have the talent.....you work hard............but once you passed Peter Dinklage size we all knew the odds were stacked against you honey" |
|
