The New Catwoman Casting Thread [Archive] - Page 14

Abadleon

10-25-2008, 11:10 PM

She does have great legs :heart:

But who is she?
I made a post for her a few pages ago:
Jodi Lyn O'Keefe (Prison Break).

http://www.123allcelebs.com/pics/jodi_lyn_o_keefe/pbs3jodi.jpg

http://www.prisonbreakmanhunt.com/uploads/images/normal_season3promoshots-1.jpg

http://www.contactmusic.com/pics/la/tv_guide_party_2_220908/jodi_lyn_o%27keefe_2089204.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/aa/Jodi_Lyn_O%27Keefe.jpg/400px-Jodi_Lyn_O%27Keefe.jpg

http://www.superiorpics.com/pictures2/Jodi_sd1.jpg

She is HOT:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wiJYyI-azHU&hl=es&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wiJYyI-azHU&hl=es&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qnmCCxwYYRI&hl=es&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qnmCCxwYYRI&hl=es&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And BADASS:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BMT96oZqnvU&hl=es&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BMT96oZqnvU&hl=es&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Rs47hX2gTGU&hl=es&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Rs47hX2gTGU&hl=es&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
And she can be nice as Selina Kyle:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-FuU06GwPbY&hl=es&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-FuU06GwPbY&hl=es&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
She's a bit too cold anyway.
Michelle Pfeiffer looked colder and was the best Catwoman IMO.

She looks just like my ex-gf..i swear.
Phone number? Please? :D

Killing Joke926

10-25-2008, 11:11 PM

She suits TLH Selina.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z304/Two-Face24/1p6-1.jpg

QFT; that and when she was Trinity she really resembles Jim Lee's Selina from Hush. :word:

http://image.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/fullsize/pages/07206180254.613.JIM.LEE.P3.GIF

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/the_matrix/carrie_anne_moss/matrix4.jpg

Crook

10-25-2008, 11:19 PM

I don't see a remote resemblance there. Lee's Selina is very youthful and curvaceous. Complete opposite of Carrie.

Shoulda just stuck with the Sale comparison. :o

batboy99

10-25-2008, 11:33 PM

Besides shorter hair, i dont see nay resemblance to Moss at all.

regwec

10-26-2008, 05:09 AM

Jim Lee makes Selina Kyle look like Adriana Lima, or someone of that "catwalk" appearance.

Laderlappen

10-26-2008, 05:14 AM

Michelle Pfeiffer looked colder and was the best Catwoman IMO.
She was, but that's not the kinda version I personally think they should get.

markstrange

10-26-2008, 10:01 AM

Jodi Lyn O'Keefe is one of my picks for Wonder Woman

[A]

10-26-2008, 10:04 AM

..there should be a way to hide that annoying poll

Two-Face

10-26-2008, 10:08 AM

What poll?

[A]

10-26-2008, 10:13 AM

the one at the top of this thread..?

Two-Face

10-26-2008, 10:16 AM

why you want to hide the poll? :confused:

[A]

10-26-2008, 10:17 AM

nevermind......................................... ......... . . . . . .. .. . . ... .. . . .......... .. .. ... . . .

Two-Face

10-26-2008, 10:24 AM

No come on, say it.

Golgo-13

10-26-2008, 12:59 PM

Jodi Lyn O'Keefe is one of my picks for Wonder Woman

I wanted her to play Baroness in the G.I Joe movie.

batboy99

10-26-2008, 01:33 PM

Jodi Lyn O'Keefe is one of my picks for Wonder Woman
Too evil looking, she looks more like Circe.

markstrange

10-26-2008, 01:42 PM

Too evil looking, she looks more like Circe.

Shes a good actor. She looks evil cause its the part shes playing in prison break.

batboy99

10-26-2008, 01:45 PM

Shes not that good, at least not for WW. And she just has that natural evil look, even outside of PB.

Mindreaper21

10-26-2008, 05:23 PM

We should throw in some manips to see what these ladies would look like suited up

[A]

10-28-2008, 01:09 PM

No come on, say it.

it annoys me to see it first on every page, that's all :hehe:

batboy99

10-28-2008, 02:15 PM

I kinda agree, it makes the page longer too.

Two-Face

10-28-2008, 02:17 PM

What about the people who haven't voted so removing the poll is wrong.

batboy99

10-28-2008, 02:21 PM

we're not talking about removing it, we're talking about just hiding it.(as a seperate option, kinda like spoile tags)

[A]

10-28-2008, 02:23 PM

Yeah, more like a collapse button. vBulletin has that option (not a hide the poll option, but collapse sub-forums)

lostman711

10-28-2008, 07:21 PM

Minka Kelly

batboy99

10-28-2008, 07:25 PM

...Is to young.

Golgo-13

10-28-2008, 07:38 PM

She's 28. How is that too young..or do you mean young looking?

gwynplaine

10-28-2008, 07:42 PM

Julie Newmar was a great Catwoman. Sexier than Pfeiffer imo, even though I thought Pfeiffer was great too, not as Selina where she was really overacting but as Catwoman.
They'll probably pick up some unknown model who can act and I don't mind.

Ziggyman

10-28-2008, 07:44 PM

^Models...Aren't really known for "great" acting...!

[A]

10-28-2008, 07:44 PM

They'll probably pick up some unknown model who can act and I don't mind.
They would pick up some unknown model who can act but they're not going to use Cat-Woman :oldrazz:

batboy99

10-28-2008, 07:47 PM

She's 28. How is that too young..or do you mean young looking?
Whoa? Shes 28? i thought she was younger than that. Well, then, ya shes too young looking, i mean, she was just recently on a TV show where she was playing a highschooler(dont know if FNL is still on)

lostman711

10-28-2008, 07:49 PM

Its on Directv now

gwynplaine

10-28-2008, 07:49 PM

They would pick up some unknown model who can act but they're not going to use Cat-Woman :oldrazz:
Lol. Probably not but who knows ? Either way I hope Jonah Nolan comes back. He knows characterisation.

flickchick85

10-29-2008, 01:54 AM

I think we should disqualify anyone who could still pull off playing a high school student. This isn't Catgirl.

jmc

10-29-2008, 03:04 AM

She's 28. How is that too young..or do you mean young looking?

28? She looks 16. Damn, she's gonna be playing high school characters until she's 35.

az824

10-29-2008, 11:22 PM

They would pick up some unknown model who can act but they're not going to use Cat-Woman :oldrazz:

of course there not going to use Cat-Woman, but i hope they use Catwoman, she's such a great character and one of DC's (not just Batman's) most popular characters (she was even used as the 2nd female used in MC vs DC video game) :cwink:

Laderlappen

10-30-2008, 05:24 AM

They'll probably pick up some unknown model who can act and I don't mind.Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. That will happen...when pigs fly.

july

10-31-2008, 06:24 AM

I bet Nolan has someone like Hilary Swank, Chloe Sevigny or Samantha Morton at the top of his list- character actresses (like maggie Gyllenhaal) or as my friend calls them 'women who can act but aren't great to look at'.

Laderlappen

10-31-2008, 06:44 AM

Hilary Swank is overrated. She was great in Boys' Dont Cry, but otherwise she hasnt done anything great. Catwoman is supposed to be a looker. Rachel Dawes is supposed to look ordinary.

Keyser Soze

10-31-2008, 10:28 AM

Hilary Swank is overrated. She was great in Boys' Dont Cry, but otherwise she hasnt done anything great. Catwoman is supposed to be a looker. Rachel Dawes is supposed to look ordinary.

Million Dollar Baby.

Laderlappen

10-31-2008, 11:20 AM

...is really overrated imo.

july

10-31-2008, 07:01 PM

gwynplaine

10-31-2008, 07:19 PM

Actresses like Hilary Swank and Charlize Theron shouldn't be regarded as great actresses just because they won an oscar(s)- they gave two good performances in their careers so far yet they've made up to twenty films and were pretty ordinary (or downright bad) in the those other films. Actresses like Cate Blanchett, Kate Winslet and Marion Cotillard are always giving complex and interesting performances (even in films that aren't great) and Swank and Theron are no where near their league.
Obviously you haven't seen Cotillard in Taxi a horrible Luc Besson produced franchise where she really sucked.
I think it's a matter taste and to each their own basically. I think all the actresses you mentioned have done outstanding work (and s***y films too, it's the nature of the beast) and are pretty much in the same league. After that who you prefer is like I said a matter of taste.

flickchick85

10-31-2008, 07:58 PM

^While I disagree on Cotillard in Taxi (no, it wasn't a good film, but she played her part as well as it could be played I thought), I generally agree with you that all of those actresses are pretty much in the same league. Except for Swank. I thought she was downright terrible and unconvincing when trying to be "fun" in P.S. I Love You. Swank is a good dramatic actress, but imo, she's got a very limited range. And ITA with Laderlappen about Million Dollar Baby.

ScarecrowMan666

10-31-2008, 09:09 PM

I honestly think they are overrated as well, and I don't think the Batman franchise needs them.

flickchick85

10-31-2008, 11:28 PM

^Who? All of them? Seriously?

Because I do think they are all probably the greatest actresses under 40 that we've got (and possibly some of the greatest in the history of cinema) and that the Batman franchise would benefit greatly from the involvement of any of them.

I mean, no offense; I know mileage varies and all that. I'd just be curious to know who you consider the great actresses to be, if not that crew (in Catwoman's age range of course).

neemer5

11-01-2008, 12:27 AM

If we are going for the "traditional" Catwoman:

I like Jolie mainly because her look is the most like a seductress, and she ALWAYS looks like she's thinking something naughty. Catwoman needs to be a true vixen, sleek and suave. But Angelina is way too obvious of a choice. And her presence wold be a huge imbalance as far as actors go.

But Nolan has proven to have this knack for picking unconventional actors and melding the character to suit them without bastardizing the Batman franchise. He has been insanely successful in pleasing both fanboys and comic newbies.

With that said, I kinda liked the aging cougar rumour. Maybe not Cher, but a hot older lady from yesteryear. Here's my list (don't laugh):
Sela Ward
Vanessa Williams
Katey Sagal
Mariska Hargatay
Wendie Malick
Sigourney Weaver
Pam Grier
Geena Davis
Jenifer Tilly
Jane Seymour
Jaclyn Smith

Cancer4TheCure

11-01-2008, 12:32 AM

Crook

11-01-2008, 12:33 AM

Your description of Catwoman being a true vixen, sleek, and suave are right on.

..unfortunately your choices of casting are completely off the ball that even *I* would settle for Rhona Mitra than to have any of those girls.

neemer5

11-01-2008, 12:33 AM

Actresses like Hilary Swank and Charlize Theron shouldn't be regarded as great actresses just because they won an oscar(s)- they gave two good performances in their careers so far yet they've made up to twenty films and were pretty ordinary (or downright bad) in the those other films. Actresses like Cate Blanchett, Kate Winslet and Marion Cotillard are always giving complex and interesting performances (even in films that aren't great) and Swank and Theron are no where near their league.

Well, I disagree, at least with regarding those two. There are once in a lifetime roles (think Jennifer Hudson), and there are great actresses that just picked bad movies. YHillary Swank and Charlize Theron are two remarkable actresses, but they just don't have good parts. That's different. Julianne Moore, for example (ooh, and a good choice for Catwoman!), is an amazing actress that has done mostly stinkers.

You're right, though, winning an Oscar is no barometer for the credibility of an actress.

neemer5

11-01-2008, 12:34 AM

Dear God no, not Jennifer Tilly. She couldn't act her way out of a cardboard box. I'm not shooting you down man, just giving my two cents. :D

I had an epihphany after watching Bride of Chucky :oldrazz:

Two-Face

11-01-2008, 05:40 AM

You don't want Jolie cos she's too "obvious" what a lame excuse....

Ace of Knaves

11-01-2008, 05:50 AM

Yea I don't understand why people use that as an "excuse". Ask yourself this, why is she the most obvious choice? Errrrrrrr, doesn't take a brain surgeon to work that one out does it?

july

11-01-2008, 05:59 AM

While we're on the subject of unusual casting choices, I recently saw Nicole Kidman in Birthday Girl where she played the Russian mail order bride and she had dark hair and a sexy Russian accent and I thought she'd make an awesome catwoman if catwoman was like a KGB agent or spy.

Ace of Knaves

11-01-2008, 06:06 AM

Thats an interesting interp of Catwoman, maybe not KGB but i likes the sounds of her being a spy of some kind rather than just a thief. Not sure about Kidman though.

Two-Face

11-01-2008, 06:10 AM

july

11-01-2008, 06:18 AM

The new Bond girl is Russian or Ukrainian, she'd be perfect!

Two-Face

11-01-2008, 06:24 AM

The new Bond girl is Russian or Ukrainian, she'd be perfect!

Ukrainian.

Ace of Knaves

11-01-2008, 06:24 AM

Olga Kurilenko? Yea she is frickin gorgeous, I haven't seen her act yet though so I can't really make a judgement.

Two-Face

11-01-2008, 06:25 AM

I prefer her in Hitman more.

Two-Face

11-01-2008, 06:32 AM

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z304/Two-Face24/olga-kurylenko-9.jpg

july

11-01-2008, 06:34 AM

I have heard that the new Bond girls are pretty weak this time around

Two-Face

11-01-2008, 06:35 AM

Not Olga.

july

11-01-2008, 06:37 AM

Let me correct that; weak as in characterisation cause Olga is smokin!

Ace of Knaves

11-01-2008, 06:39 AM

In the words of Joker "Om nom nom nom nom" :D

Two-Face

11-01-2008, 06:44 AM

Let me correct that; weak as in characterisation cause Olga is smokin!

She was great and she can handle herself I mean she can hurt you, she's not helpless. I liked Camilie. she's not just a hottie.

july

11-01-2008, 06:54 AM

She was great and she can handle herself I mean she can hurt you, she's not helpless. I liked Camilie. she's not just a hottie.

I ususally don't pay too much attention to film reviews but the English film reviews had that common criticism that the girls were a weak link. I'll judge for myself when I see it.

protoctista

11-01-2008, 09:24 AM

Two-Face, who is that amazing ass in your display pic? It's driving me crazy.

Crook

11-01-2008, 10:47 AM

Keeley Hazell. And it's actually a pretty weak ass considering her biggest asset. :o

Two-Face

11-01-2008, 11:20 AM

You call that weak ass? :nono:

Ace of Knaves

11-01-2008, 11:21 AM

Yea man she is good all over. :D

Two-Face

11-01-2008, 11:27 AM

Keeley Hazell. And it's actually a pretty weak ass considering her biggest asset. :o

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z304/Two-Face24/Keeley_Hazell3.jpg

Ace of Knaves

11-01-2008, 11:38 AM

Oiiii oiiii :d

Crook

11-01-2008, 11:41 AM

Yes, it is a weak ass in comparison to her epic chest. It's nothing special.

Laderlappen

11-01-2008, 11:51 AM

So we have gone back to 'random jerk-off material that makes the last actress that "won" a razzie look like Kate Winslet'.

Two-Face

11-01-2008, 11:53 AM

Eh?

Crook

11-01-2008, 11:56 AM

So we have gone back to 'random jerk-off material that makes the last actress that "won" a razzie look like Kate Winslet'.
To be fair, we only want her as Catwoman in our fantasies and/or bedroom. Not for the film. :o

Laderlappen

11-01-2008, 12:07 PM

Thank God. But that Bond chick suggestion seemed serious.

Crook

11-01-2008, 12:09 PM

It's a bit early to judge on her. She's only had two minor film roles to date, and the best film to judge her acting on isn't out here in the states yet.

Laderlappen

11-01-2008, 01:35 PM

The Bond movie?

She has never done any great acting, so she shouldnt be cast.

protoctista

11-01-2008, 01:40 PM

I saw the Bond movie, and whilst I loved it, Kurylenko wouldn't do well in Dark Knight.

Bond girls aren't meant to be particularly great actresses; they fulfill a supporting role as eye-candy, tension -building targets, a little variety in what would otherwise be a sausage-festival, and more eye-candy. Kurylenko does fine, but she couldn't handle catwoman.

By the way, when it does come out in the states - I reccomend everyone to go see the film, it's really rather good.

Crook

11-01-2008, 01:41 PM

I'm not really concerned with broad versatility. I just want whomever is best for this role.

Two-Face

11-01-2008, 01:57 PM

[A]

11-01-2008, 02:16 PM

Eva Green minus.
:up: QFT

protoctista

11-01-2008, 02:39 PM

^ true. Because it's fitting that Vesper Lynd's portrayal is particularly effective, with regards to the lasting significance of that character

Golgo-13

11-01-2008, 09:14 PM

Check out Sci Fi channel right now. Rhona Mitra's on in BEOWULF. :heart:

aroundthefur33

11-01-2008, 11:15 PM

none of these chicks...especially jolie, and dushku...

elgato

11-01-2008, 11:19 PM

Why?

july

11-02-2008, 02:26 AM

Sophie Marceau, the villianess Bond girl in Tomorrow never dies, would've been great as Catwoman. She was, imo, the most beautiful Bond girl ever.

Two-Face

11-02-2008, 03:50 AM

Sophie Marceau, the villianess Bond girl in Tomorrow never dies, would've been great as Catwoman. She was, imo, the most beautiful Bond girl ever.

She wasn't in TND, it was The World Is Not Enough.:cwink:

Laderlappen

11-02-2008, 04:08 AM

Dont be ridiculous. Nobody was great in The World Is Not Enough. Especially no Bond girl.

Golgo-13

11-02-2008, 10:09 AM

Sophie Marceau, the villianess Bond girl in Tomorrow never dies, would've been great as Catwoman. She was, imo, the most beautiful Bond girl ever.

I agree. And i've thought of her too as Catwoman but she looks like her age is starting to catch up with her, now.

gwynplaine

11-02-2008, 07:25 PM

Sophie Marceau, no. Now Marion or Eva is where it's at, french actresswise.

july

11-03-2008, 01:52 AM

Sophie Marceau, no. Now Marion or Eva is where it's at, french actresswise.

The new French actress who just got the lead in Quentin Tarantino's new movie is just as hot as Marion and Eva and there is also a new French actress who, believe it or not, got her start as a weathergirl and now she's like a huge star in France- their names escape me at the minute but these Frenchwomen are in a league of their own.

gwynplaine

11-03-2008, 10:36 AM

Melanie Laurent (Tarantino), Louise Bourgoin (weather girl), none of them are in Eva or Marion's league, yet. I also really like Ludivine Sagnier from "The swimming Pool". (she'd make a great Harley:woot:.)

protoctista

11-03-2008, 05:47 PM

I already suggested Melanie Laurent...

gwynplaine

11-03-2008, 05:58 PM

If you're talking to me, I'm not suggesting Melanie Laurent, just answering July's post.

protoctista

11-03-2008, 06:38 PM

You talkin' t'me?

gwynplaine

11-03-2008, 06:49 PM

protoctista

11-03-2008, 06:55 PM

It's not that ridiculous. I've licked 9 pussies.

Oh sorry, that's something else isn't it...

gwynplaine

11-03-2008, 06:59 PM

And I thought my jokes were bad.

Crook

11-03-2008, 07:18 PM

batboy99

11-03-2008, 07:33 PM

^No.
I saw batman returns again the other day, still has some cool moments and I like pfeiffer in it (more as Catwoman than selina), but her origin has got to be one of the most ridiculous I've ever seen, licked back to life by cats and given 9 lives in the process.
She never actually died. It was more like some sort of metaphor she was using. She didnt have nine lives and she didnt die 7 or 8 times. And when she was pushed out the window, she didnt die, she was just in shock from the fall, but the canopies broke her fall. The cat just bit her finger waking her up, or ''reviving'' her if you will.

gwynplaine

11-03-2008, 07:36 PM

I wouldn't be so sure that Burton's Catwoman was supernatural. The rebirth scene is debatable, but the 9 lives thing was purely symbolic, imo.
Yeah, I can see that now.

She never actually died. It was more like some sort of metaphor she was using. She didnt have nine lives and she didnt die 7 or 8 times. And when she was pushed out the window, she didnt die, she was just in shock from the fall, but the canopies broke her fall. The cat just bit her finger waking her up, or ''reviving'' her if you will.
OK, but why did she become Catwoman ? Because cats nibbled on her fingers ?

Crook

11-03-2008, 07:48 PM

OK, but why did she become Catwoman ? Because cats nibbled on her fingers ?
Google "cats and femininity"

batboy99

11-03-2008, 07:50 PM

She likes cats. Cats move in a very feminine manner. Cats are quiet. Latex catsuits are hot. Because Bill Finger intended for Selina Kyle to become Catwoman. Need I say more?

gwynplaine

11-03-2008, 07:55 PM

Google "cats and femininity"

She likes cats. Cats move in a very feminine manner. Cats are quiet. Latex catsuits are hot. Because Bill Finger intended for Selina Kyle to become Catwoman. Need I say more?
I'll take your words for it, as you seem to know the character better than I do.

Two-Face

11-04-2008, 07:09 AM

We already saw Burton's take on Catwoman and I don't wanna see same thing but I'm worried that Nolan might go in Miller route... :dry:

Ace of Knaves

11-04-2008, 08:26 AM

What about Jimmy Saville for the role of Catwoman?

Crook

11-04-2008, 08:32 AM

What about you leave your bedroom fantasies out this thread? :(

Ace of Knaves

11-04-2008, 08:34 AM

hahahahaha bedroom fantasy?!?!

Crook

11-04-2008, 08:40 AM

You are free to explain your suggestion of an 80-year old cryptkeeper, dressed in a tight, black leather suit.

...no wait, you don't. Just...leave. Spare us. :(

Crook

11-04-2008, 08:40 AM

...

Two-Face

11-04-2008, 08:48 AM

This is weird....

Ace of Knaves

11-04-2008, 09:38 AM

HAHAHA I was joking. Do you seriously think I would want Jimmy Saville as Catwoman?

batboy99

11-04-2008, 02:42 PM

We already saw Burton's take on Catwoman and I don't wanna see same thing but I'm worried that Nolan might go in Miller route... :dry:
i doubt it. But wasnt Millers Catwoman just ''undercover'' as a hooker? if so, i could live with that(though i still wouldnt be too happy)

cerealkiller182

11-04-2008, 02:44 PM

i doubt it. But wasnt Millers Catwoman just ''undercover'' as a hooker? if so, i could live with that(though i still wouldnt be too happy)

Millers was a hooker, I think someone else retconed it to be undercover work.

batboy99

11-04-2008, 02:48 PM

Ah ok

Two-Face

11-04-2008, 02:58 PM

i doubt it. But wasnt Millers Catwoman just ''undercover'' as a hooker? if so, i could live with that(though i still wouldnt be too happy)

Undercover for what? I thought she was just a hooker in BY1.

Nolan does use Selina, I like Loeb version for him to use.

batboy99

11-04-2008, 05:05 PM

I just heard that in some story she went undercover as a hooker

cerealkiller182

11-04-2008, 05:10 PM

I just heard that in some story she went undercover as a hooker

from wiki:

"....subsequent writers have rejected Miller's choice to make the post-Crisis Catwoman a prostitute. In an attempt to harmonize the various versions, some writers have posited that Catwoman, early in her career, pretended to be a prostitute in order to scam lonely men and rob them."

batboy99

11-04-2008, 05:20 PM

thats it! thanks

ScarecrowMan666

11-04-2008, 06:11 PM

I've honestly put alot of thought into it lately, and I wouldn't mind seeing Milla Jovovich play Catwoman. Dye her hair black of course.

Melkay

11-04-2008, 08:40 PM

^ Hahaha, a lot of thought? Really?

She's far from being a terrific actress, and I would mind if she gets the part. Of course, I didn't put much tought in it... just said it from the top of my head. How irresponsible from my part.

ScarecrowMan666

11-04-2008, 10:21 PM

Ya know, there's no need to be a dick...just because I have a different opinion than you. I don't know who you think you are, you act like some all knowing entity, but you aren't. You are just another fan on an open forum. Get over yourself.

Melkay

11-04-2008, 10:45 PM

^ And I love you too. :) I'm just still resented about Anarky. I see Milla Jovovich, and I see a window of opportunity. You gets the worst part of me out, but it's nothing that a good couples therapist can't help us work out.

ScarecrowMan666

11-04-2008, 11:14 PM

Point well taken...should I make the appointment or shall you? :cwink:

Melkay

11-05-2008, 12:17 AM

^ Me, of course, you've been putting a lot of thought lately.

july

11-05-2008, 01:32 AM

If you're gonna cast a Slavic actress, then Olga Kurilenko is the best choice. Milla Jovovich's acting is flatter than her chest.

[A]

11-05-2008, 01:40 AM

If you're gonna cast a Slavic actress, then Olga Kurilenko is the best choice. Milla Jovovich's acting is flatter than her chest.

that's mean :funny:

Laderlappen

11-05-2008, 03:35 AM

Milla Jovovich is the female version of Vin Diesel. No thanks man!

july

11-05-2008, 04:48 AM

Ten to fifteen years ago there was a great group of actresses perfect for catwoman, women like Monica Bellucci, Sophie Marceau and Catherine Zeta-Jones (and many others). The current crop of actress (aged between 25-35) just aren't as sexy or as beautiful- Marion Cotillard being an exception.

ScarecrowMan666

11-05-2008, 01:22 PM

Milla Jovovich is the female version of Vin Diesel. No thanks man!

Vin Diesel??? Please. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

[A]

11-05-2008, 01:23 PM

Why not? They both can't act and they usually star in s**tty movies

Two-Face

11-05-2008, 03:11 PM

Vin D is not a good actor....

[A]

11-05-2008, 03:20 PM

..and Milla is? [/internetbastard]

Two-Face

11-05-2008, 04:20 PM

No.

[A]

11-05-2008, 04:21 PM

So.. what was your point, friendo..?

Two-Face

11-05-2008, 04:33 PM

Just saying I never want to see them in a Batman movie.

[A]

11-05-2008, 04:35 PM

The horror, the horror..

Laderlappen

11-05-2008, 04:39 PM

Vin Diesel??? Please. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.Hehe. I know exactly what Im talking about. Both make the same kinds of movies. The quality of them are about equal. The quality of their acting are about equal. They are the same.

Two-Face

11-05-2008, 04:42 PM

Agree with Laderlappen.

regwec

11-05-2008, 05:04 PM

Milla was quite good in The Fifth Element, in her own way. I find VD a bit tedious in everything he has done.

cerealkiller182

11-05-2008, 05:05 PM

Vin Diesel was quite good in Pitch Black. But I have to agree, him and Milla seem cut from the same Hollywood cloth

ScarecrowMan666

11-05-2008, 05:59 PM

Why not? They both can't act and they usually star in s**tty movies

Well that's a matter of opinion isn't it? For example, I don't like most of these mainstream actresses that people seem to constantly want for Catwoman(Angelina Jokie..hehe). The only problem with Milla, is she won't quit making Resident Evil movies. The only reason she does that is because she is married to the director. Has anyone even seen .45? That's a great film she did and didn't get alot of credit for. I know most of you are judging her from the RE series, as that is her most publicised role, but it's not her best.

[A]

11-05-2008, 06:07 PM

^ for the record, I don't think Jolie can act either

Two-Face

11-05-2008, 06:15 PM

^ for the record, I don't think Jolie can act either

Is that joke?

dontplaydead27

11-05-2008, 06:31 PM

I haven't been on here in awhile. I see there's still talk about Jolie being a good Catwoman. She's hot, she looks the part mostly (If you want a full lipped curvy hottie/she used to be anyway), but like one of the guys said on a BOF podcast, she's too big. He said something along the lines of it wouldn't be catwoman, it would be "Angelina Jolie AS catwoman". I agree and it's something I argued on here before.

To me it's not a factor that she "can't" or "can" act, it's that how many of her roles are in a wide spectrum of acting ability? She's kind of gotten to that status of a "character actor" in my mind, like Walken and Cage etc. My other argument was that Nolan wouldn't cast her, regardless whether messageboarders want her or not.

ScarecrowMan666

11-05-2008, 06:36 PM

Crook

11-05-2008, 06:47 PM

To me it's not a factor that she "can't" or "can" act, it's that how many of her roles are in a wide spectrum of acting ability?
The question is how many of these roles people have actually seen of her, excluding her mainstream films. Because then the question of her range wouldn't even be a question.

To be frank I'm pretty tired of popular actors being criticized for their mainstream work as opposed to their overall filmography. Jolie is being typecast in the bad-girl role, Depp for quirky, and Will as action-hero. And that's it, like that's all they're capable of. Just 2 minutes of a quick research would show these typecasts as being completely wrong. Can't be that hard to dig up some info.

:huh:

dontplaydead27

11-05-2008, 06:49 PM

Now i've just been reminded by that pic of Charlize Theron with oddly enough a catwoman mask in the background with her smoking, that based on LOOKS alone she would be an amazing Selena Kyle. Even better looking than Jolie in my opinion.

As for who I would want for the role? Milla? I don't know, maybe. Also maybe Anne Hathaway? (I know, but i'm thinking with my dick) I'd have to say lately i've been attracted to Anne, for reasons I don't know, I think she grew into her sexy. I didn't think about her at all in those Disney flicks, but now there's something about her. Maybe she would have the acting chops to pull it off...look at what people said about Heath.

dontplaydead27

11-05-2008, 06:57 PM

"To be frank I'm pretty tired of popular actors being criticized for their mainstream work as opposed to their overall filmography. Jolie is being typecast in the bad-girl role, Depp for quirky, and Will as action-hero."

Okay, well dig up some movies for me on IMDb that these three (Which you nailed for typecast) that were acting/performance "gold" that weren't "mainstream". And by mainstream I guess you mean being in a theater?

Will Smith, guilty of being the worst of these three in my opinion, could also be summed up by being "action-hero-badass-streetsmart-not-by-the-book-rookie".

protoctista

11-05-2008, 07:20 PM

Just because they have all shown that they can act doesn't mean that they're not typecast.

And putting them in ANOTHER role which is more of the same, whether they play it with the dramatic finesse shown in their better films or not, is still typecasting.

And Angelina Jolie is type-cast as a badass sexy femme fatal.

Why do people want a typecast actress to play a role she's essentially played in 5-10 other movies?

Because that's what people think of when they say 'she's too obvious' - not, 'she's too obviously suited to the role', but 'she's too obvious to place within that character because we've seen her do that role before'. It reeks of fan-boy casting, and it doesn't actually give the character a chance to breath as a stand-alone portrayal.

Instead, you're thinking of a way in which Angelina Jolie can be given a chance to combine her powerhouse acting ability with a role she's played over and over again in boring action films. But she'll never do that, because the reason she acts so much better when she's not kicking butt is because she's not selling a film, she's selling a character.

Regardless of her ability, cast as the role of catwoman, Angelina Jolie would be a marketing product; another of a similar type-cast; another Angelina Jolie baddass.

It's moronic casting.

I'm not interested in seeing Angelina Jolie have a stab at being Catwoman.
I just want to see Catwoman.

dontplaydead27

11-05-2008, 07:27 PM

"Regardless of her ability, cast as the role of catwoman, Angelina Jolie would be a marketing product; another of a similar type-cast; another Angelina Jolie baddass.

It's moronic casting. I'm not interested in seeing Angelina Jolie have a stab at being Catwoman. I just want to see Catwoman. "

Bingo.

cerealkiller182

11-05-2008, 07:29 PM

Lobo

11-05-2008, 07:30 PM

How about Carla Gugino as Catwoman?

http://i36.tinypic.com/sbotau.jpg

Crook

11-05-2008, 08:08 PM

Just because they have all shown that they can act doesn't mean that they're not typecast.
Did I not just say that they were typecast?

And putting them in ANOTHER role which is more of the same, whether they play it with the dramatic finesse shown in their better films or not, is still typecasting.
And there's really nothing wrong with that, given they deliver. I don't know why I'm saying this again, but it seems like everyone is pretending typecasting didn't exist within Nolan's 2 batfilms. Bale being the most prominent, in playing the dark and tortured role.

Why do people want a typecast actress to play a role she's essentially played in 5-10 other movies?
That's like asking rich people why they keep buying from Mercedes or BMW. They're a proven product for that type, that's why.

Because that's what people think of when they say 'she's too obvious' - not, 'she's too obviously suited to the role', but 'she's too obvious to place within that character because we've seen her do that role before'. It reeks of fan-boy casting, and it doesn't actually give the character a chance to breath as a stand-alone portrayal.
Myopic.

, you're thinking of a way in which Angelina Jolie can be given a chance to combine her powerhouse acting ability with a role she's played over and over again in boring action films. But she'll never do that, because the reason she acts so much better when she's not kicking butt is because she's not selling a film, she's selling a character.
And what makes you think her casting automatically means that this won't happen? Are you thinking Michael Bay is writing/directing this, or Chris Nolan?

Regardless of her ability, cast as the role of catwoman, Angelina Jolie would be a marketing product; another of a similar type-cast; another Angelina Jolie baddass.

It's moronic casting.

No, all it is, is safe and obvious. Nothing at all moronic about that.

dontplaydead27

11-05-2008, 08:49 PM

Crook

11-05-2008, 09:17 PM

It might be "safe" and for many it might be "obvious", but it's still "disaster" for a Chris Nolan Bat-film. It would sell tickets regardless, if that's the goal (which it always is, but we're playing along that WB won't **** this franchise a second time around). Disaster might be too big a word, but it would be an already-stated pure marketing move. A plain-as-day attempt to gather an audience not based on hype for the film itself (which it will have that anyway) but just who's "Hot" and sells tickets.
I see it as a marketing move that just happens to have some substance behind it. Disastrous and attempting to cash-in with no thought on casting, would be the equivalent of signing a run-of-the-mill bimbo with little to no acting experience/talent.

I understand what you're saying, i'm only saying it wouldn't be something Nolan is known for doing (casting an A-lister IT person who's on tabloid covers every week) and i'd rather him not, along with many on this board and the fanbase as a whole.
I'd like for you to look at the poll, and see who is winning. And who has been for the past 4 years this poll has constantly been put up.

Or the second the Depp rumors started flying for Riddler, how the fanbase jumped with joy. Clearly there isn't a majority that wouldn't be open to A-list casting.

It wouldn't be done, and if it were, it would make money along with respect being lost for Nolan.
How fickle we are that one casting move (that isn't by any means disastrous or bizarre) would suddenly tarnish everything the man has done for this franchise.

First thoughts come to mind, "Man, Angelina would be Catwoman, a sexy and dangerous rebelious independant woman!? she's played that a hundred times, she would be Perfect!" is moronic casting in my eyes.
Then you will have to explain why it is moronic, which I assume you mean lacks intelligence. The process of casting almost always relies on previous film experiences. Given that the formula works, they'll use what is proven. When Humphrey Bogart is cast as a the lone tough-guy, with a gritty attitude and knack for smoking cigars, did that make his performances or reasons for casting any more moronic? Just because it was casting in his type? Or when Bale is cast as the lone and brooding man, whose life is plagued with inner-conflict? Which is like....every role he's played in the past decade.

Ditto for any role that isn't left-field casting. Which makes up like 99% of the roles given to actors. Moronic?

It's a rhetorical question, btw. Bottom line is it's the final performance that should matter.

dontplaydead27

11-05-2008, 09:29 PM

"And there's really nothing wrong with that, given they deliver. I don't know why I'm saying this again, but it seems like everyone is pretending typecasting didn't exist within Nolan's 2 batfilms. Bale being the most prominent, in playing the dark and tortured role."

I don't think anyone has said there was anything wrong with typecasting. A point of mine has been why people WANT to see it, over and over again, especially within a comic movie series that's done good to separate itself from the typical other weak comic movies/adaptions (Wanted, for example-with her) Even if it's a "proven product", that surely can't mean it's suited for every kind of picture and director out there. It all depends on what Nolan is going for, which obviously isn't starpower.

As for Bale being typecast, he probably was to an extent, and again, nothing wrong with that. The question is, how big is the star? Is he known for being in big box-office movies and how many times has he held a similar role in those movies? No one knew who the hell Bale was before BB. I bet you Nolan's choice would have been different had Bale been someone with as much spotlight as Jolie.

There's nothing wrong with typecasting until it becomes the only movies you do and they tend to be your ticket to fame, I.E .Will Smith. When you're a ticket seller that changes the dynamics, I don't care if you can deliver or not. Studios and directors tend to get this boner to cast huge stars to make their movies, whether that be for money or quality, it's all different on which directors you ask. From how it's been Nolan isn't that type.

Crook

11-05-2008, 09:36 PM

Well that is highly unfair. That's basically punishing the actors because they have succeeded. Smith is a ticket seller, but his good performances are invalid because he's famous? How is that not naive? Curious, what did you think of his performance in Ali?

I think you are placing way too much importance on the "why", instead of fairly judging the only real valid factor; the final product. If it were let out on the news tomorrow that Nolan only did TDK because he got paid big bucks for it, it would not at all change my view on the film. Or if Brando only did Godfather because he was bored one year and wanted to keep himself busy. Changes nothing.

Good-intentioned or not, facts are that there was a great deal of artistic value in the product itself. I couldn't care less of how or why it got there. Just that it did.

dontplaydead27

11-06-2008, 12:49 AM

"Well that is highly unfair. That's basically punishing the actors because they have succeeded. Smith is a ticket seller, but his good performances are invalid because he's famous? How is that not naive? Curious, what did you think of his performance in Ali?"

Well it is unfair for them, and obviously not most of their faults. I, along with many tend to get "sick" of seeing the same big names in the big roles in these movies that just end up being "oh that tom cruise movie". You want a great example of this, go read the reviews for "Righteous Kill", you know, the movie that we were suppose to blow our load over because DeNiro and Pacino were "together". This movie got horrible reviews like this;

"There's nothing righteous about this tired and tiresome good cop/bad cop NYPD procedural from Avnet; in fact, it's pretty much an abomination from the get-go." and this;

"Predictable, badly written and ultimately disappointing, this distinctly below-average thriller would have gone straight to DVD if it weren't for De Niro and Pacino. "

Those are from people on Rottentomatoes.com, and I show this just to make my point of when "starpower" goes horribly wrong. This doesn't apply to everyone obviously, but it's my point with casting the biggest names you can get; and alot of the big blockbuster names are typecast movie after movie. And i've never see Ali, i'm not a fan of boxing, therefor not a fan of Ali's life so I honestly probably will never see that movie.

Now obviously the final product matters, but you don't care why the final product is the way it is? If Nolan were to say he hates Batman and he did the movies strictly for the money, the movies would still be good of course, but i'd lose respect for the man and the movies, and it WOULD effect how I see another Nolan Batman movie. You might think that doesn't matter, what's Nolan care about some shmoe behind a computer? Well, he might not. I certainly care what Nolan's intentions are with these movies though. Would you pay to go see a movie knowing the director and crew didn't give a **** about it and threw it together for a quick buck?

I guess i'm a minority for asking questions as to why everyone clamors for these big names to saturate these films. Ledger wasn't a "big" star by any means, but looking at his performance in Batman, he would be a hot ticket afterward. Everyone in Hollywood would want to work with him. All this depends on what roles the actors choose to do. If you have an A-lister who only does two different kinds of roles in 10 movies, and another A-lister who has many different roles in the same amount of movies, it's different. Just because you're a popular star doesn't mean you are typecast in every movie you do, but that's the case for some, and that's what i'm saying.

He could cast Jolie for catwoman, and get a great performance PLUS sell alot of tickets and publicity with her name possibly saturating the movie and taking away from everyone else in it, or he could get someone else who you wouldn't think of and get a great performance and generate good word of mouth and still make money, AND get the respect/reputation that you know how the hell to do a casting call. Nolan could make any movie he wanted now, and cast anyone he wants, because everyone wants to be in the next Batman movie.

Look at Jack Nicholson. Look at what he did for Batman '89. That was a Jack Nicholson movie, he had more screen time than Keaton AND Batman. When I think back to that movie, I think of him.

So it might not be fair that I don't want to see an actor who has been in their share of movies and won awards and whatnot, but most likely i'm sick of them being in every other movie and being almost the same character if they are the typecast kind. How to avoid this? Quit doing the same roles and show your acting spectrum by doing different roles.

protoctista

11-06-2008, 10:45 AM

Crook, you really do come out with some absolute crap sometimes.

That's like asking rich people why they keep buying from Mercedes or BMW. They're a proven product for that type, that's why.

The fact that you're talking in terms of 'product', as if Angelina Jolie is a reliable brand of car, shows that you have no understanding or appreciation of the artistic craft of acting, or film-making. I don't want a product. I don't want Angelina-Jolie-Sex-Appeal™. I want to see a character.

When I watch Heath Ledger as the Joker I can't see the Heath Ledger that I was well acquainted with before hand. I can only see the Joker. He is lost in the role. Alfred and Lucius you can still see as Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, but it doesn't matter because they're supporting characters and are only providing a 'product' anyway - they are tools to allow plot and character to develop.

Catwoman shouldn't be a tool. She shouldn't be a product. She should be a character.

I'd like for you to look at the poll, and see who is winning. And who has been for the past 4 years this poll has constantly been put up.

Or the second the Depp rumors started flying for Riddler, how the fanbase jumped with joy. Clearly there isn't a majority that wouldn't be open to A-list casting.

So you're saying that popularity denotes quality? If that is the case then Epic Movie is a good film.

Angelina Jolie has got a large proportion of the vote because a large proportion of the people who voted don't know the other actresses, and don't watch non-mainstream cinema. She's an easy choice for people to identify with.

I can imagine that for any given poll, Jonny Depp and Angelina Jolie would score highly for male/female roles respectively, regardless of the character. They form a nice balance between being well known enough that lots of people recognise them, and good enough actors to make these people decide that they would be good.

Once again, I doubt Warner Brothers are going to go for an A-list casting, because it isn't worth their money. The Dark Knight sold tickets based on quality and successful marketing, as well as lack of competition. The sequel is garunteed money because of the success of the Dark Knight. There's no need to pay big bucks for a product that's already going to sell. Big time.

Ditto for any role that isn't left-field casting. Which makes up like 99% of the roles given to actors.

Someone's been watching too many mainstream films... watch some decent cinema and stop basing wide assertions on Jason Statharn action movies and Angelina Jolie's well publicised ass.

A good director can, will and has gotten a fantastic, original performance out of an actor that doesn't normally go into such territory.

Well that is highly unfair. That's basically punishing the actors because they have succeeded. Smith is a ticket seller, but his good performances are invalid because he's famous? How is that not naive? Curious, what did you think of his performance in Ali?

You can't deny that success changes an actor's position. It isn't about being fair, it's about facing the reality of the situation. If an audience knows an actor's name and face, they have more work to do to invest in them as a character, because the actor has gotten a persona as star status.

No-one's invalidating talent by way of success. But the performances that people like Will Smith, Angelina Jolie, even Jim Carrey have given that ARE decent are decent because they are outside of what they traditionally perform. Outside of their comfort zone. Outside of the same boundaries they always act within.

It's why they're so good. Because we don't recognise them as their typical persona, because they're not playing the same role that they always do.

Angelina Jolie in another sexy action role wouldn't be that. At all.

And as for saying that Christian Bale is typecast... is it your keyboard or your brain that has diarrhea?

Explain to me how his roles in Little Women, Empire of the Sun, American Psycho, Captain Corelli's Mandolin and the Machinist showed him to be typecast for Bruce Wayne.

Your statements about the sort of character he 'usually' plays are so generic that they could apply to almost any male character of the last 15 years.

His performances, pre-Batman Begins ranged from introvert to overt, boyshily charming to fiendishly menacing, powerful to weak, certain and secure to paranoid and mentally unstable.

And then we have POST-Batman Begins...

New World. His character is about as much of a polar opposite as he could have been from Bruce Wayne without becoming a transexual priest - and even then they would have shared the similarity of duality.

3:10 to Yuma. Different again.

Harsh Times. Completely different again.

None of this adds up to typecasting.

He certainly doesn't have an 'Angelina Jolie' stigma. So he isn't comparable.

He's probably the most varied, dynamic actor of his generation.

Ace of Knaves

11-06-2008, 11:08 AM

Yea I wouldn't call Bale typecast, Angie has been in the last few years but I think it may be to do with her wanting to start a family and all that. Maybe she hasn't taken on the proper meaty roles like she used to because she can't fully commit to roles like that when she has a young family to look after. But what it comes down to is this IMO, the character of Catwoman is one of the most iconic female figures in any medium ever, and any woman who gets the gig is going to put 100% in to it, they won't treat it as a throw-away heroine role. I think Jolie would be perfect for the job, but only if she can really immerse herself into the character and become Selina Kyle, I think she has the ability to do that.

Laderlappen

11-06-2008, 11:30 AM

Im gonna put my cards on the table.

I dont want Jolie for Catwoman either. Yes she has been typecast, and Im not either a fan of that. I find myself losing interest when an actor makes too simular roles. But what's worse is that these sexy-action-buttkicking roles she has done, imo she's terrible in all of them. These are the roles she's worst at.
Jolie is a good actress sometimes, but I personally isnt a big fan of her. There are far better actresses out there imo. Like Marion Cotillard. And I like her look for the role more than Angelina's.

And I have to say that Im starting to really dislike the word 'left-field'. What's right feel? A "safe" choice? And what's a safe choice? Actors do different roles all the time. I would more calling Heath Ledger a originell and inspired choice. Pretty much all performances that are considered great could qualify as a left-field choice.

gwynplaine

11-06-2008, 11:33 AM

I love Jolie, she's a great actress and looks to be a cool human being as well (none of my concern as I unfortunately don't know her but it doesn't hurt either), but I think that should catwoman be in the 3rd and by the time they start filming maybe they should go with a younger actress.
To my fellow british hypsters, how about the other Bond girl, Gemma something, she's supposed to be good in Quantum, but I wouldn't know since I haven't seen it yet.

Ace of Knaves

11-06-2008, 11:35 AM

Gemma Atherton? I haven't seen it yet either.

protoctista

11-06-2008, 11:43 AM

She's fulfills a role in the film that is so un-catwoman-like that it makes your suggestion seem silly. I'll forgive as you haven't seen it.

She's becoming something of an 'it' girl in the pages of EMPIRE magazine, but I can't see why as she's not particularly great besides her physical assets (plenty).

I think Jolie would be perfect for the job, but only if she can really immerse herself into the character and become Selina Kyle, I think she has the ability to do that.
How can she? The role is too similar to a role which she has been typecast in, and terrible in, for years. Think of her roles in Mr&Mrs Smith, Tomb Raider, Wanted. They're all the same, bland, sexy woman. Even if she 'gets into' the character, she's still going to draw comparism to those other roles, simply by her physical association.

Angelina Jolie isn't an immersive actor.

Christian Bale is an immersive actor.
As was Heath Ledger (In ALL his roles, even the smaller ones, even the mainstream ones).
Angelina Jolie, talented as she is in certain roles, is a product.

Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman. These are all true thespians that disappear into their performances. They have each given radically different performances which cannot be related to each other. They get completely lost in their characters. They are chameleons.

Angelina Jolie has a star-status identity, and she's desperately fighting to get rid of it in films like 'Changeling' and 'A Mighty Heart'. Catwoman would be tarred by the burden of her star-status identity.

Laderlappen

11-06-2008, 12:25 PM

I havent seen the new bond, but Im pretty sure Gemma wasnt oscar-worthy exactly in it. She's way too young anyway.

Two-Face

11-06-2008, 12:40 PM

Lobo

11-06-2008, 12:41 PM

How about Carla Gugino as Catwoman?

http://i36.tinypic.com/sbotau.jpg

Thoughts?

regwec

11-06-2008, 12:46 PM

I'd get probation for expressing my thoughts on that woman with any candour.

Crook

11-06-2008, 01:49 PM

Well it is unfair for them, and obviously not most of their faults. I, along with many tend to get "sick" of seeing the same big names in the big roles in these movies that just end up being "oh that tom cruise movie". You want a great example of this, go read the reviews for "Righteous Kill", you know, the movie that we were suppose to blow our load over because DeNiro and Pacino were "together". This movie got horrible reviews like this;

"There's nothing righteous about this tired and tiresome good cop/bad cop NYPD procedural from Avnet; in fact, it's pretty much an abomination from the get-go." and this;

"Predictable, badly written and ultimately disappointing, this distinctly below-average thriller would have gone straight to DVD if it weren't for De Niro and Pacino. "

Those are from people on Rottentomatoes.com, and I show this just to make my point of when "starpower" goes horribly wrong. This doesn't apply to everyone obviously, but it's my point with casting the biggest names you can get; and alot of the big blockbuster names are typecast movie after movie. And i've never see Ali, i'm not a fan of boxing, therefor not a fan of Ali's life so I honestly probably will never see that movie.
That movie sucking had nothing to do with star-power. It's because the script and directing likely were sub-par. I don't see how their popularity factors into that, asides from the obvious of selling tickets.

Now obviously the final product matters, but you don't care why the final product is the way it is? If Nolan were to say he hates Batman and he did the movies strictly for the money, the movies would still be good of course, but i'd lose respect for the man and the movies, and it WOULD effect how I see another Nolan Batman movie. You might think that doesn't matter, what's Nolan care about some shmoe behind a computer? Well, he might not. I certainly care what Nolan's intentions are with these movies though. Would you pay to go see a movie knowing the director and crew didn't give a **** about it and threw it together for a quick buck?
No. I pay for the movie. Why would I care about events or motivation that do not effect or show up in the product?

The fact that you're talking in terms of 'product', as if Angelina Jolie is a reliable brand of car, shows that you have no understanding or appreciation of the artistic craft of acting, or film-making. I don't want a product. I don't want Angelina-Jolie-Sex-Appeal™. I want to see a character.
Christ. Product; something produced from labor through a process. Characters, story, anything you make up in a film....is a product.

I don't mean a marketing product that's used to sell an item. :dry:

When I watch Heath Ledger as the Joker I can't see the Heath Ledger that I was well acquainted with before hand. I can only see the Joker. He is lost in the role. Alfred and Lucius you can still see as Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, but it doesn't matter because they're supporting characters and are only providing a 'product' anyway - they are tools to allow plot and character to develop.

This is implying that getting "lost in the role" is the only viable means of delivering a performance. If that's what you're saying, then I'm not even gonna bother arguing any further.

So you're saying that popularity denotes quality? If that is the case then Epic Movie is a good film.
No, I did not say that at all. Please point where in my post that was even hinted at. Or at least look in the context of what I was replying to. You say I'm putting out crap, and you pull this?

Angelina Jolie has got a large proportion of the vote because a large proportion of the people who voted don't know the other actresses, and don't watch non-mainstream cinema. She's an easy choice for people to identify with.
Oh. Well thanks for enlightening us on the thought processes behind hundreds of votes. You should be making millions with that all-knowledge of yours.

Once again, I doubt Warner Brothers are going to go for an A-list casting, because it isn't worth their money. The Dark Knight sold tickets based on quality and successful marketing, as well as lack of competition. The sequel is garunteed money because of the success of the Dark Knight. There's no need to pay big bucks for a product that's already going to sell. Big time.
And I never said there was a need for A-list casting. Just that it's not completely off the realm of possibility for them to pursue it if the opportunity presents itself.

Case in point, if someone like Depp or Hoffman were to publicly announce their interest in the film, I highly doubt either Nolan or WB would be so quick to say, "no. you're too famous".

Someone's been watching too many mainstream films... watch some decent cinema and stop basing wide assertions on Jason Statharn action movies and Angelina Jolie's well publicised ass.
This is getting too hilarious now. :funny:

I'll ignore the presumptuous and asinine statement you just made. From what I take of your response, it seems you disagree that a great majority of roles performed are within "type" of the actor. I.e. within the boundaries (however small or large that may be) to which the actor/actress normally performs in.

So going by this, that would mean that the majority of roles performed in Hollywood are basically pulling a Ledger/Joker type role. I cannot begin to describe how moronic that sounds.

A good director can, will and has gotten a fantastic, original performance out of an actor that doesn't normally go into such territory.
Wow, this is like....something I've said in this thread a billion times.

You can't deny that success changes an actor's position. It isn't about being fair, it's about facing the reality of the situation. If an audience knows an actor's name and face, they have more work to do to invest in them as a character, because the actor has gotten a persona as star status.

No-one's invalidating talent by way of success. But the performances that people like Will Smith, Angelina Jolie, even Jim Carrey have given that ARE decent are decent because they are outside of what they traditionally perform. Outside of their comfort zone. Outside of the same boundaries they always act within.

It's why they're so good. Because we don't recognise them as their typical persona, because they're not playing the same role that they always do.

Angelina Jolie in another sexy action role wouldn't be that. At all.
You're right, it wouldn't. Because for some reason you think Jolie being cast as Catwoman would mean just another sexy action role.

Forgive me if I place a little more trust in Nolan and co. to conjure up something much more meaningful than that.

And as for saying that Christian Bale is typecast... is it your keyboard or your brain that has diarrhea?

Explain to me how his roles in Little Women, Empire of the Sun, American Psycho, Captain Corelli's Mandolin and the Machinist showed him to be typecast for Bruce Wayne.
I was referring to the majority of his roles in the past decade or so. Starting with American Psycho, to Equilibrium, to Machinist, to Harsh Times, to Batman Begins, to Prestige, to Dark Knight.

He's performed quite a few of these dark roles recently. There are obviously other roles he has done that don't fit under this type, but they are small in numbers.

Your statements about the sort of character he 'usually' plays are so generic that they could apply to almost any male character of the last 15 years.
Dark and brooding characters with inner-conflict is generic? Name these vast roles that fit under this criteria.

His performances, pre-Batman Begins ranged from introvert to overt, boyshily charming to fiendishly menacing, powerful to weak, certain and secure to paranoid and mentally unstable.

And 2 in particular (Bateman, Preston) were the roles that held close similarities with those of Bruce/Batman.

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] And then we have POST-Batman Begins...

New World. His character is about as much of a polar opposite as he could have been from Bruce Wayne without becoming a transexual priest - and even then they would have shared the similarity of duality.

3:10 to Yuma. Different again.
I've already noted there will be some exceptions.

Harsh Times. Completely different again.
No. A troubled man with bottled up rage stemming from traumatic past experiences is not completely unlike Bruce Wayne. I don't know where in the hell you got that idea. The only big difference with this role is Bale played an arrogant prick.

He's probably the most varied, dynamic actor of his generation.
Thanks for the heads up. It's not like I've never said this before...oh wait, yes. Yes I have. For many years in fact.

jmc

11-06-2008, 03:08 PM

Time to play the Angelina Jolie for Catwoman drinking game again!

[A]

11-06-2008, 03:10 PM

A drinking game? I'm in!

Ace of Knaves

11-06-2008, 03:11 PM

Carla Gugino is sexy as ****!!!! :D She's in Watchmen though ain't she?

FhFgJg

11-06-2008, 03:11 PM

I can only feasibly see Kate Beckinsale as Selina Kyle/Catwoman. Of course I would say no accent. Other than that....an unknown.

Laderlappen

11-06-2008, 03:25 PM

Why unknown?

protoctista

11-06-2008, 03:30 PM

This is implying that getting "lost in the role" is the only viable means of delivering a performance. If that's what you're saying, then I'm not even gonna bother arguing any further.
No that's not what I was saying. After all, Lawrence Olivier who said to Dustin Hoffman "why dont you try acting, boy, its a heck of a lot easier". What I was saying is that Bale, Ledger, Caine and Oldman are commited to their performances, even though they're mainstream roles - they give the roles dignity by treating them seriously. Angelina Jolie clearly couldn't give a flying **** about her roles in action films, because she isn't very good in them, despite the fact that she's a good actress.

And I never said there was a need for A-list casting. Just that it's not completely off the realm of possibility for them to pursue it if the opportunity presents itself.

Case in point, if someone like Depp or Hoffman were to publicly announce their interest in the film, I highly doubt either Nolan or WB would be so quick to say, "no. you're too famous".

It rules her out.

When people say that every actor and actress wants to be in Nolan's franchise right now, it isn't because they think there's a depth of character/subject/story - if that's what they wanted they'd go for the Oscar bait dramas. They want to be in these films because of the firework it would shove up the asses of their careers, and the money.

Warner's doesn't need to splash out big. It won't splash out big on an A-lister. It's the same mentality that got Don Cheadle on Iron Man 2 - because he was cheaper, and the role being played isn't a role that is going to earn the film money.

It's not just that there isn't a need for A-list casting, there's a distinct perrogative against it. No-one in the franchise has star factor. The franchise doesn't need it. It won't pay for it.

So going by this, that would mean that the majority of roles performed in Hollywood are basically pulling a Ledger/Joker type role. I cannot begin to describe how moronic that sounds.

Not at all - I was talking about the distinct differences in performance that are evident in Heath Ledger's entire career. As well as Christian Bales, and Gary Oldman's, and Michael Caines. But as you think that Christian Bale's filmography is all within a type, I suppose you must think all acting is typecast into two groups; gender.

Wow, this is like....something I've said in this thread a billion times.
Are you contesting that then?

You're right, it wouldn't. Because for some reason you think Jolie being cast as Catwoman would mean just another sexy action role.

Forgive me if I place a little more trust in Nolan and co. to conjure up something much more meaningful than that.

My problem isn't that Nolan is contending with her abilties as an actress. He would be contedning with her blinding star status, and her typecast persona. He'd be putting her in a role she'd done a hundred times before, and the greatest achievement he could get out of that is a better version of something we've seen before. With any other actress, he could get a fantastic version of something we haven't seen before. It's comparing improvement to originality.

He's performed quite a few of these dark roles recently. There are obviously other roles he has done that don't fit under this type, but they are small in numbers.

Dark? How is that so specific as to brand him typecast? Almost all male characters can be defined as 'dark' in some way or another. You refer to

American Psycho - A savage psycopath within a groomed, affable businessman that has everything he wants but a soul. Extrovert. A very dark character within a very bright, envious world of corporate success, rich pads and orgies.

compare that to;

The Machinist - A working class guy, who is despised, in the absolute dregs of society, who has nothing he wants, has paranoia but is essentially still sympathetic and affectionate. Introvert. I'd say that the film was dark, but Bale wasn't.

Yes they both address madness - but different kinds of madness. The characters are in different social situations, have different aspirations and motivations, look and operate in different manners and importantly, are portrayed entirely differently by Bale.

So he is typecast for exploring psychology within these two characters. That's two films out of his entire career. (His Bruce Wayne portrayal delves into morality and ideology rather than pscyhology).

How can you link the thuggish, simplton bastard portrayed in Harsh Times to idealist, compassionate and suave Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins. They are opposite characters in almost every regard.

What, they're both 'dark'...?? come on.

And its not really fair to link Batman Begins and the Dark Knight in that suggestion of typecast.

And you say his 'non-dark' roles are few? The New World. Little Women. Empire of the Sun. Velvet Goldmine. Laurel Canyon. His voice work has all been for children.

Dark and brooding characters with inner-conflict is generic?
1) Inner conflict: every character has inner-conflict. It's what makes them interesting.
2) Dark. I've outlined the issue of 'dark' characters above. I'd like to stress again that just because a film is dark doesnt meant the character is.
3) Brooding. That's slightly different. The films you all mentioned have broody characters. But the films that I have just mentioned dont.

dontplaydead27

11-06-2008, 03:36 PM

"That movie sucking had nothing to do with star-power. It's because the script and directing likely were sub-par. I don't see how their popularity factors into that, asides from the obvious of selling tickets."

You're right, it's not like DeNiro and Pacino actually read the script before they agreed to do it or anything. It's not like these veteran actors got the sense that this movie was going to be a turd beforehand, or like they just took it for the publicity and paycheck right?...who would do that?

"No. I pay for the movie. Why would I care about events or motivation that do not effect or show up in the product?"

Man, you really aren't effected by things behind the scenes? Now what if these things DID show up in the movie? I'm assuming by what you said if it did show up in a movie you'd feel different. Take a movie like...Transformers. Looked great, but the plot could have been better. What if that was because Michael Bay was going for larger than life action and not story or character development because he didn't emotionally invest time into the series at some point? If Nolan didn't care about what he was doing, it WOULD show up, granted he would even work on it. (He wouldn't). Joel Schmacher didn't give a **** about Batman, he thought he was sexy, and it showed. For christs sake, he cast Clooney because he saw a pic of him in a magazine and drew a cowl on it and said he's batman...How many directers are out there that go into a project half assed, and make something...half assed? Alot, I see it all the time. Not just comic adaptations either, everything. Of course you can't rate a ****ty movie by saying the director didn't care, because he might of just sucked at getting his ideas out. Either way, there's a large amount of movies that suck because A) the potential good out of a movie can't be worked upon correctly because of director/crew or B) the movie doesn't have a passion behind it from the director/crew. These seem typically thrown together and made for a buck for some reason I.E. Sequel that doesn't need to be made. And sometimes it's in the last category, C) the premise for the movie just sucks. Obviously i'm not casting you out because you only care about the outcome, I only wonder how much that mindset follows you in your everyday life.

If you bought a pair of shoes that children slaved, possibly died over making, you'd still be okay with buying them? Or if someone in food services dropped your hamburger patty on the floor and brushed it off and still served it to you, you wouldn't want to know? Or your best friend has sex with your girlfriend after harmlessly giving her a ride from work to your house, you wouldn't want to know? Okay, that last one is a stretch.

protoctista

11-06-2008, 03:51 PM

There's no way that a film made by unpassionate directors/writers/actors would not be apparant as such. So you always would know in the end product.

protoctista

11-06-2008, 03:52 PM

^
^
^
Oh and Bob Dylan, in I'm Not There.

flickchick85

11-06-2008, 03:58 PM

Oy, this discussion again. Oh well, since everyone else is pitching in again...

I think Jolie can be a very good actress, proven capable of great performances. BUT her track record in anything with a budget of, say, over $100 million is not encouraging. To me, in every big budget film she's ever done, she's phoned it in, with an entirely predictable "sexy ass-kicking chick" performance that, while it seems to be what many male audiences want (and expect), it quite frankly bores me to tears. I know Chris Nolan is a good director, but he's also making a $200+ million blockbuster here, and Doug Liman was good director too who made a big-budget movie starring Angelina and absolutely NOTHING was different or special about Angelina's performance. It was simply the product she's been selling in big-budget films for years now.

Now, I realize that while Liman may have been good (once upon a time?), he's no Nolan and Mr. and Mrs. Smith was not a good movie anyway, so it's not the perfect precedent of this situation, and I do concede that she is capable of giving a great performance as Catwoman and we would be lucky to have her in the role. I'm just not convinced that she would, or that Christopher Nolan is all it would take get Angelina out of her "big-budget movie acting" mode, especially since Catwoman fits her trademark character type.

Her blockbuster track record is what keeps her off of my list, but as I've said, I certainly wouldn't consider it a tragedy if she were cast.

Melkay

11-06-2008, 04:00 PM

Since Protoctista is not fond of multi-quoting (and I am) and I want to see every one of these points adressed, I'm going to get into the argument. I ask for your forgiveness.

Christ. Product; something produced from labor through a process. Characters, story, anything you make up in a film....is a product.

I thought he was implying 'product' as something made in series, something that lacks identity and singularity.

Of course, I could be wrong, it was his term after all.

This is implying that getting "lost in the role" is the only viable means of delivering a performance. If that's what you're saying, then I'm not even gonna bother arguing any further.

No, but it's the best way. Anything is viable. Quality is what matters.
Some people say that fiction is more effective the less conscious you are about its deceptive nature. At least, that's the princile that led Ledger's brilliant performance.

No, I did not say that at all. Please point where in my post that was even hinted at. Or at least look in the context of what I was replying to. You say I'm putting out crap, and you pull this?

I'm going to make him a favour and point it out myself.

Crook: "I'd like for you to look at the poll, and see who is winning. And who has been for the past 4 years this poll has constantly been put up."

Yes, Crook, you were trying to validate the selection by pointing out at its popularity. You were linking popularity with quality. That was the context.

Oh. Well thanks for enlightening us on the thought processes behind hundreds of votes. You should be making millions with that all-knowledge of yours.

Lame, resented answer. Be realist, good thought-process is a rare thing, and most people here don't even bother in showing it. I would ever agree that most people don't have a broad cinematic culture, considering the trash that keeps going up in the Box-office. Angie has 108 votes in the poll... Kate Beckinsale has 104... it's a very valid concern to fear that most people here aren't voting for good reasons.

And I never said there was a need for A-list casting. Just that it's not completely off the realm of possibility for them to pursue it if the opportunity presents itself.

Case in point, if someone like Depp or Hoffman were to publicly announce their interest in the film, I highly doubt either Nolan or WB would be so quick to say, "no. you're too famous".

I thought this argument was about the best casting choice and not the many possible ones. No, Nolan won't say no to the famous guy... nor to the unknown ones. That simply doesn't happen... ever.

This is getting too hilarious now. :funny:

I'll ignore the presumptuous and asinine statement you just made. From what I take of your response, it seems you disagree that a great majority of roles performed are within "type" of the actor. I.e. within the boundaries (however small or large that may be) to which the actor/actress normally performs in.

So going by this, that would mean that the majority of roles performed in Hollywood are basically pulling a Ledger/Joker type role. I cannot begin to describe how moronic that sounds.

No, Crook, he meant that the majority of Hollywood roles are bad. You misundertood him.

Protoctista, I can't defend you against this... you were being presumtuous.

I will say, however, that in most films were Angie was typecasted... she sucked.
She sucked badly.
Arguably in ALL of them.
TR, TR: The Craddle Of Life, Mr. and Ms. Smith, Gone in Sixty Seconds, Wanted... I can't even recall one one of those where she had a memorable performance. And don't give me that crap about poor scripts. She can give her best even in movies with below-average scripts. I've seen Pacino do that: Scarface isn't that good. I've seen Streep do that: Devil wears Prada it's positevely horrendous, and yet she inmerses in the character. I saw Ledger do that: Grimm Brothers.
It's about passion and dedication... and it's just too much coincidence that all her type-cast films have been bad films.

Wow, this is like....something I've said in this thread a billion times.

No, you were saying: "a good director can, will and has gotten a fantastic, original performance out of an actor that is normally typecasted in that particular kind of role... even if in the past he has sucked at it."

You were saying that Jolie have sucked in that particular role before because their directors and screenwriters were bad. Not necessarily true... maybe she sucked because she didn't know better.

You're right, it wouldn't. Because for some reason you think Jolie being cast as Catwoman would mean just another sexy action role.

Forgive me if I place a little more trust in Nolan and co. to conjure up something much more meaningful than that.

See what I meant above?

And yet you wish that Nolan and Co. would stick to a safer choice like Angie... just in case. Funny.

Thanks for the heads up. It's not like I've never said this before...oh wait, yes. Yes I have. For many years in fact.

Then I may continue the sentence where Prot left it...

"Bale is probably the most varied, dynamic actor of his generation... and Jolie is not.
In that dynamic career, Bale has proven his quality over and over again...
... Angelina has not."

Ciao.

dontplaydead27

11-06-2008, 04:17 PM

"it's a very valid concern to fear that most people here aren't voting for good reasons."

It seems people are voting with their penises. And rarely has voting with penises, ever brought anything "good".

Last time that happened with Batman, we got George Clooney.

Don't mind me, i'm just climbing in the Melkay/Protoctista train.

Crook

11-06-2008, 04:23 PM

No that's not what I was saying. After all, Lawrence Olivier who said to Dustin Hoffman "why dont you try acting, boy, its a heck of a lot easier". What I was saying is that Bale, Ledger, Caine and Oldman are commited to their performances, even though they're mainstream roles - they give the roles dignity by treating them seriously. Angelina Jolie clearly couldn't give a flying **** about her roles in action films, because she isn't very good in them, despite the fact that she's a good actress.
Look at the type of actions films she's been in, who's behind the creative team, and then compare that to the caliber of Nolan's series. Not at all comparable. Look, if this were Michael Bay directing, then ok, I would be worried even if Jolie was my first choice for the role. Because regardless of being a good actress, I know there wouldn't be much support to bring that out.

Not so with Nolan.

It rules her out.

When people say that every actor and actress wants to be in Nolan's franchise right now, it isn't because they think there's a depth of character/subject/story - if that's what they wanted they'd go for the Oscar bait dramas. They want to be in these films because of the firework it would shove up the asses of their careers, and the money.
Sure. Or it could also be because Nolan has quite the reputation right now, and it'd do wonders for anyone's career (be it critically or financially) to have one of his films under their resume. You can apply this same reasoning to why actors would flock to Spielberg or Cameron.

It's not just that there isn't a need for A-list casting, there's a distinct perrogative against it. No-one in the franchise has star factor. The franchise doesn't need it. It won't pay for it.
Again, I never said it 'needs' it. But the franchise has always revolved around stars. Whether it be creating them, or featuring them. This isn't Bond where nearly everyone cast are nobodies.

Not at all - I was talking about the distinct differences in performance that are evident in Heath Ledger's entire career. As well as Christian Bales, and Gary Oldman's, and Michael Caines. But as you think that Christian Bale's filmography is all within a type, I suppose you must think all acting is typecast into two groups; gender.
1) I never said Bale's filmography was within type. Please re-read what I've said, because I'm tired of denying that.
2) I think acting can be separated into performance types, however broad that may be. So there are limitless categories there.

Are you contesting that then?
No, because then that would be disagreeing with myself which makes absolutely no sense.

My problem isn't that Nolan is contending with her abilties as an actress. He would be contedning with her blinding star status, and her typecast persona. He'd be putting her in a role she'd done a hundred times before, and the greatest achievement he could get out of that is a better version of something we've seen before. With any other actress, he could get a fantastic version of something we haven't seen before. It's comparing improvement to originality.
If Jolie were playing a role she did a hundred times before, then the role sucks with or without her. There's only so much you can work with. Have you seen her action roles? Not terribly deep nor interesting. They could get Meryl Streep or Cate Blanchett to perform the same exact lines Jolie were to do, and I guarantee it would amount to squat.

Since we seem to be in the agreement that Jolie can act, then surely we can agree that Selina rests heavily on Nolan's direction and the quality of the script writing.

Dark? How is that so specific as to brand him typecast? Almost all male characters can be defined as 'dark' in some way or another.
Then either:

a) you have very limited film-viewing experience
b) you would be reaching

American Psycho - A savage psycopath within a groomed, affable businessman that has everything he wants but a soul. Extrovert. A very dark character within a very bright, envious world of corporate success, rich pads and orgies.

compare that to;

The Machinist - A working class guy, who is despised, in the absolute dregs of society, who has nothing he wants, has paranoia but is essentially still sympathetic and affectionate. Introvert. I'd say that the film was dark, but Bale wasn't.

Yes they both address madness - but different kinds of madness.
Yes. Hence the word type. Is madness not in such a category?

The characters are in different social situations, have different aspirations and motivations, look and operate in different manners and importantly, are portrayed entirely differently by Bale.
Categories do not have to strictly adhere to a point-by-point similarity. When I ask you to name me two cars, you can say anything from a van, to a sports car. I would not be so daft to proclaim you are incorrect, because a van holds more people or that a sports car can exceed 100mph.

How can you link the thuggish, simplton bastard portrayed in Harsh Times to idealist, compassionate and suave Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins. They are opposite characters in almost every regard.

What, they're both 'dark'...?? come on.
How can I link them? You just quoted it. And no, it's not just because they're "dark". :huh:

You are pointing out their differences to push some point that they're not at all related. Anyone can do that. Give someone 2 pieces of fruit and I bet they could write up an entire page of how they're different.

And you say his 'non-dark' roles are few? The New World. Little Women. Empire of the Sun. Velvet Goldmine. Laurel Canyon. His voice work has all been for children.

Better. Part. Of. His. Last. Ten. Years. With. Some. Exceptions.

Do I need to put this in bold, because this is like the fourth time you've misinterpreted my original statement.

1) Inner conflict: every character has inner-conflict. It's what makes them interesting.
Let me elaborate. A struggle with personal demons and/or destructive obsessions.

2) Dark. I've outlined the issue of 'dark' characters above. I'd like to stress again that just because a film is dark doesnt meant the character is.
I've outline the issue of darkness, above as well.

3) Brooding. That's slightly different. The films you all mentioned have broody characters. But the films that I have just mentioned dont.
And once again, they don't play into what I originally stated so it doesn't matter.

You're right, it's not like DeNiro and Pacino actually read the script before they agreed to do it or anything. It's not like these veteran actors got the sense that this movie was going to be a turd beforehand, or like they just took it for the publicity and paycheck right?...who would do that?
I'm not seeing how this is responding to what I said. Star power doesn't equal turd, and unknowns don't equal gold. Good and bad performances/film/scripts/direction occur outside of those two categories. They have no correlation.

Man, you really aren't effected by things behind the scenes? Now what if these things DID show up in the movie? I'm assuming by what you said if it did show up in a movie you'd feel different.
Correct. Because then that would effect an experience and product I've payed and devoted my time to seeing.

Of course you can't rate a ****ty movie by saying the director didn't care, because he might of just sucked at getting his ideas out. Either way, there's a large amount of movies that suck because A) the potential good out of a movie can't be worked upon correctly because of director/crew or B) the movie doesn't have a passion behind it from the director/crew. These seem typically thrown together and made for a buck for some reason I.E. Sequel that doesn't need to be made. And sometimes it's in the last category, C) the premise for the movie just sucks. Obviously i'm not casting you out because you only care about the outcome, I only wonder how much that mindset follows you in your everyday life.

If you bought a pair of shoes that children slaved, possibly died over making, you'd still be okay with buying them? Or if someone in food services dropped your hamburger patty on the floor and brushed it off and still served it to you, you wouldn't want to know? Or your best friend has sex with your girlfriend after harmlessly giving her a ride from work to your house, you wouldn't want to know? Okay, that last one is a stretch.
Surely you realize those examples can't possibly contend with the motivation of doing a film solely for money. It hinders no bodily harm on anyone involved.

Would I be comfortable with taking a cheat sheet from someone that physically provoked a T.A.? No. Would I be comfortable taking it if he slyly lifted it from his coffee table when the T.A. wasn't looking? Sure, why not.

protoctista

11-06-2008, 04:24 PM

Last time that happened with Batman, we got George Clooney.
That made me actually lol. Not just type lol appreciatively. Poor schumacher....

And hop unboard, we have cookies.

Crook

11-06-2008, 04:41 PM

I thought he was implying 'product' as something made in series, something that lacks identity and singularity.

Of course, I could be wrong, it was his term after all.
No, it was my term since I was the one that first used the word. And as I've defined it, the above definition is not what I meant.

No, but it's the best way. Anything is viable. Quality is what matters.
Some people say that fiction is more effective the less conscious you are about its deceptive nature. At least, that's the princile that led Ledger's brilliant performance.

This would be great if it wasn't for the fact that it's all subjective.

I'm going to make him a favour and point it out myself.

Crook: "I'd like for you to look at the poll, and see who is winning. And who has been for the past 4 years this poll has constantly been put up."

Yes, Crook, you were trying to validate the selection by pointing out at its popularity. You were linking popularity with quality. That was the context.
I'm going to do you a favor and point out the post I was responding to:

I understand what you're saying, i'm only saying it wouldn't be something Nolan is known for doing (casting an A-lister IT person who's on tabloid covers every week) and i'd rather him not, along with many on this board and the fanbase as a whole.
With the overwhelming support Jolie and Depp have gotten from the fanbase in general, his statement is absolutely false. The poll was brought up to validate the advocation of an A-list star (which contradicts his claim), not an advocation of quality because of A-list status.

Thank you for misunderstanding.

No, Crook, he meant that the majority of Hollywood roles are bad. You misundertood him.
Not to the context of what I was responding to. I wasn't referring to the quality of the performances themselves, but whether or not the roles were generally fitting for the actor's comfort range. The majority of Hollywood roles satisfy that point.

No, you were saying: "a good director can, will and has gotten a fantastic, original performance out of an actor that is normally typecasted in that particular kind of role... even if in the past he has sucked at it."
What? No. I'm saying a good director can and likely would get a considerably better performance out of a capable actress, than a significantly less talented director.
And yet you wish that Nolan and Co. would stick to a safer choice like Angie... just in case. Funny.
No. This is just you being presumptuous. I've never said Nolan should go with Angie. I'm defending on the hypothetical that if he did, it would probably turn out good rather than horrendous.

Then I may continue the sentence where Prot left it...

"Bale is probably the most varied, dynamic actor of his generation... and Jolie is not.
In that dynamic career, Bale has proven his quality over and over again...
... Angelina has not."

Ciao.
Forgive me if I don't rely on Bale's whole career for an entirely unrelated role. And I'll ignore the fact that there are several actors in the Nolan bat-franchise that could be substituted in that statement for Jolie. Just this once.

dontplaydead27

11-06-2008, 05:01 PM

"I'm not seeing how this is responding to what I said. Star power doesn't equal turd, and unknowns don't equal gold. Good and bad performances/film/scripts/direction occur outside of those two categories. They have no correlation."

It all has to do with starpower. These "stars" took the opportunity to do this movie, (i'm assuming for money/publicity stuff along that line, because surely they would have seen the outcome) and the director and producers took the lead to get these guys to do their movie (I'm betting they knew too that this movie wasn't going to add up to much) knowing that with these names, people will see it. And the commercials/trailers for the movie, just help my point because it focuses solely on the fact that these "legends" are together in a movie.

Main point, if you know you got a tired out movie premise, but put two stars in it to see how much it makes/boosts your ego, whatever, that's a result of "starpower". That's just one of many examples of what "starpower" is AND does (and a more profitable/commercial/"sell-out" example).

If it's used to get people like you and me to the theaters, they are using "starpower" to get us there. Luckily I was born with a protective coating that allows me to reflect starpower, but it's not so useful against flowerpower and tanooki suits.

dontplaydead27

11-06-2008, 05:10 PM

"Quote from ME:
I understand what you're saying, i'm only saying it wouldn't be something Nolan is known for doing (casting an A-lister IT person who's on tabloid covers every week) and i'd rather him not, along with many on this board and the fanbase as a whole.

With the overwhelming support Jolie and Depp have gotten from the fanbase in general, his statement is absolutely false. The poll was brought up to validate the advocation of an A-list star (which contradicts his claim), not an advocation of quality because of A-list status."

My statement isn't "absolutely false". I didn't say all people I said many. There's nothing about this poll that contradicts me, and just wondering did you see how many people voted for "other"? There are alot of fanbase people who support Depp and Jolie and whoever in the "A-list" status, but there's also alot who don't. And right now, you've got three people you're arguing with who don't support it.

Crook

11-06-2008, 05:16 PM

My statement isn't "absolutely false". I didn't say all people I said many.
You said "many" and "this fanbase as a whole". That denotes the majority, does it not? I was pointing out how the reality proves otherwise.

and just wondering did you see how many people voted for "other"?
Yes. You are aware though that "other" encompasses anyone that isn't named on that poll? You could have a number of votes totaling anywhere from 20 to 200 to 2,000. Who knows how many actors are within that voting realm. It's limitless.

There are alot of fanbase people who support Depp and Jolie and whoever in the "A-list" status, but there's also alot who don't. And right now, you've got three people you're arguing with who don't support it.
And that's fine. I'm not arguing that you guys don't exist.

dontplaydead27

11-06-2008, 05:38 PM

"You said "many" and "this fanbase as a whole". That denotes the majority, does it not? I was pointing out how the reality proves otherwise."

I said "many on this board and the fanbase as a whole". I meant people on this board, and people in the fanbase as a whole (people NOT on this messageboard and people on this messageboard). I didn't say everyone in the fanbase as a whole, I said many. I was lumping messageboard fans with non-messageboard fans, clarifying that I didn't JUST mean people on this board. (Even though I could have just said many in the fanbase-I know) That's all.

"Yes. You are aware though that "other" encompasses anyone that isn't named on that poll? You could have a number of votes totaling anywhere from 20 to 200 to 2,000. Who knows how many actors are within that voting realm. It's limitless."

My point i'm trying to make with the "other" votes is that it's the most popular vote on here, over Jolie. You said "With the overwhelming support Jolie and Depp have gotten from the fanbase in general, his statement is absolutely false. The poll was brought up to validate the advocation of an A-list star". And my point is that people are choosing "other" over a named A-list star (Or over the reason this poll was even made). "Other" could mean anyone, A-list or not, yes, but it's not meaning Jolie. So even Jolie's "overwhelming support" isn't enough to stop people from voting for "other". I'm not going to sit here and argue numbers with you though, because neither of us can say this many people like this, etc. There's a good number of people who believe in both ideas.

And that's fine. I'm not arguing that you guys don't exist.

But i'm arguing that I don't exist. I'm not really here, i'm a bot that SHH is trying out to get the debaters' attention elsewhere while they make some changes to this board.

Two-Face

11-06-2008, 05:45 PM

If you're not here how can you post? yes we know "you" don't Jolie isn't this what the argument is about that she's famous.....

dontplaydead27

11-06-2008, 05:51 PM

Man I don't know, but I want to **** the **** out of that moving Lucy Pinder on your profile.

protoctista

11-06-2008, 06:05 PM

she keeps........

................. .........distracting me when she....

....pops up like....

....that.

Crook

11-06-2008, 06:06 PM

I said "many on this board and the fanbase as a whole". I meant people on this board, and people in the fanbase as a whole (people NOT on this messageboard and people on this messageboard). I didn't say everyone in the fanbase as a whole, I said many. I was lumping messageboard fans with non-messageboard fans, clarifying that I didn't JUST mean people on this board. (Even though I could have just said many in the fanbase-I know) That's all.
Ok then. Fair enough.

My point i'm trying to make with the "other" votes is that it's the most popular vote on here, over Jolie. You said "With the overwhelming support Jolie and Depp have gotten from the fanbase in general, his statement is absolutely false. The poll was brought up to validate the advocation of an A-list star". And my point is that people are choosing "other" over a named A-list star (Or over the reason this poll was even made). "Other" could mean anyone, A-list or not, yes, but it's not meaning Jolie. So even Jolie's "overwhelming support" isn't enough to stop people from voting for "other". I'm not going to sit here and argue numbers with you though, because neither of us can say this many people like this, etc. There's a good number of people who believe in both ideas.
Ok, well I suppose from that viewpoint it would be a correct assessment. But in deducing a single person that represent a majority popular vote, then at least in terms of this poll, it would be Jolie. Since 'other' represents no one.

Man I don't know, but I want to **** the **** out of that moving Lucy Pinder on your profile.
I can proudly say we are in absolutely total agreement on this front. Just to ease the past tension:

***pic removed due to hotlinking ***

To keep it on topic, I would very much be pleased if the next Catwoman were to have this bosom. :o

dontplaydead27

11-06-2008, 06:49 PM

Points taken.

Oh man Pinder's so hot and busty, you know who else I find hot but she's not as thick and curvy? Vikki Blows. Oh yeah, the UK gets so many hotties over there.

Double Down

11-06-2008, 06:52 PM

Casting Angelia Jolie seems to me to be casting like they did for the Keaton/Kilmer/Clooney Batman movies.

batboy99

11-06-2008, 07:38 PM

Probably not the best actress, but the thought of Olga Kurylenko in the Catwoman suit is clouding my mind...

gwynplaine

11-06-2008, 09:02 PM

Probably not the best actress, but the thought of Olga Kurylenko in the Catwoman suit is clouding my mind...
I know what you mean. She is topless in Hitman = only reason to see Hitman.

Melkay

11-06-2008, 09:34 PM

No, it was my term since I was the one that first used the word. And as I've defined it, the above definition is not what I meant.

And yet you replied to 'his' meaning with your meaning. Funny. What do you say to that? Do you think that the character could lose indentity if its casting choice is rather formulaic? Do you think many people are more prepared to see Jolie than Catwoman? You already said you don't blieve she has to get 'lost into the role' to suceed in her performance.

This would be great if it wasn't for the fact that it's all subjective.

I don't think so. Characters are more effective the more you see performance and the less you notice the actor. By definition.

With the overwhelming support Jolie and Depp have gotten from the fanbase in general, his statement is absolutely false. The poll was brought up to validate the advocation of an A-list star (which contradicts his claim), not an advocation of quality because of A-list status.

Thank you for misunderstanding.

Overwhelming support? Not what I've seen. There are A-list stars and there are overrated actors and predictable casting suggestions. And I've seen lots of people argue against this last ones. And many of those who bring them up (not all) are only newcomers or people who just don't care very much about the subject... Depp fangirls come to mind.
I guess it all depends on what you consider true fandom.

Wasn't it all subjective?

That doesn't change the fact that you were trying to validate you defense of the role through popularity at the same time.

Not to the context of what I was responding to. I wasn't referring to the quality of the performances themselves, but whether or not the roles were generally fitting for the actor's comfort range. The majority of Hollywood roles satisfy that point.

Who says what's an actor comfort range? Who says what is fitting for him/her? If Angie has been awful on her usual typecasted roles, does taht mean those are outside of her comfort range?
The majority of Hollywood roles are also very bad... I'd argue taht the majority of everything is below-average too.
Besides, any response from you should stick to whatthe other person said first, and not the other way around.

What? No. I'm saying a good director can and likely would get a considerably better performance out of a capable actress, than a significantly less talented director.

Yeah. So? "Better" can be also mean "less bad". If the good director can improve anyone's performance... the unkown and the star... then it makes it invalid as an argument for either side.

No. This is just you being presumptuous. I've never said Nolan should go with Angie. I'm defending on the hypothetical that if he did, it would probably turn out good rather than horrendous.

Oh, you never said he should go with Angelina?

Which actress did you vote for?

And this is not an argument about an actress crashing and burning, but about which is the best possible actress around for the part.

Forgive me if I don't rely on Bale's whole career for an entirely unrelated role. And I'll ignore the fact that there are several actors in the Nolan bat-franchise that could be substituted in that statement for Jolie. Just this once.

For an incredibly big role like the one discussed here? Murphy, Eckhart, Ledger, Bale, Neeson? Name one.

Wanted, Gone in 60 seconds, Tomb Raider, Beowulf.... she has sucked badly, my friend. Badly. Can she act? Of course she can. But I think her impressive looks and her extreme popularity are helping her here as much as her few excellent roles.

Crook

11-06-2008, 09:59 PM

And yet you replied to 'his' meaning with your meaning. Funny.
....yeah. That's usually what a person does when someone misinterprets what you're saying. You correct them and clarify what was originally stated.

What do you say to that? Do you think that the character could lose indentity if its casting choice is rather formulaic? Do you think many people are more prepared to see Jolie than Catwoman? You already said you don't blieve she has to get 'lost into the role' to suceed in her performance.
Of course they're more prepared in seeing her in the role. The superficial aspects of it are automatically fulfilled the moment she'd be announced playing the character.

I don't think so. Characters are more effective the more you see performance and the less you notice the actor. By definition.
Of course you don't think so. I don't expect you to suddenly disagree with yourself.

Overwhelming support? Not what I've seen. There are A-list stars and there are overrated actors and predictable casting suggestions. And I've seen lots of people argue against this last ones. And many of those who bring them up (not all) are only newcomers or people who just don't care very much about the subject... Depp fangirls come to mind.
I guess it all depends on what you consider true fandom.

Wasn't it all subjective?
About what's A-list? Are we gonna really argue whether Jolie is in the top tier of Hollywood rank?

That doesn't change the fact that you were trying to validate you defense of the role through popularity at the same time.
Popularity from the supporters. Nothing to do with her celeb status. Why don't you just admit that you mistook what I've said, and we can move on?

Who says what's an actor comfort range? Who says what is fitting for him/her?
Wow, you are completely obsessed with arguing every mundane point. I know you know what I mean, when referring to an actor's comfort range, yet you wanna drag this into a page-long diatribe. Why?

If Angie has been awful on her usual typecasted roles, does taht mean those are outside of her comfort range?
When she's awful, then yes. But you're greatly exaggerating. I've never seen her been awful. Drab, uninspiring, and nothing special? Absolutely. But not awful.

Yeah. So? "Better" can be also mean "less bad".
Yes, Debbie Downer. And winning $850,000 on 'Deal or No Deal' also means you lost out on $1,000,000. We get it. You're a "glass half empty" type of guy.

If the good director can improve anyone's performance... the unkown and the star... then it makes it invalid as an argument for either side.
It would invalidate the side that seeks to prove that one is better than the other.

Oh, you never said he should go with Angelina?
Yeah. Wanna ask another question I already told you the answer to?

Which actress did you vote for?
Actresses. This is a multi-choice poll. That of which I've voted for 3 people. Neither of which means "Nolan should cast ______", because all it's asking is who I would like in the role.

And this is not an argument about an actress crashing and burning, but about which is the best possible actress around for the part.
No, this is the place to discuss all possible candidates for the role. This discussion is well within those boundaries.

For an incredibly big role like the one discussed here? Murphy, Eckhart, Ledger, Bale, Neeson? Name one.
I'll give you three. Compare Bale's career to Murphy, Eckhart, and Gyllenhaal. You'd see such an immense landslide that is much more evident than with Jolie.

Wanted, Gone in 60 seconds, Tomb Raider, Beowulf.... she has sucked badly, my friend. Badly. Can she act? Of course she can.
:huh::huh::huh:

How can you even say this? This entire discussion you've made it known that Jolie isn't capable for this role....but she can act? What?

jmc

11-06-2008, 11:25 PM

Can I suggest we bring in a rule that states arguing over Angelina Jolie as Catwoman is forbidden from this thread, it's a never ending cycle that's really run it's course.

Crook

11-06-2008, 11:26 PM

If people brought up other things to talk about, there wouldn't have to be a rule.

Melkay

11-06-2008, 11:26 PM

....yeah. That's usually what a person does when someone misinterprets what you're saying. You correct them and clarify what was originally stated.

Use well the meaning of the word since the beginning and that won't happen. Loose semantics always end up in dragged discussions. We are here to take things for granted, not to keep explaining our own points.

Of course they're more prepared in seeing her in the role. The superficial aspects of it are automatically fulfilled the moment she'd be announced playing the character.

And you're okay with that... because....

Of course you don't think so. I don't expect you to suddenly disagree with yourself.

... especially when it's such a sound idea. Same thing I could say about you, except that you don't offer any counter argument on this. I repeat, fiction is more effective when it makes you forget its deceptive nature. That's the curse of the movie critic.

About what's A-list? Are we gonna really argue whether Jolie is in the top tier of Hollywood rank?

I'd say that se is far from being in the most talented groups of actresses of her generation. Samantha Morton is. Hillary Swank is. Right now, Angie's celebrity status exceedes her proven acting skills, and that's terrible for any actress.

Popularity from the supporters. Nothing to do with her celeb status. Why don't you just admit that you mistook what I've said, and we can move on?

NOTHING to do with her celeb status??

Okay, I'm wrong, let's just move on and I'll ignore you said that :whatever:

Wow, you are completely obsessed with arguing every mundane point. I know you know what I mean, when referring to an actor's comfort range, yet you wanna drag this into a page-long diatribe. Why?

I know what you meant, and you used it wrongly. Your idea about comfort range is limiting for many actors incredible versatility, like Christian Bale. What a more ambiguous term you want than "dark"? And that's apparently the common denominator you use to refer the majority of his roles... but he played rather simple, good spirited men in 3:10 to Yuma, The New World, Reign Of Fire and... yes, even in Equilibrium: he does save a puppy in that movie and cries with music, I don't see anything dark here... I'd argue he's one of the few characters in the movie that proves to be the opposite of cynical, and the film's ending is anything but pessimistic or grey.
You use the term comfort zone so selectively and so loosely I want to ask for some clarification before giving up a discussion I feel to be mind-numbing.

When she's awful, then yes. But you're greatly exaggerating. I've never seen her been awful. Drab, uninspiring, and nothing special? Absolutely. But not awful.

Then you didn't see the same "Gone In 60 sec" I saw.
Or the same Beowulf (the only part I liked with her was the one where she stood, SILENT, in the water).
Again, a subjective matter.

Yes, Debbie Downer. And winning $850,000 on 'Deal or No Deal' also means you lost out on $1,000,000. We get it. You're a "glass half empty" type of guy.

And you're a Thomas Moore type of guy... when you want to, of course.
Me, I like to wish for the best and plan for the worst. Blame me.

It would invalidate the side that seeks to prove that one is better than the other.

So you didn't cast any vote at all? You actually think this thread is pointless, since any actress can be argued for and against?
You're a strange guy.

Yeah. Wanna ask another question I already told you the answer to?

Yes... Do you flip flop because SHH pay you to keep the boards active and running?

Actresses. This is a multi-choice poll. That of which I've voted for 3 people. Neither of which means "Nolan should cast ______", because all it's asking is who I would like in the role.

And why would you like to see them? It's not because they're the best choices? Or because they're all so terribly hot and you want to see Jolie's booty on a tight leather suit making out with Batman?
Please, tell me it's the first one. At least I will still respect you that way.

No, this is the place to discuss all possible candidates for the role. This discussion is well within those boundaries.

:wow:

That is no discussion... no discussion at all. Any living actress is a possible casting choice for Catwoman and nobody can DEBATE that.
The only debatable thing is quality and preference. That's it.

I'll give you three. Compare Bale's career to Murphy, Eckhart, and Gyllenhaal. You'd see such an immense landslide that is much more evident than with Jolie.

I did. It didn't happen. Eckhart's and Gyllenhall careers are more consistent than Jolie's.

:huh::huh::huh:

How can you even say this? This entire discussion you've made it known that Jolie isn't capable for this role....but she can act? What?

She can act... in different roles. In similar roles, she has sucked. She can also act in roles where she makes the effort, and I have no guarantee that she would make the required effort in a Batman film, helmed by Nolan or not. He lends much freedom to his cast and demands creativity from them. And Jolie needs a steady hand to free her from her past acting vices. Luckily, with the recent turns in her career, I don't think she'd be really interested in a Bat-film, or Nolan interested in her. Luckily.

Melkay

11-06-2008, 11:29 PM

If people brought up other things to talk about, there wouldn't have to be a rule.

Amen.

Crook

11-07-2008, 12:39 AM

I tried to keep this as short as possible, but for those that still think it's too long, feel free to block my posts and end your woes. :o

Use well the meaning of the word since the beginning and that won't happen. Loose semantics always end up in dragged discussions. We are here to take things for granted, not to keep explaining our own points.
There's nothing wrong with how I used it. Misunderstanding happen, especially in long discussions. Clarifications are bound to exist.

And you're okay with that... because....
Because there's nothing wrong with it. I don't expect nor want every single casting choice to pull a Ledger or Oldman, and catch me off-guard.

... especially when it's such a sound idea. Same thing I could say about you, except that you don't offer any counter argument on this. I repeat, fiction is more effective when it makes you forget its deceptive nature. That's the curse of the movie critic.
Denzel as Alonzo. Nicholson as Jack Torrance. Marilyn as Sugar Kane. Humphrey as Sam Spade. These weren't immersive roles in the least. You could very much tell who these actors were, but it didn't matter because the performances were still well done.

I'd say that se is far from being in the most talented groups of actresses of her generation. Samantha Morton is. Hillary Swank is. Right now, Angie's celebrity status exceedes her proven acting skills, and that's terrible for any actress.
That's not what I asked. You know Jolie IS a Hollywood A-list actor. You know what the title designates. And you know it has little to do with "underground" acting clout or whatever you wanna refer it to.

NOTHING to do with her celeb status??

Okay, I'm wrong, let's just move on and I'll ignore you said that :whatever:
Yes, your assumption that I was using celeb status as a means of supporting "quality" is completely false. I've already settled this with the original poster, who apparently understands what I'm saying because we have both settled in agreement.

I know what you meant, and you used it wrongly. Your idea about comfort range is limiting for many actors incredible versatility, like Christian Bale. What a more ambiguous term you want than "dark"?
"Dark" is ambiguous? No. Everyone generally has an idea of what that means. At best it's broad in meaning.

And that's apparently the common denominator you use to refer the majority of his roles... but he played rather simple, good spirited men in 3:10 to Yuma, The New World, Reign Of Fire and... yes, even in Equilibrium: he does save a puppy in that movie and cries with music, I don't see anything dark here...
Yes, let's ignore the entire movie depicting a dystopian society full of emotionally repressed citizens who have lost all connection with art. Or when Preston shoots his best friend at the beginning of the movie and doesn't blink an eye. Oh, and let's not forget that flashback of his wife being taken from her home, to be carried off and executed. What did Preston do? Nothing. How about that scene near the end where he slices off the face of his partner? That was fun. What a light-hearted guy. It's a wonder why this isn't a family holiday movie.

You use the term comfort zone so selectively and so loosely I want to ask for some clarification before giving up a discussion I feel to be mind-numbing.
Playing one's "type". It can't be that hard to figure out. Arnold playing a muscle-bound action hero with guns. Jackie Chan playing an innocent unassuming guy who always gets into fights he doesn't want. Chris Tucker playing the sophomoric black guy who shouts expletives and funny remarks. Jim Carrey playing the weird kook who does outrageous things.

Then you didn't see the same "Gone In 60 sec" I saw.
Have not seen it in a long while.

Or the same Beowulf (the only part I liked with her was the one where she stood, SILENT, in the water).
Praytell, what did she do that could be considered an "awful" acting job?

So you didn't cast any vote at all? You actually think this thread is pointless, since any actress can be argued for and against?
You're a strange guy.

No, I was referring to arguing that one is better than the other solely because they're an unknown or a celebrity. By your own accord, it's a split field because a good director would likely be able to extract a good performance out of either. I was agreeing. :huh:

Yes... Do you flip flop because SHH pay you to keep the boards active and running?
Show me where I've flip-flopped.

And why would you like to see them? It's not because they're the best choices?
They're the best choices for me. I still wouldn't say "Nolan should cast ______" because I don't presume to know what's best for his movie.

:wow:

That is no discussion... no discussion at all. Any living actress is a possible casting choice for Catwoman and nobody can DEBATE that.
The only debatable thing is quality and preference. That's it.
And what is that particular discussion composed of? The possibility of said actress playing the role and/or getting cast. You have a knack for trying to make an argument out of something, even when a person is either agreeing with you or saying the same exact thing you're responding with.

I did. It didn't happen. Eckhart's and Gyllenhall careers are more consistent than Jolie's.

And MTV has been more consistent than VH1 at failing to play music. Neither do it well.

I was actually looking at which of them accomplished more in terms of their filmography, critical acclaim, and success. But I guess just being consistent is more important.

She can act... in different roles. In similar roles, she has sucked. She can also act in roles where she makes the effort, and I have no guarantee that she would make the required effort in a Batman film, helmed by Nolan or not. He lends much freedom to his cast and demands creativity from them. And Jolie needs a steady hand to free her from her past acting vices. Luckily, with the recent turns in her career, I don't think she'd be really interested in a Bat-film, or Nolan interested in her. Luckily.
There ya go. It's the crux of this entire debate. I don't think Jolie (or any other capable actress, celeb or not) would phone in such a high-profile and important role, under the direction of Nolan and Jonah's writing. You do.

Ace of Knaves

11-07-2008, 12:55 AM

That last point you made sums it up for me Crook. This is Catwoman we're talking about, one of the most iconic female figures in the world, i think any actress who gets the part will put there ALL into and treat it with respect. A-list or Z-list it doesn't matter one bit. It seems people are judging Angie because of her star status, not her actual talents or integrity. I'm sure a woman like her would realize that a role like Catwoman could be the greatest thing she'd ever do, and treat it with the right amount of respect.

july

11-07-2008, 02:07 AM

There's no doubt that the studio and the general public want Angelina Jolie for Catwoman and if she wants to do it, then there would be tremendous pressure on the producers and Nolan to cast her. There's no way an unknown (or little-known) actress would get the part. Jolie is a great movie star- she has the A-Grade look and the C-grade talent required but she's not a great actress. Her catwoman would be no different than her Lara Croft.

hatebox

11-07-2008, 06:50 AM

After TDK's success the producers will, at best, make vague suggestions to Nolan on casting. They won't impose a damn thing.

[A]

11-07-2008, 06:53 AM

He even cast Eric Roberts. Eric Roberts!! In a huge mainstream film!!

Paradyme

11-07-2008, 06:54 AM

After TDK's success the producers will, at best, make vague suggestions to Nolan on casting. They won't impose a damn thing.

QFT. This should be an obvious.

jmc

11-07-2008, 07:23 AM

After TDK's success the producers will, at best, make vague suggestions to Nolan on casting. They won't impose a damn thing.

Isn't his wife one of the producers? Regardless, totally agree, Nolan is the golden boy at the moment, he can cast whoever the hell he wants, as he should, this is his concept, one that's had extraordinary levels of success.

I Am The Knight

11-07-2008, 09:05 AM

He even cast Eric Roberts. Eric Roberts!! In a huge mainstream film!!

And the Spawn guy.

Laderlappen

11-07-2008, 10:11 AM

And Deebo.

gwynplaine

11-07-2008, 10:39 AM

And AMH.

I Am The Knight

11-07-2008, 11:23 AM

Batmanuel.

Melkay

11-07-2008, 11:25 AM

There's nothing wrong with how I used it. Misunderstanding happen, especially in long discussions. Clarifications are bound to exist.

Very true.

Because there's nothing wrong with it. I don't expect nor want every single casting choice to pull a Ledger or Oldman, and catch me off-guard.

That's my problem, I usually expect the best in these cases.
Not sarcasm, it's really a problem.

Denzel as Alonzo. Nicholson as Jack Torrance. Marilyn as Sugar Kane. Humphrey as Sam Spade. These weren't immersive roles in the least. You could very much tell who these actors were, but it didn't matter because the performances were still well done.

While I can agree with Marilyn an Bogart (different times, different publics, different expectation) that didn't happen to me with Training Day. In fact, I had to keep reminding myself that that guy was old nice Denzel. I thought of it at first, yes, but as the movie progressed, I completely forgot I was watching an actor. Maybe it was the constant comparison with Ethan Hawke.
I can't remember how I felt with The Shining now, but you're probably right, I give you that.

That's not what I asked. You know Jolie IS a Hollywood A-list actor. You know what the title designates. And you know it has little to do with "underground" acting clout or whatever you wanna refer it to.

No, really, for me an A-list actor is a celeb who's at the top of his game. Morton is outside of that game of course but, for me, Jolie is too. Swank isn't. They're at the best of their game and they're called for the best movies. Jolie just returned to that scene with Changeling, a movie I want to see.

Yes, your assumption that I was using celeb status as a means of supporting "quality" is completely false. I've already settled this with the original poster, who apparently understands what I'm saying because we have both settled in agreement.

No no, I said that the amjority of her votes are (probably) because of her celeb status. The original poster said that too. And that's why I made the comparison with the second most voted in the list... Beckinsale.

"Dark" is ambiguous? No. Everyone generally has an idea of what that means. At best it's broad in meaning.

Broad in meaning, ambiguous :whatever:... I wouldn't call Bruce a 'dark' character. Sure, he growls and looks ferocious while beating bad guys, but that would also make John MacLane in Die Hard 'dark'. With Bruce it's just part of an act, and every other bit of him it's that of a good person. I know, he was burdened by guilt and that made him bitter, but that doesn't make him 'dark'. I feel he needs much more grey areas and moral contradictions to be called 'dark'. Especially in Begins.

Yes, let's ignore the entire movie depicting a dystopian society full of emotionally repressed citizens who have lost all connection with art. Or when Preston shoots his best friend at the beginning of the movie and doesn't blink an eye. Oh, and let's not forget that flashback of his wife being taken from her home, to be carried off and executed. What did Preston do? Nothing. How about that scene near the end where he slices off the face of his partner? That was fun. What a light-hearted guy. It's a wonder why this isn't a family holiday movie.

He was under the effects of a drug, one that made all citizens act exactly the same. When he no longer takes the drug, we can see his true self... the puppy rescuer. You should look at Gerd Wiesler in "The Life Of Others" to see a good character that works for a totalitary system but because he believes in it, not because of pharmaceutics. Want a 'dark' character? Edward Norton in "American Story X", Michael or Ana Lucía in LOST, Jeremy Irons in "Damage" or Raskolnikov in "Crime and Punishment".... characters that are eseentially good but that **** it up real bad, not beause of being under the effects of a drug, but due to their own psychological flaws. That's what I see when people say dark, and not it's not really very broad in meaning, actually.

Playing one's "type". It can't be that hard to figure out. Arnold playing a muscle-bound action hero with guns. Jackie Chan playing an innocent unassuming guy who always gets into fights he doesn't want. Chris Tucker playing the sophomoric black guy who shouts expletives and funny remarks. Jim Carrey playing the weird kook who does outrageous things.

Did you see the examples you gave to me? No wonder why Protoctista gets all presumptuous with you, I'm sure you can do better...

Nicole Kidman as Virginia Wolf (The Hours), Meryl Streep as Lindy Chamberlain (A Cry In The Dark), Robin Williams as Walter Finch or Sy Parrish (Insomnia; One Hour Photo), Jim Carrey as Joel Barrish (Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind)... all those are arguably the best interpretations of their respective careers, none of them in their 'comfort zone'. Not even close to it. And for that, for inmersing in their characters and not letting the star-status show its ugly head, they're superb and trascendental performances.
That's why I have a problem with that term of "comfort zone".

Have not seen it in a long while.

I'm stil trying to block the memories.

Praytell, what did she do that could be considered an "awful" acting job?

The horrible accent? The lack of subtleties or any emotional display, for that matter? The predictability and the flatness?
The only moment she truly shines is when she's in the water, and she's just... standing there. And it's not even her, it's a digital mannequin.
I know the role sucked badly, but why did she took it in the first place?

No, I was referring to arguing that one is better than the other solely because they're an unknown or a celebrity. By your own accord, it's a split field because a good director would likely be able to extract a good performance out of either. I was agreeing. :huh:

And yet when people decide that someone is wrong for the part, you argue against them and play the 'good director with good script' card. Why? Are you here to remind everybody that ANYONE can be Catwoman? Because I dont' agree, and I don't think you agree either.

Show me where I've flip-flopped.

First you defend how good she would be for the role and defend those that say she's the best option... but then you say that yo don't think Nolan should cast her. Last time I saw a neutral guy taking sides, I knew there was some flip-flopping in place. Don't worry, I do it too from time to time.

They're the best choices for me. I still wouldn't say "Nolan should cast ______" because I don't presume to know what's best for his movie.

Unless you make the assumption that he is going to make your idea of the movie, this thread is pointless to you. Even if he casts Catwoman, no one knows what Nolan is going for, so people should follow your example and stop speculating. Am I wrong?

And what is that particular discussion composed of? The possibility of said actress playing the role and/or getting cast. You have a knack for trying to make an argument out of something, even when a person is either agreeing with you or saying the same exact thing you're responding with.

Check what I said above. Every living actress has a chance of playing the role. Every actress is a POSSIBLE Catwoman. No discussion can be made about that... the only thing left for debate it's if she fits the requisites, the quality of the actress for this specific role... assuming that Nolan won't make drastic changes on the character.

And MTV has been more consistent than VH1 at failing to play music. Neither do it well.

I've never seen Eckhart suck at a movie because I've only seen Thank You For Smoking, In the Company of Men and Erin Brokovich, and he was great in all those.
But I would strongly suggest you check out Maggie Gyllenhaal's career.

I was actually looking at which of them accomplished more in terms of their filmography, critical acclaim, and success. But I guess just being consistent is more important.

Being consistently good, that is. They've all accomplished more in critical acclaim than Jolie, be sure of that. Success... well, there are many ways to success and not all have to do with good acting skills. Check the second name in the poll.

There ya go. It's the crux of this entire debate. I don't think Jolie (or any other capable actress, celeb or not) would phone in such a high-profile and important role, under the direction of Nolan and Jonah's writing. You do.

I don't think she would phone-in either... I'm saying she wouldn't inmerse as much as others, because for others it's a practice, and for her it is not.
And even if she did, I'm saying she's not THAT talented. She's good, but I don't think she's the best option.

And I want the best option. That's the crux of this debate.