The New Catwoman Casting Thread [Archive] - Page 9

flickchick85

09-03-2008, 11:54 PM

True, but at the same time I don't think their other roles have been particularly notable either. Time will only indicate where Marion is going after this Oscar, but as far as Theron goes, I've not been impressed in a long while. She's kinda been very low-key in this regard.

While I wouldn't say they were high profile, I would say they've definitely had other notable roles. Charlize was fantastic in (and earned another Oscar nod for) North Country. And that character was a far cry from Wuornos, as most roles would be. I was also very impressed with her subtle performance in In the Valley of Elah despite my mixed feelings on the film itself, and she had a very memorable stint on Arrested Development.

Marion, as I think you know, had 3 nominations and 1 win at the French Academy Awards way before La Vie En Rose, at least 2 of which I think she richly deserved. So the folks overseas seemed to find them pretty notable. And I thought she was just plain awesome in Love Me if You Dare, which, while not an "awards type" of movie, got her a lot of acclaim from American critics, even from some who didn't like the movie as a whole.

On the other end of the spectrum, Beckinsale and Johansson have had several high profile roles, but I wouldn't consider any of them particularly notable, except Johannson in Lost in Translation. I know the Hollywood Foreign Press disagrees with me, but I never understood those other nominations they gave her. Well, I'll give her Match Point, too.

Bottom line on those two, though, is I don't think they ever done anything truly remarkable, and I don't think it's in them to take the risks necessary to achieve greatness like Theron and Cotillard have. I'd love for them to prove me wrong, though, as we are currently in need of more daring and electrifying actresses. But right now, I just don't see it. Especially with Beckinsale. But you said you're pretty neutral on her, so I'm probably saying this to the wrong person. ;)

I think Jolie's problem is that it seems like the more high profile her role, the less notable it is. Zooey Deschanel has that exact same problem, imo. She gave great performances in indies like All the Real Girls, Winter Passing, The Good Girl, etc., but then she gets in mainstream movies/TV and totally phones in her performances half the time. I don't think Jolie's case is nearly as bad as hers, though, since ZD can be downright awful in mainstream fare while Jolie's never actually been bad. For the record, I still really like ZD, just 'cuz I've seen what she's capable of, but man, when she phones it in, she really phones it in.

But I think my point with all this (yeah, I'm a little fuzzy on it at this point, lol) was the difference between "notable" roles and "high profile" ones. Cotillard and Theron have had more notable roles, imo, while Johansson and Beckinsale's have just been more high profile.

This is disregarding the aspects in which I think trumps everyone so far, which is pure sexual presence, feminine strength, and aggressive personality.

That point is pretty much undeniable with Jolie. However, I would say that in past roles, Cotillard has demonstrated those various qualities as well (as in Love Me if You Dare, the Taxi movies, A Very Long Engagement, and to a lesser extent, A Good Year), and I'd find her version much less stale, simply because I've seen it from Angelina So. Many. Times. And that's always been my only real argument against Angelina - her version of this type of character has just gotten old to me.

But her casting wouldn't outrage me or anything, because A.) I completely trust Nolan to deliver the goods, and B.) I know she's a good actress who could play this type of role with her eyes closed at this point. I just would've wished for a fresher choice is all. No biggie.

And honestly, I don't see much disagreement in the rest of our points, so no need to argue further there. :grin:

Crook

09-03-2008, 11:55 PM

Nolan's Joker had to be strong enough to fight Batman briefly, do the pencil trick and be able to convincingly over-power a heavier policeman guarding him in a cell off-screen.

Joker was not a physical weakling in TDK. He just wasn't on Batman's physical level.
I wouldn't really consider that to be action-y though. As long as the actor didn't look fragile or obese, those scenes would have worked all the same. There's little to no physical involvement required to play Joker. There might be small bits where punches are required to be thrown, but again, it accounts for very little.

They're both action roles. Catwoman's just has more extreme stunts.
Much more extreme. Selina's agile and has combative skills.

drummerboi1

09-04-2008, 12:03 AM

angelia jolie would be a bad choice. sure she is pretty cool and good looking, but no, not catwoman. if they do have to do catwoman - kate beckinsale.
i think they should bring a someone different in though. if they are gonna revamp someone revamp an old villian like mr.freeze or riddler or even penguin!

The Major

09-04-2008, 12:03 AM

Crook:

True.

batlovescatDC

09-04-2008, 08:50 AM

Wow, even Eckhart is saying he heard Jolie wants Catwoman. If they do Catwoman afterall, then I definitely think they should give it to her.

Super78

09-04-2008, 09:19 AM

http://ui04.gamespot.com/2339/catwomancv51_2.jpg

Gianakin_

09-04-2008, 09:22 AM

Mia Sara?

flickchick85

09-04-2008, 10:01 AM

Wow, even Eckhart is saying he heard Jolie wants Catwoman. If they do Catwoman afterall, then I definitely think they should give it to her.
He just heard the same rumor that we all did. I mean, the press has been running with that one for a while.

Bim

09-04-2008, 10:05 AM

Charlize Theron or Kate Beckinsale for me... i dont want Jolie anywhere near Catwoman :whatever:

Keyser Soze

09-04-2008, 10:25 AM

As I've said before, Angelina Jolie is not my top choicefor Catwoman. Not because I dislike her as an actress - she has proven quite capable of delivering strong, nuanced performances when given the opportunity - but because she's already played Catwoman like half a dozen times already, just with a different name.

That said, there are certainly worse people you could pick for the role. She might not be the most original choice, or even the best. But if she were to be cast, I'm sure she could pull it off.

Darknightnomis

09-04-2008, 11:09 AM

Ashley Scott

Yeah, yeah...I know she played Huntress in Bird of Prey TV show but I alwaye thought she was better suited for Selina/Catwoman.

http://www.ajwood.com/images/ashley_scott.jpg

batlovescatDC

09-04-2008, 11:10 AM

^ Exactly. If there is another actress that could pull it off very well.... then so be it, bring it on. But Angelina has proved that she can pull this off.

batlovescatDC

09-04-2008, 11:11 AM

Gianakin_

09-04-2008, 11:12 AM

Well, Scott's character is Selina's daughter too in the series, it's natural that she looks like (a) Catwoman. Anyway, she is a mediocre to bad actress, so I don't see it.

cerealkiller182

09-04-2008, 11:13 AM

Ashley Scott is smoking but I have never been impressed with her acting

Darknightnomis

09-04-2008, 11:16 AM

Ashley Scott is smoking but I have never been impressed with her acting

I think if anyone can bring her acting skills up to par... it would be Nolan's direction.

ClownPrince666

09-04-2008, 11:21 AM

I would def. like to see Kate Beckinsale!! I think she is better than Jolie!!

batlovescatDC

09-04-2008, 11:22 AM

^ Beckinsale could definitely pull it off. I agree with that. But she is not better than Angel.

Golgo-13

09-04-2008, 11:49 AM

Correct.

That's the thing. They don't get meaty roles and they're not known for it. You won't find a single person on these forums that would say otherwise. I'm not dismissing them for no reason.

Look ppl on these boards represent a very small portion of the general movie going public, with all due respect.

But, for arguement sake, the proof is in the pudding:

Jessica Biel- was a lead in Blade:Trinity stealing a good amount of his screentime, and there was a planned spin off for her character. She was also a lead with academy award winner Jaime Fox in 'Stealth', and was also a lead alongside Sam 'The Man' Jackson in 'Home of the Brave'.

Jessica Alba-was the lead in 'Honey', 'The Eye' and 'Awake' and was the key marketing of films like 'Sin City and the F4 movies.

Granted whether those movies sucked or not in your opinion, you cannot say that they don't get meaty roles. That's just a blantanly un true statement.

And I gave you those actors. Now we're going backwards and repeating this entire discussion all over again. Neither Elektra, Hilton, Biel, or Alba, are considered talented. If you had used actual actors like Law and Pitt, then I wouldn't even be contending with you on this matter. The fact that you chose to go with mediocre people in the first place isn't exactly helping your support for Mitra.

I gave you those actors as example of ppl that get, and keep getting, movie roles despite having little to no talent, other than for being popular in the media. Don't you get that?

Jolie started out with acclaim pretty early on. Before she got mega-famous. Alba and Biel have been in the business long enough. Yes, we can all "guess" that some miracle will happen with their career paths, but the probability isn't looking that good.

Long enough, like 'ten years'...? I've said this time and time again; there's no set time frame in which an actor has to make it, before they should consider another line of work to make a living, and are deemed a failure. In the entertainment industry i think it's called 'paying ones dues'.

I can't comment on Clooney's early career because admittedly I have not seen anything he was in, pre-ER. Mitra in the same amount of years in their career has had more exposure than Clooney however. So it's arguable whether you can truly compare their accomplishments in that same time period. In any case, Mitra is 8 years along in Hollywood, so she's fairly close to that 10 year mark where it's "time" for that breakthrough part. If you really wanna compare those 2 that is.

My above statement answers this too.

You were trying to make me clarify on the "talent lasts" comment. And I did. In this case, Lopez' talent as a musician allowed her to endure.

Last I checked, 'Selena' wasn't a musical. There was plenty of acting in that movie. As well as singing. But that's given, considering the movie is about.....a singer. Lopez got far more praise than simply mimicking Selena's dance routines and singing capabilities.

Yes, and she didn't win that award because of her acting. Her acting in the movie sucked. There were heavies in there like Edward James Olmos that made J-Lo look like a 5th grader performing at the school play. Hudson won the biggest acting award one can win, and i would hardly call her an actor. J-Lo's acclaim was mis-placed. It was for her singing and dancing.

Lol, how? Have you checked out JLo's films, especially her first few? They were pretty much all successful, and critics applauded her performances. Also look at who Lopez got to work with in just 5 years. Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Soderbergh, Jack Nicholson, Michael Caine, George Clooney, and Robert Redford just to name a few. Those are huge names in cinema, and this was when she barely started her career. Can you honestly say Mitra has accomplished anywhere near that? If so, please explain.

Didn't Mitra star alongside heavies like Danny Glover, Sylvestor Stallone, Kevin Spacey, Jim Carrey? Are these names any less huge? Once again you keep pointing out the time frame thing yet, once again, Clooney and many other good actors earlier careers haven't been that impressive either. JLO got lucky. It's the pick of the draw. Where is she now? Truly washed up by any definition of the word. Mitra has done alot more tv than JLo, so her career in the movies are spread thinner cause JLo did solely movies, for the most part, and Mitra has been doing both.

I gave you an example of a statement that was similar to mines, such as listening to music. If a person says "I listened to everything from rock to jazz, to rap, and classical" that does not mean they've listened to every possible song from every possible genre. It's understood that they're making a point of their great range in musical tastes. Just apply the same thing to me and movies.

I'm not gonna take back something that wasn't properly stated in the first place. I don't know where you're from, but in America "exaggerated statements" are common, and everyone knows how to read/take it...which is not literally, like you have. Here are just a few examples:

"Oh man, I just hate her! Why can't she die?!" - No, this does not mean said person should actually be killed. There is just a huge distaste.

"That teacher is a prick. He gives us tests that take an eternity to finish" - Do the tests actually take forever? No, just an extremely long time as perceived by the students.

"Go suck a d!!!k / F!!k off / Lick my nuts / Stick it up your @ss / etc " - Self explanatory. Hopefully.

Thank you. So you did knowingly exaggerate to further make yourself look more knowledgable. That's what i've been saying all along.

I specifically told you to look back, but you still insist this. Fine, I'll show you:

That's my very first reply to you about Maggie.

I was talking about the vibe you gave me on the subject.

Well that's not very fair to the rest. Even if they're generally on my side, they've still made points that even I didn't care to bring up or elaborate on.

Regardless. It's the way i feel about it.

Well that was a waste of a paragraph. Let me save time and paste this general statement I made to everyone, amidst the middle of our debate:

See that? That's me being open to other casting choices. I don't have to be stuck on Jolie, and I never was. I've been in the Catwoman threads for around 5 years now, and this is the first time I've actually had to vehemently argue against someone's casting choice. You know why? Because I think Mitra is absolutely unqualified compared to these other actresses. And you're the first to admirably stick by them through thick and thin.

That is why for however long I've been in these threads, you don't see me stirring up a ruckus. Generally speaking, the actresses brought up over the years have in one way or another proven themselves with their performances, and also look the role. If one is brought up, the usual procedure is for hordes of people to say "No." followed up by a simple sentence negating that choice. Then we all move on. So ok, not the case here. I welcome the challenge of debate. But do not try and personalize any of this by lying. It was never solely about you, me, Jolie, or Mitra.

It's all about who is fit for the role, and who deserves it.

I too am open to other acting choices. Like i mentioned before i mentioned your 'kryptonite pick', Rhona Mitra, i mentioned Ashley Judd (who i'd love in the role despite comments about her age) and Kate Beckinsale and a few others. No, i won't slit my wrists if Mitra isn't cast. She probably won't be. Neither will Jolie, hopefully. I'm sure whoever Nolan picks, it'll be someone we've barely even considered like he did with Heath. I just want the hype around Batman 3 to be because the actress that played Catwoman gave an incredible performance, not because of the actress herself.

The kicker here is that there's no GUARENTEE that Catwoman will even be in B3, lol!

So on that note:

Rhona Mitra for 'Talia Al Ghul'!:oldrazz:

The Batkilt

09-04-2008, 12:24 PM

That point is pretty much undeniable with Jolie. However, I would say that in past roles, Cotillard has demonstrated those various qualities as well (as in Love Me if You Dare, the Taxi movies, A Very Long Engagement, and to a lesser extent, A Good Year), and I'd find her version much less stale, simply because I've seen it from Angelina So. Many. Times. And that's always been my only real argument against Angelina - her version of this type of character has just gotten old to me.

In agreement. In Taxi and A Very Long Engagement she certainly does, and it's more alluring and appealing to me than when Angelina brings the same attributes to a character. While I don't completely agree with Golgo-13 on Jolie, I do think she is pretty limited, and The Good Shepherd pretty much finally convinced me that Jolie usually struggles outwith the roles with some sort of sexual edge to them. A Mighty Heart is an exception to that though, that's one of the few films since Girl, Interrupted that I was truly impressed by her.

Crook

09-04-2008, 01:05 PM

While I wouldn't say they were high profile, I would say they've definitely had other notable roles. Charlize was fantastic in (and earned another Oscar nod for) North Country. And that character was a far cry from Wuornos, as most roles would be. I was also very impressed with her subtle performance in In the Valley of Elah despite my mixed feelings on the film itself, and she had a very memorable stint on Arrested Development.
I'll give a pass to North Country, she was good in that. Not really feeling any of her other roles though. I should have clarified that she also strikes me as an actress that's very good at a certain range (in this case, drama), but doesn't seem to be able to reach more emotionally explosive/energetic roles. I'm at a loss for words here, so I'll just go with the most simplistic description I can give: Theron's talented, but she seems very dull.

Marion, as I think you know, had 3 nominations and 1 win at the French Academy Awards way before La Vie En Rose, at least 2 of which I think she richly deserved. So the folks overseas seemed to find them pretty notable. And I thought she was just plain awesome in Love Me if You Dare, which, while not an "awards type" of movie, got her a lot of acclaim from American critics, even from some who didn't like the movie as a whole.
All roles before La Vie En Rose however. Which is why I stated that we'll have to wait and see whether her career can live up to the talent. I've seen on more than many occasions where the actor just drops off the face of the earth after their peak at the Oscars. Not saying it'll happen here, but it's possible.

Bottom line on those two, though, is I don't think they ever done anything truly remarkable, and I don't think it's in them to take the risks necessary to achieve greatness like Theron and Cotillard have. I'd love for them to prove me wrong, though, as we are currently in need of more daring and electrifying actresses. But right now, I just don't see it. Especially with Beckinsale. But you said you're pretty neutral on her, so I'm probably saying this to the wrong person. ;)

As I said, I don't consider either of them to be particularly bad, so it's not out of the question for them to find that one role that'll define their careers. Everyone has to start off somewhere, and you never know how truly great they are until they actually prove everyone otherwise. I know for me, I didn't picture either Theron or Marion to give such amazing performances. But admittedly, I don't really think too highly of today's actresses in the first place. :o

I think Jolie's problem is that it seems like the more high profile her role, the less notable it is. Zooey Deschanel has that exact same problem, imo. She gave great performances in indies like All the Real Girls, Winter Passing, The Good Girl, etc., but then she gets in mainstream movies/TV and totally phones in her performances half the time. I don't think Jolie's case is nearly as bad as hers, though, since ZD can be downright awful in mainstream fare while Jolie's never actually been bad. For the record, I still really like ZD, just 'cuz I've seen what she's capable of, but man, when she phones it in, she really phones it in.
Yeah, it's unfortunate when good actors do fall into a rut, but eh, that's just how things happen. As long as they can maintain their talent throughout, even if it's cramped between loads of substanceless material...I can live with it. Not too long ago, Ledger was in the same position. Pretty much his entire career, actually.

But her casting wouldn't outrage me or anything, because A.) I completely trust Nolan to deliver the goods, and B.) I know she's a good actress who could play this type of role with her eyes closed at this point. I just would've wished for a fresher choice is all. No biggie.

I can understand the viewpoint. The way I see it though, there's a certain way I prefer Selina/Catwoman to be portrayed. While Jolie has perfected that alluring femme fatale role for years, doesn't change the fact that it's so well-suited for the character. Say a different actress were to be cast, and she pulls off the same type of vibe and presence Jolie would have given, what is the real difference? Just the actor themselves. Might be fresh seeing it from the actress, but it's basically an old engine inside a new model, so to speak.

Of course, Nolan could always do a 180 on how the character could be portrayed. But I'm not too sure on how far he could actually deviate from that aspect of the character without drastically changing her overall personality. That of which, is an idea I'm not too fond of.

I think if anyone can bring her acting skills up to par... it would be Nolan's direction.
That worked so well for Katie, hm? :o

Look ppl on these boards represent a very small portion of the general movie going public, with all due respect.

But, for arguement sake, the proof is in the pudding:

Jessica Biel- was a lead in Blade:Trinity stealing a good amount of his screentime, and there was a planned spin off for her character. She was also a lead with academy award winner Jaime Fox in 'Stealth', and was also a lead alongside Sam 'The Man' Jackson in 'Home of the Brave'.

Jessica Alba-was the lead in 'Honey', 'The Eye' and 'Awake' and was the key marketing of films like 'Sin City and the F4 movies.

Granted whether those movies sucked or not in your opinion, you cannot say that they don't get meaty roles. That's just a blantanly un true statement.
Evidently our definitions of a meaty role are wholly dissimilar. I'm referring to roles that have substance and require certain immersion within the actor to portray a character with depth. Taking that into consideration, you cannot apply this to Biel and Alba.

I gave you those actors as example of ppl that get, and keep getting, movie roles despite having little to no talent, other than for being popular in the media. Don't you get that?
I get the statements, what I don't get is it's relevance within this discussion. Everyone knows publicity gets you known and recognized, and that may very well lead to a temporary rise in an actor's hot-factor. The difference I've been trying to get to you all this time is that the likes of Jolie, Pitt, Law, etc, is that when you take away that tabloid fame....they are still acclaimed actors who deliver greatly to their craft. That is the sole factor to which I am dismissing Elektra, Hilton, and such. They're not comparable.

Long enough, like 'ten years'...? I've said this time and time again; there's no set time frame in which an actor has to make it, before they should consider another line of work to make a living, and are deemed a failure. In the entertainment industry i think it's called 'paying ones dues'.

By this reasoning, no one in the entertainment business is "out of it". I'm talking probability here, not possibility.

If you add in audience-awareness and popularity to an actor, then those two alone do not give them a pass for mediocrity or acting slumps. For argument's sake, their foots are already in Hollywood's door. But it would be up to them to say in the limelight or fade off into someone forgotten.

Yes, and she didn't win that award because of her acting. Her acting in the movie sucked. There were heavies in there like Edward James Olmos that made J-Lo look like a 5th grader performing at the school play. Hudson won the biggest acting award one can win, and i would hardly call her an actor. J-Lo's acclaim was mis-placed. It was for her singing and dancing.

It's obvious we're never gonna come to a mutual agreement on this. I don't think at all either of those 2 performances' acclaim were misplaced.

Didn't Mitra star alongside heavies like Danny Glover, Sylvestor Stallone, Kevin Spacey, Jim Carrey? Are these names any less huge?
There is a big difference between being in the same film with notable actors, and actually acting opposite of them. And I don't mean just exchanging a few lines or being in the same scene together. I mean actually performing at the level in which both actors are going at it mono y mono.

Look at the movies JLo has been with those famous actors, and look at the ones with Mitra. If you've seen them both in their respective works, you can see just how big of a gap the two are, despite being similar on paper. It's not simply a stat sheet that you can check off.

Once again you keep pointing out the time frame thing yet, once again, Clooney and many other good actors earlier careers haven't been that impressive either. JLO got lucky. It's the pick of the draw. Where is she now? Truly washed up by any definition of the word. Mitra has done alot more tv than JLo, so her career in the movies are spread thinner cause JLo did solely movies, for the most part, and Mitra has been doing both.
Regardless of where the two are in their respective careers, JLo has still achieved more accolades than Mitra. This is fact, yes?

I can't see why "luck" is constantly being brought up here, because it effectively negates any and all accomplishments by anyone at any given time. There is always gonna be one actor has is "luckier" than the other. Always. No one is ever on the same level at all fronts. If Mitra and JLo are so incomparable, you should never have brought up Lopez in the first place.

Thank you. So you did knowingly exaggerate to further make yourself look more knowledgable. That's what i've been saying all along.
No, it was not to make me look more knowledgable. Did you not read my entire explanation? The point of the exaggerations are to exclamate a certain position or statement, not to elevate their relevance or importance on false grounds.

I was talking about the vibe you gave me on the subject.

Even if I directly give you an answer that would say otherwise? :huh:

I too am open to other acting choices. Like i mentioned before i mentioned your 'kryptonite pick', Rhona Mitra, i mentioned Ashley Judd (who i'd love in the role despite comments about her age) and Kate Beckinsale and a few others. No, i won't slit my wrists if Mitra isn't cast. She probably won't be. Neither will Jolie, hopefully. I'm sure whoever Nolan picks, it'll be someone we've barely even considered like he did with Heath. I just want the hype around Batman 3 to be because the actress that played Catwoman gave an incredible performance, not because of the actress herself.
Whomever's cast is irrelevant to the hype, given TDK's enormous success. Just the very fact that Catwoman would be in the film, would already excite audiences. Having a "star" in the role would only exponentially increase the hype factor.

I, however, couldn't care less about the reasons for why people go into that movie. I just want it to be accepted that at movie's end, no matter the presumptions going in, that the Catwoman performance was damn good. I mean, there are plenty of movies that Depp fans go to solely because of his hotness or name-factor. Does that effect MY views on his performances? Not one bit. A good performance is a good performance.

The kicker here is that there's no GUARENTEE that Catwoman will even be in B3, lol!
There's no guarantee there's gonna be a third film either. But if there is, Catwoman is surely at the top of the list, moreso than any other character. A female slot is wide open and there's no one more fitting for it than her.

Laderlappen

09-04-2008, 02:00 PM

Look ppl on these boards represent a very small portion of the general movie going public, with all due respect.

But, for arguement sake, the proof is in the pudding:

Jessica Biel- was a lead in Blade:Trinity stealing a good amount of his screentime, and there was a planned spin off for her character. She was also a lead with academy award winner Jaime Fox in 'Stealth', and was also a lead alongside Sam 'The Man' Jackson in 'Home of the Brave'.

Jessica Alba-was the lead in 'Honey', 'The Eye' and 'Awake' and was the key marketing of films like 'Sin City and the F4 movies.

Granted whether those movies sucked or not in your opinion, you cannot say that they don't get meaty roles. That's just a blantanly un true statement.

:huh: Those are the un-meatiest type of roles you can get. Its the complete oposite of meaty. Edith Piaf, THAT is a meaty role! Aileen Wuornos, THAT is a meaty role! Stealth? F4?

flickchick85

09-04-2008, 11:09 PM

I'll give a pass to North Country, she was good in that. Not really feeling any of her other roles though. I should have clarified that she also strikes me as an actress that's very good at a certain range (in this case, drama), but doesn't seem to be able to reach more emotionally explosive/energetic roles. I'm at a loss for words here, so I'll just go with the most simplistic description I can give: Theron's talented, but she seems very dull.
Hmm...I thought Aileen Wuornos was quite an energetic and emotionally explosive role. But I do admit that's the only one I've seen from her. It's strange - I disagree with her being dull, yet I completely see what you're talking about. I think it may have to do with her either not injecting much of her own personality into her characters, or actually being a fairly boring personality so when she injects it into her roles, we don't notice anything. I actually like that low-key quality about her (because so many stars of today get by on putting their own personalities into their roles instead of actually disappearing into character - I'm looking at you, Jack Nicholson!), but I can also see how it could kinda make her seem dull.

All roles before La Vie En Rose however. Which is why I stated that we'll have to wait and see whether her career can live up to the talent. I've seen on more than many occasions where the actor just drops off the face of the earth after their peak at the Oscars. Not saying it'll happen here, but it's possible.
That's true, it could go either way. But I think she's demonstrated pretty good taste in roles pre-Oscar (she seems to want to constantly play someone different, which I really admire), and so far, I really like her 1st two post-Oscar choices. I've read the script to Public Enemies, and I think it's a pretty good role for her (and super challenging with the accent, too) to essentially begin her real American movie career with, and Nine is an awesome musical, with her role (the wife of Daniel Day-Lewis, the lead) giving her at least a couple of moments to really shine. At least it does in the stage show. Honestly, even without her, those movies would be two of my most highly-anticipated of 2009, so I think she seems pretty savvy with choosing her scripts. I'm fairly confident her career will be skyrocketing over the next couple of years.

As I said, I don't consider either of them to be particularly bad, so it's not out of the question for them to find that one role that'll define their careers. Everyone has to start off somewhere, and you never know how truly great they are until they actually prove everyone otherwise. I know for me, I didn't picture either Theron or Marion to give such amazing performances. But admittedly, I don't really think too highly of today's actresses in the first place. :o
I definitely agree about Charlize - she was good in supporting roles, but I never would've guessed she had THAT kind of performance in her 'till I saw it for myself. But I never thought she was the weak link in anything pre-Monster, while I have definitely thought that about Beckinsale and Johansson on at least one or two occasions. And like I said, I've been really impressed with Theron's post-Monster roles, minus a dud or two, so I guess that's one of those areas in which we'll just have to disagree.

With Cotillard, however, while I was unfamiliar with her before La Vie En Rose, going back and watching her pre-Oscar work, I think her performances were far more impressive than Beckinsale or Johansson have ever been, which is why I'm so skeptical that those two have got some well of hidden talent that hasn't been tapped yet.

Yeah, it's unfortunate when good actors do fall into a rut, but eh, that's just how things happen. As long as they can maintain their talent throughout, even if it's cramped between loads of substanceless material...I can live with it. Not too long ago, Ledger was in the same position. Pretty much his entire career, actually.
Yeah, that's just one of those Hollywood things that I find SO frustrating. It's exactly what's happening to Bale, too, and it's really bugging me.

I can understand the viewpoint. The way I see it though, there's a certain way I prefer Selina/Catwoman to be portrayed. While Jolie has perfected that alluring femme fatale role for years, doesn't change the fact that it's so well-suited for the character. Say a different actress were to be cast, and she pulls off the same type of vibe and presence Jolie would have given, what is the real difference? Just the actor themselves. Might be fresh seeing it from the actress, but it's basically an old engine inside a new model, so to speak.
Well, I think if an actress successfully portrays all the same characteristics as Jolie, that doesn't mean she'll be the same as Jolie. And it's not just because they look different. For example, if I were to read a line "sardonically," I would probably still deliver it differently than if you delivered it "sardonically." So even if someone had the same vibe as Jolie, their ticks and nuances would still be different, and maybe, because we're so used to seeing Jolie do them, it would also be a less predictable and more refreshing interpretation.

Of course, Nolan could always do a 180 on how the character could be portrayed. But I'm not too sure on how far he could actually deviate from that aspect of the character without drastically changing her overall personality. That of which, is an idea I'm not too fond of.
ITA. The Catwoman I know and want to see has NEVER been portrayed in a live-action Batman film, so she wouldn't feel like a re-tread. She's a really great character and I think she'd work beautifully in Nolan's universe as is.

The Major

09-04-2008, 11:22 PM

The Major

09-04-2008, 11:24 PM

^ Beckinsale could definitely pull it off. I agree with that. But she is not better than Angel.

Who's Angel?

cerealkiller182

09-04-2008, 11:26 PM

Her only weakness is that she looks much younger then Bale.

I dont think she looks too much older than Bale. No more older than the other girls he had on his arm in Batman Begins. Shes got much bigger weaknesses

ScarecrowMan666

09-04-2008, 11:26 PM

Her only weakness is that she looks much younger then Bale.

Wow she's beautiful!! I really need to watch Birds Of Prey. Was it good?
Oh and if she was Catwoman...I would be all for it.

The Major

09-04-2008, 11:54 PM

Wow she's beautiful!!

Good actress, too.

I really need to watch Birds Of Prey. Was it good?

Ashley and Dina Meyer were great, the show was terrible. :(

Oh and if she was Catwoman...I would be all for it.

:D

The Major

09-04-2008, 11:56 PM

I dont think she looks too much older than Bale.

She looks about ten years younger then him to me.

No more older than the other girls he had on his arm in Batman Begins.

They weren't real love interests, though.

Shes got much bigger weaknesses

What other weaknesses does she have?

ScarecrowMan666

09-04-2008, 11:57 PM

I think I'll still try to get the BOP box set at Wal Mart. If it's not good, I'll give it to my wife.:woot:

The Major

09-04-2008, 11:58 PM

I think I'll still try to get the BOP box set at Wal Mart. If it's not good, I'll give it to my wife.:woot:

Tell us what you think after you watch it.

ScarecrowMan666

09-05-2008, 12:04 AM

Oh I definitely will....I talk about most of my life here on these boards anyway!! :lmao::grin:

shadowman2

09-05-2008, 01:14 AM

I think Marion Cotillard would be a great choice. She's not THAT known, yet, she's a great actress with an Academy Award. She'd be perfect.

Timstuff

09-05-2008, 03:05 AM

Ashley Scott

Yeah, yeah...I know she played Huntress in Bird of Prey TV show but I alwaye thought she was better suited for Selina/Catwoman.

http://www.ajwood.com/images/ashley_scott.jpg

She would have made a great Selina if they were doing a young Bruce Wayne TV show as originally intended, but I don't think she would have had the chops for the movie version. Also, it'd be impossible for her to play Selina after playing Helena, because seeing Bruce having romantic interactions with the actress who played his TV daughter would make a lot of people just a teeny bit uncomfrotable. :hehe:

It was kind of odd how Annete O'Toole played Martha Kent after playing Lana Lang in Superman 3, but that was kind of moving in the opposite direction so people were comfortable with it.

july

09-05-2008, 06:00 AM

The Major

09-05-2008, 06:04 AM

She would have made a great Selina if they were doing a young Bruce Wayne TV show as originally intended, but I don't think she would have had the chops for the movie version. Also, it'd be impossible for her to play Selina after playing Helena, because seeing Bruce having romantic interactions with the actress who played his TV daughter would make a lot of people just a teeny bit uncomfrotable. :hehe:

Agreed.

It was kind of odd how Annete O'Toole played Martha Kent after playing Lana Lang in Superman 3, but that was kind of moving in the opposite direction so people were comfortable with it.

Enough time had passed for O'Toole.

She was an older lady by the time she got to Smallville.

Scott was only in BOP a few years ago.

July:

I'd prefer Green be Talia.

july

09-05-2008, 08:33 AM

Green would be ideal as Talia but I don't think we'll ever see Talia in the sequels mainly because Ras Al Ghul in Batman Begins wasn't as strong a character compared to Heath Ledgers Joker. Many of my friends who watched BB (and aren't familiar the whole Batman history) were confused with that character so bringing in his daughter (for revenge etc) would not make sense to a lot of people, unless they bring back Ras as well.

Darknightnomis

09-05-2008, 08:33 AM

Her only weakness is that she looks much younger then Bale.

They're the same age (31) and wouldn't Bruce Wayne have a Hot young piece with him. :cwink:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/371837392_8006f591cf.jpg?v=0 +http://www.flickscribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/christian-bale.jpg =

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/05/smart_heroes/image/bruce_wayne_batman.jpg

Gianakin_

09-05-2008, 08:36 AM

Christian Bale is 34, but I see your point. However, she's not a good actress, she'd e a worse mistake than Katie.

Darknightnomis

09-05-2008, 08:45 AM

Christian Bale is 34, but I see your point. However, she's not a good actress, she'd e a worse mistake than Katie.

True Dat. But man she's is truly is a delight for the eyes. :woot:

And in all seriousness I think Nolan can direct her up to at least be marginally acceptable.

And if not just keep her in most of the movie in skin tight black leather and that's good enough for me. :cwink:

The Major

09-05-2008, 08:47 AM

They're the same age (31)

She doesn't look 30 at all.

and wouldn't Bruce Wayne have a Hot young piece with him. :cwink:

There are any other beautiful women in Hollywood who can do that.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/371837392_8006f591cf.jpg?v=0 +http://www.flickscribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/christian-bale.jpg =

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/05/smart_heroes/image/bruce_wayne_batman.jpg

Catwoman looks closer to Bruce's age here IMO.

cerealkiller182

09-05-2008, 09:01 AM

They weren't real love interests, though.

They're young adults. It doesnt really matter.

Plus the picture being used is not her at 31 which someone claimed she was. Bale being 34 (ibelieve) its not the crazy

What other weaknesses does she have?

Her inability to act

Gianakin_

09-05-2008, 09:16 AM

True Dat. But man she's is truly is a delight for the eyes. :woot:

Agreed.

And in all seriousness I think Nolan can direct her up to at least be marginally acceptable.

Maybe, maybe not. But marginally acceptable is not something I'd be interested to see in BB3. I don't expect something better than Ledger, but I definitely want something very good.

And if not just keep her in most of the movie in skin tight black leather and that's good enough for me. :cwink:

Well, as a mob boss's squeeze, sure. That's all she'd be very good at.

SimpleHero82

09-05-2008, 09:25 AM

Being that Rachel is dead. It would be nice to see Selina enter the picture. Bruce no longer has that child hood love crush. So having a fling with another vigilante type. Would be great to see again. Especially if combined with a cool villian

Laderlappen

09-05-2008, 10:13 AM

The Batkilt

09-05-2008, 10:37 AM

And in all seriousness I think Nolan can direct her up to at least be marginally acceptable.

That's not really possible, though. It's possible for a director to coach an actor and bring out the best in them, but they have to have the underlying talent in the first place. I don't think Scott has. She's quite attractive, I agree, but that's about it.

batlovescatDC

09-05-2008, 11:16 AM

Who's Angel?

Angel.... Angelina. We were talking about Angelina Jolie and Kate Beckinsale.

Laderlappen

09-05-2008, 12:07 PM

That's not really possible, though. It's possible for a director to coach an actor and bring out the best in them, but they have to have the underlying talent in the first place. I don't think Scott has. She's quite attractive, I agree, but that's about it.Its really pointless to cast somebody that is bad, when you can just get a good actress. If you dont cast somebody based on their acting, what do you base it on?

The Batkilt

09-05-2008, 12:14 PM

Its really pointless to cast somebody that is bad, when you can just get a good actress. If you dont cast somebody based on their acting, what do you base it on?

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/5162/8ball2tt6.gif

batboy99

09-05-2008, 02:02 PM

They're the same age (31) and wouldn't Bruce Wayne have a Hot young piece with him. :cwink:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/371837392_8006f591cf.jpg?v=0 +http://www.flickscribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/christian-bale.jpg =

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/05/smart_heroes/image/bruce_wayne_batman.jpg
Whoa! I never knew Scott looked so much like Selina1 I wouldnt turn her down! Not sure if she has the acting chops to go up against bale though.

Timstuff

09-05-2008, 03:41 PM

They're the same age (31) and wouldn't Bruce Wayne have a Hot young piece with him. :cwink:

Selina is not Bruce's "hot young piece." She is supposed to represent his equal, and as such she should not be portrayed as the kind of woman who runs around chasing older men. In the comics she's almost always been depicted as being about the same age as Bruce, too.

And for the last time, Scott does not have the acting chops to blend with a cast of people like Bale, Cain, Oldman, and Freeman. She's an actress with a pretty face who was on a canceled TV show. She works well enough for television, but I don't think she would hold up in a movie full of A-listers.

flickchick85

09-06-2008, 12:29 AM

Nice to see more Cotillard supporters around here. Over the next year, I'd imagine more and more people are going catch up on her work since her star is on its way up, and I think the majority of people who do so will see why she's such a great Catwoman candidate. :D :up:

As for Ashely Scott, I agree with those who think she looks too young for Bale. I can't comment on her acting, since I think I've only seen her in SWAT, which she was barely in. But just going on looks alone, she looks mismatched with Bale, imo.

flickchick85

09-06-2008, 12:29 AM

Nice to see more Cotillard supporters around here. Over the next year, I'd imagine more and more people are going catch up on her work since her star is on its way up, and I think the majority of people who do so will see why she'd be such a great Catwoman. :D :up:

As for Ashley Scott, I agree with those who think she looks too young for Bale. I can't comment on her acting, since I think I've only seen her in SWAT, which she was barely in. But just going on looks alone, she looks mismatched with Bale, imo.

Golgo-13

09-06-2008, 10:38 AM

Double post:

Golgo-13

09-06-2008, 11:01 AM

Evidently our definitions of a meaty role are wholly dissimilar. I'm referring to roles that have substance and require certain immersion within the actor to portray a character with depth. Taking that into consideration, you cannot apply this to Biel and Alba.

Apparently our definitions are different. And for the record, despite not loving Biel's acting as a whole, i think she did a pretty darn good job 'immersing herself' as the injured Iraqi War vet in 'Home of the Brave'. I was presently surprised. I also liked her in 'The Illusionist' - a role in which she won an award for and held her own across from heavies like Ed Norton and Paul Giamatti. So there are role's that DO apply.

I get the statements, what I don't get is it's relevance within this discussion. Everyone knows publicity gets you known and recognized, and that may very well lead to a temporary rise in an actor's hot-factor. The difference I've been trying to get to you all this time is that the likes of Jolie, Pitt, Law, etc, is that when you take away that tabloid fame....they are still acclaimed actors who deliver greatly to their craft. That is the sole factor to which I am dismissing Elektra, Hilton, and such. They're not comparable.

It's relevant because i earlier stated that Jolie's publicity acts HELPED push her to get more recognition. Mitra is not a tabloid target, thus one of the reasons why her roles are limited. She not dating anyone famous; she doesn't come from a famous family, etc....the chips were stacked in Jolies favor from day one.

You keep implying that Jolie is to where she is, today, simply and solely because of her great acting, well that's blatantly not true.

By this reasoning, no one in the entertainment business is "out of it". I'm talking probability here, not possibility.

If you add in audience-awareness and popularity to an actor, then those two alone do not give them a pass for mediocrity or acting slumps. For argument's sake, their foots are already in Hollywood's door. But it would be up to them to say in the limelight or fade off into someone forgotten.

For the most part acting slumps are just part of the biz, so i don't know why you bought that up. Robert Downey career has been an up and down rollercoaster. He's been acting since the 80's and is rather famous, but two years ago, if you walked up to the average joe on the street and asked them to name a movie he was in, they would have to stop and think about it. Finally after almost '20 years' , destiny has finally come knocking at his door, and he will forever be known and praised as playing Tony Stark's aka Ironman.

My point is, time doesn't dictate what an actor can STILL accomplish. And granted that Robert D is a good actor, he wasn't being 'properly' rewarded as such, up until recently.

It's obvious we're never gonna come to a mutual agreement on this. I don't think at all either of those 2 performances' acclaim were misplaced.

Really? You don't think neither Hudosn nor JLo's awards for their performances were misplaced? Performers getting ACTING awards for singing and dancing are not mis-placed awards?:huh:

There is a big difference between being in the same film with notable actors, and actually acting opposite of them. And I don't mean just exchanging a few lines or being in the same scene together. I mean actually performing at the level in which both actors are going at it mono y mono.

Look at the movies JLo has been with those famous actors, and look at the ones with Mitra. If you've seen them both in their respective works, you can see just how big of a gap the two are, despite being similar on paper. It's not simply a stat sheet that you can check off.

I wouldn hardly say JLo acted on the SAME level as Clooney in 'Out of Sight', nor Nolte or Penn in 'U-Turn'.

Regardless of where the two are in their respective careers, JLo has still achieved more accolades than Mitra. This is fact, yes?

Fact; for now.

I can't see why "luck" is constantly being brought up here, because it effectively negates any and all accomplishments by anyone at any given time. There is always gonna be one actor has is "luckier" than the other. Always. No one is ever on the same level at all fronts. If Mitra and JLo are so incomparable, you should never have brought up Lopez in the first place.

You just answered the question yourself.

No, it was not to make me look more knowledgable. Did you not read my entire explanation? The point of the exaggerations are to exclamate a certain position or statement, not to elevate their relevance or importance on false grounds.

I read you entire explaination, several times actually, and you merely danced around the fact that you blatantly lied. Whether you word it as 'exclamating' a point (a point that really didn't need exclamating in the first place) or not, a statement that is not fact, especially in a debate, where facts are the key weapons, is a lie. Point blank.

Even if I directly give you an answer that would say otherwise? :huh:

Your initial response is where i got the vibe from.

Whomever's cast is irrelevant to the hype, given TDK's enormous success. Just the very fact that Catwoman would be in the film, would already excite audiences. Having a "star" in the role would only exponentially increase the hype factor.

Yes, hype for the wrong reasons, which exactly my point.

I, however, couldn't care less about the reasons for why people go into that movie. I just want it to be accepted that at movie's end, no matter the presumptions going in, that the Catwoman performance was damn good. I mean, there are plenty of movies that Depp fans go to solely because of his hotness or name-factor. Does that effect MY views on his performances? Not one bit. A good performance is a good performance.

Good performance is key;even better if while i'm watching the movie i'm thinking ''that is Selina Kyle'' the whole time not, "Angelina's gained weight for this role"; "Angelina must have make-up on to cover up her tattoos", or "i wonder if Brad was on the set while they filmed this scene". Her public life is sometimes most distracting while i'm watching her movies. Granted i don't go out of my way to see her films, i'm a Batman fan first, and will be there regardless of who they cast. I just want it to be a memorable film experience like BB and TDK was, for the RIGHT reasons.

There's no guarantee there's gonna be a third film either. But if there is, Catwoman is surely at the top of the list, moreso than any other character. A female slot is wide open and there's no one more fitting for it than her.

It is indeed open, simply because Rachel is gone, but top of the list choices is not something Nolan is known for. I remember reading an article (that was posted in TDK spoiler section) from either Chris' brother, or Goyer (can't remember which exactly) that if Chris comes back for B3, there's a chance that he may go the Batman Begins route again and cast villans that have NEVER been adapted to the screen before like they did with Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow. I think Catwoman is the obviuous choice too but won't be suprised if we get another female lead from the Batman universe. Everyone swore up and down the Penguin was gonna be in this one, even after filming had started. There's no OBVIOUS set up like the joker card at the end of BB to let us know who's coming next, just a SUBTLE one.

I find it ironic that you love Jolie so much, and depise Mitra, despite them being cast as the very same charatcer, only in different aspects of the media; ala Laura Croft:Tomb Raider. The only difference is Mitra is loved for what she contributed to the character, and Jolie is hated beacuse she sucked at it...including the fake accent, lol!:woot:

Laderlappen

09-06-2008, 11:07 AM

This is ridiculous.

Ares23

09-06-2008, 11:12 AM

I looove the idea for Ashley Scott to eb Catwoman, I always see her like that, but it wouldnt happend. I never have been a fan of Angeline Jolie but after see her in Wanted and then read some news about her to be the next Catwoman my mind change, she is perfect for the role!

Golgo-13

09-06-2008, 11:27 AM

Of all the actresses mentioned, Marion Cotillard is the only one who possesses all the requirements to be Catwoman. She's the far superior actress, she's beautiful and mysteriously sexy and she's charismatic- You can't take your eyes off her when she's on screen.

I've never seen her perform, so acting wise, i can't comment on this. Will the accent bother any of you? It's really strong and i'd be really impressed if she can hide it.

Charlize Theron has the look and the athleticsm but she's bland and lacks that dynamic spark required for the role. Sure she was great in Monster and to a lesser extent North Country but only 2 great performances in a career spanning more than ten years- Thats pretty ordinary.

Great actress but a very generic choice. Very un-Nolan like imo.

Angelina, at face value, is perfect casting. But everyone said that about her playing Lara Croft and she bombed big time. She's a very limited actress who basically gives the same performance in all her films. She's completely overrated.

Agreed......120%. As if there was any question of that!

I can't believe Kate Beckinsale is polling so high. She's really a c-grade actress with a A grade looks. Unlike Theron, who has had a couple of great performances, Beckinsale has been acting for longer and has never been anything more than adequate. She dull and boring and totally forgettable.

I like Kate for Catwoman. I really find it hard to believe that others are classing her as being of average talent, when her performances, thus far have ALL been rather well done. I say she's got a pretty good track record. Combined with her present acting ability, looks and proven ability to look realistic while doing action, i say she would be a safe bet, if i was in the directors chair.

My other choice would be Eva Green. Like Cotillard, she is dangerously sexy and beautiful and is charismatic, and though she's not as versatile an actress, she's daring and interesting.

I like qualities about her too. The issue i have with her is her timid look. Catwoman is Batman's equal. Not saying that Eva can't pull off a more physically stronger look, i just haven't seen it in any of her past films.

The only American actress I see as catwoman is Olivia Wilde. She was apparently the second choice for the role of Vesper Lynd after Eva Green in Casino Royale. I've only seen her as Jenny in the Black Donnellys and she is a great actress and has the dark dangerous beauty that is perfect for catwoman.

2nd to line to play Vesper? Really? Not saying that your mis-informed but i have a hard time buying that, especially with the caliber of actors put together for Casino Royale. I've seen her in quite a few movies like 'Turista' and 'Alpha Dog' and she comes across to me as another D-list actress, reminiscent of those you see in these current PG-13 teen cast Horror movies that Hollywood has been spewing out lately. Despite her, UNPROVEN, talent, i say she's also too young looking against Bale's Bruce Wayne.

Laderlappen

09-06-2008, 12:07 PM

I've never seen her perform, so acting wise, i can't comment on this. Will the accent bother any of you? It's really strong and i'd be really impressed if she can hide it.Speak with different accents really isnt very impressive. Heck I can speak with different accents.

Crook

09-06-2008, 12:20 PM

Apparently our definitions are different. And for the record, despite not loving Biel's acting as a whole, i think she did a pretty darn good job 'immersing herself' as the injured Iraqi War vet in 'Home of the Brave'. I was presently surprised. I also liked her in 'The Illusionist' - a role in which she won an award for and held her own across from heavies like Ed Norton and Paul Giamatti. So there are role's that DO apply.
I've already noted Illusionist, and I didn't think she was very good in 'Home of the Brave'. Alba just hasn't had a single good role in her career. Given the percentage of good/bad spread between these 2, my statements still apply: these 2 suck. :o

It's relevant because i earlier stated that Jolie's publicity acts HELPED push her to get more recognition. Mitra is not a tabloid target, thus one of the reasons why her roles are limited. She not dating anyone famous; she doesn't come from a famous family, etc....the chips were stacked in Jolies favor from day one.

It helped her stay in the limelight, but it didn't put her there. As I've said from the beginning, her early roles were what brought mainstream and critical attention to her. It's what happened AFTER she got famous, that she got involved with the media whorage.

For the most part acting slumps are just part of the biz, so i don't know why you bought that up. Robert Downey career has been an up and down rollercoaster. He's been acting since the 80's and is rather famous, but two years ago, if you walked up to the average joe on the street and asked them to name a movie he was in, they would have to stop and think about it. Finally after almost '20 years' , destiny has finally come knocking at his door, and he will forever be known and praised as playing Tony Stark's aka Ironman.

My point is, time doesn't dictate what an actor can STILL accomplish. And granted that Robert D is a good actor, he wasn't being 'properly' rewarded as such, up until recently.
Then you know absolutely nothing of his career or personal life. Downey has NO ONE to blame but himself for his miscomings in Hollywood. He's even admitted to that several times. That aside, he was very successful before all the drug use caught up to him. I don't feel like getting into yet another paragraph of someone else's success, so just look him up and see what he did in the early years.

Really? You don't think neither Hudosn nor JLo's awards for their performances were misplaced? Performers getting ACTING awards for singing and dancing are not mis-placed awards?:huh:
Musicals and biopics about singers are gonna require singing/dancing talent. There's still acting involved that is no different than tv or a typical movie. I don't think either of them were nearly as mediocre as you're pushing them to be.

I wouldn hardly say JLo acted on the SAME level as Clooney in 'Out of Sight', nor Nolte or Penn in 'U-Turn'.
No, but her roles in those movies weren't as important as theirs either. She certainly held her own though against them though.

You just answered the question yourself.

Not really. Since it's a fact of life and entertainment, and applies to everyone, that is why I'm wondering why it's brought up in the first place.

I read you entire explaination, several times actually, and you merely danced around the fact that you blatantly lied. Whether you word it as 'exclamating' a point (a point that really didn't need exclamating in the first place) or not, a statement that is not fact, especially in a debate, where facts are the key weapons, is a lie. Point blank.

:funny:

You realize this entire argument befalls on your lack of comprehension and thick-headedness, right? You CHOSE to strictly interpret my comments as absolutely literal, and INSIST that is still the case. That is why it comes off as lying to you. I don't know how to talk to a person that does that. How do you function in the real-world?

If a friend tells you his workplace is hell, and you visit him only to find a mundane working environment, do you confront him and say, "wtf man, you said your workplace is hell? this is just a crappy office!"?

If you're walking down the street and bump into someone, and they angrily tell you to "watch your steps from now on!", will you be physically looking down and watching every single footstep taken for that entire day?

If you and a friend are talking about someone, and he remarks, "man I'd love to walk in his shoes for a day", are you going to physically take said person's shoes and give it to your friend so he can walk in it?

If you tell your boss you'd do anything to get a raise, and he jokingly says, "sure, if you figure out how to make my wife moan in bed again".....are you going to actually visit your boss' wife and try to beget orgasms?
__________________________

I can go on and on with this. Rest assured this is not an argument you will come out the victor in. I don't know if you intentionally have a stick up your ass, but my comments were clear and do not to be rephrased or retracted. When I post here, I take the assumption that posters here would know the basic form of communication.

Are you at all aware of what hyperbole is? Please look it up if you don't, because I fear you'll misinterpret what I say if bothered to give a definition.

Hyperbole is used in the real-world every day, at all times. It's part of communication and most know when it's used and how to reply to it. If you've ever been outside in the past century, then you have been surrounded by it ad nauseum. Not my fault you take something as conventional as that and insist it is lying. Though I laugh at the mere thought of you yelling and chastizing people for using overstatements. :funny:

This'll be my last word on this subject because there is nothing more to say that hasn't been exponentially and unnecessarily clarified for you. Feel free to respond, but if there's actually any retort you have to this, I'm sure it'll be just as ridiculous. It'll be a one-way convo from here on out cause there won't be a comment from me. I'll just let everyone here enjoy that.

Yes, hype for the wrong reasons, which exactly my point.
There's no such thing. An incredible amount of attention was brought to TDK solely because it was Ledger's last role and it happened to be someone iconic. Is that "wrong" because people didn't go into the movie for Batman or that they went in just to see Ledger? Of course not. As long as the final product it delivers, the means of getting the people into those seats are null.

Good performance is key;even better if while i'm watching the movie i'm thinking ''that is Selina Kyle'' the whole time not, "Angelina's gained weight for this role"; "Angelina must have make-up on to cover up her tattoos", or "i wonder if Brad was on the set while they filmed this scene". Her public life is sometimes most distracting while i'm watching her movies. Granted i don't go out of my way to see her films, i'm a Batman fan first, and will be there regardless of who they cast. I just want it to be a memorable film experience like BB and TDK was, for the RIGHT reasons.
This is a personal issue. It varies from one individual to the next and thus cannot apply to a general population. I am not one to bring any sort of preconceived baggage when watching any film, and that's probably why I can enjoy films much more than everyone. Once those lights are down, I throw out my knowledge on the actors and watch the film and their cast on that movie's presentation. Moreover I'm not interested in what the audience thinks because that show not matter.

If at the end of the day the movie was successful in delivering a quality product, please the audiences, and was enjoyable for me....then well, that's all I could ask for.

It is indeed open, simply because Rachel is gone, but top of the list choices is not something Nolan is known for. I remember reading an article (that was posted in TDK spoiler section) from either Chris' brother, or Goyer (can't remember which exactly) that if Chris comes back for B3, there's a chance that he may go the Batman Begins route again and cast villans that have NEVER been adapted to the screen before like they did with Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow. I think Catwoman is the obviuous choice too but won't be suprised if we get another female lead from the Batman universe. Everyone swore up and down the Penguin was gonna be in this one, even after filming had started. There's no OBVIOUS set up like the joker card at the end of BB to let us know who's coming next, just a SUBTLE one.
Joker and Two-Face are top-of-the-list choices. They're also obvious. Doesn't make it a bad thing. They're important characters and have a place in the mythos. Ditto for Selina/Catwoman. If Nolan has read as many books he's claimed, then he should know there is no single female more important to Bruce than Selina. This is undeniable fact. I'm not saying she'll be used, but it'd be a miss opportunity to go with someone else.

I find it ironic that you love Jolie so much, and depise Mitra, despite them being cast as the very same charatcer, only in different aspects of the media; ala Laura Croft:Tomb Raider. The only difference is Mitra is loved for what she contributed to the character, and Jolie is hated beacuse she sucked at it...including the fake accent, lol!:woot:
Mitra contributed what to the character exactly? She posed as her during convention shows and took some photoshoots. If looking good is somehow the only requirement, then Jolie more than fullfilled that. We've spent an entire discussion talking about acting merits, and you've stooped down to comparing someone modeling in a get-up, with an actress who actually had to perform in a movie?

I feel like I've wasted my time. :huh:

Crook

09-06-2008, 12:22 PM

Speak with different accents really isnt very impressive. Heck I can speak with different accents.
I completely disagree. Speaking in a different accent (well and convincing at least) takes a degree of skill and versatility. To maintain that in a performance ranging all types of wide emotions, is talent. Especially for accents that require much more than just a little push of the tongue.

Laderlappen

09-06-2008, 12:37 PM

Its not easy, but I wouldnt call it impressive. For an actress as great as Marion atleast I expect her to do it. Espeacially an american accent.

Crook

09-06-2008, 12:43 PM

Yeah, an American accent should be easy for her. It's probably one of the easiest accents to mimic anyway.

You're not impressed with accents though? Even the hard ones? Leo's performance in Blood Diamond comes to mind, where he was lauded for his flawless South African accent. Though I do think there are a few people that weren't convinced with it, but I'm not sure where they're coming from with that.

TheTrickster

09-06-2008, 12:47 PM

I don't see why she has to have an american accent. She could just speak English in her french accent. I would like that alot more.

Golgo-13

09-06-2008, 01:08 PM

I've already noted Illusionist, and I didn't think she was very good in 'Home of the Brave'. Alba just hasn't had a single good role in her career. Given the percentage of good/bad spread between these 2, my statements still apply: these 2 suck. :o

That's a matter of opinion as we've clearly demonstrated.

It helped her stay in the limelight, but it didn't put her there. As I've said from the beginning, her early roles were what brought mainstream and critical attention to her. It's what happened AFTER she got famous, that she got involved with the media whorage.

Are you actually reading what i write? i said the media was was ONE OF THE MANY FACTORS that HELPED her. I never said it was was put her here, solely. If that was the case then Hilton or Kardashian would be Oscar winners too. :huh:

Then you know absolutely nothing of his career or personal life. Downey has NO ONE to blame but himself for his miscomings in Hollywood. He's even admitted to that several times. That aside, he was very successful before all the drug use caught up to him. I don't feel like getting into yet another paragraph of someone else's success, so just look him up and see what he did in the early years.

I know alot about Downeys career actually, and the blame game has no relevance to my point. I gave you the Downey example as an example against two points you don't seem to be getting:

1)Every actor goes through slumps

2)There is no set time limit that an actor has to accomplish a role that puts him on the general public's map.

Musicals and biopics about singers are gonna require singing/dancing talent. There's still acting involved that is no different than tv or a typical movie. I don't think either of them were nearly as mediocre as you're pushing them to be.

They are medicore. They fall into the same category with the likes of Beyonce knowles, who is yet another non-actor imo, but who has gotten acclaim for being an actor; even when the acting roles she gets nominated for are largely because of her singing/dancing skills.

No, but her roles in those movies weren't as important as theirs either. She certainly held her own though against them though.

Did you not see Rhona Mitra in 'The life of David Gale' opposite Kevin Spacey? Her role and interaction with Spaceys character was absolutely pivitol to the events in the movie. What exactly is your point here? That Mitra's takes roles that are so insignificant that they can simply be filled in by any off the street background actor? JLo's role in 'U-turn' was no more dynamic and ground breaking that Mitra's in TLODG, yet JLO's is somehow better in your opinion?

Not really. Since it's a fact of life and entertainment, and applies to everyone, that is why I'm wondering why it's brought up in the first place.

Isn't it self-explainatory that one person can be in the right place at the right time, and that that one person makes it, and another of equal talent doesn't?

It's sometimes about luck.

You realize this entire argument befalls on your fault, right? You CHOSE to strictly interpret my comments as absolutely literal, and INSIST that is still the case. That is why it comes off as lying to you. I don't know how to talk to a person that does that. How do you function in the real-world?

If a friend tells you his workplace is hell, and you visit him only to find a mundane working environment, do you confront him and say, "wtf man, you said your workplace is hell? this is just a crappy office!"?

If you're walking down the street and bump into someone, and they angrily tell you to "watch your steps from now on!", will you be physically looking down and watching every single footstep taken for that entire day?

If you and a friend are talking about someone, and he remarks, "man I'd love to walk in his shoes for a day", are you going to physically take said person's shoes and give it to your friend so he can walk in it?

If you tell your boss you'd do anything to get a raise, and he jokingly says, "sure, if you figure out how to make my wife moan in bed again".....are you going to actually visit your boss' wife and try to beget orgasms?
__________________________

I can go on and on with this. Rest assured this is not an argument you will come out the victor in. I don't know if you intentionally have a stick up your ass, but my comments were clear and do not to be rephrased or retracted. When I post here, I take the assumption that posters here would know the basic form of communication.

Are you at all aware of what hyperbole is? Please look it up if you don't, because I fear you'll misinterpret what I say if bothered to give a definition.

Hyperbole is used in the real-world every day, at all times. It's part of communication and most know when it's used and how to reply to it. If you've ever been outside in the past century, then you have been surrounded by it ad nauseum. Not my fault you take something as conventional as that and insist it is lying. Though I laugh at the mere thought of you yelling and chastizing people for using overstatements. :funny:

This'll be my last word on this subject because there is nothing more to say that hasn't been exponentially and unnecessarily clarified for you. Feel free to respond, but if there's actually any retort you have to this, I'm sure it'll be just as ridiculous. It'll be a one-way convo from here on out cause there won't be a comment from me. I'll just let everyone here enjoy that.[b]

I already have come out the victor; can't you see it? By admitting that you shall no longer speak on the subject is an admittance of defeat. It's when a poster has run out of any 'plausible explanations' to back up their ridiculous claims. I've seen it on message boards time and time again.:applaud

And for the record, if you think the whole reverse psychology trick 'if you respond, i'm sure it will be just as ridiculous', ploy will work as a way to get me NOT to respond, your sadly mistaken. You lied. You were called out on it. That's it. Writing paragraph long essays about it won't change that fact.

[b]There's no such thing. An incredible amount of attention was brought to TDK solely because it was Ledger's last role and it happened to be someone iconic. Is that "wrong" because people didn't go into the movie for Batman or that they went in just to see Ledger? Of course not. As long as the final product it delivers, the means of getting the people into those seats are null.

This is laughable. Look at movies like Gigli; proof that 'there is such a thing'. Let me guess, your gonna chalk this up to an anomaly too?:whatever:

Mitra contributed what to the character exactly? She posed as her during convention shows and took some photoshoots. If looking good is somehow the only requirement, then Jolie more than fullfilled that. We've spent an entire discussion talking about acting merits, and you've stooped down to comparing someone modeling in a get-up, with an actress who actually had to perform in a movie?

I feel like I've wasted my time. :huh:

I just find it ironic that they were cast as the same character yet your beloved Joile put in one of the worst performances of her career as Croft, and you have the nerve to say Mitra can't compete; regardless of what she contributed to the SAME character.

Don't worry, your not the only one who feels like he's talking to a brick wall here. :whatever:

Crook

09-06-2008, 01:23 PM

Are you actually reading what i write? i said the media was was ONE OF THE MANY FACTORS that HELPED her. I never said it was was put her here, solely. If that was the case then Hilton or Kardashian would be Oscar winners too. :huh:
Are you reading what I'm writing? I said it helped her sustain in the limelight, but the media blitz was irrelevant at the beginning of her career when she had her break-out.

I know alot about Downeys career actually, and the blame game has no relevance to my point. I gave you the Downey example as an example against two points you don't seem to be getting:

1)Every actor goes through slumps
His "slump" was after he was an established actor with clear talent.

2)There is no set time limit that an actor has to accomplish a role that puts him on the general public's map.
Downey was well-known before he became Iron Man. Maybe not to the teens of today, because they were little kids back when Downey was a hotshot, but the fact remains.

They are medicore. They fall into the same category with the likes of Beyonce knowles, who is yet another non-actor imo, but who has gotten acclaim for being an actor; even when the acting roles she gets nominated for are largely because of her singing/dancing skills.
Well I don't think Beyonce is an accomplished actor either. I think Lopez and Hudson (from that one role) are better than her.

Did you not see Rhona Mitra in 'The life of David Gale' opposite Kevin Spacey? Her role and interaction with Spaceys character was absolutely pivitol to the events in the movie. What exactly is your point here? That Mitra's takes roles that are so insignificant that they can simply be filled in by any off the street background actor? JLo's role in 'U-turn' was no more dynamic and ground breaking that Mitra's in TLODG, yet JLO's is somehow better in your opinion?
You single out one movie when I gave you like 4 to work with. I have seen TLODG and no, I don't think she was particularly impressive there (ditto for the movie and everyone else).

Isn't it self-explainatory that one person can be in the right place at the right time, and that that one person makes it, and another of equal talent doesn't?

It's sometimes about luck.
Yes, it's self-explanatory. That's why I don't bring it up. I'm asking why you have.

I already have come out the victor; can't you see it? By admitting that you shall no longer speak on the subject is an admittance of defeat. It's when a poster has run out of any 'plausible explanations' to back up their ridiculous claims. I've seen it on message boards time and time again.:applaud

And for the record, if you think the whole reverse psychology trick 'if you respond, i'm sure it will be just as ridiculous', ploy will work as a way to get me NOT to respond, your sadly mistaken. You lied. You were called out on it. That's it. Writing paragraph long essays about it won't change that fact.
Ok, I'm gonna retract my earlier statement because you clearly wanna settle this. Fine, shoot me a pm and directly respond to my quote above. Every last point of it and we'll continue it from there.

It's funny you consider it conceding when you have done nothing to counterclaim my own points. It's the equivalent of someone beating down on another person that's not fighting back, and when they leave....said person goes, "aha! i beat you!" :huh:

This is laughable. Look at movies like Gigli; proof that 'there is such a thing'. Let me guess, your gonna chalk this up to an anomaly too?:whatever:
Please tell me what was the hype there. The media publicity was around Bennifer, not at all about the movie. EVERYONE predicted that movie to be a bomb.

I just find it ironic that they were cast as the same character yet your beloved Joile put in one of the worst performances of her career as Croft, and you have the nerve to say Mitra can't compete; regardless of what she contributed to the SAME character.

Don't worry, your not the only one who feels like he's talking to a brick wall here. :whatever:
What is with these vague statements? "Regardless of what she contributed to the same character"? WHAT did Mitra contribute? She was a glorified model. There have been what, like 4 other Lara Crofts that have since taken up her spot? They do nothing but backflips and pose for shoots. That is not at all acting.

TheTrickster

09-06-2008, 01:35 PM

If we could keep Rhona Mitra out of this film i would be eternally happy.

ragdus

09-06-2008, 01:36 PM

Audrey Tautou

Laderlappen

09-06-2008, 01:39 PM

Steelsheen

09-06-2008, 03:08 PM

I already have come out the victor; can't you see it? By admitting that you shall no longer speak on the subject is an admittance of defeat. It's when a poster has run out of any 'plausible explanations' to back up their ridiculous claims. I've seen it on message boards time and time again.

And for the record, if you think the whole reverse psychology trick 'if you respond, i'm sure it will be just as ridiculous', ploy will work as a way to get me NOT to respond, your sadly mistaken. You lied. You were called out on it. That's it. Writing paragraph long essays about it won't change that fact.
sorry for being off topic but i just have to say this because its applicable for the entire site:

you cannot claim to be a "victor" of the argument just because the other person recognizes a circuitous discussion and decides to stop. in truth the other guy proves to be the better man because he knows how to use common sense and you're just being bullheaded. if in a discussion the other person agrees to being corrected and amends his views then yes you are the victor. however if the other guy keeps to what he believes in as staunchly as you do yours then nobody wins-- you simply must agree to disagree or be cursed to repeat the same argument pages on end much to the annoyance of everybody in the forum.

thats all.

abcdefz

09-06-2008, 03:12 PM

I always wanted to see Carrie-Anne Moss or Monica Bellucci in the role but they might be a little to old now.

Carrie-Anne is who I was thinking of, too. And maybe the "older woman" thing could be part of the allure. I think she's hot as hell, anyway.

abcdefz

09-06-2008, 03:21 PM

http://when.net/laura_prepon34.jpg

Prepon's another one I was thining of.

Points off for posing for Maxim, though. :whatever:

Golgo-13

09-06-2008, 03:30 PM

Are you reading what I'm writing? I said it helped her sustain in the limelight, but the media blitz was irrelevant at the beginning of her career when she had her break-out.

Jolie's breakout was attributed to her already established bad girl 'media image'; she was already known for it during her breakout role of 'Gia' in 1998.

His "slump" was after he was an established actor with clear talent.

Yes, and you can say that about a numerous array of good actors. It happened with Oldman. Jude Law. It's quite common you know.

Downey was well-known before he became Iron Man. Maybe not to the teens of today, because they were little kids back when Downey was a hotshot, but the fact remains.

Right but he hadn't achieved a tent-pole role that everyone associates him with like 'Denzel as Malcolm X, 'Judi Dench as M' or 'McGuire as Parker'. Ppl would have to stop and think what they saw him in.

Well I don't think Beyonce is an accomplished actor either. I think Lopez and Hudson (from that one role) are better than her.

Well, this is clearly a matter of opinion. But by other things you've said in our debate, one would think that Hudson would be getting more roles, now, than Beyonce because as you've said, you think Hudson is better, and has attained the highest acting award possible. It is quite to the contrary that Beyonce is still scoring movie roles, and it's not because of her acting ability; it is due to her media popularity as a whole. The Beyonce name is an entire franchise now, just like it was with JLO. Perfumes, music, clothing,etc. She's being cast 'cause studios know her music fan base will come out to support her in movies too.

My point is i think Beyonce, Hudson and JLO are all on the same level of acting.

You single out one movie when I gave you like 4 to work with. I have seen TLODG and no, I don't think she was particularly impressive there (ditto for the movie and everyone else).

Do i need to list all of them? I gave one example. That one example clearly up-rooted your generalization that ALL of Mitra's roles, to date, are not ones of importance, and the one's you listed of JLO's were? In TLODG, Mitra's role WAS important to the film. Now whether you personally think she was impressive or not is quite irrelevant, especially since JLO being railed Doogystyle by Nick Nolte or seducing Sean Penn into killing him, doesn't take a great level of acting prowess to pull off. I think JLO performance in U Turn was on par with Salma Hayek's roles in the 'Desperado movies, and Hayek, in that roll, was quite mediocre.

Yes, it's self-explanatory. That's why I don't bring it up. I'm asking why you have.

'Cause Angelina has been lucky, along with other things, in her career and Mitra hasn't.

Ok, I'm gonna retract my earlier statement because you clearly wanna settle this. Fine, shoot me a pm and directly respond to my quote above. Every last point of it and we'll continue it from there.

It's funny you consider it conceding when you have done nothing to counterclaim my own points. It's the equivalent of someone beating down on another person that's not fighting back, and when they leave....said person goes, "aha! i beat you!" :huh:

I'll get back to you on that.

Please tell me what was the hype there. The media publicity was around Bennifer, not at all about the movie. EVERYONE predicted that movie to be a bomb.

That's exactly what the hype was, and it was the 'dictionary definition' of WRONG HYPE. Whether the prediction was that it was gonna bomb or not it was still hype, wrong hype. That's the kinda hype i DON'T want for Batman 3, whether the movie is great or not, by it's own merits. Hell, Batman Begins almost fell into this kinda hype with the whole TomKat thing and Bale openly talked about how ridiculous it was. For a movie franchise you claim to adore, do you really want Batman 3 associated with certain media adsurdities?

What is with these vague statements? "Regardless of what she contributed to the same character"? WHAT did Mitra contribute? She was a glorified model. There have been what, like 4 other Lara Crofts that have since taken up her spot? They do nothing but backflips and pose for shoots. That is not at all acting.

And she was far more successful at portraying Laura , in what little she had to do, than Joile did in the flesh.

This brings up another point i've been trying to make to:

Jolie clearly got this role because of who she is, not because she was the best actress for the job. If she was the best actress for the job; the films clearly weren't that successful, then one could say that the Laura Croft character being adapted to the big screen was doomed from the beginning. I don't think that was the case. I think Jolie just plain sucked, and the studio went with marketability over an actress who could actually pull it off. If she is cast as Catwoman, i think it'll be because of the same case of the studio politics, and just like the Laura Croft character, Jolie could take Catwoman down in flames.:csad:

Golgo-13

09-06-2008, 03:33 PM

Carrie-Anne is who I was thinking of, too. And maybe the "older woman" thing could be part of the allure. I think she's hot as hell, anyway.

Exactly what i think of with another pick of mine;

Ashley Judd.

abcdefz

09-06-2008, 03:43 PM

Not the best picture of her, but....

http://l.yimg.com/img.tv.yahoo.com/tv/us/img/site/02/24/0000040224_20070529184804.jpg

abcdefz

09-06-2008, 03:47 PM

Exactly what i think of with another pick of mine;

Ashley Judd.

I saw Bug finally. That lady can act!

Nice to see a mature attitude, also, by the way. :)

The Major

09-06-2008, 03:47 PM

If Talia was in the movie, she obviously wouldnt be as big character as the Joker was.

What do you mean? She could work as a main villain.

No villain Batman has is as big as Joker. WB's made him an iconic figure of the rogues gallery, same with Lex. New villains can't compete with that in one movie.

Golgo-13

09-06-2008, 04:09 PM

I also like DEXTER's Julie Benz as Selina Kyle.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s42/indirav1/juliebenz.jpg

Two-Face

09-06-2008, 04:19 PM

Selina Kyle:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z304/Two-Face24/4915_full.jpg

Laderlappen

09-06-2008, 04:30 PM

What do you mean? She could work as a main villain.

No villain Batman has is as big as Joker. WB's made him an iconic figure of the rogues gallery, same with Lex. New villains can't compete with that in one movie.Main villian like Ra's sure. Ra's wasnt as big as the Joker. And by big I mean size of the role, not how popular he is.

The Major

09-06-2008, 04:34 PM

Main villian like Ra's sure. Ra's wasnt as big as the Joker. And by big I mean size of the role, not how popular he is.

Depends on who the actress is, how good their performance are in the movie and how their characters are written in the movie.

It would be very simple to allow Talia have a much more complex relationship with Batman then Ra's had in BB.

With the Nolan's and Goyer I wouldn't under-estimate any Bat villain's potential.

SuperZer0

09-06-2008, 06:50 PM

I also like DEXTER's Julie Benz as Selina Kyle.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s42/indirav1/juliebenz.jpg

She definitely has piercing eyes. Just look at them. And she's also pretty in that pic. She may be the PURR-fect catwoman.

Timstuff

09-06-2008, 07:04 PM

Not the best picture of her, but....

http://l.yimg.com/img.tv.yahoo.com/tv/us/img/site/02/24/0000040224_20070529184804.jpg

I don't even know who that is. People need to stop just randomly posting pictures of women and assuming everyone else recognizes them without even saying their name. :o

Laderlappen

09-06-2008, 07:07 PM

I recognise her but dont know from where. Probably from some tv-show(as usual).

cerealkiller182

09-06-2008, 07:10 PM

She was on Just Shoot Me and now Saving Grace. I think she might be kinda old for Catwoman.

Also that is probably the best picture. Ive seen her look worse

Majik1387

09-06-2008, 07:10 PM

Laura San Giacomo from Just Shoot Me doesn't look like that anymore.
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0e9i759bmS5Cj/340x.jpg

The Major

09-06-2008, 07:19 PM

She definitely has piercing eyes. Just look at them. And she's also pretty in that pic. She may be the PURR-fect catwoman.

She'd be a great Catwoman.

p4poetic

09-06-2008, 07:31 PM

Don't want to make a new thread for this question so --

what color threads do you think would fit for Catwoman in a possible new movie? Black, gray (like B:TAS) or Purple (sometimes seen in comics).

cerealkiller182

09-06-2008, 07:35 PM

black easily

The Batkilt

09-06-2008, 07:41 PM

I also like DEXTER's Julie Benz as Selina Kyle.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s42/indirav1/juliebenz.jpg

I loved her as Darla in Angel and she's a good actress, but I'm not sure of her for Selina. I don't think it's a bad suggestion, just something about it doesn't fit. But as SuperZer0 has already said the eyes are most certainly piercing. Hell, it's nice to see another Julie Benz fan on here. :yay:

Golgo-13

09-06-2008, 08:03 PM

I loved her as Darla in Angel and she's a good actress, but I'm not sure of her for Selina. I don't think it's a bad suggestion, just something about it doesn't fit. But as SuperZer0 has already said the eyes are most certainly piercing. Hell, it's nice to see another Julie Benz fan on here. :yay:

My ONLY concern with her is that she MAY not look good doing action. I know she's in the new Punisher movie at we'll probably get a peak at that part of her abilities there, so i'll reserve that generalizaton about her until after i see Punisher. Other than that, i like her range.

Golgo-13

09-06-2008, 08:16 PM

More 'Benz' for your buck.....

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s42/indirav1/340x.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s42/indirav1/JulieBenz-CSH-039350.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s42/indirav1/JulieBenz-ALO-011118.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s42/indirav1/JulieBenz-9.jpg

..and yes i like her MORE as a brunette. The hair color change, changes her whole aura for me.

The Major

09-06-2008, 08:19 PM

My ONLY concern with her is that she MAY not look good doing action. I know she's in the new Punisher movie at we'll probably get a peak at that part of her abilities there, so i'll reserve that generalizaton about her until after i see Punisher. Other than that, i like her range.

Does she have action scenes in it? I thought she was the character the Punisher protects.

She did action scenes well in Angel.

Timstuff

09-06-2008, 08:19 PM

She looks a lot better w/ dark hair.

Milkman95

09-06-2008, 08:25 PM

Sophie Marceau is it.

Golgo-13

09-06-2008, 08:25 PM

Does she have action scenes in it? I thought she was the character the Punisher protects.

She did action scenes well in Angel.

I'm not sure, but she plays a cop's wife in Punisher, so i'm assuming she'll have SOME kinda action to do. The most action i've seen her do thus far, is run for her life in 'Rambo'.:o I never watched Angel.

The Major

09-06-2008, 08:35 PM

I'm not sure, but she plays a cop's wife in Punisher, so i'm assuming she'll have SOME kinda action to do.

She may have some action but I doubt it'll come close to her work in Angel.

The most action i've seen her do thus far, is run for her life in 'Rambo'.:o

Haven't seen that. is it good?

I never watched Angel.

You should. It's great. She's in the early seasons of Buffy, as well.

Golgo-13

09-06-2008, 08:54 PM

.

Haven't seen that. is it good?

It's a bloodbath. :up:

Crook

09-06-2008, 09:27 PM

Jolie's breakout was attributed to her already established bad girl 'media image'; she was already known for it during her breakout role of 'Gia' in 1998.
The bad girl image was a role she was playing. It's been noted Jolie wanted to say in character throughout that production. I wouldn't say she gained her notorious tabloid fame until she started her relationship with Billy Bob, which was very public. I know that was certainly the first time I noticed her as a kid.

Yes, and you can say that about a numerous array of good actors. It happened with Oldman. Jude Law. It's quite common you know.
Yes, and what is your point here? I'm saying the slumps aren't an issue on their acting merits if they've already been established. There will be exceptions like Jackie Earle Haley for example, but I'm talking in general.

Right but he hadn't achieved a tent-pole role that everyone associates him with like 'Denzel as Malcolm X, 'Judi Dench as M' or 'McGuire as Parker'. Ppl would have to stop and think what they saw him in.

What does that have to do with anything? Point is, he was famous and recognized during the time he was living a rockstar's life in Hollywood.

Well, this is clearly a matter of opinion. But by other things you've said in our debate, one would think that Hudson would be getting more roles, now, than Beyonce because as you've said, you think Hudson is better, and has attained the highest acting award possible.
As I said, Oscars are judged on a role by role basis. Hudson was absolutely better than Beyonce in that film. Does that mean I think Hudson is a great actress? No, but I suspect she knows she can't really offer much in the acting field in the first place. The musical role was just very fit for her and she happened to do it well enough.

It is quite to the contrary that Beyonce is still scoring movie roles, and it's not because of her acting ability; it is due to her media popularity as a whole. The Beyonce name is an entire franchise now, just like it was with JLO. Perfumes, music, clothing,etc. She's being cast 'cause studios know her music fan base will come out to support her in movies too.

My point is i think Beyonce, Hudson and JLO are all on the same level of acting.
Well no, I disagree there. I've seen enough of all three to separate 'em, and I think JLo has proven to be better.

Do i need to list all of them? I gave one example. That one example clearly up-rooted your generalization that ALL of Mitra's roles, to date, are not ones of importance, and the one's you listed of JLO's were? In TLODG, Mitra's role WAS important to the film. Now whether you personally think she was impressive or not is quite irrelevant, especially since JLO being railed Doogystyle by Nick Nolte or seducing Sean Penn into killing him, doesn't take a great level of acting prowess to pull off.
I made a point how unimpressed I was with Mitra in that specific movie because it just was not a role that had much to do. It was important in that it drove Spacey's character and the story, but the actual role itself I feel didn't require too much range.

'Cause Angelina has been lucky, along with other things, in her career and Mitra hasn't.

This is evident just by looking where they are in their careers. What's more important is looking at [u]what[/i] they do with their positions. If Jolie were doing nothing but meaningless roles and Mitra had been working her ass off doing indie work and such, then ok, I would have no problem conceding that one is evidently putting in more effort. That isn't what I see however. Jolie's famous as hell, but she still strives to do the "small" movies as well, without having to sacrifice her blockbuster image.

I'll get back to you on that.
Ok. I'll await your pm.

That's exactly what the hype was, and it was the 'dictionary definition' of WRONG HYPE. Whether the prediction was that it was gonna bomb or not it was still hype, wrong hype.
As I said though, that's not hype. People were just waiting for that movie to fail. The media wasn't interested in their movie at all, but their relationship.

That's the kinda hype i DON'T want for Batman 3, whether the movie is great or not, by it's own merits. Hell, Batman Begins almost fell into this kinda hype with the whole TomKat thing and Bale openly talked about how ridiculous it was. For a movie franchise you claim to adore, do you really want Batman 3 associated with certain media adsurdities?
No, of course not. But bringing Jolie into it doesn't guarantee anything will happen like that. You cannot predict when a scandal or story arises featuring your stars, that may overshadow your film. No one could have predicted Ledger's death and the ruckus it caused, or how Bale's private domestic affair would hit all the top headlines just days after TDK premiered. Despite being one of the most private actors in the business, even they couldn't avoid this. EVERYONE is vulnerable to media scapegoating.

And if you ask me, I don't think one should shun an actor/actress for being too famous. Dismiss them because they're wrong for the part and nothing more. Anything else, and politics are being played.

And she was far more successful at portraying Laura , in what little she had to do, than Joile did in the flesh.
And who's job is easier? Mitra just has to stand there and look good. You think if they switched spots, things would be any more different? Why don't you judge them based on the same standards for the role? Which is looking damn sexy. They both succeeded at that.

This brings up another point i've been trying to make to:

Jolie clearly got this role because of who she is, not because she was the best actress for the job. If she was the best actress for the job; the films clearly weren't that successful, then one could say that the Laura Croft character being adapted to the big screen was doomed from the beginning. I don't think that was the case. I think Jolie just plain sucked, and the studio went with marketability over an actress who could actually pull it off.
The first movie was successful, hence why a sequel was made. Doesn't change the fact that both scripts, especially the latter, were pretty horrendous however. TR didn't fail because Jolie was unbearable in the role, it failed because the movie sucked. Any other actress in this role wouldn't have changed that.

If she is cast as Catwoman, i think it'll be because of the same case of the studio politics, and just like the Laura Croft character, Jolie could take Catwoman down in flames.:csad:
You don't give the Nolans enough credit. WB is sure as hell not gonna bother trying to control Chris at this point. They could have with BB, since it wasn't such a big hit, but even during TDK's production they left him completely alone. What would be the incentive to mess with a method that clearly works for both of them?

Moreover, I've yet to see Jolie not deliver in a role that was written well. With the Nolans behind her, given that she's a proven acting talent, I just cannot foresee anything wrong to happen.

Don't want to make a new thread for this question so --

what color threads do you think would fit for Catwoman in a possible new movie? Black, gray (like B:TAS) or Purple (sometimes seen in comics).
I'd like for it to be black, with a purple hue when light is shone on it. Nod to the comics without having to be too ridiculous with the color:

http://www.dynamicforces.com/images/CatwomanItsOnlyAMovieTP.jpg

cerealkiller182

09-06-2008, 09:29 PM

I'd like for it to be black, with a purple hue when light is shone on it. Nod to the comics without having to be too ridiculous with the color:

http://www.dynamicforces.com/images/CatwomanItsOnlyAMovieTP.jpg

That could work possibly

Crook

09-06-2008, 09:32 PM

If it works for blue, it works for purple. :o

cerealkiller182

09-06-2008, 09:34 PM

"Work" as in still looking good

I mean I could do without the blue as much as I could do without the purple reflections

Crook

09-06-2008, 09:36 PM

Well it's just a color, and most of the time it would work as mere highlights. I don't even think the audience will notice.

july

09-07-2008, 12:10 AM

There just aren't that many Amercian actresses out there between 25-35 who have that dark sexy edge to be catwoman. Olivia Wilde may not have an impressive c.v but she's relatively new, she can act and she has the look, she just needs a break and she's a better choice than someone like Beckinsale who's been around for ages and whose career is best described as 'straight to dvd'.

nolan's roll'n

09-07-2008, 12:47 AM

I'm starting to like the choice of Marion Cotillard as Catwoman.

The Batkilt

09-07-2008, 07:01 AM

Does she have action scenes in it? I thought she was the character the Punisher protects.

She did action scenes well in Angel.

I don't really remember her doing anything memorable in terms of action in Angel. I remember some fight scenes/brawls, but not many of them. Her character was more of a manipulator that had other people to get their hands dirty in that sense.

Laderlappen

09-07-2008, 07:42 AM

Two-Face

09-07-2008, 08:20 AM

There is American actress who's between 25 and 35.

p4poetic

09-07-2008, 09:41 AM

Crook
I have to say I wasn't fond of Jennifer Hudson's performance in Dream Girls. She won an Oscar because she sang well. It certainly wasn't for acting.

Golgo-13

09-07-2008, 10:56 AM

I saw Bug finally. That lady can act!

Nice to see a mature attitude, also, by the way. :)

Speaking of mature, you reminded me of who i used to alway picture as Selina Kyle whenever i'd see her in either 'The Devils Advocate and 'Basic':

Connie Nielsen.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s42/indirav1/connie-nielsen-1-sized.jpg
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s42/indirav1/connie-nielsen-5.jpg

..although, just like with Ashley Judd, some might have a problem with the age factor.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s42/indirav1/ashley-judd-come-early.jpg
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s42/indirav1/Ashley-Judd.jpg

Gianakin_

09-07-2008, 11:03 AM

Whoa..... bad 2nd photo of Judd...

Two-Face

09-07-2008, 11:07 AM

Judd looks like The Joker.

Crook

09-07-2008, 11:24 AM

There is American actress who's between 25 and 35.
Speaking of age, did anyone else know Marion was in her early 30s? I never would have guessed. I thought she was barely in her mid 20s. :huh:

Crook
I have to say I wasn't fond of Jennifer Hudson's performance in Dream Girls. She won an Oscar because she sang well. It certainly wasn't for acting.
It's hard to gauge when half the film is singing, and half is not. Especially when the 2 would overlap with each other. In which case, the performance of singing while emoting considerably is still acting to me. And I think Hudson did well in her role.

thedrizzle59

09-07-2008, 12:38 PM

god catwoman sux, but shes the only sensible female heroine i can think of to put into the movie...god help the filmmakers if they choose to put her in!

InvisibleWoman

09-07-2008, 01:59 PM

I'm just gonna throw suggestions out there now cos' it's much fun. How about Gemma Arterton? Not that I think every Bond Girl should automatically get suggested for Catwoman, but I saw her in RocknRolla and she was pretty good, managed to hold her own for sure. Yeah, she's only 22, but if it's believable she'd shack up with Daniel Craig who's 40, then I'm sure she'd be an acceptable age for Christian Bale. I think she's a star in the making, like Keira Knightley but with better acting chops. Thoughts??

http://img147.imagevenue.com/loc703/th_13753_001_122_703lo.jpg (http://img147.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=13753_001_122_703lo.jpg)http://img143.imagevenue.com/loc731/th_13779_002_122_731lo.jpg (http://img143.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=13779_002_122_731lo.jpg)http://img231.imagevenue.com/loc595/th_13785_InStyle-June2008_009_122_595lo.jpg (http://img231.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=13785_InStyle-June2008_009_122_595lo.jpg)http://img203.imagevenue.com/loc196/th_13860_MarieClaireUK-January2008_001_122_196lo.jpg (http://img203.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=13860_MarieClaireUK-January2008_001_122_196lo.jpg)
http://img199.imagevenue.com/loc250/th_13875_Misc_001_122_250lo.jpg (http://img199.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=13875_Misc_001_122_250lo.jpg)

Crook

09-07-2008, 02:36 PM

InvisibleWoman

09-07-2008, 02:46 PM

Looks-wise she may have some potential. I've always though side-by-side with Olga though, she completely pales in comparison.

But I'll withhold judgment. I haven't seen her anything, QoS will be my first exposure to her. We'll see how she holds her own there.

Yeah, Gemma's worth watching. I've seen her in a few things, she's currently starring as Elizabeth Bennett in a series over here in the UK called "Lost in Austen", so she's very versatile. She can go from scatty, ditzy, mob receptionist in RocknRolla...

http://www.gemma-arterton.net/media/albums/Movies/2008%20RocknRolla/Stills/001.jpg

to classic heroine with ease.

http://www.gemma-arterton.net/media/albums/Movies/2008%20Lost%20in%20Austen/Stills/006.jpg

The Batkilt

09-07-2008, 02:51 PM

Whoa..... bad 2nd photo of Judd...

She reminds me of Harley Quinn in that photo. If I was any good with photoshop I'd try to post a manip to show what I mean but I'm not. So yeah.

hatebox

09-07-2008, 03:06 PM

I just can't see Nolan casting someone as obvious as Jolie.

She'd certainly be by far the biggest 'A-list celebrity' he's ever hired.

Golgo-13

09-07-2008, 05:22 PM

The bad girl image was a role she was playing. It's been noted Jolie wanted to say in character throughout that production. I wouldn't say she gained her notorious tabloid fame until she started her relationship with Billy Bob, which was very public. I know that was certainly the first time I noticed her as a kid.

Stay in character? Find me where it says that and i'll drop it. I find this an awfully convenient excuse on your part, especially since even before i even knew her from Gia, i knew who she was (i'm 33, so in 1998 i was about 24 and not a kid), and i knew her as the naughty daughter of Jon Voight. I'm speaking from personal memory here......

Yes, and what is your point here? I'm saying the slumps aren't an issue on their acting merits if they've already been established. There will be exceptions like Jackie Earle Haley for example, but I'm talking in general.

You bought up the whole slumps thing, not me. I'm not entirely sure how we even got here.....Ah, yes, we went from me giving you Alba, Biel, Hilton and Elektra as examples of ppl that get movie roles because their popular tabloid figures, to whether they count cause in YOUR OPINION their roles are not 'meaty', to actors slumps.:huh: Looks like you've successfully steered my initial point well off track.

What does that have to do with anything? Point is, he was famous and recognized during the time he was living a rockstar's life in Hollywood.

Like the point i made above; your beating around the bush. My initial point was that even though he was a known actor, ppl would have to stop and think about what flicks they'd seen him in. I pointed out that IronMan will most likely be his named-associated franchise. This stemmed from various other points you tried to make about the time frames actors have to make it, etc....Downey has just now got his tentpole franchise, and it took him 20 years to get there.

As I said, Oscars are judged on a role by role basis. Hudson was absolutely better than Beyonce in that film. Does that mean I think Hudson is a great actress? No, but I suspect she knows she can't really offer much in the acting field in the first place. The musical role was just very fit for her and she happened to do it well enough.

Once again, you've strayed off course. Before you constantly bought up the point of Clooney having won awards so that made him a better actor than Mitra, now your saying that Hudson is not a good actress, despite winning the highest acting award possible? The initial point of this part of the debate, was that she won an acting award when she clearly can't act; this stemmed from me saying the same thing about JLO in Selena.

Are we comparing individual performances now, or are we comparing acting talent as a whole? Because you listed SEVERAL acclaimed JLO performances, and the way you listed it, you made it sound like these roles validated her as an actress, as a whole . In other words, she was good in U-Turn and Out of Sight and got acclaim for it, therefore she is classed as a good actress, but Hudson, in your words WAS also good and won awards for Dreamgirls but is NOT a good actress? Make up your mind.:huh:

Well no, I disagree there. I've seen enough of all three to separate 'em, and I think JLo has proven to be better.

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

In the case of these 3, it's like having a barrel of rotten apples. There's always gonna be a few that are a little rottener than the rest, that make the rest look less rotten than they actually are. At the end of the day; rotten is rotten.

I made a point how unimpressed I was with Mitra in that specific movie because it just was not a role that had much to do. It was important in that it drove Spacey's character and the story, but the actual role itself I feel didn't require too much range.

And seducing Sean Penn and lying to Nolte DID required alot of range?

Yet again, you're trying to switch gears. The whole reason why i used TLODG was because you said that JLO roles were vital to the story. Now you're saying that it doesn't count (Mitra's role in TLODG) cause YOU weren't impressed with her performance.:huh:

I wasn't impressed with JLO's in U-Turn. Does that suddenly mean her performance in the movie is deemed invalid to the story?

This is evident just by looking where they are in their careers. What's more important is looking at [u]what[/i] they do with their positions. If Jolie were doing nothing but meaningless roles and Mitra had been working her ass off doing indie work and such, then ok, I would have no problem conceding that one is evidently putting in more effort. That isn't what I see however. Jolie's famous as hell, but she still strives to do the "small" movies as well, without having to sacrifice her blockbuster image.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but i'm sure Mitra isn't just sitting around the house waiting for roles to come her way; i'm sure she's actively going after them. I've heard that for every '50' auditions the average actor goes to, they'll be lucky if that get '1' call-back out of those 50. It's a dog eat dog world in Hollywood. Now i'm sure that those numbers don't count for actors of Angie's statue. Like i said, i'm not sure what your trying to say here, but it sounds to me like you're saying Mitra is lazy..:huh:

Ok. I'll await your pm.

Patience.:cwink:

As I said though, that's not hype. People were just waiting for that movie to fail. The media wasn't interested in their movie at all, but their relationship.

That IS hype. It was the same kinda hype around 'Mr and Mrs Smith'. Hype is nothing more that word of mouth surrounding a movie. Whether it's good or bad. There were alot of ppl that wanted Mel Gibsons TPOTC and Apocalypto to fail, cause of numerous reasons, but all the talk about him him added to ppl's curiosity to see the films. The same was with Gigli; the gossip about the relationship got ppl curious about the movie.

No, of course not. But bringing Jolie into it doesn't guarantee anything will happen like that. You cannot predict when a scandal or story arises featuring your stars, that may overshadow your film. No one could have predicted Ledger's death and the ruckus it caused, or how Bale's private domestic affair would hit all the top headlines just days after TDK premiered. Despite being one of the most private actors in the business, even they couldn't avoid this. EVERYONE is vulnerable to media scapegoating.

And if you ask me, I don't think one should shun an actor/actress for being too famous. Dismiss them because they're wrong for the part and nothing more. Anything else, and politics are being played.

But some are magnets for it. If Jolie is cast as Catwoman, and a month before the movie comes out, she walks out of the grocery store, trips and is lying in the street for a few minutes, the paparazzi vultures will turn her unfortunate accident into her being this drunken, drugged, de-ranged star who is so down in the dumps that she can't even walk without falling down, is endangering her kids because of this, etc,etc,etc..the story will take on a life of its own. They'll make things up, just to keep the story in the news cause they know 'Angelina Jolie in crisis', sells newspapers. The Bale story dried up quickly cause Bale doesn't garnish that kinda paparazzi response. The only reason that story even made it into the news in the first place was because of all the records TDK was breaking. Nothing more. I doubt any kinda news about Angie would have died down so fast.

By no means am i saying that it's her fault, but there are different categories of actors. Some can walk down the street with little to no hassle; some get a few fans following them now and then, ...then there are those that can't go ANYWHERE, can't even go to the frickin supermarket without being mobbed, and possibly trampled to death my the rabid public. I think if she is cast in B3, she will be the only cast member that draws this kinda rabid frenzy. Morgan Freeman is an A lister too, but he doesn't have to close down entire department stores just to shop for a pair of shoes like the likes of Jolie have to.

And who's job is easier? Mitra just has to stand there and look good. You think if they switched spots, things would be any more different? Why don't you judge them based on the same standards for the role? Which is looking damn sexy. They both succeeded at that.

Mitra had Angie beat in the looks department, as well as having more qualities that might have made Laura Croft's big screen endeavor more of a success. I'm telling ya, i'm British, and Jolie's accent in that role was laughable.

The first movie was successful, hence why a sequel was made. Doesn't change the fact that both scripts, especially the latter, were pretty horrendous however. TR didn't fail because Jolie was unbearable in the role, it failed because the movie sucked. Any other actress in this role wouldn't have changed that.

No the first movie's so called success wasn't why a sequel was made. The first one sucked. The studio just assumed that cause it was starring Angelina Jolie, that somehow, second time was a charm and that the public would come around and that they'd get a franchise out of this. Many 'bad' first movies get sequels i.e Resident Evil. That doesn't mean that the first was good enough to warrant it.

You don't give the Nolans enough credit. WB is sure as hell not gonna bother trying to control Chris at this point. They could have with BB, since it wasn't such a big hit, but even during TDK's production they left him completely alone. What would be the incentive to mess with a method that clearly works for both of them?

HA! Tell that to Sony/Marvel about Spiderman 3, or New Line about Blade:Trinity, or Fox with X Men:3. I don't know why, but we have yet to get a good superhero trilogy out of any studio, to date. It seems that once a studio produces two good entries, they get cocky; think that they have the fans hooked to the point where they can spew out anything and change things, and we'll accept it. I do hope Nolan keeps things on track, as it'll be the first Superhero trilogy that i can actually say is good.

Moreover, I've yet to see Jolie not deliver in a role that was written well. With the Nolans behind her, given that she's a proven acting talent, I just cannot foresee anything wrong to happen.

Can't you say this about ALOT actors? You make it sound like it's a 'unique' Angelina Jolie trademark.

Crook

09-07-2008, 06:18 PM

Stay in character? Find me where it says that and i'll drop it. I find this an awfully convenient excuse on your part, especially since even before i even knew her from Gia, i knew who she was (i'm 33, so in 1998 i was about 24 and not a kid), and i knew her as the naughty daughter of Jon Voight. I'm speaking from personal memory here......
I did a quick google search, of "angelina jolie gia stay in character" and I seem to be getting the same exact pasted paragraph. So I'll just quote it from Wikipedia:

In 1998, Jolie starred in HBO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBO)'s Gia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gia) as supermodel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermodel) Gia Carangi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gia_Carangi). The film depicted a world of sex, drugs and emotional drama, and chronicled the destruction of Carangi's life and career as a result of her drug addiction, and her decline and death from AIDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS). Vanessa Vance from Reel.com noted, "Angelina Jolie gained wide recognition for her role as the titular Gia, and it's easy to see why. Jolie is fierce in her portrayal — filling the part with nerve, charm, and desperation — and her role in this film is quite possibly the most beautiful train wreck ever filmed."[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelina_Jolie#cite_note-20) For the second consecutive year, Jolie won a Golden Globe and was nominated for an Emmy. She also won her first Screen Actors Guild Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Actors_Guild_Award). In accordance with Lee Strasberg's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Strasberg) method acting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_acting) Jolie reportedly preferred to stay in character in between scenes during many of her early films, and as a result had gained a reputation for being difficult to deal with. While shooting Gia, she told her then-husband Jonny Lee Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonny_Lee_Miller) that she wouldn't be able to phone him. "I'd tell him: 'I'm alone; I'm dying; I'm gay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay); I'm not going to see you for weeks.'"[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelina_Jolie#cite_note-Angelina_Jolie_interviews_featuring_Jonny_Lee_Mill er-21)
I know I hadn't read it on the internet and I'm pretty sure I've actually heard Jolie reference Strasberg. So more than likely, this was mentioned during her appearance on "Inside The Actor's Studio". You are familiar with that show, yes?

You bought up the whole slumps thing, not me. I'm not entirely sure how we even got here.....Ah, yes, we went from me giving you Alba, Biel, Hilton and Elektra as examples of ppl that get movie roles because their popular tabloid figures, to whether they count cause in YOUR OPINION their roles are not 'meaty', to actors slumps.:huh: Looks like you've successfully steered my initial point well off track.

It is my opinion that the roles are not meaty? I've defined the term for you already. Depth, substance, and impressive acting. That is what goes into a meaty role, there is no subjectiveness about Alba and Biel's roles so far. They simply do not fit into this criteria. Would you like to cite these other people that would state otherwise?

Like the point i made above; your beating around the bush. My initial point was that even though he was a known actor, ppl would have to stop and think about what flicks they'd seen him in. I pointed out that IronMan will most likely be his named-associated franchise. This stemmed from various other points you tried to make about the time frames actors have to make it, etc....Downey has just now got his tentpole franchise, and it took him 20 years to get there.
Again I ask you what a tentpole role or franchise has to do with being successful in the business. Gary Oldman (imo) doesn't have a defining role, and didn't have a big franchise until a few years ago. If you ask the average joe on the street what Daniel Day Lewis has been in, they probably would have to think a really long while to give you an answer, if at all.

Does this affect their merits?

Once again, you've strayed off course. Before you constantly bought up the point of Clooney having won awards so that made him a better actor than Mitra, now your saying that Hudson is not a good actress, despite winning the highest acting award possible? The initial point of this part of the debate, was that she won an acting award when she clearly can't act; this stemmed from me saying the same thing about JLO in Selena.

Are we comparing individual performances now, or are we comparing acting talent as a whole? Because you listed SEVERAL acclaimed JLO performances, and the way you listed it, you made it sound like these roles validated her as an actress, as a whole . In other words, she was good in U-Turn and Out of Sight and got acclaim for it, therefore she is classed as a good actress, but Hudson, in your words WAS also good and won awards for Dreamgirls but is NOT a good actress? Make up your mind.:huh:
Hudson at that point, had been in ONE movie. To this day, all I've seen her in has been that one movie. Mainly because the other roles she's had in movies since then, haven't been particuarly brought up by anyone, and I don't have any incentive to watch them. So what do you want me to do when that's all I have to go off of?

The reason I brought up JLo's acclaimed performances, are because the individual performances were all marked the same, hence the reasoning for grouping it as a whole and thus, leading to my view on her acting career. It wasn't just a case of one lucky role. She's had several notable projects.

And seducing Sean Penn and lying to Nolte DID required alot of range?
Did I say it did? You were the one that brought up the movie, and I said she held her own. Meaning the roles weren't much (which if you look back, is exactly what I said in the reference to the movies you brought up), but she did the job well for what it was.

Yet again, you're trying to switch gears. The whole reason why i used TLODG was because you said that JLO roles were vital to the story. Now you're saying that it doesn't count (Mitra's role in TLODG) cause YOU weren't impressed with her performance.:huh:
I do not recall saying anything about which roles are vital to the story. I was noting which roles were being noted by critics and viewers.

As for Mitra, I plainly said her character did drive the story and Spacey's character (that is an implication of importance), but I was not particularly impressed with her performance. Those are clear distinctions I've made. I did not dismiss either.

I wasn't impressed with JLO's in U-Turn. Does that suddenly mean her performance in the movie is deemed invalid to the story?
No. But tell me where I've reacted like that, because I certainly don't think I have. Read above.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but i'm sure Mitra isn't just sitting around the house waiting for roles to come her way; i'm sure she's actively going after them. I've heard that for every '50' auditions the average actor goes to, they'll be lucky if that get '1' call-back out of those 50. It's a dog eat dog world in Hollywood. Now i'm sure that those numbers don't count for actors of Angie's statue. Like i said, i'm not sure what your trying to say here, but it sounds to me like you're saying Mitra is lazy..:huh:
No, that is an assumption on your part. I was merely giving an example for a scenario in which I'd understand your reasoning for bringing up this "luck" ordeal.

That IS hype. It was the same kinda hype around 'Mr and Mrs Smith'. Hype is nothing more that word of mouth surrounding a movie. Whether it's good or bad. There were alot of ppl that wanted Mel Gibsons TPOTC and Apocalypto to fail, cause of numerous reasons, but all the talk about him him added to ppl's curiosity to see the films. The same was with Gigli; the gossip about the relationship got ppl curious about the movie.
This is another case of misunderstanding or a conflict of definition. I do not consider publicity associated with solely the actors, to be related to the hype of the film. It would no doubt bring attention to those projects because of their associations, however.

For example, the whole TomKat stunt was something I never associated with hype for Batman Begins. The 2 had nothing to do with each other.

But some are magnets for it. If Jolie is cast as Catwoman, and a month before the movie comes out, she walks out of the grocery store, trips and is lying in the street for a few minutes, the paparazzi vultures will turn her unfortunate accident into her being this drunken, drugged, de-ranged star who is so down in the dumps that she can't even walk without falling down, is endangering her kids because of this, etc,etc,etc..the story will take on a life of its own. They'll make things up, just to keep the story in the news cause they know 'Angelina Jolie in crisis', sells newspapers. The Bale story dried up quickly cause Bale doesn't garnish that kinda paparazzi response. The only reason that story even made it into the news in the first place was because of all the records TDK was breaking. Nothing more. I doubt any kinda news about Angie would have died down so fast.
Bale's story ended quickly because the case itself was very empty and shortly diminished in the first place. It's all about the story itself, and the actor's celebrity position. If Christian Bale had cheated on his wife with Emily Watson (Equilibrium co-star) back in '02, that news would not hit the front page. If Bale had cheated with Maggie Gyllenhaal in '08....huge scandal. Why? Neither are particularly media hounds or magnets, but they share a very big factor. TDK. Aka the most hyped and successful comic book movie. Ever.

That's all you need for a story to explode. That one factor that the tabloids will hook onto and think the public will pay their money to read. Jolie has her A-list status, and anyone cast in a notable role in any future Batman film has the franchise recognition. The eyes are on you regardless.

By no means am i saying that it's her fault, but there are different categories of actors. Some can walk down the street with little to no hassle; some get a few fans following them now and then, ...then there are those that can't go ANYWHERE, can't even go to the frickin supermarket without being mobbed, and possibly trampled to death my the rabid public. I think if she is cast in B3, she will be the only cast member that draws this kinda rabid frenzy. Morgan Freeman is an A lister too, but he doesn't have to close down entire department stores just to shop for a pair of shoes like the likes of Jolie have to.
No disrespect to Freeman, but he isn't an attraction. Jolie's young and beautiful, and is fairly relevant to the films that mainstream watch. Ditto for Bale. The media will naturally gravitate towards them for their stories. The only reason Bale has been able to keep out of the tabloids, is because he's very very very private. You'd be hardpressed to even know where he goes shopping or what he eats. But the minute he does anything public that could be deemed unordinary, make no mistake that will get plastered everywhere. The man is a target now because of his status.

Mitra had Angie beat in the looks department, as well as having more qualities that might have made Laura Croft's big screen endeavor more of a success. I'm telling ya, i'm British, and Jolie's accent in that role was laughable.
Looks-dept is highly arguable. And not just from me or you, but there are several people that are fans of both. That's not an easy contest by any means.

No the first movie's so called success wasn't why a sequel was made. The first one sucked. The studio just assumed that cause it was starring Angelina Jolie, that somehow, second time was a charm and that the public would come around and that they'd get a franchise out of this. Many 'bad' first movies get sequels i.e Resident Evil. That doesn't mean that the first was good enough to warrant it.
Of course it does. This is a business. Studios don't shell out money to movies they do not think will make them a good profit. RE made profit and continues to do so because of their low budgets. TR was a success financially, hence the sequel. TR2 bombed, no sequel. It's not complicated.

HA! Tell that to Sony/Marvel about Spiderman 3, or New Line about Blade:Trinity, or Fox with X Men:3. I don't know why, but we have yet to get a good superhero trilogy out of any studio, to date. It seems that once a studio produces two good entries, they get cocky; think that they have the fans hooked to the point where they can spew out anything and change things, and we'll accept it. I do hope Nolan keeps things on track, as it'll be the first Superhero trilogy that i can actually say is good.
SM3 was Raimi's fault for giving in, Trinity sucked because Goyer sucked, and X3 sucked because they decided to rush things without Singer. The only applicable comparison here is with Raimi, because like Nolan he seems to be a constant presence in this franchise. I place my trust in the Nolan brothers that they wouldn't so easily succumb to studio demands, if any are made at all. Raimi could have easily declined on Venom, and still be able to make his true sequel. That is why I'm irked, because it's not like the movie's fate was on that decision. Raimi had enough power and ability to do the movie he wanted.

Can't you say this about ALOT actors? You make it sound like it's a 'unique' Angelina Jolie trademark.
Of course I can say this about a lot of actors. Where did I say otherwise? Again, you are assuming something that is not there. Just take that statement as face-value: Jolie has delivered when she has a good script/director. Period. That's all I'm saying. There are no secret messages here.

marukisu

09-07-2008, 07:28 PM

p4poetic

09-07-2008, 07:44 PM

Speaking of age, did anyone else know Marion was in her early 30s? I never would have guessed. I thought she was barely in her mid 20s. :huh:

It's hard to gauge when half the film is singing, and half is not. Especially when the 2 would overlap with each other. In which case, the performance of singing while emoting considerably is still acting to me. And I think Hudson did well in her role.

True, but an Academy Award? I find that pushing it. Especially for someone who has no prior acting training and an ex-American Idol contestant. I don't know, I just think her performance was overrated. Beyonce can sing her heart out as well, if they had switched characters and she got to perform Jennifer Holiday's song, she probably would of gotten the Oscar as well. The movie did not live up to the hype for me personally. The most interesting part was seeing Jaleel White (Steve Urkel) pop out of no where in a small role.

Crook

09-07-2008, 08:27 PM

True, but an Academy Award? I find that pushing it. Especially for someone who has no prior acting training and an ex-American Idol contestant. I don't know, I just think her performance was overrated.
Well I don't really consider their previous experience when judging their performance. I call it as I see it, role by role. I can understand why some might think it's overrated, but on the other hand I can also see why people were impressed. I'm just neutral on the whole thing. Maybe if I had any favorite in that category, I'd be singing a different tune. But as it turns out, I didn't really care for this year's supporting actresses.

Beyonce can sing her heart out as well, if they had switched characters and she got to perform Jennifer Holiday's song, she probably would of gotten the Oscar as well.
Who knows. I personally think Hudson's voice is much more suited for that song than Beyonce's is. What's done is done, however. And I don't think it was a travesty as some are making it out to be.

Thespiralgoeson

09-07-2008, 08:29 PM

How about nobody? Catwoman is a *****ty character. Always was...

The Major

09-07-2008, 08:32 PM

How about nobody? Catwoman is a *****ty character. Always was...

You're basing this on what exactly?

Crook

09-07-2008, 08:39 PM

On the comics he's never read, probably.

The Major

09-07-2008, 09:02 PM

On the comics he's never read, probably.

Most likely.

elgato

09-07-2008, 10:15 PM

How about nobody? Catwoman is a *****ty character. Always was...

You guys are SOOOOO pathetic, if that CINO movie never happenned all would be begging for her to be included in this one :whatever:

PS. MARION FOR CATWOMAN!!!

ragdus

09-07-2008, 10:27 PM

I'll say it again: Audrey Tautou.

Great actress, but not a "name." Has the look too.

http://www.dentrocine.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/audrey-tatou.jpg

Laderlappen

09-08-2008, 03:24 AM

I love Audrey. She just so god damn beautiful.

Laderlappen

09-08-2008, 03:27 AM

True, but an Academy Award? I find that pushing it. Especially for someone who has no prior acting training and an ex-American Idol contestant. I don't know, I just think her performance was overrated. Beyonce can sing her heart out as well, if they had switched characters and she got to perform Jennifer Holiday's song, she probably would of gotten the Oscar as well. The movie did not live up to the hype for me personally. The most interesting part was seeing Jaleel White (Steve Urkel) pop out of no where in a small role.Yeah, I thought she was very overrated to. She was the worst of the nominees.
But I agree with Crook that previous acting performances shouldn't be a factor.

Two-Face

09-08-2008, 05:14 AM

InvisibleWoman

09-08-2008, 05:19 AM

22 year old Catwoman is acceptable for Batman? We are going by Bondgirl I rather have Olga Kurylenko or Eva Green as Selina

Eva Green is def my first choice, I liked the idea of Gemma BEFORE she was cast as a bond girl, back when I was forced to watch St.Trinians (her and Russell Brand were the only good things about that movie!)

I don't like Olga...she just hasn't got the acting chops imo. She was terrible in Hitman which lets face it, was pretty bad all round and she has a VERY heavy accent. I'm not sure she's an accomplished enough actress to pull off an American accent. I even have my doubts as to whether Eva can as in Casino Royale, there was a hint of her French accent, but I have alot of faith in her.

july

09-08-2008, 06:25 AM

Audrey Tautou was awesome in Priceless; she was sexy, funny and heartbreaking and never looked more beautiful. But her accent is too strong for Catwoman.

The French girls, Tautou, Cotillard and Green are so much hotter, sexier, more beautiful and even more talented than everyone else-they should just make catwoman French!

The Major

09-08-2008, 09:22 AM

Bridget Moynahan.

She was great in I Robot though I haven't seen her in anything else.

Is she a good contender for Selina?

Magenta666

09-08-2008, 09:32 AM

I'll say it again: Audrey Tautou.

Great actress, but not a "name." Has the look too.

i love Amelie, she is an amazing actress

The Batkilt

09-08-2008, 12:25 PM

i dont understand why some people call Jolie a bad actress. thats far fro m the truth. Just go Watch Girl, Interrupted or A Mighty heart and if you still feel the same way afterwards then you are just retarded

I don't think many people have called her bad. A few have posted that they think she's a bit overrated, me included. When she nails a performance she really, truly nails it. But I can honestly say there aren't many of her performances that I feel that way about. The two you mentioned I would agree with totally.

Then there are films that, if you're cynical, are her 'for the cheque' type films - Tomb Raider and it's sequel etc. Plenty of actors seem to have them on their CV and some are open that they only took a certain role for the money. Personally I don't think that really applies to her, as she seems to have fun in the popcorn fluff stuff.

Then there are films like The Good Shepherd. Ignoring that Matt Damon seemed like the least inconspicuous CIA agent in the history of ever, Jolie really didn't fit the role. When watching the film it came across to me that she was trying, rather than succeeding. And there didn't really seem to be much chemistry between her and Damon, which didn't help matters.

To call her a bad actress would be unfair, but I wouldn't call her a great actress either. She's one of the most high profile and she is capable of a great performance, but I for one don't think she's shown she has the range to be a great actress. And looking through her CV it's not that she hasn't tried to take on different roles. I think labelling her either 'bad' or 'great' is more a reflection on the use of hyperbole these days when descriping just about everything to try to emphasise a point.

Audrey Tautou was awesome in Priceless; she was sexy, funny and heartbreaking and never looked more beautiful. But her accent is too strong for Catwoman.

The French girls, Tautou, Cotillard and Green are so much hotter, sexier, more beautiful and even more talented than everyone else-they should just make catwoman French!

Completely agree with you on Cotillard and Green. On the whole I've found that most of my favourite actresses and the ones I think are the most talented these days are from outwith the United States, and with 'European' cinema becoming more popular some of these actors and actresses are choosing to make their money in European films unless there's an American project that they're offered and/or appeals to them.

And I liked Audrey in He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not but other than that I'm not a fan.

flickchick85

09-08-2008, 01:31 PM

I'm not really a fan of Audrey Tautou, either. I mean, I liked Amelie and A Very Long Engagement, but both of which were mainly because of the stories, directing, cinematography, and music. Of the big French actresses (that are well known internationally), I've found Tautou to be the least impressive. Though I admit it could be that I just need to see more of her work, as there's plenty I haven't seen.

On accents: I actually think it would be VERY difficult for someone whose first language is NOT English to speak perfect English with an American accent. These actors we see faking American accents are still naturally English speakers, so it's easier for them to fake an American accent, just like its easier for me to fake any accent in English than it would be to speak French with a French accent, for example. The only actor who comes to mind that I've seen pull it off if Connie Neilson. Jodie Foster spoke French with a Parisian accent in A Very Long Engagement, but that's only because she learned French from French people when she was a kid, and therefore was completely fluent in the language with the proper accent.

That said, I think a great actor could pull off an American accent even if she wasn't a native English-speaker, and I think Marion Cotillard is good enough to do that. Not sure about Green or Tautou, though.

And Julie Benz rocks! She's good on Dexter and was GREAT on Angel. I never considered her for Catwoman because she didn't have the look, imo, but I'd never seen her as a brunette before. I think she could work. She doesn't have the critical pedigree that other candidates have, and for some reason, her voice doesn't seem right for Catwoman to me, but I think she could pull it off and wouldn't be opposed to her casting.

Susan B

09-08-2008, 04:15 PM

The Major

09-08-2008, 04:22 PM

Susan:

Benz plays a character which some Catwoman traits on Angel and Buffy.

She's a vampire femme fatale named Darla.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darla_(Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer)

cerealkiller182

09-08-2008, 04:25 PM

Not impressively though

She was very theatrical in Uma Thurman-Posion Ivy kinda way

The Major

09-08-2008, 04:28 PM

Not impressively though

She was very theatrical in Uma Thurman-Posion Ivy kinda way
True.

Susan B

09-08-2008, 04:30 PM

Susan:

Benz plays a character which some Catwoman traits on Angel and Buffy.

She's a vampire femme fatale named Darla.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darla_(Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer)

Ah.

I've seen random episodes of Angel back in the day, but i don't ever remember seeing her on it.

I'm a religious Dexter watcher and she plays the whole 'abused woman' role so well, it's hard to picture her as Catwoman. I like her as an actress regardless and can't wait to see her in Saw 5.

I also wouldn't mind seeing Hilary Swank in the role.

The Major

09-08-2008, 04:59 PM

Ah.

I've seen random episodes of Angel back in the day, but i don't ever remember seeing her on it.

This is an episode Darla appears in:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/14641/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-becoming---part-1

I'm a religious Dexter watcher and she plays the whole 'abused woman' role so well, it's hard to picture her as Catwoman.

Understandable. Since my first exposure to Benz was in Buffy I can her picture in the role perfectly. :D

I like her as an actress regardless and can't wait to see her in Saw 5.

How big is her role in that?

I also wouldn't mind seeing Hilary Swank in the role.

Swank is like Charlize Theron. She could play many good roles in super-hero adaptions.

The Batkilt

09-08-2008, 05:03 PM

Not impressively though

She was very theatrical in Uma Thurman-Posion Ivy kinda way

I thought that, but mostly when they were playing out her character being resurrected as a human. By the time she seemed to pull it off it was time for her to go back to Darla as a vampire. Personally I thought she was pretty good when the character was the manipulative vampire as opposed to when she was a human/had a soul.

cerealkiller182

09-08-2008, 05:05 PM

I thought that, but mostly when they were playing out her character being resurrected as a human. By the time she seemed to pull it off it was time for her to go back to Darla as a vampire. Personally I thought she was pretty good when the character was the manipulative vampire as opposed to when she was a human/had a soul.

meh... I disagree

Crook

09-08-2008, 05:19 PM

Susan B

09-08-2008, 05:21 PM

D

How big is her role in that?

.

I've heard she's one of the leads.

marukisu

09-08-2008, 07:02 PM

meh... I disagree

lol thats because you dislike anything related to BTVS or Angel. However Julie Benz as catwoamn. Hmmnnn that would be interesting i guess She has a certain pitch to her voice similar to Eartha Kitt so it wouldnt be hard for her to pull off that stereotypical catwoman persona where she purrs after every word that includes an R"" but i doubt Nolan would want that. And if she didnt her voice could pull off sexy. She was pretty sexy as Darla. Im thinking though that they would want a drastic voice change from Selena to Catwoman in the same vein as Christian bale. Fitting with the realistic tone it wouldnt be that hard for Batman to come to the conclusion that catwoman is the same as Selena kyle especially since he would be interacting with her alot. Something would have to click in his mind and say "hey thats selena!!" lol

batboy99

09-08-2008, 08:54 PM

I love Benz, but shes no Catwoman, and her voice isnt very sexy, her voice sounds kinda ''young'' and annoying at times.

Ziggyman

09-08-2008, 08:57 PM

Catwoman needs a sexy voice and body...That means...Angie!:hehe:

Hey batboy, haven't seen you in awhile!

Susan B

09-08-2008, 09:21 PM

I'm also in agreement that Benz isn't particularly stand-out material for this role. I love her in Dexter, and perhaps that she plays the role of an everyday (albeit abused) woman a little too well, so I can't see her as Selina.

Regardless, she's kinda getting up there in age (or looks like it anyway). I'd prefer Selina to be a youthful woman.

I don't like her for Catwoman either, but she looks no older than, or worst for wear, than half of the other suggestions in this thread including angie j. Looks wise, Benz looks fine.

cerealkiller182

09-08-2008, 10:26 PM

lol thats because you dislike anything related to BTVS or Angel. However Julie Benz as catwoamn. Hmmnnn that would be interesting i guess She has a certain pitch to her voice similar to Eartha Kitt so it wouldnt be hard for her to pull off that stereotypical catwoman persona where she purrs after every word that includes an R"" but i doubt Nolan would want that. And if she didnt her voice could pull off sexy. She was pretty sexy as Darla. Im thinking though that they would want a drastic voice change from Selena to Catwoman in the same vein as Christian bale. Fitting with the realistic tone it wouldnt be that hard for Batman to come to the conclusion that catwoman is the same as Selena kyle especially since he would be interacting with her alot. Something would have to click in his mind and say "hey thats selena!!" lol

Not true. I like Boreanaz and Marsden

Benz hammed it up in Buffy/Angel. Shes good in Dexter. I love her in Dexter but I still dont see her as Selena. And Eartha Kitt was awful as Selena. She was just Eartha Kitt.

The Major

09-08-2008, 10:34 PM

And Eartha Kitt was awful as Selena. She was just Eartha Kitt.

She was great for the that era, her purring wouldn't work now. Catwoman needs to be played serious with a little humor thrown in not campy.

p4poetic

09-08-2008, 10:35 PM

I loved Eartha Kitt.

The Major

09-08-2008, 10:40 PM

I loved Eartha Kitt.

Julie Newmar is my favorite 60's Catwoman. :D

cerealkiller182

09-08-2008, 10:42 PM

She was great for the that era, her purring wouldn't work now. Catwoman needs to be played serious with a little humor thrown in not campy.

But she wasnt Catwoman. She was Eartha Kitt in a cat costume. Same way Jim Carrey was Jim Carrey in question mark suit

Golgo-13

09-08-2008, 10:42 PM

Lena Headey.

I put her name out there sometime back. She can definately play the independant/strong woman type that is Selina Kyle:

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s42/indirav1/lena-headey-en-la-premiere-de-300.jpg

cerealkiller182

09-08-2008, 10:46 PM

I like her, but I thought she was much older than Bale?

The Major

09-08-2008, 10:46 PM

But she wasnt Catwoman. She was Eartha Kitt in a cat costume. Same way Jim Carrey was Jum Carrey in question mark suit
Haven't seen seen that much of Eartha Kitt as Catwoman or any other role. Just that Batman movie where a shark gets blown up.

Golgo-13

09-08-2008, 10:49 PM

I like her, but I thought she was much older than Bale?

Not sure. I don't see it being an issue. They look around the same age to me.

The Major

09-08-2008, 10:56 PM

marukisu

09-08-2008, 11:06 PM

Not true. I like Boreanaz and Marsden

Benz hammed it up in Buffy/Angel. Shes good in Dexter. I love her in Dexter but I still dont see her as Selena. And Eartha Kitt was awful as Selena. She was just Eartha Kitt.

Oh ok well i retract that statement then =) As far as benz it would be an interesting choice. I personally never would have thought of it but its nice to see someones name come up than just Angelina Jolie al the time. i forgot where but Someone had a "Angie for Elektra' and its just like ugghh yes shes sexy and all the stuff that catwoman is but can we broaden our perception a bit.

DARKxGOTHAMITE

09-08-2008, 11:56 PM

yeah ive come to my conclusion

my choice for Miss Kyle is Sherilyn Fenn.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o303/dreibarra/8aeacef9.gifhttp://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o303/dreibarra/694fec94.jpghttp://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o303/dreibarra/5089a27b.jpg

digg her shes BEAuuutiful, shes got that smokey 1940s actress look...IMO shes close to Sales' Selena.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o303/dreibarra/39d7280d.jpg

Majik1387

09-08-2008, 11:57 PM

Sale's Selina looks like a tranny mess.

DARKxGOTHAMITE

09-09-2008, 12:02 AM

^lulz

Figs

09-09-2008, 12:38 AM

DarkxGothamite, is Sherilyn Fenn the actress who played Johnny Cash's wife in Walk The Line?

She looks kind of like her.

DARKxGOTHAMITE

09-09-2008, 12:41 AM

^no sir that was Reese Witherspoon.

Figs

09-09-2008, 12:41 AM

Not Reese but his first wife before he married June.

DARKxGOTHAMITE

09-09-2008, 12:43 AM

OO.

hmm leme check

Hole Shot

09-09-2008, 12:46 AM

Is this the "name any actress under 45 that you think is hot thread?"

I really like the Ashley Scott suggestion by the way. Never seen her in anything though, so have no idea what her acting talent is like

Cunning Stunts

09-09-2008, 01:17 AM

zeptron

09-09-2008, 01:19 AM

I like her, but I thought she was much older than Bale?

She's only a year older.

july

09-09-2008, 06:12 AM

Rose byrne could be great as catwoman. Her film work has been average but she is excellent in Damages in a complex and challenging role and she holds her own against Glenn Close and other high calibre actors. She's only in her late twenties, she's beautiful and she can act.

Laderlappen

09-09-2008, 08:08 AM

Sherilyn Fenn played Audrey Horne on Twin Peaks. Those pics are old, she's like 40 today.
If Im not wrong, she was one of the biggest fan choices when Batman Returns was being made.

Hole Shot

09-09-2008, 08:43 AM

Please tell me this post was a joke...

Which part? The part where I'm saying that people in this thread are just naming off random actress or the part where I think Ashley Scott is hot? Because neither were a joke. People are just name off random actress and Ashley Scott really is hot.

Keyser Soze

09-09-2008, 09:09 AM

Which part? The part where I'm saying that people in this thread are just naming off random actress or the part where I think Ashley Scott is hot? Because neither were a joke. People are just name off random actress and Ashley Scott really is hot.

You do have a point. While not everyone is guilty of it, there are a few people who when casting Catwoman, don't think about how suitable an actress is for the part. They just think if they find someone with black hair (hell, and sometimes they don't even get that part right! :oldrazz:) looking sexy in a photo, then that can be their Selina. It seems this is the case with a lot of female characters. For example, I've seen some AWFUL choices for Poison Ivy - actresses in their 40s and 50s, or even models who have never acted before - chosen purely because they are redheads.

Your choice can't just be visual. You have to think of someone who could contribute to the ensemble, and whose name would look good above the title alongside the likes of Bale, Caine, Oldman, Freeman.

Crook

09-09-2008, 12:59 PM

While true, the names Ledger, Gyllenhaal, and Eckhart didn't really hold much weight to people either. At first anyway.

SimpleHero82

09-09-2008, 01:29 PM

oo come on christina ricci!?

Keyser Soze

09-09-2008, 01:34 PM

While true, the names Ledger, Gyllenhaal, and Eckhart didn't really hold much weight to people either. At first anyway.

All had great performances under their belts, though. Even if they were to cast Jolie - not my first choice - you could at least say she'd add to an impressive ensemble. With the bigger names, or the established and respected actresses, I have no problem with people suggesting them, even if I don't agree with the pick.

It's just the casting suggestions of someone who had a small role in some cult TV show a few years ago, or someone who posed nude in this magazine once...:oldrazz:

Crook

09-09-2008, 01:40 PM

I'm not disagreeing. Just sounded like from your last sentence, you were referring to names with recognition and clout.

Laderlappen

09-09-2008, 01:59 PM

:huh: Heath, Maggie, & Aaron are really, really great actors.

Crook

09-09-2008, 02:02 PM

Heath was only coming into his greatness. Maggie and Aaron are from great (though the latter did a tremendous job in TDK).

In any case, I was referring to more their names bringing in that sort of baggage. Like how the name Daniel-Day Lewis immediately says "Acting God".

Laderlappen

09-09-2008, 03:23 PM

The Batkilt

09-09-2008, 03:33 PM

Heath was becomming the 2nd great actor of our time after Daniel Day-Lewis. If you ask me, Heath's 2nd greatest acting performance is better than any actors' best performance in both Batman Begins & The Dark Knight. Sure there might be a big difference in quality between his 2nd and 3rd best performance but he has still done several good performances.

Calling Maggie far from great(if that's what you were saying)...well its your opinion and I respect that, BUT outside the comicbookfanboy world and for actual big movie buffs that actually cares alot about acting(not saying that you dont), Maggie is a very respect actress and is often called one of the most interesting, greatest actresses of her generation. She has done 2 leading roles in her career(Secretary & Sherrybaby) and both are often called some of the better female performance of the decade. Her performance in TDK? Well, you cant really do much better with that character, but honestly most other Batman female characters aren't better.

Aaron maybe doesnt have the biggest resume but compared to the choices Keyser Soze are refering to its by far superior. But he was brilliant in Thank You For Smoking and imo the 2nd best performance in The Dark Knight.

I think Keyser Soze isnt talking about fame, but about acting skills.

In total agreeance. Heath's performances inBrokeback Mountain, The Dark Knight and his performance in Monster's Ball are streets ahead of most good actors' best performances. Even in something like The Brothers Grimm he totally immerses himself into his character. I truly believe if he had lived even ten years longer he'd one day be spoken of in the same breath as Brando, De Niro, Pacino and other elite actors.

As for Maggie? She's a great actress, she just hasn't been in many 'big' films. That and most people seem to be divided on her looks, and with a lot of people the best actresses have to be the prettiest. (That isn't aimed at Crook, for the record.)

Same goes for Eckhart, minus the comment abook the looks. Heath's performance was sensational, no doubt, but The Dark Knight wouldn't have held up if Eckhart's performance wasn't so good. The main story of the film is Harvey Dent. If the guy playing him didn't pull a great performance out of the bag it just wouldn't have worked, regardless of how awesome The Joker came across.

Crook

09-09-2008, 03:38 PM

I think that comment about Ledger is a bit off-base. He could have certainly reached that pinnacle and was looking to be a phenomenal acting giant in his own right, but that path was cut short.

I've seen many of Maggie's indies films, including the ones you've named, and she's good. Maybe a little better than good. But not great. If I could conjure up a top 5/10 list of the greatest actresses working today, I'm pretty sure Maggie wouldn't appear in either. It's not to say that she's bad or anything, but I can honestly say she has never truly amazed me with any of her performances. That's a necessity to be called "great".

As for Aaron, basically I feel the same. He carried the heart of TDK along with Oldman, so that should be commended. His roles in his career have been fairly limited however, so I'm not exactly jumping to praise him after one or two good performances.

And as I said, I was only commenting on the tone I got from Keyser's last sentence, which was "name" value. Be it box office glory or great critical backing.

Keyser Soze

09-09-2008, 03:42 PM

I know Aaron Eckhart hasn't had the best resume in his career. However, I can't bring myself to say he did nothing of note pre-TDK, as I think his performance in "In The Company of Men" was one of the best of the 90s. Quite possibly the most heartless, despicable bastard in the history of cinema.

Crook

09-09-2008, 03:47 PM

There isn't a smiley in the world that could represent my befuddlement at that last statement.

Laderlappen

09-09-2008, 03:51 PM

I've seen many of Maggie's indies films, including the ones you've named, and she's good. Maybe a little better than good. But not great. If I could conjure up a top 5/10 list of the greatest actresses working today, I'm pretty sure Maggie wouldn't appear in either. It's not to say that she's bad or anything, but I can honestly say she has never truly amazed me with any of her performances. That's a necessity to be called "great". Its your opinion and I cant argue against opinions. My point was that she IS a respected actress by many. Im on the Oscar Buzz board on IMDb and I notice a big difference between that and the TDK board. And that is the worst TDK board on the net.

And as I said, I was only commenting on the tone I got from Keyser's last sentence, which was "name" value. Be it box office glory or great critical backing.He says 'whose name would look good' and I guess you can take it 2 different ways. I think by 'good name' he is meaning more Marion Cotillard than Angelina Jolie(not that Jolie is a bad actress but you know what I mean). Im gonna stop saying what other people mean now :yay:

Laderlappen

09-09-2008, 03:52 PM

I havent seen In The Company of Men, but I have heard very good things about him in that.

Keyser Soze

09-09-2008, 03:53 PM

There isn't a smiley in the world that could represent my befuddlement at that last statement.

What's there to be befuddled about? :huh:

Paradyme

09-09-2008, 03:57 PM

What about Rhona Mitra? No...? Yes?

Just throwing it out there.

Crook

09-09-2008, 04:02 PM

Its your opinion and I cant argue against opinions. My point was that she IS a respected actress by many. Im on the Oscar Buzz board on IMDb and I notice a big difference between that and the TDK board. And that is the worst TDK board on the net.
I never denied she was a respected actress. I'm just saying she's nowhere near great in comparison to some of her peers, and what they've accomplished acting-wise.

He says 'whose name would look good' and I guess you can take it 2 different ways. I think by 'good name' he is meaning more Marion Cotillard than Angelina Jolie(not that Jolie is a bad actress but you know what I mean). Im gonna stop saying what other people mean now :yay:
I know what he possibly meant, hence why I gave both possibilities. Depending on where Marion is in her career, she could possibly draw up hype for the film.

When Heath, Maggie, and Aaron were cast however, they weren't exactly setting the fanbase or general audience "ablaze" with their names. They just weren't particularly in any solid position to draw up that type of response. I remember back when BB was just starting up, literally every casting announcement was party-time here.

What's there to be befuddled about? :huh:
That the role would be considered to be the greatest (of any sort) in the entire history of cinema. It was a phenomenal job and all, but....

Laderlappen

09-09-2008, 04:30 PM

I never denied she was a respected actress. I'm just saying she's nowhere near great in comparison to some of her peers, and what they've accomplished acting-wise.Im not saying that you did Crook.
There is alot of 'She is' and 'she isnt' from you.

I know what he possibly meant, hence why I gave both possibilities. Depending on where Marion is in her career, she could possibly draw up hype for the film.

When Heath, Maggie, and Aaron were cast however, they weren't exactly setting the fanbase or general audience "ablaze" with their names. They just weren't particularly in any solid position to draw up that type of response. I remember back when BB was just starting up, literally every casting announcement was party-time here. By Marion I meant big name just based on her work. Its possible that she can draw hype based on future popularity but that wasnt what I meant.

I was just saying that I took the term 'good name' in different way than you. It almost feels that you're getting abit defensive. I have not meant that any of your opinions are wrong or that you have denied anything or whatever.

Keyser Soze

09-09-2008, 04:34 PM

That the role would be considered to be the greatest (of any sort) in the entire history of cinema. It was a phenomenal job and all, but....

I think that it's one of the most hateable cinema bastards ever.

itsthebatman

09-09-2008, 04:40 PM

Is Rachel Weisz a bit old for the part? She's a great actress (think The Constant Gardener, not The Mummy), and looks the part.

itsthebatman

09-09-2008, 04:42 PM

I think that it's one of the most hateable cinema bastards ever.
I still have to see that, and Thank You for Smoking.

Crook

09-09-2008, 04:47 PM

Im not saying that you did Crook.
There is alot of 'She is' and 'she isnt' from you.
There's also a lot of 'I', 'I'm', and 'Me'. Given that, I wouldn't presume it's hard to connect that the following statements would be from my point of view. :oldrazz:

By Marion I meant big name just based on her work. Its possible that she can draw hype based on future popularity but that wasnt what I meant.

She's "in the limelight" now because of that Oscar, but she's gonna have to keep up the good roles if she wants to stay known. Otherwise, she's prone to fall under the category of actors who've reached their peak after one major award.

I was just saying that I took the term 'good name' in different way than you. It almost feels that you're getting abit defensive. I have not meant that any of your opinions are wrong or that you have denied anything or whatever.
Duly noted. But for the record, I wasn't trying to be defensive, if it came off that way.

I think that it's one of the most hateable cinema bastards ever.
I quite liked him, actually. Eckhart's screen presence really shined, even if in a snobbish fashion.

Keyser Soze

09-09-2008, 05:02 PM

I quite liked him, actually. Eckhart's screen presence really shined, even if in a snobbish fashion.

I dunno...

When Eckhart's supposed "best friend" asks him why he has completely ruined his life, and he just smiles, shrugs and says "Because I could"....I don't think I've ever wanted to see a character get a horrible comeuppance more. Of course, he never gets his comeuppance, which makes him even more hateable.

I think the charismatic screen presence is part of the attempt to lull the viewer in, and start to somewhat like him despite his bastardy, before you get hit with the sucker punch as his complete, soulless evil is exposed.

Laderlappen

09-09-2008, 05:08 PM

There's also a lot of 'I', 'I'm', and 'Me'. Given that, I wouldn't presume it's hard to connect that the following statements would be from my point of view. :oldrazz:Yes I thought so. It just looks a bit bad in the way you're saying it. Forget about it.

She's "in the limelight" now because of that Oscar, but she's gonna have to keep up the good roles if she wants to stay known. Otherwise, she's prone to fall under the category of actors who've reached their peak after one major award.Possible. She has chosen what looks like 2 good projects for next year. Nine & Public Enemies. I dont really care if she will become an a-lister or not. I just hope to see her more good roles in the future.

batlovescatDC

09-09-2008, 05:12 PM

Does anybody know where I can find a manip of Rachel Weisz as Catwoman?

Golgo-13

09-09-2008, 05:25 PM

To be fair though you responded to my post originally when I stated I agreed with you to a point regarding Jolie. And it is a discussion forum. That and I'm not really looking for a debate/argument with you. I agree with some of your points and some of Crook's, I'm just perplexed by some of the things you've posted, which is why I've responded.

:up:

In what way? Seriously, in what way? And don't claim it's because Mitra hasn't been given her chance to shine. Truly great actors grab their chance to shine. Her biggest parts are either assigned to 'hot seductress' or low-budget action/fantasy flicks.

Well the vibe i get from J-Lo is the same vibe i get from alot of these models/singers/sports figures, etc that suddenly try their hand at acting; the vibe i get from J-Lo is that she's trying to act. I put J-Lo's acting on the same level as the likes of P.Diddy's performance in 'Monsters Ball'. He was trying so hard that i couldn't connect and believe that what he was saying was genuine, rather than him just spewing out dialogue he had memorized from a script. I get that vibe from J-Lo. I DON"T get that from Mitra.

I've seen Doomsday and I think it's pretty weak. It got a lot of hype over here as it's set in Scotland. Nothing was ever mentioned about her being in it though, the only cast members the press focused on were Hoskins and McDowell, so I had no prior presumptions about her performance when I sat down to watch it. I thought her performance was poor and it seemed like the kind of role the producers were much prefer if Kate Beckinsale had taken. Hoskins and McDowell seemed to be there to add a bit of credibility to the proceedings. To be fair I thought the story wasn't too bad as it also tapped into the English/Scottish rivalry when being typed, but there was nothing special about it.

The story was weak. You can take any talented actor and put them in a badly written movie, and they LOOK bad. i.e Clooney in Batman and Robin.

Doomsday and the upcoming Underworld 3 are her biggest roles to date. And Underworld 3 is being made as a spinoff due to the box office return of the Beckinsale films. I don't recall there being much demand for another installment, and don't have much high hopes for it.

O.K, Underworld 2 wasn't that hot, i get that. Apparently the film makers see something in Mitra, that they think she can continue the series, hence why the spin-off is being made in the first place. The footage from Underworld 3 was also shown at ComicCon 2008, and has been getting enormous buzz, with those in attendance saying that it looks better than the first two Underworld movies!

We shall see.

I've mentioned a few films in that post in which I think Lopez showed some natural talent for acting. Out Of Sight and The Cell are really good films, and I'm genuinely confused how Mitra has more talent that Lopez even based on those two performances alone. She didn't seem out of place when on-screen with the talent and struck up natural chemistry with her co-stars.

And Mitra has done the same in Nip/Tuck, Highwayman, etc.

Susan B

09-09-2008, 05:29 PM

Rhona Mitra for Catwoman? She looked as bad in the live action Beowulf movie, as Kristanna Loken did in Bloodrayne. :down:

The Batkilt

09-09-2008, 05:43 PM

Well the vibe i get from J-Lo is the same vibe i get from alot of these models/singers/sports figures, etc that suddenly try their hand at acting; the vibe i get from J-Lo is that she's trying to act. I put J-Lo's acting on the same level as the likes of P.Diddy's performance in 'Monsters Ball'. He was trying so hard that i couldn't connect and believe that what he was saying was genuine, rather than him just spewing out dialogue he had memorized from a script. I get that vibe from J-Lo. I DON"T get that from Mitra.

Fair dues, all art is supposed to provoke some thought or emotion and obviously different things effect different people in different ways.

The story was weak. You can take any talented actor and put them in a badly written movie, and they LOOK bad. i.e Clooney in Batman and Robin.

True 'dat, true.

O.K, Underworld 2 wasn't that hot, i get that. Apparently the film makers see something in Mitra, that they think she can continue the series, hence why the spin-off is being made in the first place. The footage from Underworld 3 was also shown at ComicCon 2008, and has been getting enormous buzz, with those in attendance saying that it looks better than the first two Underworld movies!

We shall see.

I don't think the series being continued really has anything to do with Mitra, nor does how the snippets of Underworld III look compared to the film's predecessors. Underworld will continue in film and/or comics as it's the pet project of Len Wiseman and Kevin Grevioux. The films aren't the most expensive to make and as long as they keep turning some profit they'll likely get the greenlight to make more.

That and the most impressive things about the first two were the special effects, and Kate Beckinsale in that outfit. The director of the third film has primary worked in special effects so it seems Wiseman and co also know where the strengths of the film lie, and Mitra's casting suggests that too. She can handle a physical role and a lot of people find her easy on the eye, which fits the profile. She's also less high profile and less costly than Beckinsale, which is handy as the series is now into the third installment. The fact she's also appeared in the series so far allows them to keep continuity going rather than starting anew.

I don't mean to suggest Wiseman has no faith in her, I'd hazzard a guess that the complete opposite is true. Her character wasn't exactly major enough that they couldn't have come up with another lead for the film, but they stuck with her. But I think Rhona Mitra herself would know she isn't going to be what would pull people into the film at this point. But, if the film is successful, it could well give her a boost into more high profile roles. Good luck to her.

And Mitra has done the same in Nip/Tuck, Highwayman, etc.

I'm not really that familiar with her on Nip/Tuck. I've seen bits of her stint on that show but to be honest by that point I'd given up on it. I'm not really a fan of the more sensationalist television shows. As I said previously I enjoyed her in The Practice and Boston Legal - and in Ali G In Da House, though that role really was about the character being hot, it is Ali G after all. :p

ScarecrowMan666

09-09-2008, 07:59 PM

p4poetic

09-09-2008, 08:27 PM

OK, let me ask this --

Is our casting choice for Catwoman/Selina Kyle going to be blonde or have black hair?

ScarecrowMan666

09-09-2008, 08:33 PM

I'm thinking black hair...that's the Selina I prefer

Gianakin_

09-10-2008, 03:00 AM

Rihanna? Are you really really serious?

The Major

09-10-2008, 05:36 AM

The actress that played Huntress on Birds of Prey. The Major suggested her a few pages back, and I have to agree.

Scarecrow, I just talked about her not suggested Scott for Catwoman.

I don't want her for the part. Charlize Theron is my top choice. :D

Either that or Rihanna. No I'm not kidding either...Rihanna despite the fact that she doesn't fit with the traditional look of Catwoman, I think she's got some weirdness in her, i.e. the video to Disturbia. So I think she would make a pretty good Catwoman.

Catwoman's role is going to require an experienced and highly skilled actress. Rihanna's just to green for my taste.

The Major

09-10-2008, 05:37 AM

I'm thinking black hair...that's the Selina I prefer

Agreed.

Paradyme

09-10-2008, 08:22 AM

Rhona Mitra for Catwoman? She looked as bad in the live action Beowulf movie, as Kristanna Loken did in Bloodrayne. :down:

Never saw it. She looked good in Doomsday and Shooter.

Laderlappen

09-10-2008, 08:37 AM

The actress that played Huntress on Birds of Prey. The Major suggested her a few pages back, and I have to agree. Either that or Rihanna. No I'm not kidding either...Rihanna despite the fact that she doesn't fit with the traditional look of Catwoman, I think she's got some weirdness in her, i.e. the video to Disturbia. So I think she would make a pretty good Catwoman.Please explain why you would want Rhianna. Because she's weird?
Bale, Ledger, Oldman etc. was cast because they are some of the geratest actors out there. You want Rhianna because she's weird? Dude, I'm weird.

Crook

09-10-2008, 08:42 AM

And I thought Scott was bad. Now he's suggesting Rihanna? He is officially the worst fan caster I've ever seen in this thread. :dry:

Susan B

09-10-2008, 08:53 AM

I like the Lena Headey idea. She sure is one tough cookie on TSCC, and got alot of acclaim in '300'.

I also enjoyed her in 'Imagine Me and You'.

She's about the right age, where she's not too young looking but not geriatric looking either. I'd be happy if she was cast.

Ace of Knaves

09-10-2008, 08:54 AM

i havn't really put much thought into but when i think of Selina/Catwoman i automatically envision Angelina Jolie. Maybe its just because i want to see her in a skin-tight cat suit?!? ;)

but in all seriousness i understand that she maybe TOO high profile meaning that you would just think "ohh Angelina.....again!" or that she is the easy choice. But there is no doubting her acting ability, she isn't the most high profile woman actress for no reason.

Crook

09-10-2008, 08:59 AM

Her sex icon status and media coverage have a lot to do with where she is at. Maybe even moreso than what she has actually accomplished as an actress.

But it helps to know she does have talent to back up all the glamor.

Ace of Knaves

09-10-2008, 09:02 AM

yea i agree crook. but yea i've been a fan of hers for years, even before she became a massive global star. i thought she was brilliant in the bone collector and whats that film? errrrrr i cant remember its name. shes some superficial reporter who finds out shes got like 5 days to live from a homeless phychic. she was excellent in that, probly her best performance IMO

Keyser Soze

09-10-2008, 09:03 AM

And I thought Scott was bad. Now he's suggesting Rihanna? He is officially the worst fan caster I've ever seen in this thread. :dry:

That was the kind of casting I was originally commenting on. :cwink:

Golgo-13

09-10-2008, 10:24 AM

OK, let me ask this --

Is our casting choice for Catwoman/Selina Kyle going to be blonde or have black hair?

I don't think hair color is gonna ultimately make or break the performance, nor will it play a part in Nolan's casting process.

I'd prefer Selina with dark hair, but the way she was done in Batman:TAS as a blonde, didn't take anything away from the character either.

itsthebatman

09-10-2008, 11:13 AM

gwynplaine

09-10-2008, 11:32 AM

Gianakin_

09-10-2008, 11:43 AM

I don't know about catwoman. We've had campy with 60's TV show, gothic with Burton, I wonder how she'd fit in the wonderful universe that Nolan has created ? Maybe it would work but I just don't know.

The same question could have been asked about the Joker back in 2005. I believe we got the answer 2 months ago, in spades.

gwynplaine

09-10-2008, 11:47 AM

The same question could have been asked about the Joker back in 2005. I believe we got the answer 2 months ago, in spades.
I respectfully disagree because the Joker is the greatest villain ever created (imo). Just read Batman #1 and 2, he is there, fully formed 70 years ago.

Gianakin_

09-10-2008, 11:52 AM

I respectfully disagree because the Joker is the greatest villain ever created (imo). Just read Batman #1 and 2, he is there, fully formed 70 years ago.

That's true but, while not on the same level as the Joker, Catwoman is just as old. She has many great stories and she fulfills roles that the Joker never could.

My point is, we got a campy Joker, a loon close to the comics (visually and, to a certain degree, character-wise), how could we have gotten something good for TDK? Well, we saw the results. The same thing could easily happen with Catwoman.

gwynplaine

09-10-2008, 11:59 AM

That's true but, while not on the same level as the Joker, Catwoman is just as old. She has many great stories and she fulfills roles that the Joker never could.

My point is, we got a campy Joker, a loon close to the comics (visually and, to a certain degree, character-wise), how could we have gotten something good for TDK? Well, we saw the results. The same thing could easily happen with Catwoman.
I see your point. Catwoman just doesn't strike me as as rich a character as the Joker is, but I trust Nolan and if he choses her as his next villain I'll be really interested to see what he does with her.
And the Joker in his first appearances or in TKJ was a really dark and creepy character, so when Nolan and Ledger started mentioning those as references (along with Alex in Clockwork Orange) I knew everything was going to be alright:woot:.

Golgo-13

09-10-2008, 03:30 PM

I don't think the series being continued really has anything to do with Mitra, nor does how the snippets of Underworld III look compared to the film's predecessors. Underworld will continue in film and/or comics as it's the pet project of Len Wiseman and Kevin Grevioux. The films aren't the most expensive to make and as long as they keep turning some profit they'll likely get the greenlight to make more.

That and the most impressive things about the first two were the special effects, and Kate Beckinsale in that outfit. The director of the third film has primary worked in special effects so it seems Wiseman and co also know where the strengths of the film lie, and Mitra's casting suggests that too. She can handle a physical role and a lot of people find her easy on the eye, which fits the profile. She's also less high profile and less costly than Beckinsale, which is handy as the series is now into the third installment. The fact she's also appeared in the series so far allows them to keep continuity going rather than starting anew.

I don't mean to suggest Wiseman has no faith in her, I'd hazzard a guess that the complete opposite is true. Her character wasn't exactly major enough that they couldn't have come up with another lead for the film, but they stuck with her. But I think Rhona Mitra herself would know she isn't going to be what would pull people into the film at this point. But, if the film is successful, it could well give her a boost into more high profile roles. Good luck to her.

I think the failure of the second Underworld, and the fact that they cast Mitra, demonstrates that they think they can do better with Mitra in 3, than they did with Beckinsale in 2. I don't know the circumstances as to why Beckinsale didn't come back, but apparently the film makers think she's at least on Beckinsale level to carry on as the lead, even though they are not playing the same character. If they didn't think she was good enough to be the lead in this sequel, why would they even wanna make a third one to start with if they thought they couldn't make money, after the second one flopped? An even more logical avenue for them to have went, was to make it a straight to dvd sequel, like so many movies that have not done so well, have ended up doing....but they didn't go that route. The studio thinks it can make money by releasing it on the big screen.

I found this, and confirmed it with several other sites reports.

"Recent reports indicate that Underworld: Rise of the Lycans has received an $80 million budget, far more than the first two installments. Underworld had a budget of $23 million, while Underworld: Evolution had a budget of $50 million."

I doubt a studio would sink almost '4 times' the budget of the original movie into one with a lead that couldn't carry her own movie, especially after the 2nd one flopped. They apparently have confidence in what she's bringing to the table...as i do.

I'm not really that familiar with her on Nip/Tuck. I've seen bits of her stint on that show but to be honest by that point I'd given up on it. I'm not really a fan of the more sensationalist television shows. As I said previously I enjoyed her in The Practice and Boston Legal - and in Ali G In Da House, though that role really was about the character being hot, it is Ali G after all. :p

In Nip/Tuck she played a cop that was chasing the serial killer 'The Carver'. If you haven't watched the show in a while, and maybe you might feel the urge to one day get back into it; therefore i'm not gonna reveal the spoiler that accompanied her character. I think Sanaa Lathan is a good actress too. As is Joely Richardson, Famke Janssen, Roma Maffia, to name but a few of the shows regulars throughout the years. And Mitra stood tall with ALL of them.

I just don't think a highly acclaimed show like Nip/Tuck cast just any and everybody as a season regular, especially when her character was such an intricate part of 'The Carver' saga. She was there for more than just her looks. She brought allure, intrigue, intelligence and became quite a formidable female nemesis for Julian McMahon's 'Dr. Christian Troy'. She showed great range in this show, which is why i've used it time and time again as testament to her acting abilities.

itsthebatman

09-10-2008, 03:52 PM

That's true but, while not on the same level as the Joker, Catwoman is just as old. She has many great stories and she fulfills roles that the Joker never could.

My point is, we got a campy Joker, a loon close to the comics (visually and, to a certain degree, character-wise), how could we have gotten something good for TDK? Well, we saw the results. The same thing could easily happen with Catwoman.
Love interest, for one, unless there's a particularly bizarre Elseworlds tale I've missed.
Oh, and Nip/Tuck sucks, only season 2 was any good.
Rhona Mitra for Catwoman? And I thought my jokes were bad.

Laderlappen

09-10-2008, 03:53 PM

Gianakin_

09-10-2008, 03:53 PM

Love interest, for one, unless there's a particularly bizarre Elseworlds tale I've missed.

Yup. An Elsewords story written by Schumacher.

itsthebatman

09-10-2008, 03:58 PM

Here I agree actually. Mitra is in the same league or level as Beckinsale.
Meow. Saucer of milk, table 2!

The Batkilt

09-10-2008, 04:06 PM

I think the failure of the second Underworld, and the fact that they cast Mitra, demonstrates that they think they can do better with Mitra in 3, than they did with Beckinsale in 2. I don't know the circumstances as to why Beckinsale didn't come back, but apparently the film makers think she's at least on Beckinsale level to carry on as the lead, even though they are not playing the same character. If they didn't think she was good enough to be the lead in this sequel, why would they even wanna make a third one to start with if they thought they couldn't make money, after the second one flopped? An even more logical avenue for them to have went, was to make it a straight to dvd sequel, like so many movies that have not done so well, have ended up doing....but they didn't go that route. The studio thinks it can make money by releasing it on the big screen.

I found this, and confirmed it with several other sites reports.

"Recent reports indicate that Underworld: Rise of the Lycans has received an $80 million budget, far more than the first two installments. Underworld had a budget of $23 million, while Underworld: Evolution had a budget of $50 million."

I doubt a studio would sink almost '4 times' the budget of the original movie into one with a lead that couldn't carry her own movie, especially after the 2nd one flopped. They apparently have confidence in what she's bringing to the table...as i do.

If what you've posted about the budget is true then I'd say you're right. I can't see a studio pumping £80million into a film they expect to fail. I can see it making enough worldwide gross to cover the budget and then making most of the profit on DVD, but having said that £80mil is still a bit much for a film if that's the level of expectation.

In Nip/Tuck she played a cop that was chasing the serial killer 'The Carver'. If you haven't watched the show in a while, and maybe you might feel the urge to one day get back into it; therefore i'm not gonna reveal the spoiler that accompanied her character. I think Sanaa Lathan is a good actress too. As is Joely Richardson, Famke Janssen, Roma Maffia, to name but a few of the shows regulars throughout the years. And Mitra stood tall with ALL of them.

I've seen bits of her on the show and know roughly what the storyline evolved into, I just haven't seen the core of it. I must be honest and admit I wasn't overly impressed by either Richardson or Famke on that show for the talent they have but with Famke I've only seen bits and pieces, I stopped watching regularly after the first season. Not trying to take anything away from Mitra though.

I just don't think a highly acclaimed show like Nip/Tuck cast just any and everybody as a season regular, especially when her character was such an intricate part of 'The Carver' saga. She was there for more than just her looks. She brought allure, intrigue, intelligence and became quite a formidable female nemesis for Julian McMahon's 'Dr. Christian Troy'. She showed great range in this show, which is why i've used it time and time again as testament to her acting abilities.

I think the problem with shows like Nip/Tuck, Lost, Desperate Housewives and so forth is that they're so sensationalist that nobody outside of their fanbase really seems to take them seriously. From what I understand Kyle MacLachlan is still involved with Desperate Housewives and he's a very talented actor, so obviously most of the actors/actresses in these shows are talented.