News & Discussion Thread - Part 1

[EnDz0n3]

I found this while I was trying to search for info regarding the two actresses' abilities in speaking English, it's from a forum so I can't vouch for the veracity of the claims:

I'm more worried about the acting abilities of Fukushima Rila and Okamoto Tao, both are models and that doesn't mean they are good actresses. Rila has done a bit of acting work but Tao has what I know never acted.
I think they were cast because of their english ability (even though I think a Japanese actress could have learned english for the part heck Nakatani Miki and Kimura Yoshino both speak english)

So I guess they both speak English fluently and I guess the worry is their acting ability?

[psylockolussus]

Maybe they could follow the footsteps of Rebecca Romijn.

[EnDz0n3]

That's what I was thinking. And Famke's too. Hopefully less so, Halle's (don't even mention that tabloid drama that she's embroiled in right now

[Project862006]

^so you want them to be less so than an oscar winner?

[Glutton]

Sorry,i didn't know where else to post this, LOL:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOJz...layer_embedded

[EnDz0n3]

Originally Posted by Project862006

^so you want them to be less so than an oscar winner?

I want them to follow in the footsteps of Mystique whose "mute" metamorph in X-men made a very memorable character on the franchise.

I want them to follow in the footsteps of Jean. Here's this supposedly "older" and taller (than the norm) actress and she made us believe no less than Wolverine and Cyclops could fall in love with her.

I don't want them to follow in the footsteps of Halle Berry, whose painful line deliveries (though that Toad/lightning line was not 100% her fault IMO), "I've been reduced to playing a black super hero" tirade on late night talk shows Pre-X-men turning to "I want a bigger role in your superhero sequel" Post-Oscar win. I don't want them to follow in the footsteps of Halle Berry whose now more infamous for her hit and run accidents (for which she only did community service!!) and musical chairs-type love-life and now baby daddy drama has became tabloid fodder.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Project862006

^so you want them to be less so than an oscar winner?

You do realize that Oscar's are actually bought, not necessarily earned???

I have no problems with Halle Berry, I think she is a good actress, but when people throw the "Oscar" word around as reasoning why I should think someone is good for a role, makes me laugh...

[spideyboy_1111]

it's funny how the only reports of people "buying" oscars tend to come from very sore losers when they actually happen...

I don't think Halle "bought" her oscar at all.. however, the oscar's are a place where someone might not deserve the award for that specific movie, but because they deserved one in years past. I'd believe Halle got an Oscar for the Academy trying to get more publicity over affirmative action, making that award year "groundbreaking" and "memorable" than Halle "buying" an oscar any day...

[Hunter Rider]

By bought I don't think Kelly means literally, she means how some studios throw millions of dollars into a campaign to get their actor or nominee votes by schmoozing the Academy and pushing out endless promotional material.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by Hunter Rider

By bought I don't think Kelly means literally, she means how some studios throw millions of dollars into a campaign to get their actor or nominee votes by schmoozing the Academy and pushing out endless promotional material.

you mean like nearly every campaign known on earth?

ultimately one can look at it any way they want. They can think money won the person the election (which i honestly don't actually think is the majority of the Academy... ) or a popularity contest (which i actually think is more practical)

but.. then again, majority of the time when i pick who's going to win the oscars... I usually get the majority right... most of the awards don't "shock me" by any means

[Hunter Rider]

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

you mean like nearly every campaign known on earth?

I'm not sure what this reply means in context to what I posted, I'm merely saying that the performance often has nothing to do with winning, it's how much your studio presses palms and kisses ass. The year Kate Winslet won was a a prime example of this, the Weinsteins spent more than the other nominees combined to make sure she won. Kelly's point was that Oscar's aren't won by acting, they are like a political campaign, the issues matter less than who can sell themselves to voters.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by Hunter Rider

I'm not sure what this reply means in context to what I posted, I'm merely saying that the performance often has nothing to do with winning, it's how much your studio presses palms and kisses ass. The year Kate Winslet won was a a prime example of this, the Weinsteins spent more than the other nominees combined to make sure she won. Kelly's point was that Oscar's aren't won by acting, they are like a political campaign, the issues matter less than who can sell themselves to voters.

see above, i added to it.

I think if anything it's more of a popularity contest.. and Winslet is a fantastic actress. But people are going to see things the way they want to see it... agreeing or disagreeing.

Just because someone want's to validate an actors ability with there Oscar and the other doesn't does not mean either is right or wrong in the matter

[Hunter Rider]

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

see above, i added to it.

I think if anything it's more of a popularity contest.. and Winslet is a fantastic actress. But people are going to see things the way they want to see it... agreeing or disagreeing.

Just because someone want's to validate an actors ability with there Oscar and the other doesn't does not mean either is right or wrong in the matter

Popularity contest is partially it for sure, but it's like a case of "Not what you know but who you know" that dominates Oscar outcomes hence Penn over Rourke.

I honestly think there are too many question marks over the Oscars to use them to validate anything.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

it's funny how the only reports of people "buying" oscars tend to come from very sore losers when they actually happen...

I don't think Halle "bought" her oscar at all.. however, the oscar's are a place where someone might not deserve the award for that specific movie, but because they deserved one in years past. I'd believe Halle got an Oscar for the Academy trying to get more publicity over affirmative action, making that award year "groundbreaking" and "memorable" than Halle "buying" an oscar any day...

I don't mean she wrote someone a check for it...

I mean those studios that put time and $$$$ into getting the best gifts, night outs, etc to the academy winners end up winning the big prizes. It has happened since the Oscars began...I'm not saying that Halle didn't deserve her Oscar, and others did, I am just saying that "having an Oscar" doesn't mean you are the best one for a part...

Am I going to say that Meryl Streep did not deserve any of her Oscars and they were all bought....hell no? : )

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

see above, i added to it.

I think if anything it's more of a popularity contest.. and Winslet is a fantastic actress. But people are going to see things the way they want to see it... agreeing or disagreeing.

Just because someone want's to validate an actors ability with there Oscar and the other doesn't does not mean either is right or wrong in the matter

I'm not saying someone's like or dislike of an actor is wrong...that is of course their opinion. But, when the validation of someone "right for a part" is that they have an Oscar? I think that is kind of a weak case to try and win. That's all....And yes, Kate Winslet is a phenomenal actress, my favorite in fact.... : )

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by Hunter Rider

Popularity contest is partially it for sure, but it's like a case of "Not what you know but who you know" that dominates Oscar outcomes hence Penn over Rourke.

I honestly think there are too many question marks over the Oscars to use them to validate anything.

Well... at the same time when people like Penn, Rourke, Winslett, Portman, Hathaway, etc... are all nominated or winners... (and all amazing actors imo) while Stallone, Arnold, and Nicholas Cage (who thankfully no longer seems to be getting nominated) who are reallly not good actors in this current time-span... I do think that says something.

The Oscars arn't off by any means.. nor are Oscar winners any more valid than Oscar Nominees imo. I think it's far more important to look at Oscar nominees as a whole than Oscar winners (like you said it's too much of a question mark... alot of factors go into the award winner, popularity, campaigning, how "out of the box" there performance is to what they've done before (honestly the only reason i think Jonah Hill was even nominated last year), how much they deserved it from there past, and yes.. acting ability, favor-ability in the role, and sometimes it all just comes down to peoples legitimate opinions)

basically.. there's something to say for those who are nominated (most of the time *looks at you jonah hill*) and one can at least say these are great actors.. (it's hard for me to usually argue that) the winner that year doesn't make them any better as a whole imo, and of course, there is countless underrated actors that have never and may never win an award.

But it's not far-fetched at all for someone to be wrong in validating an actor by there award. They did get nominated, they did win, and they do rightfully get some validation for that. Does it make them any more skillful? no, not really.. Oscar winners can still have flops, but at the same time you can at least put more eggs in their basket to count on.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by Kelly

I'm not saying someone's like or dislike of an actor is wrong...that is of course their opinion. But, when the validation of someone "right for a part" is that they have an Oscar? I think that is kind of a weak case to try and win. That's all....And yes, Kate Winslet is a phenomenal actress, my favorite in fact.... : )

oh most definitely. there's gotta be much more of a factor than "well she's an oscar winner" Just like it drives me nuts when people suggest someone for a part just simply because they're a good actor.. being a great actor doesn't always mean you can make any part your own, and that you are completely versatile enough to play any part... very very few actors are truly that much of a chameleon.

It's like Anna Kendrick being up for Sharon Carter. Yeah, she's a fantastic actress, but she no where near embodies who i perceive the character.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by Kelly

I don't mean she wrote someone a check for it...

I mean those studios that put time and $$$$ into getting the best gifts, night outs, etc to the academy winners end up winning the big prizes. It has happened since the Oscars began...I'm not saying that Halle didn't deserve her Oscar, and others did, I am just saying that "having an Oscar" doesn't mean you are the best one for a part...

Am I going to say that Meryl Streep did not deserve any of her Oscars and they were all bought....hell no? : )

it also reminds me of the wanting of Sigourney Weaver as Emma Frost.... is she a fantastic actress and could be entertaining in the role? Most certainly.. but is she the best choice to embody the character? hell no

[EnDz0n3]

I think Sigourney would've made a fantastic Emma Frost.

[BMM]

Agreed.

[psylockolussus]

Originally Posted by EnDz0n3

I think Sigourney would've made a fantastic Emma Frost.

Too old for the role. And I hardly imagine Sigourney Weaver as a villain. If she's going to be in a X-Men movie, I imagine her being in the good side.

[BMM]

Then you haven't seen enough of her movies.

[psylockolussus]

Originally Posted by BMM

Then you haven't seen enough of her movies.

You're right. The only movies that I've seen from her so far are the Alien movies, Vantage Point, Wall-e and Avatar.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by BMM

Then you haven't seen enough of her movies.

Shes far too old now to play Emma by her comic standards ... Could she play an aged emma (the films have already taken enough liberties as is) then yes. But again thats not what i said... I was talking about perfect or ideal (as in direct comic translation) and no shes not ideal at all in that context...

And before anyone brings up "galaxy quest" its almost been 15 years since they shot that film, and singer also wanted her as xaviers lover (gag me with a spoon)

Id much prefer her as cassandra nova than emma frost at this point

[BMM]

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

Shes far too old now to play Emma by her comic standards ... Could she play an aged emma (the films have already taken enough liberties as is) then yes. But again thats not what i said... I was talking about perfect or ideal (as in direct comic translation) and no shes not ideal at all in that context...

And before anyone brings up "galaxy quest" its almost been 15 years since they shot that film, and singer also wanted her as xaviers lover (gag me with a spoon)

Id much prefer her as cassandra nova than emma frost at this point

Why are you referring to any of this, as though people are suggesting it now? Singer wanted Weaver as Frost… 10 years ago. EnDzOn3 said she would have made a fantastic Emma Frost. I agreed. She would have made a fantastic Frost, and she would have been a much better choice than popular suggestions at the time. Ashley Hartman? Talk about gag me with a spoon. Like that would have stood the test of time.