David O. Russell's "Joy" (Jennifer Lawrence)

[CB Fan]

They would be valid if she didn't receive acclaim for the roles. This is acting. She made enough people believe her in the roles that she got an Oscar and another nomination. It is bizarre to even suggest that because she is playing a 30-something year old, that it will become stale. Are there only certain types of roles you can play in your 30 and 40s year old actresses?

Also, am I to believe that if Emma Watson in 20 years played another "witch" people wouldn't be excited about it? I think it would be the exact opposite.

Darth, I have read enough of your posts in these forums to know you have a very "I'm right you're wrong" mentality regarding your opinions so all I'll say is that it (her popularity fading) could happen for many reasons and it doesn't matter what awards she won all opinions of her in any role are still valid and not just the ones you agree with.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Darth, I have read enough of your posts in these forums to know you have a very "I'm right you're wrong" mentality regarding your opinions so all I'll say is that it (her popularity fading) could happen for many reasons and it doesn't matter what awards she won all opinions of her in any role are still valid and not just the ones you agree with.

I like that you made this about me, as oppose to actually arguing your point. Having an opinion is fine, but it isn't my fault if your logic defending it has flaws. I am not being a jerk in pointing them out.

You can say she was too young, people can agree, but it is clear that on the scale of those who care about that and those who don't, it falls in her favor. She is America's darling, the most in demand actress in the world, with an Oscar and two other nominations. She is 25. We have an X-Men forum here which consistently complains about her in those films. It has not effected her one bit.

Her popularity will fade, because it does for all actors and actresses after they hit their peak. But stating that she will become stale because of the award winning roles she has played up to now is a bad argument. One of the reasons her start as risen in the manner it has is because of those roles. The double impact of the Hunger Games and Oscar consideration for 3 separate roles. She has gained a foothold in Hollywood thanks to this, and to even suggest she should in anyway regret it is disingenuous.

Also, I did notice you avoided the Emma Watson point.

 

[CB Fan]

Your mistake is in assuming that everyone who posts on these boards gets off on arguing back and forth especially when the person you're arguing with is known to believe that their opinion is always right.

I will say this, unfortunately there are limited roles for actresses once they get to be a certain age actresses over 30 say this all the time if a young Jennifer is already acting in roles usually reserved for women over 30 plus roles actually suited for her age now what is there to do later? She's looking into directing now which is good cause at this rate she will have tackled so much that many of the characters/roles she gets later could be seen as similar and boring. No where did I say this was absolutely going to happen I only said that it could. And once again by no means am I saying she should regret the roles that have given her acclaim.

As for Emma Watson if she were to play a witch later in her career it might be interesting but only because she'd be playing an opposite to what she did in Harry Potter (should the role be that of an older evil witch). In Meryl's case she brought up that she'd been offered the role of the old hag/witch many times when she was younger and she turned it down because it wasn't age appropriate to her and she finally excepted when she got older and people were excited because she hadn't played such a character before.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Your mistake is in assuming that everyone who posts on these boards gets off on arguing back and forth especially when the person you're arguing with is known to believe that their opinion is always right.

It is strange to think that anyone ever thinks their opinions is wrong from the get go. Now you can be convinced of such, I have in the past. But, what exactly is the point of something being your opinion, if a good part of the time you think it is wrong?

Also, I never insulted you. You felt the need to insult me instead of arguing your point. Disagree with me if you like, but making it a personal matter is uncalled for.

I will say this, unfortunately there are limited roles for actresses once they get to be a certain age actresses over 30 say this all the time if a young Jennifer is already acting in roles usually reserved for women over 30 plus roles actually suited for her age now what is there to do later? She's looking into directing now which is good cause at this rate she will have tackled so much that many characters/roles she gets later could be seen as similar and boring. No where did I say this was absolutely going to happen I only said that it could. As for Emma Watson if she were to play an witch later in her career it might be interesting but only because she'd be playing an opposite to what she did in Harry Potter (should the role be that of an older evil witch). In Meryl's case she brought up that she'd been offered the role of the old hag/witch many times when she was younger and she turned it down because it wasn't age appropriate to her and she finally excepted when she got older and people were excited because she hadn't played such a character before.

Basing this on the limited roles available for women is one thing. But if that is the case, wouldn't she just be boring by her mid-30s anyway? If the type of roles are so limited, what is the difference? Also, who is to say she would be wanted for these roles in 10 years or that they will be available? My opinion is that any actor or actress should be to take the best roles available. People do not freeze out popular actors or actresses in strong films. Now if she is playing these same roles in 10 years in mediocre and bad movies, that would change things. But the growing trend of strong female influences in front and behind the camera, gives me hope for actresses of all ages.

The interest in Watson playing a witch again, or Lawrence playing a bow wielding badass again, would be familiarity and nostalgia. Of course the quality of the role matters, but it really isn't much different then the Star Wars situation other then of course scale. Or if they did make the new Harry Potter play into a film in 5-10 years. Streep feeling aren't wrong, but that doesn't make them right. She is an amazing, fantastic actress, who I loved in Into the Woods. But she wasn't the draw there, so her previous work really didn't impact it.

 

[CB Fan]

It is strange to think that anyone ever thinks their opinions is wrong from the get go. Now you can be convinced of such, I have in the past. But, what exactly is the point of something being your opinion, if a good part of the time you think it is wrong?

Also, I never insulted you. You felt the need to insult me instead of arguing your point. Disagree with me if you like, but making it a personal matter is uncalled for.

If you feel that way I apologize I only acknowledged what I'd seen from you in the past as well as experienced in the How to Train Your Dragon 2 thread earlier this year.

Basing this on the limited roles available for women is one thing. But if that is the case, wouldn't she just be boring by her mid-30s anyway? If the type of roles are so limited, what is the difference? My advice to any actor or actress would be to take the best roles available. People do not freeze out popular actors or actresses in strong films. Now if she is playing these same roles in 10 years in mediocre and bad movies, that would change things. But the growing trend of strong female influences in front and behind the camera, gives me hope for actresses of all ages.

I do hope for the best as well but we all know that Hollywood is still very slow when it comes to true change. And would she be boring by her mid 30s anyway? I don't think so as there would be new roles and types that she hasn't played before due to her age, and there obviously still is I just think she should slow her role on playing characters that are obviously older than her.

The interest in Watson playing a witch again, or Lawrence playing a bow wielding badass again, would be familiarity and nostalgia. Of course the quality of the role matters, but it really isn't much different then the Star Wars situation other then of course scale. Or if they did make the new Harry Potter play into a film in 5-10 years. Streep feeling aren't wrong, but that doesn't make them right. She is an amazing, fantastic actress, who I loved in Into the Woods. But she wasn't the draw there, so her previous work really didn't impact it.

I think eyes would roll if JLaw ever played a bow wielding badass that isn't Katniss again.

 

[Fallen Angel]

David O Russell getting hammered you say? Do I feel sorry for him?

 

[Lily Adler]

I don't think her role in SLP was TOO farfetched. A 20-something can be a single mother. I lived in a small town where every other girl in my graduating class was getting knocked up and had to work hard to support their child and go to college. To me it's pairing her with Bradley Cooper that gives me the creeps. I don't like them together for some reason.

 

[MadVillainy]

Hmmm in reading over the last few pages...I'm guessing that rumor that Adams and Bale having beef with O Russell is true. I heard it somewhere but just assumed it was a rumor.

That guy better hold on to Lawrence for dear life because he already burned bridges with Wahlberg who was his other bff.

EDIT: Ah in Googling it I see it was something from the SONY leaks. I didnt follow them much.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Don't worry man Jen said she's not going anywhere r.e doing movies with DOR again. Bradley Cooper is his male go-to man as of now as well.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Lawrence saying it was her fault for the fight shows in a way, Russel has indirectly manipulated her into thinking something is her fault. The guy is a prick who seems to have her under his thumb. Or it's a two way street. Both are getting something that benefits themselves with working with each other. Lawrence is fine but this relationship comes off as kind of perverse.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Maybe we should give Jen more credit rather than painting her as this aloof damsel being coerced and manipulated by the evil filmmaker. Given that she has won Oscars with this man, it's in her best interest to be apologetic for him. Maybe it's her choice to do so, and not something brought on by vodoo magic on the poor girl.

 

[Fallen Angel]

This woman doesn't need this guy. She's working with Aronofsky and Spielberg next. Are you telling me she should hang on to the coat tails of David O' Frickin Russell?

 

[Doctor Jones]

Maybe we should give Jen more credit rather than painting her as this aloof damsel being coerced and manipulated by the evil filmmaker. Given that she has won Oscars with this man, it's in her best interest to be apologetic for him. Maybe it's her choice to do so, and not something brought on by vodoo magic on the poor girl.

I wasn't inferring she's an aloof damsel, as people can still be used and that isn't mutually exclusive. I do think given their friendship, despite Russell's treatment of people, she's in a tricky position where despite her being aware of these things, she kind of has to. But the thing is... she doesn't. It comes down to morals. Even if it's her choice, the fact she sticks by him despite his behavior I don't agree with at all. To begin with, she doesn't need him and can do fine without him, and more importantly, she's a better person than him. It's perverse from an outsider's perspective that someone like her defends and sticks by someone like him, despite the nuances of their relationship we do not know personally. You can't be friends with someone like that and expect to be consistent with what she's been arguing. She'd be better off ending it given her personhood in which yes, I do give her a lot of credit for.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I do think given their friendship, despite Russell's treatment of people, she's in a position where despite her being aware of these things, she kind of has to. But the thing is... she doesn't. Even if it's her choice, the fact she sticks by him despite his behavior I don't agree with at all.

She sticks by him because he consistently gets her results/Oscars. She either doesn't care or turns a blind eye to his misconducts. This is the movie business, not a charity.

To begin with, she doesn't need him and can do fine without him, and she's a better person than him.

Dunno about you, bu there is scant chance I will meet either person, so their personalities outside of their movie ones are irrelevant really.

It's perverse from an outsider's perspective that someone like her defends and sticks by someone like him, despite the nuances of their relationship we do not know personally.

If we do not know them personally, let us refrain from telling her what and what not to do.

 

[Doctor Jones]

She sticks by him because he consistently gets her results/Oscars. She either doesn't care or turns a blind eye to his misconducts. This is the movie business, not a charity.

Dunno about you, bu there is scant chance I will meet either person, so their personalities outside of their movie ones are irrelevant really.

If we do not know them personally, let us refrain from telling her what and what not to do.

So just because it's not a charity means she should turn a blind eye to his bad deeds? Complacency? Willful ignorance? That won't change anything in why people like Russell get away with stuff. I don't know about you but absence of charity or not that's a moral problem that's on her. What she does is up to her, I'm saying from an outsider looking in, I can still criticize her for her choice and say it's better for her to leave. That does not mean I'm telling her what to do. Just because we don't know means we can't call ******** on something like this? That's the point to vigilance.

 

[Fallen Angel]

When George Clooney wants' to strangle you then you know you're a *****e. And he's regarded as one of the nicest people in Hollywood.

Then you have this *****e verbally abusing Amy Adams so much Christian Bale of all people tells you to **** and pipe down. Mark Wahlberg wanted to punch his lights out as well.

 

[dark_b]

it was her fault because she was sick and puked on the set?

 

[Warhammer]

When George Clooney wants' to strangle you then you know you're a *****e. And he's regarded as one of the nicest people in Hollywood.

Then you have this *****e verbally abusing Amy Adams so much Christian Bale of all people tells you to **** and pipe down. Mark Wahlberg wanted to punch his lights out as well.

I saw the I Heart Huckabees BTS video where Lily Tomlin is ripping into Russell. I think I read that Dustin Hoffman also hated Russell on the set of that movie.

And it's funny how Clooney and Wahlberg had issues with Russell but Ice Cube didn't. You know Russell didn't try to pull some s*** on him.

 

[MadVillainy]

I saw the I Heart Huckabees BTS video where Lily Tomlin is ripping into Russell. I think I read that Dustin Hoffman also hated Russell on the set of that movie.

And it's funny how Clooney and Wahlberg had issues with Russell but Ice Cube didn't. You know Russell didn't try to pull some s*** on him.

Wahlberg didnt have issues with him during Three Kings though. His issues come from the fact that Wahlberg wanted Cooper's role in SLP and O Russell didn't give it to him. Especially after Wahlberg helped resurrect O Russell's career with The Fighter. While I think Cooper probably did a better job than Wahlberg wouldve (the only reason I saw probably because I think O Russell has gotten some really good performances out of Wahlberg) I can see why Wahlberg would be upset.

I doubt Ice Cube takes any crap, but I would say Wahlberg is "about that life" too and I doubt O Russell really gave him trouble.

 

[Warhammer]

Ohhhhh, I see. It would have been interesting to see Wahlberg in that role. I agree that Cooper probably was the better choice.

 

[I Am The Knight]

You mention Kate Winslet, but Winslet is generally considered one of the best actresses of the last 20 years. Yes, she never was bigger than in her Titanic fame, but she followed that up with movies like Eternal Sunshine, Quills, Finding Neverland, The Reader, Revolutionary Road, Mildred Pierce.

The movie that made militant Nolanites cry back in 2008-2009.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Good grief this isn't funny but downright creepy now.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayl...re-shell-play-robert-de-niros-mother-20151216

Doing the rounds for "Joy," Jennifer Lawrence reveals that her bestie director David O. Russell is already cooking up a new movie for her, but one with a little twist.


“David is making something right now and the plan, so far, is for me to play Bob De Niro’s mother ... I think that the more people give him crap about me being too young for his parts, he’s like, ‘Oh yeah, watch this’ — so we’ll see,” she told "Live! With Kelly And Michael"



Now, it should be mentioned that Russell flirts with digital effects in "Joy," in a small sequence where VFX are used to make De Niro look younger, 'Benjamin Button' style. However, taking the leap to write a movie for an actor who will have to play older, is something else.


There's no word on what the project actually is, but maybe it's that 600-page family opus he was recently talking about. That would seem like a good fit for the technology.

 

[kvz5]

I'm sure she's just joking/being sarcastic.

 

[Fallen Angel]

I'm sure she's just joking/being sarcastic.

But what if it isn't? I mean with these two anything is possible.

 

[Rowsdower!]

The movie that made militant Nolanites cry back in 2008-2009.

The Reader!
I must admit
I have not seen
The Reader!