I don't really understand why some people think it was "career suicide"? Acting is about conveying emotions convincingly
-
MrTridac — 10 years ago(July 14, 2015 04:11 AM)
So what you're basically saying is:
"I go to the movies to watch women that could be possible mates."
Have you ever considered that a movie is art? A story being told by moving pictures.
Why is it important that the actor (actress) could in theory be attracted to you?
Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day
-
MrTridac — 10 years ago(July 15, 2015 07:21 AM)
May I add:
From a pathetic director's perspective. Because unlike producers good directors care about the story and the characters not about the money.
Unfortunately this is not true for many of the big names. cough Lucas cough
With this in mind you might have a point there. That's probably the reason why Ellen works mostly in the independent area.
Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day
-
fillshertease — 10 years ago(July 30, 2015 07:46 PM)
Recently I saw people complaining that Neil Patrick Harris played a straight person in Gone Girl and they couldn't buy it because they know he's gay. So there are at least
some
people who can't or won't accept a gay person playing a straight role and if there are a lot of those types of people then you can be sure that whoever does casting will take that into account. As will directors.
You're right that certain directors are concerned about money but you're completely and utterly wrong about George Lucas being one of them. NOT. EVEN. CLOSE. I can see how you might have that erroneous belief but nothing could be further from the truth. You should find out more about him because most people don't understand who he is or the impact he has had on the universe of cinema
We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you. -
MrTridac — 10 years ago(July 31, 2015 05:26 AM)
It's true that Lucas had a huge impact on modern cinema.
I won't go into a debate if and how Lucas ruined his own achievments. But everything he did with the whole Star Wars universe clearly shows that he doesn't care for the art (the movies) or the audience.
The best example is Star Wars 3D. It doesn't add anything at all to the S111ctar Wars saga. Nothing. It's just for the money. It's not even real 3D.
It's even worse than re-releasing an old movie with "better quality", which in some ways might be understandable given the fact that technology improved over the years. But fake 3D isn't an improvement at all. It's a sign for his greed.
Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day
-
fillshertease — 10 years ago(August 05, 2015 05:50 PM)
But everything he did with the whole Star Wars universe clearly shows that he doesn't care for the art (the movies) or the audience.
That simply isn't true. In fact it's completely back to front. I can see why cynical people think that though
To give one example - which is all that's needed to show your assertion is incorrect - he not only allowed his characters and universe to be used freely by the fans, he has on many occasions actually helped them. When Family Guy decided to take the pi$$ out of Star Wars - something there's no way other companies, or people who didn't care about the fans would allow - he actually invited them out to Skywalker Ranch and helped them with it. I'm sorry but that just isn't a person who doesn't care about the fans or the audience. He may well have lost touch with his fans and audience at times - no argument there - but saying that he doesn't care about them is about as far from the truth as you can possibly get.
There are MANY other examples.
The best example is Star Wars 3D. It doesn't add anything at all to the Star Wars saga. Nothing. It's just for the money. It's not even real 3D.
It's even worse than re-releasing an old movie with "better quality", which in some ways might be understandable given the fact that technology improved over the years. But fake 3D isn't an improvement at all. It's a sign for his greed.
Got any evidence to support your assertion that his motivations are purely financial? No I thought not. That's because it doesn't exist. It's just a cynical way of looking at someone who has become incredibly successful by trying to give the fans and the audience what they want. Do you seriously believe that he could 1c84have made that much money if the fans and audience didn't want what they were being sold? No of course you don't because that would be ridiculous. You're using as evidence some things that the fans didn't turn out to want and then putting the cart before the horse. George Lucas shouldn't feel in any way ashamed of being incredibly successful, and extremely wealthy, by caring about his audience. He certainly doesn't deserve to be told he doesn't care about them at all!
We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you. -
MrTridac — 10 years ago(August 06, 2015 03:58 AM)
All right, since we're already way off topic let me just comment on one specific statement of yours:
has become incredibly successful by trying to give the fans and the audience what they want.
Many, literally thousands of fans requested - very loud and emphatic - that Lucas releases the original Star Wars movies on DVD as they were released in the seventies and eighties. There were even petitions for that. Lucas himself stated that this is not going to happen, never.
So much for giving the fans what they want.
Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day
-
lukejbarnett2002 — 9 years ago(June 22, 2016 01:01 AM)
'cuz you're always constantly internally and subconsciously and consciously thinking about it while watching her or him in a movie whether you want to or not. it's horrible and tragic and that is exactly why it's a career ender or decliner and limiter and hurter. it really takes away her appeal, and fun of watching her and really takes away her sex appeal.
it's like thinking back on fond memories of doogie howser md when you were a kid and now feeling horrible and sad and gross about that part of your childhood now, now that you know that he is now gay, even if he wasn't gay when he was on that show. we all have conceptions and hopes and desires and attractions for certain actresses and actors that we can't change. that's part of the appeal of actors and actresses. their sex appeal and attractiveness, regardless of if we, the audience ever have a chance to get wi5b4th them, we in our hearts and minds and desires and dreams and daydreams, dream of being with them and having them for our love. -
5b4
MrTridac — 9 years ago(June 22, 2016 10:05 AM)I totally agree to that point.
In the back of your head - it's there, that's true.
I'm not so sure about the " having them for our love" part.
The actor or the character?
We usually don't know the person behind the character. If we are attracted to a person in a movie, we're probably more attracted to the character than to the actor. That would mean we could still get that if she plays a lovable character.
But, of course, if you have that thought in the back of your head you might start to wonder if you "buy her girl".
It's a plausible scenario, I'll give you that.
_______________________________________5b4
Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day -
lukejbarnett2002 — 9 years ago(June 22, 2016 07:39 PM)
what do you mean by "buy her girl?"
having them for our love is the actor not the character because the character is not real, you can't see or interact with them. it's both, but more the actress than the character. for instance even if they played a horrible person, I would still like them because my love for them(the actress) is more about how they look and talk than how they act or behave.
I also have always loved the bad, villain characters in horror movies. I dont' know why, but I think it's because I can relate to them, me always being an outsider and weirdo and outcast and freak and always shunned away from being a normal, social person with other people and never being able to get a girlfriend all my life. so I can live vicariously through the killer in a slasher film and live out my justice inducing, violent fantasies against women, in which I hate all attractive ones. -
MrTridac — 9 years ago(June 23, 2016 04:06 AM)
what do you mean by "buy her girl?"
I mean whether you are convinced she is a straight girl when she plays a straight girl.
The scenario I could think of is that one might become unconvinced at some point. Not because she doesn't do a good job as an actress but because you know she is not what she pretends to be. Even though this is what acting is about. But when it comes to sexual orientation the pretending might get problematic.
Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day
-
WerdnaMernox — 10 years ago(September 17, 2015 08:00 PM)
She's had a pretty good career so far without doing a lot of those rom-coms I actually can't think of any, maybe I'm wrong though.
So what's a movie of hers that you liked that you don't think would be good now? The only role she's done that afaik has to be a straight character was Juno. I'd object to some of the twee dialogue but not Ellen's performance - she
made
that movie.
Would Inception not be as good anymore? Whip-it? Hard Candy? I have a hard time imagining someone who actually likes smart, tough, cool, funny women in movies but who would have such a negative reaction to someone for being gay. -
P-K-One — 10 years ago(July 24, 2015 02:21 AM)
The problem is less the believability of the portrayal but rather the risk of boycotts by beep
Think about it this way. I do not buy Orson Scott Card books because he is a crazy, homophobic, radical. I do not watch Roman Polanski movies because he is a child rapist. I make a conscious decision to boycott those people because I think their behavior is morally wrong.
Depending on the poll you read about 30% of the US population considers homosexuality to be immoral to a certain degree. So there is a risk that the same sentiment that makes me not watch Polanski movies would make those people not watch an Ellen Page movie.
This is something that influences the casting choices for movies. Ask yourself, if you were a casting director and you have the choice between two actors and the choice for actor A would reduce the potential target audience by 30%, would you cast that actor or would you rather go with the safe choice, the other actor? So by making herself controversial, she might have caused massive damage to her career. -
MrTridac — 10 years ago(July 24, 2015 04:01 AM)
You have a very, very good point.
I haven't seen it this way before. But I'm wondering if the opposite isn't true as well?
Some people might consider watching a movie
because
they became aware of that strong young women who made a bold move.
However, I can't imagine a casting director considering this.
Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day
-
P-K-One — 10 years ago(July 24, 2015 04:53 AM)
Would you really watch a movie you are not interested in just to support an actor?
As I said, I do boycott movies and books if I have issues with the artists involved. But I can't see myself reading a book I don't enjoy or watching a movie I am not interested in to show my support. And I doubt many people would.
The difference is that you pass on most things anyway. I go to the cinema about once or twice a month. 20 movies come out in that timeframe and I am interested in 5 of them. So I know at any given time that I will not see 3 I am interested in. It does not hurt me which 3 those are since the net amount of entertainment I have is the same. My moral objections come at no cost to me. I watch two movies I want to see no matter what happens.
However, if I go and watch a movie I am not interested in, I waste 50% of my potential entertainment.
I think it's similar for most people. -
lukejbarnett2002 — 9 years ago(June 22, 2016 01:15 AM)
yeah but the problem about that is it only favors the less big population of gays while taking down the probability of straight people watching her movies. so, if you are straight it's good on the count of straight people still watching your movies and gays still watching your movies but just not increasing them watching your movies. go the safe, straight route.