Channing Tatum
-
irrelevantsomeone — 9 years ago(April 13, 2016 08:12 PM)
I'm honestly fine with Elton John. Because technically he really can't get a big role in this, his profession is not acting (even though he had small acting jobs where, well, as you said, he plays himself), so he's probably going to get a short cameo. His name is huge that's why the information is spreading, but yeah, I'm fully convinced he won't get more than a cameo in this, so I'm with it.
While Channing that's another story. He's apparently going to get a bigger part (he gets his own bloody poster! ugh), and he's just not a good choice for this film. Nor is he a good actor - if Vaughn gets out of him a solid performance it'll be a miracle. -
olla — 9 years ago(April 13, 2016 08:18 PM)
I saw, I guess it's just wishful thinking. I liked Harry, Eggsy, Merlin and Roxy so much in the first one I don't want them to be elbowed to the back burner for newbies.
Though, I do trust Matthew Vaughn to make another fun action packed spy movie, so I'm still excited regardless of all the casting news. -
irrelevantsomeone — 9 years ago(April 13, 2016 08:38 PM)
Yes, yes, yes! Exactly! I totally agree. I'm in for the original characters that are left from the first feature, I don't want a new character to get a bigger role than them. Just no. Why put aside the other characters to give space to a new one when everyone's attached to the originals and is going to see the sequel for them.
I'm with you, I'm really putting all my trust in Vaughn and I hope he maintains the quality of the first film. -
olla — 9 years ago(April 16, 2016 12:13 AM)
Yea, for sure. It can just be a little overwhelming when there are so many new cast members. There's a pretty big spotlight to share, but I'm greedy for my favourites.
Now just watch, after The Golden Circle I'm going to want a spinoff of the new characters and it's be a bigger franchise than Bond. Haha! -
JErosion — 9 years ago(April 16, 2016 02:00 PM)
actually The Golden Circle will probably be the villains in this, and given the second poster, the title looked to be a nod to The Knights of the Golden Circle, which was a secret society formed in the 1850s that advocated the Secession of the Southern States and the war to acquire addition territories from Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean to create a super slave holding nation for the wealthy. When the civil war didn't pan out of them many went on to form the Ku Klux Klan(the ku Klux part of the name is a corruption of the greek word kuklos which means Circle)
-
Ellie8888 — 9 years ago(April 13, 2016 10:08 PM)
I just saw! Holy ****, I'm so not happy about this. The casting news has been great up until now.
Yeah. It made me go "What? But why? It won't fit with the rest of the cast", I have a feeling he's going to stand out like a sore thumb. Don't get me wrong, I like Tatum. Just don't see him fitting into this film. -
irrelevantsomeone — 9 years ago(April 14, 2016 05:16 AM)
Well, many don't fit in the roles they are given in the Kingsman film(s) but that's why it's great, because Vaughn makes it work. The problem with Tatum is (and I have nothing against him as a person) that he cannot act. He's going to stand out so very badly because of his lack of acting skills. What we need to hope here is that Vaughn manages to make him do a decent performance.
-
WhiteTigerRedPhoenix — 9 years ago(July 01, 2016 05:40 PM)
Yeah, because a film filled with stars needs him to get more money. But if you want a good looking guy who would draw women to the cinema, there are Tom Hiddleston, Tom Hardy, Chris Pine, for example.
The second part of your comment is just plain stupid. If you can't make a decent argument defending your hero, why bother at all? Oh. Wait. -
bscc-1 — 9 years ago(July 01, 2016 06:09 PM)
My "hero"? I've never really typed this before, but "LOL". I don't even like the guy, but he can bring people to see this movie that may otherwise not be interested. It's just common sense. He's a hotter name than the 3 guys you just mentioned. We don't even know yet, he may not have a big part in this film.
-
laiwingnang — 9 years ago(July 03, 2016 06:19 PM)
his box office appeal is way overstated, he's in Hail Cesar, but that movie floppedand Jupiter Ascending made 1/2 of what Kingsman did
this tatum guy is like a really boring himbo who will definitely be outshone by the rest of the cast with his passable-at-best acting talent and zero star factorhope he's there for a small part, so at least his fangirls will generate some buzz retweeting his publicity pics on twitterthat seems to be the only value he will bring to the movie -
laiwingnang — 9 years ago(July 04, 2016 10:16 AM)
we are talking about the same actor that was nominated for the worst actor award at the razzies this year, right?
This is a movie where everyone with a significant role has at least a nod from industry insiders, eg BAFTA or oscar nomination/win to their name.compare that to Tatum who got nada, well.. unless you count the worst actor nom from the razzies so who are these ppl that "matters" who got off this imaginary horse? let me tell you, he's not in the same league as the rest of the cast..he's good enough for some hollywood teen heartthrob b-movie where everybody else can't act, but this is a movie where everyone is an acting heavyweight, a lightweight like him will stick out like a sore thumb -
julianmarq — 9 years ago(July 05, 2016 12:11 PM)
we are talking about the same actor that was nominated for the worst actor award at the razzies this year, right?
In a movie that was nominated for everything? Yeah.
Mila Kunis (for some, the best thing from one of the best movies of the past ten years) got nominated too. Hell, oscar winner Redmayne
won
.
Your point there really falls on its face.
As for the people that matter: Tarantino, the Coens, Soderbergh, other actors, etc.
he's good enough for some hollywood
teen heartthrob b-movie where everybody else can't act
, but this is a movie where everyone is an acting heavyweight, a lightweight like him will stick out like a sore thumb
You mean like in Side Effects or the Hateful Eight or Hail Caesar? Heh, a lot of people considered him outright a highlight of that last one, even among those who hated it.
If anything, one would think a moron who still sticks to the five-year-past-its-time narrative of Tatum being a bad actor would admit that he's a better fit for Kingsman than those three examples: Both Jump Street movies were very well received and the tone is somewhat similar.
But like I said, keep on riding that horse. Opinions are allowed to be wrong.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! These are the IMDB Boards!"
-
laiwingnang — 9 years ago(July 05, 2016 01:36 PM)
According to your logic, the razzies isn't legit because some of the actors YOU approve of won it. The Oscars have winners that are considered bad actors to many ppl as well, does it mean the Oscars have no credibility? You can't cherry-pick your way out. Redmayne has plenty of industry acclaim to back him up. Your god, Tatum can't even get a single nomination from the industry, ZERO critic awards and even nominations are far and few in between..it's a pretty bad track record for a prolific high profile actor. So NO, the industry doesn't agree with you.
Don't tell me you were born yesterday or just born stupid. Have you heard of lip service? Directors/stars compliment each other in front of the media all the time. It's called "my movie has a great cast, buy your tickets" DUH! When award time comes, nobody is voting for him..so W.F.C.
I didn't call him a bad actorlet me repeat: he is a passable, average actor at besthis lack of award recognition is proof of it..you obviously can't tell the difference between a great nuanced actor from an average one.you're nothing but a logically impaired desperate fangirl.
Yeah, I wonder about that imaginary horse..seems like you got your butt on it along with Tatum's director buddies -
julianmarq — 9 years ago(July 06, 2016 11:30 AM)
Fella, I get it, you're one of the morons who need stuff like awards to decide who you think is good or bad. You literally cannot think for yourself but that doesn't really counter anything I've written.
But, since you're a fan of buzz: Literally the only movie of Tatum that has gotten bad reviews in the last three years was Jupiter Ascending, and even among critics, the consensus was that the Wachowskis are hacks that wasted a good cast.
And the "industry" are the people who made the movies, everyone else are just people who have jobs thanks to the ones that actually made the movies; they're the sheep eating from the filmmakers' proverbial pastures.
And some of the most respected people who make movies, the ones who are the kind who get to cherry pick their casts, have worked with Tatum.
No matter how hard you try, you can't reject the reality of those two facts.
PS: By the way, excellent job, nothing says more about how much one knows about movies than dismissing people like the Coens, Tarantino or Soderbergh as "buddy directors", I wouldn't have gotten you to embarrass yourself that perfectly if I had tried.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! These are the IMDB Boards!"