I feel like she should be more famous! At least…
-
Weber4278 — 10 years ago(January 22, 2016 09:17 PM)
Lily also did Cinderella and managed not to get overshadowed by Cate Blanchett in the way Mia did in Alice with Johnny Depp.
The Mad Hatter is much more of a scene stealing type of character then The Wicked Stepmother. Johnny Depps wackyness would have overshadowed Lily James too had she been playing opposite him.
It wasn't Mia's fault that she was playing the 'straight' character in a film that had way too much Mad Hatter stuff. -
josephmramirez — 10 years ago(January 25, 2016 10:12 AM)
I really like her choices..she seems intelligent enough not to go down the RomCom/rubbish blockbuster route.
A vital part of being a successful actor is choosing quality projects that have enough personal appeal to inspire good or great performances.
Other important parts of the job are working regularly, and reaching substantial audiences. Even the most talented actor doesn't want to be limited to productions with three-week runs in mostly empty theaters. Some concessions must be made to mass appeal.
Balance is essential. A successful actor in 2016 ideally should appear in a mix of ambitious independent films, well-crafted midbudget releases with some commercial aspirations, and yes, the occasional blockbuster if possible. Bigger pictures make smaller pictures possible by increasing the actor's recognition and popularity, and demonstrating box office potential.
Performance quality aside, the bottom line at the moment is that Mia could use a
hit
. -
LifeVsArt — 10 years ago(January 25, 2016 11:13 PM)
I agree with what you write, but who knows if she even cares about that; it's hard to tell (I hope she does, at least somewhat). A more mainstream type film, once in a while, is necessary. Mia seems to be drawn to psychological, surreal, visually poetic, edgy, auteur directed movies, which I LOVE, and watch multiple times, but the mass audience doesn't pick-up on that type of thing - they're often divisive films, bless her heart. She's such an amazing actress, with an almost mystical presence, I want her to keep making the kind of movies I love, but a big picture would be welcomed. I guess we've got "Alice Through the Looking Glass" coming next, so hopefully that will provide the occasional blockbuster spot.
-
kellcramer — 10 years ago(January 27, 2016 08:51 AM)
A vital part of being a successful actor is choosing quality projects that have enough personal appeal to inspire good or great performances.
Other important parts of the job are working regularly, and reaching substantial audiences. Even the most talented actor doesn't want to be limited to productions with three-week runs in mostly empty theaters. Some concessions must be made to mass appeal.
Balance is essential. A successful actor in 2016 ideally should appear in a mix of ambitious independent films, well-crafted midbudget releases with 5b4some commercial aspirations, and yes, the occasional blockbuster if possible. Bigger pictures make smaller pictures possible by increasing the actor's recognition and popularity, and demonstrating box office potential.
Performance quality aside, the bottom line at the moment is that Mia could use a hit.
So eloquently stated.
I think many if not most of Mia's fans love her choices in movies. But there comes a point in time when you have to realize as a performer that your movies just aren't being seen. Her films generate little to no publicity which mean even the arthouse crowd fails to see them. The films where Mia is the sole lead often go straight to VOD/DVD, no theatrically life whatsoever. As a fan I would like to see her films have a theater run and yes be in awards contention.
Mia is well known in the industry and is seen by many directors and studio executives as a top choice and talent. But with so many talented actresses coming along, how long will Mia continue to get all of these quality leading roles? The point is Mia's films have little to no critical acclaim and no box office potential.
I'm not saying that to be insulting but saying that as a fan that just wants more for her career. There is no way that a film like Tracks should have gone completely ignored. -
josephmramirez — 10 years ago(January 27, 2016 08:46 PM)
There is no way that a film like Tracks should have gone completely ignored.
Tracks
was an utter nonentity, commercially speaking. But it's not as though the film was bungled; it's well-crafted, engaging, and even beautiful in an austere way. One might therefore conclude that the appeal of the "Woman vs. Nature" story must be inherently limited, and that's why no one anywhere saw
Tracks
, or bothered to promote it. Yet only three months later (based on U.S. release dates),
Wild
turned in 11x the global grosses of
Tracks
. Eleven times! It was essentially the same movie, but with a better-known, American actress in an American setting. It also earned an Academy Award nomination for Reese Witherspoon.
The same thing happened on a larger scale with Mia's
Restless
, a film with box office returns so low the producers probably had to go back and check to confirm that it had actually been released. Three years later, the very similar
The Fault in Our Stars
made more than $300 million worldwide! It must be frustrating for Mia to see her flopped film concepts becomes hits for other performers. -
SwingBatta — 10 years ago(January 27, 2016 10:35 PM)
TFIOS was based on a well-known cheesetastic YA novel that already had a large fanbase, released during the YA-novel-adaptation gold rush.
But yeah, I completely agree with you on all points. If there was anything bungled about Tracks, it was the utterly abominable marketing by Weinstein.
You four-eyed psycho. -
LifeVsArt — 10 years ago(January 27, 2016 10:47 PM)
I'm sure you also know that "Wild" and "The Fault in Our Stars" were based on recent #1 best selling books - Oprah endorsed, Young adult runaway hit, etc.- both already had very large audiences going in who knew and loved the books, which is a big reason why they were adapted into films in the first place (why Reese Witherspoon was attracted to the project and produced) and why they got the kind of major promotion/push/buzz that they did. They're also both MUCH more commercial/mainstream films. I appreciate what you're saying, but there are so many factors other than a similarity in the story, that leads to a film being a hit or not being a hit, don't you think?
-
josephmramirez — 10 years ago(January 28, 2016 09:32 AM)
Having a tie-in to a popular novel (even a "cheesetastic" book, as SwingBatta notes) is of course a great advantage that can't be replicated. However, the popularity of a novel and its screen adaptation are also important for related works, because they demonstrate the commercial viability of the material.
For example, if
Restless
were considered in isolation, the judgment might be, "A bittersweet teen romance in which the girl is terminally ill? Too much of a downer; no one wants to see that kind of story." But thanks to
The Fault in Our Stars
, we know that's not true. An audience for this kind of story does exist a large one. Unfortunately, in this case the certain knowledge is available only in hindsight, because both the novel and film of
The Fault in Our Stars
came out after
Restless
.
I doubt that the public's taste changed dramatically between 2011 and 2012, however. Realistically, evaluating the prospects of
Restless
in some sort of atemporal movie space, we'd conclude, "Your movie is quirkier and maybe less straightforwardly romantic than
Fault
, and you lack the book tie-in and Oprah endorsements as big boosters. Don't expect to be a blockbuster. But you've got a talented cast and crew, and a central story that we know has appeal. Your movie could easily be a modest hit."
But conventional "hit or flop" analysis doesn't capture the enormity of the box office failure of
Restless
. It's as if the producers simply threw the film away. Or, as kellcramer implies, perhaps they decided it should really be a direct-to-video product, and the theatrical release was reduced to a mere formality.
So yes, I agree that there were multiple reasons that
Restless
, and
Tracks
, were not even marginally successful. But I still believe there are strong indicators that they
could have been
successful again, not blockbusters or even major hits, but certainly high-performing indie films, like
Jane Eyre
.
JE
is a good example of a movie with a relatively small but well-defined target audience, which the film largely succeeded in reaching.
Many lousy movies fail all the time, but it's sad when good ones crash mightily despite reasonable prospects, assuming half-decent management and marketing. -
LifeVsArt — 10 years ago(January 28, 2016 10:20 AM)
Many lousy movies fail all the time, but it's sad when good ones crash mightily despite reasonable prospects, assuming half-decent management and marketing.
Yes, and managing and marketing is extremely important - as Swingbatta noted, Weinstien blew it (for a number of reasons). Also, for a while now, many small, arthouse type films are increasingly being marketed through streaming (Amazon, Netflix, etc.) where brief theatrical runs in limited markets are almost merely promo gestures, the films look to make their money back internationally through streaming (where the receipts I don't think are even made public) rather than theatrical ticket sales. DVD's are also becoming less of a factor. In the case of "Tracks", I wish Weinstein would have stuck with the original release date in March, rather than rescheduling it for Septemeber 19, when it was thrown into the juggernaut path of "Wild", which had just come out of a major push and oscar-hype at TFF earlier in the week. I think Weinstein was playing games with Fox Searchlight (his major competitor - other people in the industry thought this, too) and it came at the expense of "Tracks", which is a meditative, poetic film, a far cry from more typical melodramatic, formulaic Oscar-bait material, featuring a Hollywood star/brand. -
LifeVsArt — 10 years ago(January 27, 2016 09:21 AM)
Quality not quantity seems to be her mindset..i'm totally with her on that.
It does (I'm with her on that, too), but there also could 111cbe some compromise - maybe not so much in quality (that I wouldn't want - going down the typical Hollywood, rom/com, franchise path) but in the type of film that she makes, by occasionally doing one that's more mainstream (also not R-rated). "Alice Through the Looking Glass" is mainstream. -
Hurricane_Marcus — 10 years ago(February 01, 2016 03:55 AM)
Speaking as a (massive) fan of hers it's a bit of a double edged sword..yes,I want nothing more than to look at her list of upcoming projects on here and see 4 or 5 things in the pipeline (currently it's just Alice & hhhh - which isn't definate yet) But then again when you look at the likes of Jennifer Lawrence,Charlize Theron etc etc and see them with 10 plus projects on the go,you realise that they are a different type of animal to Mia.
This is just my opinion but I get the feeling that the likes of JL makes movies with the total expectation of getting nominations and awards (she's like a female Leo DiCaprio)..Mia just seems to pick and choose where she wants to be and what she finds interesting and not being part of the "machine"..as a fan it's more difficult when there's not so much of her work about but ultimately her performances and films are far more memorable.
I hope she doesn't get lost in it all - i'm sure she won't as she's too good an actress..maybe it says more about the quality of work available? -
josephmramirez — 10 years ago(February 01, 2016 05:46 AM)
Speaking as a (massive) fan of hers it's a bit of a double edged sword..yes,I want nothing more than to look at her list of upcoming projects on here and see 4 or 5 things in the pipeline (currently it's just Alice & h16d0hhh - which isn't definate yet)
Assume for the moment that
HHhH
won't include Mia. Then has she done any acting work since the fall of 2014, when
Through the Looking Glass
wrapped? We'd be talking about almost 16 months of inactivity. That's not a vacation it's a sabbatical, and in what should be the prime of her career. -
LifeVsArt — 10 years ago(February 01, 2016 09:56 AM)
I hope you're completely wrong, too. Is Mia taking an extended stretch of time off with the intention of returning to work (Carey Mulligan has said she had taken off a couple of years), or is her heart now somewhere else? As far back as 2013 I remember her saying that she would do films for as long as she had fun, if she didn't enjoy it anymore, she would stop. I wish she would let out some information for the people like myself who gain so much from her performances. When "Alice Through the Looking-Glass" comes out Mia will need to resurface - it wou2000ld be nice if she gave people (especially her fans) a glimpse of her intentions. Of course, Mia can remain inscrutable (she does what she wants) but for those of us who see her as an oasis in a vast desert, it would be nice to know something of her plans. It may be, though, that she's taking a sabbatical to figure out for herself just what she really wants, in which case she's at the right age for doing it.
-