|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 17, 2018 17:29:42 GMT
I'm tired of 25 year olds playing high schoolers and Hollywood trying to tell us that they look like teenagers. No, they do not look like teenagers. I understand you have to do it sometimes in a TV series but you can cast actual teenagers in a movie. Problem is you very seldom find actual teenagers with enough acting chops or charisma to carry the lead in a movie like this.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Aug 17, 2018 17:49:01 GMT
I'm tired of 25 year olds playing high schoolers and Hollywood trying to tell us that they look like teenagers. No, they do not look like teenagers. I understand you have to do it sometimes in a TV series but you can cast actual teenagers in a movie. Problem is you very seldom find actual teenagers with enough acting chops or charisma to carry the lead in a movie like this. To be fair, you seldom get 30+ year olds with enough acting chops or charisma to carry the lead in a movie like this, also. That's why we mostly get the same actors in movies.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Aug 17, 2018 17:49:58 GMT
I think the actress should be in her teens. That way we can get Powergirl and they don't look the same age.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 17, 2018 18:36:54 GMT
Problem is you very seldom find actual teenagers with enough acting chops or charisma to carry the lead in a movie like this. To be fair, you seldom get 30+ year olds with enough acting chops or charisma to carry the lead in a movie like this, also. That's why we mostly get the same actors in movies. Huh? That didn't make sense. Most of the leads in these kinds of movies ARE usually in their late 20's to early 30's.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Aug 17, 2018 20:28:50 GMT
To be fair, you seldom get 30+ year olds with enough acting chops or charisma to carry the lead in a movie like this, also. That's why we mostly get the same actors in movies. Huh? That didn't make sense. Most of the leads in these kinds of movies ARE usually in their late 20's to early 30's.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Aug 17, 2018 20:35:49 GMT
To be fair, you seldom get 30+ year olds with enough acting chops or charisma to carry the lead in a movie like this, also. That's why we mostly get the same actors in movies. Huh? That didn't make sense. Most of the leads in these kinds of movies ARE usually in their late 20's to early 30's. And hence why most of these types of movies either fail or don't rely on lead actors to lead the movie, anyone believe Transformers made the money they did due to Shia or Marky Mark?
No Optimus & Bumblebee are what people came to see Marky & Shia just took the cash and credit, scumbags...whens an auto-bot going to get the credit they deserve, fucking racist bullshit always crediting the humans.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 17, 2018 21:13:18 GMT
Huh? That didn't make sense. Most of the leads in these kinds of movies ARE usually in their late 20's to early 30's. And hence why most of these types of movies either fail or don't rely on lead actors to lead the movie, anyone believe Transformers made the money they did due to Shia or Marky Mark?
No Optimus & Bumblebee are what people came to see Marky & Shia just took the cash and credit, scumbags...whens an auto-bot going to get the credit they deserve, fucking racist bullshit always crediting the humans.
Those movies were called "Transformers", thus the actual leads were the robots, not really the humans. But when you have a movie called Captain America or Batman or Ironman, do you really expect me to believe that they can easily make loads of money if the actors playing the lead characters aren't at least decent in their roles?
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Aug 18, 2018 0:08:17 GMT
And hence why most of these types of movies either fail or don't rely on lead actors to lead the movie, anyone believe Transformers made the money they did due to Shia or Marky Mark?
No Optimus & Bumblebee are what people came to see Marky & Shia just took the cash and credit, scumbags...whens an auto-bot going to get the credit they deserve, fucking racist bullshit always crediting the humans.
Those movies were called "Transformers", thus the actual leads were the robots, not really the humans. But when you have a movie called Captain America or Batman or Ironman, do you really expect me to believe that they can easily make loads of money if the actors playing the lead characters aren't at least decent in their roles? Well the 2000's Spider-Man films made a shit ton of cash, Tobey Maguire however neither charismatic nor put on that great a performance, Val Kilmer as Batman made a shitload of cash back in the 90's for Batman Forever, I mean depending on who you believe the MCU make money hand over fist whilst employing the worst actors in the history of show biz, Ghost Rider did over $200m and .
Also depends on what you mean by loads of money take into consideration the films that make a shit load of money but are considered flops due to budgets, Clooney failed as Batman but the film still made 100's of millions of $'s, Routh was meh as Superman film still made almost $400m.
And also why I said most of these films fail, I mean how many major blockbusters bomb each year, historically how many times have CBM's have failed to work in the past? in todays market sure it's more hits than misses but still for 30 years cbm's were unpredictable BO returns, for every Spider-Man you had a Punisher for every Iron-Man a Hulk, even with Nolan he got 2's TDK's which worked and a Batman Begins that bombed.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 18, 2018 0:23:27 GMT
Those movies were called "Transformers", thus the actual leads were the robots, not really the humans. But when you have a movie called Captain America or Batman or Ironman, do you really expect me to believe that they can easily make loads of money if the actors playing the lead characters aren't at least decent in their roles? Well the 2000's Spider-Man films made a shit ton of cash, Tobey Maguire however neither charismatic nor put on that great a performance, Val Kilmer as Batman made a shitload of cash back in the 90's for Batman Forever, I mean depending on who you believe the MCU make money hand over fist whilst employing the worst actors in the history of show biz, Ghost Rider did over $200m and .
Also depends on what you mean by loads of money take into consideration the films that make a shit load of money but are considered flops due to budgets, Clooney failed as Batman but the film still made 100's of millions of $'s, Routh was meh as Superman film still made almost $400m.
And also why I said most of these films fail, I mean how many major blockbusters bomb each year, historically how many times have CBM's have failed to work in the past? in todays market sure it's more hits than misses but still for 30 years cbm's were unpredictable BO returns, for every Spider-Man you had a Punisher for every Iron-Man a Hulk, even with Nolan he got 2's TDK's which worked and a Batman Begins that bombed.
Though they're nothing stellar, Tobey Maguire, Val Kilmer and Nicholas Cage are still better actors than most teenage actors.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Aug 18, 2018 0:30:50 GMT
ok for some reason it cut off the last part of my sentence about Cage, "$200m and that was bad Nic Cage not good Nic Cage, which as we all know are 2 separate beast entirely."
Yeah they can be better, but in those films they are not, Maguire in the Spidey films is a wet fart, Kilmer is like a robot in Forever from what I recall, and Cage well Cage is Cage when Cage is being all Cagey, it was a role that suggested he could have fun and he went nuts instead.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Aug 18, 2018 0:33:31 GMT
Well the 2000's Spider-Man films made a shit ton of cash, Tobey Maguire however neither charismatic nor put on that great a performance, Val Kilmer as Batman made a shitload of cash back in the 90's for Batman Forever, I mean depending on who you believe the MCU make money hand over fist whilst employing the worst actors in the history of show biz, Ghost Rider did over $200m and .
Also depends on what you mean by loads of money take into consideration the films that make a shit load of money but are considered flops due to budgets, Clooney failed as Batman but the film still made 100's of millions of $'s, Routh was meh as Superman film still made almost $400m.
And also why I said most of these films fail, I mean how many major blockbusters bomb each year, historically how many times have CBM's have failed to work in the past? in todays market sure it's more hits than misses but still for 30 years cbm's were unpredictable BO returns, for every Spider-Man you had a Punisher for every Iron-Man a Hulk, even with Nolan he got 2's TDK's which worked and a Batman Begins that bombed.
Though they're nothing stellar, Tobey Maguire, Val Kilmer and Nicholas Cage are still better actors than most teenage actors. Most actors you see on any form of entertainment aimed at adults to possibly watch are better than most actors, have you seen the pos "talents" kids tv shows hire, and you think they are the best of the shit those casting directors had to sit through.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Aug 18, 2018 6:06:58 GMT
I'm changing my vote. I can't get those boobs out of my mind. Tits...I mean it's not a bad choice when you really think about it.
|
|
|
Post by Grabthar's Hammer on Aug 19, 2018 4:10:22 GMT
Rose McIver is underrated. I'd love to see her in the role.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 20, 2018 19:35:04 GMT
An unknown in her late teens
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 20, 2018 20:36:10 GMT
An unknown in her late teens Just wait a few more years then cast Millie Bobby Brown
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 20, 2018 20:43:04 GMT
An unknown in her late teens Just wait a few more years then cast Millie Bobby Brown Just wait a few more years then cast Millie Bobby Brown in just about anything!
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Aug 27, 2018 1:01:16 GMT
Just wait a few more years then cast Millie Bobby Brown Just wait a few more years then cast Millie Bobby Brown in just about anything! She's already 14. She'll be at least 15 by the time this movie films. If you want a sequel before you have to call her Superwoman, you might as well sign her now.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 27, 2018 17:37:05 GMT
Just wait a few more years then cast Millie Bobby Brown in just about anything! She's already 14. She'll be at least 15 by the time this movie films. If you want a sequel before you have to call her Superwoman, you might as well sign her now. hmmm... good call! Lets do it!
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 27, 2018 17:48:39 GMT
Just wait a few more years then cast Millie Bobby Brown in just about anything! She's already 14. She'll be at least 15 by the time this movie films. If you want a sequel before you have to call her Superwoman, you might as well sign her now. True. And she'll be at least 16 by the time the movie airs and probably around 18 or 19 by the time the sequel comes out (if not in her early 20's).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2018 8:33:26 GMT
I'm changing my vote. I can't get those boobs out of my mind. Tits...I mean it's not a bad choice when you really think about it. Yes. Her boobs are very nice but Sydney is gorgeous all over and is a wonderful actress. Many people in the industry are calling her the next big thing now and are saying she is going to be the next Jennifer Lawrence in a few years time and did you not see her in 'Everything Sucks?' She was awesome as Emaline. Here is a recent video of Sydney with the other star of that show, Peyton Kennedy. She should be kissed.
|
|