|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 20, 2019 20:47:00 GMT
Getting extremely specific aren't we? Sure--nothing wrong with being specific.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 20, 2019 21:53:05 GMT
Sure--nothing wrong with being specific.
I see you keep dodging my main question: Do you claim this to be fact or your theory? If the former, do you have proof to back it up?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 20, 2019 21:54:18 GMT
I see you keep dodging my main question: Do you claim this to be fact or your theory? If the former, do you have proof to back it up? I asked you to come up with a comparable case for her to show she is off base. But you haven't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 21, 2019 1:01:10 GMT
I see you keep dodging my main question: Do you claim this to be fact or your theory? If the former, do you have proof to back it up? I asked you to come up with a comparable case for her to show she is off base. But you haven't.
I'm not the one making the claim dude, you are. So come up with proof. It's like if you claimed "I'm a great singer" and I asked you to prove it, you can't respond with "Prove that I'm not, otherwise it's clear I'm telling the truth." |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 21, 2019 1:06:45 GMT
I'm not the one making the claim dude, you are. So come up with proof. But the fact no one has done what you claim is no big deal in career opportunities doesn't harm my point. And you were the one who trotted out people you claimed were equivalent examples and I said no, they aren't because of a or b or c. lol What a conversation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 21, 2019 1:20:47 GMT
I'm not the one making the claim dude, you are. So come up with proof. But the fact no one has done what you claim is no big deal in career opportunities doesn't harm my point. And you were the one who trotted out people you claimed were equivalent examples and I said no, they aren't because of a or b or c. lol What a conversation.
So in short you don't have proof yet you're still unwilling to admit it's simply your opinion? You're right, what a conversation I gave you multiple examples to prove my point but you don't like it so you kept shifting goal posts. I can probably find more proof to keep up with your shifting goalposts but why bother when you don't even have ONE proof of your own. Problem here is you know you're beat but are just too arrogant to admit that you were simply stating your theory, not fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 21, 2019 1:35:29 GMT
So in short you don't have proof yet you're still unwilling to admit it's simply your opinion? You're right, what a conversation I gave you multiple examples to prove my point but you don't like it so you kept shifting goal posts. I can probably find more proof to keep up with your shifting goalposts but why bother when you don't even have ONE proof of your own. Problem here is you know you're beat but are just too arrogant to admit that you were simply stating your theory, not fact. I think you are taking the subject too seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 21, 2019 3:04:36 GMT
So in short you don't have proof yet you're still unwilling to admit it's simply your opinion? You're right, what a conversation I gave you multiple examples to prove my point but you don't like it so you kept shifting goal posts. I can probably find more proof to keep up with your shifting goalposts but why bother when you don't even have ONE proof of your own. Problem here is you know you're beat but are just too arrogant to admit that you were simply stating your theory, not fact. I think you are taking the subject too seriously.
I think you keep dodging. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 21, 2019 3:09:32 GMT
I think you keep dodging. I just don't think we can overcome the impasse after I asked the question about relevant examples.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 21, 2019 3:58:40 GMT
I think you keep dodging. I just don't think we can overcome the impasse after I asked the question about relevant examples.
You still haven't provided a single proof to backup your statement. That's where the impasse lies. You can't ask someone to prove a negative. You made the claim, I'm waiting for you to either back it up with something or simply admit it's simply your opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 21, 2019 6:09:42 GMT
You still haven't provided a single proof to backup your statement. That's where the impasse lies. I don;t agree that that is where the impasse is.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on May 21, 2019 15:55:26 GMT
www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/charlize-theron-being-asked-to-play-gal-gadots-mom-in-wonder-woman-is-a-slap-in-the-face/ar-AAAW42D?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=mailsignout
In the article Theron complains that she was asked to play the mother of Gal Gadot (in Wonder Woman) who is only 9 years younger than herself. Clearly she doesn't understand about amazons.
In all fairness she does claim to not know much about Wonder Woman's mythology. Okay, fair enough. But since this event happened she must have found out about how amazons work, and she still chooses to tell the story as if she was slighted, instead of explaining what the misunderstanding was.
For those who don't know, amazons are AGELESS and immortal. So they could have asked her to play a 1000 year old amazon and it would have been the same. So...
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Charlize Theron, she's great and I think of her as one of the few actresses with balls enough to rough and tumble with the guys in movies. But this just seemed a little whiny to me.
Thoughts? Yeah!
She didn't want to get stuck playing mummy, and older women, roles from now on.
Fair play to her too!
why is everyone choosing not to focus on the POINT that I'm making, and instead are writing their own story? Bolded are my point. I cant possibly make it clearer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on May 21, 2019 16:40:17 GMT
Yeah!
She didn't want to get stuck playing mummy, and older women, roles from now on.
Fair play to her too!
why is everyone choosing not to focus on the POINT that I'm making, and instead are writing their own story? Bolded are my point. I cant possibly make it clearer. I would say 2 reasons why people are dismissing or bypassing your points is because: 1. If they were truly going with Ageless Amazons they never should've gone after Charlize and really shouldn't cast Connie. They should've looked for actresses at peak of physical age. Meaning when the body isn't showing signs of age. Which is around 20-25. They didn't they went after an actress first who couldn't possibly be her Mom, but still a little older (per hollywood). They were trying to have their cake and eating it too. It's something that Hollywood has done forever and things are changing slightly. 2. They went with a 50 year old (Connie is 53 now) as the mother. (19 years older than Gal) Which works better than having someone 9 years older. So the movie was made where it's obvious that the Amazons do age. Not at the same rate as a normal person, tho. If they didn't then how did she get to look like a 50 year old.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on May 21, 2019 18:48:43 GMT
why is everyone choosing not to focus on the POINT that I'm making, and instead are writing their own story? I would say 2 reasons why people are dismissing or bypassing your points is because: 1. If they were truly going with Ageless Amazons they never should've gone after Charlize and really shouldn't cast Connie. They should've looked for actresses at peak of physical age. Meaning when the body isn't showing signs of age. Which is around 20-25. They didn't they went after an actress first who couldn't possibly be her Mom, but still a little older (per hollywood). They were trying to have their cake and eating it too. It's something that Hollywood has done forever and things are changing slightly. 2. They went with a 50 year old (Connie is 53 now) as the mother. (19 years older than Gal) Which works better than having someone 9 years older. So the movie was made where it's obvious that the Amazons do age. Not at the same rate as a normal person, tho. If they didn't then how did she get to look like a 50 year old. I acknowledge that you're right. They did go with someone who was somewhat older so as to give the impression of being motherly. True.
However, my point is also true, that the amazons are ageless. If they HAD cast Charlize Theron they would punched up that point even more so. It would have been awesome.
p.s. I would also like to point out the notion that Theron is complaining about a male hiring practice in the one movie that was directed by a woman. So...
|
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on May 21, 2019 20:14:35 GMT
I would say 2 reasons why people are dismissing or bypassing your points is because: 1. If they were truly going with Ageless Amazons they never should've gone after Charlize and really shouldn't cast Connie. They should've looked for actresses at peak of physical age. Meaning when the body isn't showing signs of age. Which is around 20-25. They didn't they went after an actress first who couldn't possibly be her Mom, but still a little older (per hollywood). They were trying to have their cake and eating it too. It's something that Hollywood has done forever and things are changing slightly. 2. They went with a 50 year old (Connie is 53 now) as the mother. (19 years older than Gal) Which works better than having someone 9 years older. So the movie was made where it's obvious that the Amazons do age. Not at the same rate as a normal person, tho. If they didn't then how did she get to look like a 50 year old. I acknowledge that you're right. They did go with someone who was somewhat older so as to give the impression of being motherly. True.
However, my point is also true, that the amazons are ageless. If they HAD cast Charlize Theron they would punched up that point even more so. It would have been awesome.
p.s. I would also like to point out the notion that Theron is complaining about a male hiring practice in the one movie that was directed by a woman. So...
Oh Charlize would've knocked it out of the park. I've loved her as an actress since 2 Days in the Valley. If they played up the agelessness I wouldn't have a problem. I think having all fairly young Amazons would've sent the wrong message though. It would hearken back to when it was even worse for women in Hollywood. I think Charlize's disagreement does come from a little bit of ignorance of the source material. I also think it was just a visceral reaction to how Hollywood has worked. She has still gotten the "hot chick/femine/womanly/worthy" roles at 40+ which is a step in the right direction, but you know she's probably seen her amount of scripts given to her drop and the ones she does get the parts are more one dimensional and for the mother roles. I think her blow up has more to do with that then the specific part. It used to be after 30 you were screwed in Hollywood until you were in your 60's so you can play the old hag, grand mother, comic relief old person, etc. I think we've bumped that up to 40's-45's now. Which is progress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 21, 2019 21:15:37 GMT
I acknowledge that you're right. They did go with someone who was somewhat older so as to give the impression of being motherly. True.
However, my point is also true, that the amazons are ageless. If they HAD cast Charlize Theron they would punched up that point even more so. It would have been awesome.
p.s. I would also like to point out the notion that Theron is complaining about a male hiring practice in the one movie that was directed by a woman. So...
Oh Charlize would've knocked it out of the park. I've loved her as an actress since 2 Days in the Valley. If they played up the agelessness I wouldn't have a problem. I think having all fairly young Amazons would've sent the wrong message though. It would hearken back to when it was even worse for women in Hollywood. I think Charlize's disagreement does come from a little bit of ignorance of the source material. I also think it was just a visceral reaction to how Hollywood has worked. She has still gotten the "hot chick/femine/womanly/worthy" roles at 40+ which is a step in the right direction, but you know she's probably seen her amount of scripts given to her drop and the ones she does get the parts are more one dimensional and for the mother roles. I think her blow up has more to do with that then the specific part. It used to be after 30 you were screwed in Hollywood until you were in your 60's so you can play the old hag, grand mother, comic relief old person, etc. I think we've bumped that up to 40's-45's now. Which is progress. It also helps that Charlize is still ridiculously hot in her 40's. Probably the same reason Jennifer Aniston is still getting decent prime roles. |
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on May 22, 2019 3:27:17 GMT
Oh Charlize would've knocked it out of the park. I've loved her as an actress since 2 Days in the Valley. If they played up the agelessness I wouldn't have a problem. I think having all fairly young Amazons would've sent the wrong message though. It would hearken back to when it was even worse for women in Hollywood. I think Charlize's disagreement does come from a little bit of ignorance of the source material. I also think it was just a visceral reaction to how Hollywood has worked. She has still gotten the "hot chick/femine/womanly/worthy" roles at 40+ which is a step in the right direction, but you know she's probably seen her amount of scripts given to her drop and the ones she does get the parts are more one dimensional and for the mother roles. I think her blow up has more to do with that then the specific part. It used to be after 30 you were screwed in Hollywood until you were in your 60's so you can play the old hag, grand mother, comic relief old person, etc. I think we've bumped that up to 40's-45's now. Which is progress. It also helps that Charlize is still ridiculously hot in her 40's. Probably the same reason Jennifer Aniston is still getting decent prime roles. I see your Jennifer Aniston and raise you with Jennifer Connely 
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 22, 2019 4:22:03 GMT
It also helps that Charlize is still ridiculously hot in her 40's. Probably the same reason Jennifer Aniston is still getting decent prime roles. I see your Jennifer Aniston and raise you with Jennifer Connely Best reason to watch Alita. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on May 22, 2019 14:36:25 GMT
I acknowledge that you're right. They did go with someone who was somewhat older so as to give the impression of being motherly. True.
However, my point is also true, that the amazons are ageless. If they HAD cast Charlize Theron they would punched up that point even more so. It would have been awesome.
p.s. I would also like to point out the notion that Theron is complaining about a male hiring practice in the one movie that was directed by a woman. So...
Oh Charlize would've knocked it out of the park. I've loved her as an actress since 2 Days in the Valley. If they played up the agelessness I wouldn't have a problem. I think having all fairly young Amazons would've sent the wrong message though. It would hearken back to when it was even worse for women in Hollywood. I think Charlize's disagreement does come from a little bit of ignorance of the source material. I also think it was just a visceral reaction to how Hollywood has worked. She has still gotten the "hot chick/femine/womanly/worthy" roles at 40+ which is a step in the right direction, but you know she's probably seen her amount of scripts given to her drop and the ones she does get the parts are more one dimensional and for the mother roles. I think her blow up has more to do with that then the specific part. It used to be after 30 you were screwed in Hollywood until you were in your 60's so you can play the old hag, grand mother, comic relief old person, etc. I think we've bumped that up to 40's-45's now. Which is progress. Regardless, I'd still gladly toss her salad.
|
|
|
|
Post by merh on May 24, 2019 20:12:57 GMT
She states the slap was being asked to play a mom because that is what Hollywood does to older actresses Sorry it's an insult to your fanboy sensibilities she was more focused on the age line Hollywood draws in the sand for actresses. Cybill Shepard addressed this problem years ago, pointing out Bruce Willis is 5 yrs her junior, but by the 00s Hollywood would more likely cast an actress 20 yrs her junior as his love interest while she would be cast as his mom. Less a comment on Wonder Woman & more a commentary on the Hollywood casting mentality It's not an insult to my fanboy anything. Don't assume what you don't know. You don't know me.
The point of my post wasn't whether or not she should be cast as an older person, but rather that she didn't realize that the reason they asked her was because the amazons are immortal and DONT AGE! So in fact she is INCORRECT about why they wanted to cast her. In other words there was no slap in the face. She just took it that way.
Kind've like you were incorrect that my fanboy whatever you assumed was offended.
There's no doubt that women are improperly cast, in many ways, in Hollywood. I get that. But THIS case wasn't one off them.
p.s. also, refer to the bolded in the original post for explanation... that you apparently also misunderstood.
p.s.s. please link to that Cybil Shepard/Bruce Willis story, cuz' I'm having a hard time believing it.
Sorry, I read it in a magazine article around the early 00s. It is nigh on impossible finding some hard copy articles indexed on the internet. Actually it was probably a newspaper So if you want to believe older women don't get cast in mom roles after a certain age, fine. I remember being shocked as hell watching "Loverboy" that Kate Jackson, one of Charlie's Angels a mere decade before, was playing the mom. 1976-1979 she was something for guys to drool over 1989 she's a mom of a 20 year old. There was a certain amount of fuss about Rene Russo being cast in Thomas Crown because she was "old"
|
|
