Inara: You don't have to die alone. Mal: Everybody dies alone.

'Out Of Gas'


Buffista Movies 3: Panned and Scanned  

A place to talk about movies--Old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.


Kat - Aug 08, 2004 7:18:06 am PDT #2456 of 10001
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo

the idea that people can't open movies like Hanks or Cruise is definitely a paradigm shift.

I also liked the parts about how the hype precedes the person now, in some ways. That we are making celebrities more than film stars. It reminded me of EWs article last year about Kate Bosworth being the new face of hollywood. Then the flop of Tad Hamilton and suddenly, not so much.


§ ita § - Aug 08, 2004 7:21:19 am PDT #2457 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

That we are making celebrities more than film stars.

Yes. And at least they didn't pull an attitude about their part in it.

I read the letters that were all "Why Christian Bale on the cover???" I was indignant -- he's a darkly pretty man with some interesting choices and a lovely body and the new Batman!

But yeah, not a big movie star, and nowhere near as famous as I keep figuring he is. Or a draw. I mean, Halle Berry and Hugh Jackman can't open movies, individually, or together.

Which is fine by me, just weird. "A Hugh Jackman movie" just doesn't have the same resonance as "a Tom Cruise movie," though I'd rather watch the former.


Scrappy - Aug 08, 2004 7:30:44 am PDT #2458 of 10001
Life moves pretty fast. You don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.

Maybe because Hugh Jackman is more of an actor, so his name on a movie doesn't actually tell us anything about the film? Whereas Cruise of Roberts or Hanks always deliver a certain set of attributes which their films are designed to highlight? (and when they don't, like Hanks in Road to Perdition, their fans are unhappy).


§ ita § - Aug 08, 2004 7:47:19 am PDT #2459 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

Whereas Cruise of Roberts or Hanks always deliver a certain set of attributes which their films are designed to highlight?

That was one of the thrusts of the article, yeah. Actors are making more diverse choices, so they're less attached to an overriding persona.


sumi - Aug 08, 2004 8:06:24 am PDT #2460 of 10001
Art Crawl!!!

Better for the actors -- less good for the business of Hollywood?


Allyson - Aug 08, 2004 8:29:36 am PDT #2461 of 10001
Wait, is this real-world child support, where the money goes to buy food for the kids, or MRA fantasyland child support where the women just buy Ferraris and cocaine? -Jessica

Can Reese be the next Hepburn? I surely do love me some Reese.


Gris - Aug 08, 2004 8:36:24 am PDT #2462 of 10001
Hey. New board.

Can Reese be the next Hepburn?

Audrey or Katherine?


beekaytee - Aug 08, 2004 8:41:37 am PDT #2463 of 10001
Compassionately intolerant

Katherine, I think.

Anyone who could pull off Election definitely has Kate's spunk.


Gris - Aug 08, 2004 8:43:00 am PDT #2464 of 10001
Hey. New board.

Yeah, she works much better as a Kate.

We need a new Audrey. But i'm not sure that anybody will ever be able to be her again.


DavidS - Aug 08, 2004 8:49:12 am PDT #2465 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."

Audrey's particular charms were unprecedented and, I think, unduplicable.