433
Dakota Johnson on ‘Madame Web’ Blowback: “I’ll Never Do Anything Like It Again”
(www.hollywoodreporter.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
433 points (99.1% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
2092 readers
219 users here now
A community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.
Rules:
- Be civil.
- Please do not link to pirated content.
- No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
- Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because the Rock is probably already half a billionaire; he doesn't need any more fucking money.
If they want to work for free, fine, whatever. Otherwise, let other people enjoy some opportunities for once.
We may have a very different opinion on who a talented actor is then. ) Talented businessman is not equal to a talented actor, just a popular one that can sell.
Maybe. But I'd rather see a no-name with student debt deliver a 9.2 performance in a lead role than see a near-billionaire deliver a perfect 10.0 performance in the same role, 10 out of 10 times. I understand that is a matter of preference and personal priorities, however.
I'd prefer a solution that includes both. This is my main gripe with Disney (and the rest of big guys, but mostly them): they just bought out everything and everyone thus killing the competition. Viewers' time available to watch a movie and cash they are prepared to pay for it is limited, so now only a generic sh...stuff actually reaches the screens. All to make shareholders happy, very much against the interests of the public. Lets see if the market can solve this.
That feels entirely an aside to the conversation of opportunities for established vs unknown actors, aside from that both things are at the behest of shareholders. If you for any reason thought I didn't have more ire for and assign vastly greater blame to the executives and shareholders, allow me to alleviate that concern. Yes, the problem of lack of opportunities for lesser knowns is moreso a problem of studio and shareholder expectations than just individual actor greed, but still both parties share some level of culpability.
I may have used unclear and incomplete wording, but it is directly relevant: whoever delivered a box office last time will be in the cast of the next movie. This is not a form of art, this is a business that involves $$$$$$$, so yes, opportunities are severely limited. Generalisation, I know, but seems legit to me.
My opinion re talented actors stands: I do want to see more of them, not less - just in the pictures that are not stifled by the whatever template brought the cash in the last season.
Went to see a movie recently (Dune is good, or at the very least pretty!), there were trailers before as usual. Out of 6, 4 were sequels, 1 was based on a successful game franchise and the last one was a movie about making a movie with constant breaking of the 4th wall. Or at least it looked like it. That will keep me away for this year, thank you very much.
I believe your main point is about giving opportunities to the new generations. Hard agree here, and lets start in politics first!