Natalie Portman declines role in Steve Jobs biopic

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 59
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    crowley wrote: »
    Sure. The Academy gives out awards for being pretty.

    I was talking about them 2 specifically, but Jennifer Lawrence is easy on the eyes.
  • Reply 22 of 59
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    This is all dumb inside baseball stuff that goes on for every movie. Nobody gave a damn when Wil Smith turned down The Matrix, yet a movie came out anyway.

    Then he wanted back in when his wife was casted.
  • Reply 23 of 59
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post



    So get Keira Knightly, she's just as pretty, and a better actress.



    Or cast Winnona Ryder, the original Natalie Portman.

  • Reply 24 of 59
    frankiefrankie Posts: 381member

    Seth Rogan ruins it for me.  Can't stand that dude

  • Reply 25 of 59
    mpantonempantone Posts: 2,104member

    How about Lindsay Lohan? She probably needs a job.

  • Reply 26 of 59
    blazarblazar Posts: 270member
    There is no reason to make this movie... Yet another troubled genius eccentric movie.
  • Reply 27 of 59
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member

    I've determined the script sucks.

  • Reply 28 of 59

    If the script was that great, then big name actors would be storming the gates to do it. Sounds like Sorkin penned a stinker.

  • Reply 29 of 59
    rtamesis wrote: »
    If the script was that great, then big name actors would be storming the gates to do it. Sounds like Sorkin penned a stinker.

    Perhaps this whole thing will disappear and be forgotten in a matter of weeks
  • Reply 30 of 59
    mpantonempantone Posts: 2,104member

    Probably not the way they've been shopping this around.

     

    More likely they shoot it and it hits theaters in spring 2016 -- spring is the Hollywood release graveyard -- or it goes straight to rental, completely bypassing a theatrical run.

     

    Even if it's a complete stinker, there might be enough movie masochists to make it break even/make a small profit in the international and rental markets.

  • Reply 31 of 59
    mpantone wrote: »
    Probably not the way they've been shopping this around.

    More likely they shoot it and it hits theaters in spring 2016 -- spring is the Hollywood release graveyard -- or it goes straight to rental, completely bypassing a theatrical run.

    Even if it's a complete stinker, there might be enough movie masochists to make it break even/make a small profit in the international and rental markets.

    I doubt the writer's brand of talky, mile-a-minute dialog translates well into foreign markets. That's usually why action movies do well overseas instead of dramas...less of a language barrier.
  • Reply 32 of 59
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post





    Interesting that pretty comes first.



    Pretty always comes first! Talent is next. That is why I preferred Katie Holmes' Rachael Dawes to Maggie Gylenhall's in Nolan's Batman films! Katie was a lot cuter.

  • Reply 33 of 59

    ...I preferred Katie Holmes' Rachael Dawes to Maggie Gylenhall's in Nolan's Batman films!...

    No argument there.
  • Reply 34 of 59
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    mj web wrote: »

    Or cast Winnona Ryder, the original Natalie Portman.

    So she can steal everything from the set? :lol:
    I considered her, but I haven't seen her recently so I don't know how well she's aging.
  • Reply 35 of 59
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    So she can steal everything from the set? :lol:
    I considered her, but I haven't seen her recently so I don't know how well she's aging.

    She still looks breathtakingly beautiful.
  • Reply 36 of 59
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,784member
    decondo wrote: »
    Maybe just forget about the whole thing - these things are always unrealistic and at best entertaining.

    I agree. On every post about this I write 'Drop It'. Stop with trying to use Steve as click bate or whatever already media will ya!
  • Reply 37 of 59
    Re: Seth Rogan

    Indeed, they'll have to craft in a dope smoking scene to accommodate him.
  • Reply 38 of 59
    Re: Seth Rogan

    Indeed, they'll have to craft in a dope smoking scene to accommodate him.

    Although I recall Woz is decidedly anti-drugs.
  • Reply 39 of 59
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    Guys, these actors are just "attached" to a project. Unless they've signed a contract to appear in the film, they can back out at any time. Their participation is usually conditional and simply indicates interest. Reasons for pulling out can include schedule conflicts, or competing obligations, as well as disagreements over pay and creative control. This is the normal way Hollywood works. We're just hearing about every turn of the screw because AI seems to have taken an interest in reporting it.

    Right.  I don't think this project is any more "troubled" that any other movie idea before shooting starts.  Hollywood is a chaotic place.

  • Reply 40 of 59
    mpantonempantone Posts: 2,104member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    I doubt the writer's brand of talky, mile-a-minute dialog translates well into foreign markets. That's usually why action movies do well overseas instead of dramas...less of a language barrier.



    The domestic rental market is more important to a dialogue-oriented movie like this one.

     

    The dubbed international versions might end up being better than the original, at least in terms of dialogue. In these mile-a-minute talkies, the dialogue is way too contrived and ridiculous to be considered remotely realistic. A dubbed version would likely rewrite many of the least plausible lines.

     

    My personal guess is that if they does get a theatrical release, it will be in the spring and the release will only be a couple of weeks, then going quickly to the rental market.

     

    Sorkin's style of writing lends itself better to the American TV market, whose audience will buy into comically unrealistically slick dialogue exchanges.

     

    Of course, many of these troubled film projects have multiple screenwriters, and most likely Hollywood will dumb down the story with each successive rewrite. The final cut will undoubtedly be vastly different from Sorkin's original screenplay.

Sign In or Register to comment.