Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2011 12:13:01 GMT -5
Rotten Tomatoes credibility is now zero. Expect at the very least, lighter handling of the WB films. If there's no trace of manipulation, I'd be very suprised. EVERY company that buys out another promises that there won't be any changes....  Rotten Tomatoes was owned by News Corp (Fox) from 2005 to 2010. They've been a corporate entity on and off for quite a while now. Routh didn't say anything that hasn't been said around these parts, and everything he said was pretty diplomatic by most standards. He vented a bit, but he didn't come across as some sad loser chucking stones. Let's face it, SR is going to be the elephant in the room during every interview the guy does, until he does something big enough to overshadow it. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 24, 2011 13:11:45 GMT -5
Didn't know RT was already corporate owned. Embarrrassed.  You make a good point about SR being an elephant in the room wherever he goes.... and for the rest of his life, unless another thing comes along bigger. With Reeve, he had a few shots with different films. With Routh, it's sad that the road looks to be tougher. I've enjoyed the different roles he's been in so far (Scott Pilgrim, Chuck, haven't seen Dylan Dog yet), but there's sadly a giant list of actors who don't get to stay in the 'A' list movies, but stick around in supporting roles and build a body of work that gets respect (Annette O'Toole off the top comes to mind- she never got those 'A' roles, but still has been around). When reading Reeve's memoirs, it's a good glimpse about even with good discipline, how fleeting and desperate a film career can be (he openly talked about frustrations the older he got in having to go to auditions after the Superman 'glow' started to fade), even with his success. If WB told Routh quickly and upfront that he would never be recast after SR, then it might be less harsh. But, to me, it's like hearing about a co-worker who you might not know so well but seems like a nice person getting trashed by the company, and treated poorly despite making the company good money. Again, I don't often feel much sympathy for actors, but in this situation, who would feel like WB did the right thing? |
|
|
|
Post by upandaway on May 26, 2011 17:37:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on May 30, 2011 12:31:40 GMT -5
New movie role for Brandon, crookedarrows.com/big-news-superman-star-brandon-routh-cast-as-crooked-arrows-lead/Official website: crookedarrows.com/Another article, insidelacrosse.com/news/2011/05/27/superman-star-brandon-routh-cast-crooked-arrows-lacrosse-movie-leadThis is the story: A mixed-blood Native American, Joe Logan, eager to modernize his reservation, must first prove himself to his father, the traditionalist Tribal Chairman, by rediscovering his spirit. He is tasked with coaching the reservation’s high school lacrosse team which competes against the better equipped and better trained players of the elite Prep School League.
Joe inspires the Native American boys and teaches them the true meaning of tribal pride. Ignited by their heritage and believing in their new-found potential, coach and team climb an uphill battle to the state championship finals against their privileged prep school rivals…will they win?
Crooked Arrows is modeled upon the consistently successful underdog sports movie popularized by Mighty Ducks, Bad News Bears, Hoosiers, and Bend It Like Beckham–set in the fresh, contemporary worlds of Native American reservations, prep schools, and lacrosse…-------------------------------------------- Sounds like a meaty role. Hope it's a good movie!  |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on May 30, 2011 15:23:48 GMT -5
 Gee, I wonder Honestly I want Routh to do well in his career but this looks like clichéd nonsense we've all seen a million times before Come on Routh, lets see you act in a character piece
|
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on May 30, 2011 16:41:30 GMT -5
Sounds like crap.
Routh needs to get a new agent.
He should be playing shit like Bard in the upcoming Hobbit film by now.
|
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on May 30, 2011 20:27:03 GMT -5
I think it will make less than Dylan Dog.
What tripe!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 31, 2011 0:59:33 GMT -5
Unless the writer (or director) is incredible, this doesn't sound on the surface like a movie I'd rush out to see. If it turns out that this is directed by the same guy who directed Scott Pilgrim, though, I'm there.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on May 31, 2011 4:38:51 GMT -5
The 1980s called, it wants that plot back. I can't believe crap like that still get greenlit.
Fuckingheck Routh are you not smart enough to run a mile from dreck like this?
Has Routh yet been in a film that has made forecasted revenue? Poor bastard is like a BO curse.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on May 31, 2011 10:15:50 GMT -5
I guess it all depends on how it is presented. For me at least. There is really nothing new under the sun...
Any way, it looks like it was a mistake to post that here. Won't happen again.
|
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on May 31, 2011 10:32:41 GMT -5
Hmm...Brandon Routh has Kickapoo tribe lineage...and his career is turning Fullapoo.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 31, 2011 10:54:26 GMT -5
I think it's the story description that sounded a bit formulaic and predictable that is hard to react to. The news of his being cast as a lead in a new project was interesting.
Reeve was a sharp guy, but he chose a number of projects that looked most interesting to him that were offered: (movies that are mostly forgotten now)- Monsignor (critically blasted), Bostonians, Aviator, Streetsmart- In fact, out of Reeve's whole movie career, even he noted that only the first "Superman" and "Somewhere in Time" were considered to really stand over time.
Not every actor can script or produce good projects that fit them well- and is guaranteed to make a bundle. So far, Routh's appearance in "Chuck" (during its GOOD seasons), and "Scott Pilgrim" are sure to last- and since Routh's still young, I think he still has a lot of opportunities open to him.
I, for one, am curious about what Routh does next, and am glad that you posted it. The story description from the producers got blasted, but that's on the producers' description, not you, Star.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on May 31, 2011 11:08:09 GMT -5
This is very true, but doesn't everyone on this board wish he'd do something more interesting?
I think Routh ought to do some stage work; get out of films for a while and learn to hone his craft.
I don't think Reeve was that sharp, he seemed a bit naive to me. Should have picked more commercial projects inbetween the interesting ones. Acting is acting whether you're Superman or Hamlet.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 31, 2011 15:12:26 GMT -5
Relatively speaking, in terms of politicking a career, he was sharp. (Scriptwise is another story...) The Superman series seemed to be his 'more commercial project(s)' in between the interesting roles.
His thought process (outside of the stupidity of okaying Superman III and not sticking with Donner for II) in making the choices he did, in his memoirs seem pretty solid, even if the end result was dissatisfying to him (and a number of audiences).
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on May 31, 2011 15:30:58 GMT -5
Let's see...
Reeve turned down the leads in American Gigolo, Romancing the Stone, Pretty Woman, and Body Heat. Those were all break-out roles for Richard Gere, Michael Douglas and William Hurt . He also turned down The Bounty, The Running Man (good decision) and Total Recall.
Then you look at the stuff he DID agree to. I guess he was trying to avoid having his career ruined by typecasting, so instead he ruined his career by avoiding any marquee role.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on May 31, 2011 15:56:06 GMT -5
Exactly right Jim. His career was in the toilet by 1990 when it really should not have been.
Probably still a healthier career than Routh's though, cos of his name and stage work
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 1, 2011 10:40:49 GMT -5
Outside of Romancing the Stone (one rarely goes wrong with Zemeckis, unless their name is Eric Stoltz), I actually have a hard time picturing Reeve in any of those other movies- especially American Gigolo, Pretty Woman and Body Heat. At times, it's hard to know if something would have been a hit if a different actor played in them.
Would have been interesting to see Reeve with Verhoeven for Total Recall, though.
When I say 'sharp' about his career--- sharp, considering what he wanted to do & where his head was at, at the time, from his memoirs. He was always a theatre/slightly snobby-art guy when he got the Superman role.
In other words, the end result wasn't what he wanted, but I could see why- with all the factors & his wants - he chose the things (and didn't choose the things) he did in his time.
The 'kings' of Hollywood career-making (for my time) have to be Arnold and Tom (before he decided to jump on couches and be a spokesman for Scientology).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2011 11:04:47 GMT -5
For me there is only one true king of Hollywood careers. The one guy who hasn't stopped acting or had one single scandal about him since he began. The man who everyone I know that has met him says is the nicest dude they have ever met on or off a set.
Tom Hanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Jun 1, 2011 11:07:34 GMT -5
It probably would have been a different movie if it weren't Arnold. Richard Dreyfuss, Jeff Bridges, and Matthew Broderick were also considered for the role. I couldn't imagine either of those guys breaking necks and putting bullets through Sharon Stone's head. Or dishing out post-mortem one-liners. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 1, 2011 14:34:00 GMT -5
Ah. I think my use of 'king' implied behavior- which I didn't mean to imply-- I was more referring to an actor making a brand name, with each film that came out that he chose. In that regard, maybe Hanks is the king, I don't know enough about Hanks.
But in terms of movie career-making...
Arnold's odds in Hollywood seemed pretty ridiculous before "Terminator" and "Conan"--- but, outside of "Last Action Hero", there hasn't been a lot of mystery on what to expect from an Arnold film, and (for the most part) it was almost like there was an unspoken pact with what came with an Arnold film & audiences who liked him in the action roles: He never was required to be more than a cartoon figure, and the scripts/directors usually all played to his strengths.
With Tom, for the longest time, he had the same role over and over again- "young, cocky, (fill in the blank) who pushes things to the edge, then has to learn a little bit of humility at the end and wins the girl, but at the core is a good guy."
There wasn't THAT much variation, but enough so in his movies, that he did a lot of crowd-pleasers that had good production values and an ok-story. Once in awhile, there'd be a "Born on the Fourth of July", but both Tom & Arnold knew how to use their formulas to their advantage.
Also- these guys (outside of Arnold's issues with the ladies and Tom's religious stuff) seemed to not have any complaints from directors (James Cameron and Stone are known to be taskmasters who praised them)- or booze/drug scandals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Jun 1, 2011 14:36:53 GMT -5
For me there is only one true king of Hollywood careers. The one guy who hasn't stopped acting or had one single scandal about him since he began. The man who everyone I know that has met him says is the nicest dude they have ever met on or off a set. Tom Hanks. For sure. After all, his name is T.HANKS. When a guy's name has gratitude in it, you know he's gotta be decent.  |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 1, 2011 14:46:13 GMT -5
Definitely--- although from looking at Verhoeven's Robocop and Starship Troopers, (which are both brilliant perverted comic book movies imo) - Arnold and Verhoeven's sensibilities were a match made in heaven, I think. (Surprised that they didn't do more together)
Both make/made intentionally over the top films- with mainly cartoon characters and no subtlety. Verhoeven knows he's whoring by making movie violence seem attractive- and so he pushes it to an extreme that's both horrific and funny at the same time, and creating satire--- and Arnold knew he was beefcake not DeNiro, but tried to make his films fun & entertaining.
So, it all worked out. If another actor was cast under Verhoeven, though, it'd still be an over-the-top film.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Jun 2, 2011 11:14:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Tripper on Jun 2, 2011 20:12:50 GMT -5
both those videos are really well done.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jun 2, 2011 20:31:17 GMT -5
I think Reeve made some bad choices in turning down pretty much ALL those roles.
But is Brandon even being offered good roles?
I'll buy or rent Reeve movies (if I can find them) because I do think he is a good actor, and his performances have always been interesting even if the movie is kinda "eh".
I've only ever seen Routh in SR but his performance seemed suspiciously restrained in that movie.
Seems like a lot of you guys have seen him in other things.
Is he a good actor? I have a sneaky suspicion that he sucks.
|
|
