OFFICIAL NEWS Carrie Fisher told to slim down for TFA reprisal role

A combo of Your Worshipfulness and Lady Vader would intimidate anyone, for sure!

 

Its cool. We are used to disagreeing. I find Shumer to be lovely and hysterical. At least we have similar taste in jokes.

 

That's a no Issue, i was with Carrie about Slave Leia, i would be with her on this if they didn't ask the same for Mark Hammil

 

the fat shaming thing is a weird issue to me because it implies that the people who either speak for or against it (whatever "it" is) know exactly what are the variables that make people fat. so now we got people on the internet with a thousand different different opinions about what really makes people fat or lose weight without really understanding or wondering if the fat shaming is really just a social engineering sheme to either keep the "proud" people to keep eating bad food (big bucks for fast food joints or any other INDUSTRY) or go to the gym™ and work out and be obsessed in those boring repetitive machines.

 

I don't think you have to believe in pure method to acknowledge there's less demand for actors to be "good personalities" outside of the screen, but even so, what makes Bale a good jerk on screen is probably not a quality that wins him any friends off screen anyway.

Another irony of using Bale and PSH as examples is both's commitment in changing how they LOOK(ed) on screen; work that would put what Carrie had to do to shame. In fact, if they could disappear completely it wouldn't be a discredit to them, so I'd go so far to say that these actors are popular because they are less likely to be visible in their work than say, John Wayne.

If Bale could play a meek and mild mannered guy nobodies going to say "where's his trademark d-bag
essence!?" Just look to The Big Short. This movie is interesting because he seems to be playing a totally different guy than we'd expect.

The days of going to a movie to see Clooney be Clooney is just about gone.

 

interesting post

 

You know, after reading this I'd say that they demand charisma more now than they did in the 60s through 90s, but mostly for popular films. To be honest, the way they now cast big budget films is more similar to the studio system before the time of the Movie Brats, the time when Jaws came out. Guys like Chris Pratt and The Rock are like those old cats from the 40s. . . on crack; but to say all of the industry is like that is a misunderstanding of how today is different:

Pulling people based off of what they bring to the role is pretty much a product of the post code era in the late 60s where they started looking to the theater for talent. That method hasn't really gone anywhere, but on the other hand, it wasn't really done before the 50s.

And Jaws, you got to understand, no one was making Jaws thinking, this is gong to be a blockbuster. It was the product of a change in the way movies were distributed, advertised, and made. It was a fresh answer to the studio system, which is why you get guys like Dreyfuss, and Spielberg directing.

But now the biggest difference is there are more movies than ever before. Films that focus on talent over looks exist in far greater numbers than they did in the 70s; but on the other hand films with big budgets and attractive people have a much larger reach, and are also made in greater frequency.

What we have now is a blending of the old studio way of casting and the post code era of casting.

All that being said, you can rest assured that every casting choice is done to sell the movie (whether in tickets or awards.) If acting sells the movie, then you'll get actors, if pretty faces sell the movie, you get pretty faces.

That's never changed.