Archive for the ‘Celebrities and Controversy’ Category
Filed under: Casting, Celebrities and Controversy
As hordes of actors attempt to stave off aging, we watch on, amused. It’s hard not to laugh or snicker when a person who has clearly had plastic surgery claims that their face is natural. They might as well claim to be a relative of Stretch Armstrong, trying to feed us bull that their skin doesn’t fall and change no matter how old they get, that their chin was always that shape, their lips always that puffy, their eyebrows always that arched.
It’s also inspired many of us to complain about the lack of emotion these actors can offer, how it affects performances and ruins a role — emotions desperately trying to escape from the clutches of Botox and injected fat. But It’s more than just a threat to random roles. We must ask: could this rampant love of plastic surgery effect or essentially change how cinema is made and performed? New York Magazine recently looked into the issue, inspired by the unmoving faces in the television show Damages.
The most telling piece of the article deals with emotion as a sort of compromise, actors figuring out what facial movements are necessary for their careers. Plastic surgeon Stephen Pincus told the magazine: “I ask them, what expressions, what emotions, are you concerned about losing? They’ll say, ‘I have to be mad, or surprised, or I’m worried about my eyebrows, I don’t want to be a blank stare.’ I say, ‘I can paralyze your forehead from this point up, but you’re not going to be able to wrinkle a good part of the forehead. Is that an issue for you? If it is, we shouldn’t do it.’ They’re more concerned about wrinkles than about the five seconds of emotion people might not notice anyway.”
Continue reading Could Plastic Surgery Kill Dramatic Performances?
Filed under: Awards, Deals, Celebrities and Controversy, Movie Marketing, Oscar Watch
Gawker
never could get a response from Variety, but the LA Times did. Variety put Robert Koehler’s review of Iron Cross back up, and claimed they had taken it down in order to investigate “factual inaccuracies” after Newton complained. This investigation included Variety’s editor Tim Gray actually sitting and watching the film, and deciding that the trade could stand by Koehler’s review. Gray declined to give his own opinion on the film to the Times.But Iron Cross’ Newton isn’t satisfied. According to the New York Times, Newton has now filed a lawsuit against Variety accusing the paper of “contractual breach, negligence, fraud and deceit, and unfair business practices.” He believes he was betrayed by the paper that suggested the film as a potential awards contender and approached him two months later with the advertising package. They formed an “exclusive media partnership” which included print and online ads, 40,000 DVDs, and inclusion in an awards screening series sponsored by the paper. Newton spent an additional $800,000 to finish the film for its brief theatrical run in Los Angeles that would allow it to qualify for the Oscars. The producer claims this partnership and Oscar campaign was undermined when Koehler ran a negative review of the film. He’s asking for “general damages, punitive damages, restitution of funds paid and an injunction to prevent Variety from further comment on the movie” but has not specified a monetary amount.
Continue reading It Continues! ‘Iron Cross’ Filmmaker Sues Variety For Negative Review
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Images, Stars in Rewind
“And while in my lifetime I’ve seen science make extraordinary inroads into solving the most complex questions of life, after all this time I admit that I am thrilled that there are some things that forever will remain a mystery. For example, do I wear a toupee?” — William Shatner, Up Till Now: An Autobiography
What was intended as a simple bit of self-effacing humor from actor William Shatner has instead become a challenge laid at the feet of the creators of Shatner’s Toupee — a blog devoted entirely to the question of Shatner’s hair (or lack thereof). They provide the web’s most detailed movie-by-movie analysis from Shatner’s filmography on his various rugs.
The amazing thing is how serious (and thoroughly researched) the blog is in its quest for an answer. It makes the whole thing funnier somehow (which I’m sure is intentional) to read someone poring over every frame of some long-forgotten Shatner television appearance for indisputable proof, offering a play-by-play opinion of every head scratch, every combed part, and every hairline that’s found its way onto the actor’s head. While Shatner himself has never owned up to any wig-wearing, Shatner’s Toupee makes a pretty convincing argument otherwise.
(Special thanks to my friend Micah with Reel Distraction)
Filed under: Animation, Disney, Celebrities and Controversy, Movie Marketing
Warning: The above picture may contain content that boys won’t like, including a female and that female’s really long hair.
Last week I attempted to figure out why, exactly, Disney decided to change the title of their upcoming animated film Rapunzel to Tangled. After sending a couple emails to Disney, the only response I received was that it was “a filmmaker decision”. A filmmaker decision … to change the title of a film from one that immediately has a familiar, built-in audience to one that, in all honesty, is kinda boring? I originally figured the title change may have had something to do with them altering the traditional Rapunzel story enough that it warranted a completely different title, though Disney’s weird “can’t say anything about that, sorry” reply was just too odd. So I figured, eh — why make a whole lotta something out of nothing, and I dropped the idea for a story … until today.
Looks like The Los Angeles Times was in the mood to do a little more digging, and what they found out was that Disney changed the title because they wanted it to appeal to more boys. Not that Tangled immediately shouts out, “Hey boys, there are boys who do lots of cool boy things in this, so come see it!” … but after the Mouse House apparently blamed Princess and the Frog’s box office failures (yes, $222 million worldwide is not good enough these days) on the fact that boys were turned off by the word “Princess” in the title, a move to strip Rapunzel of her identity was commissioned … because, ya know, Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Mulan, Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid never really had much success with their girl-ish titles either, right?
Says Ed Catmull, president of Pixar and Disney Animation Studios: “We did not want to be put in a box. Some people might assume it’s a fairy tale for girls when it’s not. We make movies to be appreciated and loved by everybody.”
Continue reading The Real Reason Disney Changed ‘Rapunzel’ to ‘Tangled’
Filed under: Awards, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Fan Rant
It’s become common knowledge (or at least a common perception) that Sean Penn can be kind of a jerk. It all started back when he was punching out photographers calling him Mr. Madonna, and since then he’s always had a contentious relationship with his own fame. I’m not saying he isn’t a damn fine actor; he’s just a terrible — and I mean terrible — celebrity. Last night at the 82nd Academy Awards, Penn delivered the award for best actress with a cryptic speech about not being a member of the Academy and overlooked actresses. Over at NY Magazine, they think they’ve figured out that Penn was referencing his soon to be ex-wife, Robin Wright, for being overlooked in both Penn’s acceptance speech last year, and for her work in The Private Lives of Pippa Lee this year.
Now, this isn’t the first time that Penn has gone off script at the presenters’ podium, with the most famous instance being back in 2005 when Penn took personal offense at some of Chris Rock’s jokes on behalf of Jude Law. Sure, it made for a good Oscar clip the morning after, but I can’t be the only one who thought that it was proof positive that Penn needs to lighten up a little. The man was Spicoli for god sakes, he does remember what the word comedy means, right? Granted, there was a brief shining moment when I thought that maybe Mr. Penn had finally located his sense of humor when he appeared on The Colbert Report for a Meta-Free-Phor-All. But I guess that was wishful thinking, because after Penn’s performance last night, the comedy credit will have to go to Mr. Colbert.
After the jump: so who needs him, anyway?…
Continue reading Why Does Sean Penn Bother To Attend The Oscars?
Filed under: Documentary, Awards, Celebrities and Controversy, Newsstand, Oscar Watch
The woman in purple was revealed to be Elinor Burkett, producer of Prudence, and Salon immediately investigated. Burkett was more than happy to reveal why she crashed the stage, and declared it was all Williams’ fault. “The director and I had a bad difference over the direction of the film that resulted in a lawsuit that has settled amicably out of court. But there have been all these events around the Oscars, and I wasn’t invited to any of them. And he’s not speaking to me. So we weren’t even able to discuss ahead of the time who would be the one person allowed to speak if we won. And then, as I’m sure you saw, when we won, he raced up there to accept the award. And his mother took her cane and blocked me. So I couldn’t get up there very fast.”
Continue reading The Story Behind The Oscars’ ‘Kanye Moment’
Filed under: Awards, Celebrities and Controversy, Newsstand, Oscar Watch
If Sandra Bullock beats Meryl Streep to win the Academy Award for Best Actress tonight, she’ll make history, because in addition to being nominated for Oscar honors for her turn in the football drama The Blind Side, she also earned a nomination — from the Golden Raspberry Award Foundation — for Worst Actress of the year for starring in the abysmally-received comedy All About Steve. Last night in Hollywood, the classy actress actually showed up to receive her Razzie award, and she came bearing gifts.
Bullock, ever the good sport about being “honored,” teased the crowd in attendance, all of whom she guessed hadn’t actually seen All About Steve (which she also produced). During her acceptance speech (“I didn’t realize that in Hollywood that all you have to do is say you’ll show up and you’ll get [the award]. If I had known that, I would have said I was appearing at the Oscars a long time ago”), Bullock exacted a revenge of sorts when she carted out a wagon full of All About Steve DVDs to give to the audience.
Watch Bullock’s speech after the jump.
Continue reading Watch This: Sandra Bullock’s Razzies Acceptance Speech
Filed under: Awards, Celebrities and Controversy, Oscar Watch
Yes sir, things have changed and it’s a new day in Hollywood. Gone are the $20 million pay-days and even the top of the A-list are taking the hit (unless you’re Angelina Jolie). In an article in the NYT, they took a look at the declining paychecks of Hollywood’s biggest stars and the new financial model that has swept the movie factory: CB zero (which stands for cash-break zero). It’s a departure from the previous set up which had stars taking a reduced paycheck for “a percentage of …first-dollar gross receipts; that is, they began sharing in the profits from the first ticket sale, not waiting until the studio turned a profit.” But the new deal is a little different because, now, stars won’t see a dime beyond their paycheck until the film breaks even.
According to experts (who remained anonymous), the reason for the change is that a big name just doesn’t pull in the crowds like it used to. Plus, the all important 18-34 demographic just isn’t that interested in the Hollywood A-list anymore. When you take a look at most of this years’ Oscar nominations, smaller films and previously unheard of actors like Gabourey Sidibe (Precious) and Jeremy Renner from The Hurt Locker (who both worked for at or near guild minimums: $65,000, with negotiable overtime with some food and mandatory breaks) are competing alongside big names like George Clooney and Meryl Streep, who also took pay cuts, because according to the NYT, “[when] the estimated salaries of all 10 of the top acting nominees are combined, the total is only a little larger than the $20 million.”
After the jump: the future of Hollywood’s A-Listers…
Continue reading Will 2010 Mark the End of Hollywood’s A-List?
Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
Filed under: Action, Deals, Noir, Mystery & Suspense, Sony, Celebrities and Controversy, Scripts, 20th Century Fox, DIY/Filmmaking, Newsstand, Politics, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Remakes and Sequels
Once Sam Raimi was unceremoniously booted from Spider-Man 4 along with the cast and crew, speculation was rampant as to what he would direct next. World of Warcraft? What about The Shadow? He’s wanted to do that for a long, long time and as of last January, it was chugging along quite nicely. Whatever he picked, we were rooting for him. But now The Shadow has vanished into the darkness, as Variety reports that Sony has let the rights lapse. It’s hard not to read into this and see it as evidence of bad blood between Sony and Raimi. I don’t want to jump to gossipy conclusions, but if things were good, wouldn’t you at least agree to be friends and make The Shadow together?
Raimi’s reps at CAA are now shopping The Shadow rights around town, and Raimi is still attached as a producer. So at least he gets to keep his pet pulp, even if it’s standing on shaky ground. Not only does it delay a possible film, but it could all land in some uncompromising hands. One of the interested parties is 20th Century Fox. Latino Review says they’ve already purchased The Shadow and may have set David Slade to direct, while Variety is merely reporting Fox as “interested.”
Slade and Raimi go way back (30 Days of Night) so it makes sense that Raimi would offer the chair to an old friend. But I was hoping he’d step into the director’s chair for a little noir before heading into Warcraft. At least we know that’s likely to be his next director’s outing by sheer default. Start casting your Night Elves now!
Filed under: Awards, Celebrities and Controversy, Newsstand, Oscar Watch
Did you hear about the brouhaha over a Hurt Locker producer dissing Avatar? Oh, it’s quite a fracas, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is taking it very seriously. Seems Nicolas Chartier sent an e-mail to friends and colleagues in the Academy on Feb. 19, basically pleading with them to vote for Hurt Locker for Best Picture. But he also made a reference to Avatar, violating Academy rules against “casting a negative or derogatory light on a competing film.” Consequently, Chartier has been banned from attending the Oscars on Sunday. If Hurt Locker wins, the other three producers will take the stage to accept the award, while Chartier will have to pick up his trophy later, in shame.
Tough break, but that’s what you get for running a negative campaign, right? That’s what I thought, too, until I read the e-mail. Here it is, as posted by Pete Hammond at the L.A. Times. (The odd usage and grammatical errors were in the original and are explained by Chartier being French.)
I hope all is well with you. I just wanted to write you and say I hope you liked Hurt Locker and if you did and want us to win, please tell (name deleted) and your friends who vote for the Oscars, tell actors, directors, crew members, art directors, special effects people, if everyone tells one or two of their friends, we will win and not a $500M film, we need independent movies to win like the movies you and I do, so if you believe The Hurt Locker is the best movie of 2010, help us!I’m sure you know plenty of people you’ve worked with who are academy members whethere a publicist, a writer, a sound engineer, please take 5 minutes and contact them. Please call one or two persons, everything will help!
best regards,
Nicolas Chartier Voltage Pictures
Continue reading ‘Hurt Locker’ Vs. ‘Avatar’: You Call THAT a Smear Campaign?
