Film Fanatics Society - Chat Thread

And this is going to sound terrible, probably, but I never did see Inception. Is it actually worth watching or do you think it was over-hyped?

I think the Empire Reveal thing is going to be Harry Potter (first one would be The Marauders Map, second one would be Hedwig) or Tintin.

Still intriguing though.



It's definitely worth watching. To my mind it's the best film out this year by a considerable margin, and this year has been pretty good for films. Whether it will look as good on TV as the big screen, I'm not so sure...

Something I have been thinking of recently - why is it that recent big budget films centring on kids (Harry Potter, Narnia) almost always have terrible child actors, and yet there have been and are decent child actors out there (Jodie Foster, Dakota Fanning, Chloe Moretz, Natalie Portman, Christian Bale).

Do you think it's that for the big franchises they are poor at selecting films (going for those who will look good on the posters rather than those that can act) or do you think that it's more to do with the filming process making these kids better on smaller films (better direction, more time to teach them, etc.)?

The new Narnia film actually looks like it could be quite well made, but as soon as the kids start speaking in the trailer it just sounds awful.

I think it's probably to do with the fact that child actors are more of a rarity, and due to the volume of child actors needed for recent films (i.e Harry Potter), it inevitably ends up as a casting process for a lot of "hopefuls", many of whom get the part on the basis that they need an extremely large volume of child actors.

Probably also to do with "poster-child" actors too, yeah. In the same way that Tom Cruise gets big budget Hollywood films, seemingly on the basis of his 'looks' alone and those who can actually act but aren't considered pin-ups, i.e Andy Serkis, get given roles that typecast them as either something ugly/average Joe/someone who it's acceptable to have a "less attractive" actor playing.

Think a lot of it depends on the role they get given. Take Ivana Baquero in Pan's Labyrinth for example; that role suits a child actor and is well played. Some of this is, of course, attributable to the fact she's a decent child actor, but a lot of it is the fact she's not being cast as being in scenarios involving things like fighting or lots of talking between child actors; two methods which inevitably end up with the child actors looking crap.

*first proper post*

love film, love to talk about film, thought i'd join


And this is going to sound terrible, probably, but I never did see Inception. Is it actually worth watching or do you think it was over-hyped?

I think it's probably to do with the fact that child actors are more of a rarity, and due to the volume of child actors needed for recent films (i.e Harry Potter), it inevitably ends up as a casting process for a lot of "hopefuls", many of whom get the part on the basis that they need an extremely large volume of child actors.

Probably also to do with "poster-child" actors too, yeah. In the same way that Tom Cruise gets big budget Hollywood films, seemingly on the basis of his 'looks' alone and those who can actually act but aren't considered pin-ups, i.e Andy Serkis, get given roles that typecast them as either something ugly/average Joe/someone who it's acceptable to have a "less attractive" actor playing.

Think a lot of it depends on the role they get given. Take Ivana Baquero in Pan's Labyrinth for example; that role suits a child actor and is well played. Some of this is, of course, attributable to the fact she's a decent child actor, but a lot of it is the fact she's not being cast as being in scenarios involving things like fighting or lots of talking between child actors; two methods which inevitably end up with the child actors looking crap.

Interesting points. I do agree with a lot of points in your last paragraph - any decent child performance generally has a kid playing a mature role (Foster in Taxi Driver, Portman in Leon).

I just find it odd that Harry Potter would spend so much money on actors, direction etc. and then not really give a toss about how the main actors can perform. I suspect that if the first film had someone like a Spielberg or a Scorsese directing it things might have turned out differently in that department...

*first proper post*

love film, love to talk about film, thought i'd join


And this is going to sound terrible, probably, but I never did see Inception. Is it actually worth watching or do you think it was over-hyped?

I think the Empire Reveal thing is going to be Harry Potter (first one would be The Marauders Map, second one would be Hedwig) or Tintin.

Still intriguing though.

x

I can't write a message on your 'wall' (or whatever tsr calls it)

Indeed. Wall posting is disabled.