You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in Forum Index Home

Colts trade OL A.Q. Shipley to the Ravens [Also JLaw Thread]
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Forum Index -> Baltimore Ravens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Posts: 733
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2013 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

diamondbull424 wrote:
1. Are you referring to simply Roberts acting ability? I've already said she's not as talented as Olsen, but I was referring to her being better looking and beyond 'meh'... she's actually quite beautiful. In terms of acting chops, I can't say I've seen a lot of her movies either. I've only seen two: Nancy Drew (Yeah... I know it's not big time or well rated, just was one I caught) and the other movie was "It's kind of a funny story". I thought in the latter film she really showed some potential.

Before that I thought she was moreso limited to the 'cute girl next door' type. But she flirted with being a little dark in that role and I thought it suited her, she had the range... and it was believable.

2. You must be just referring to simply acting ability- because there isn't one movie on Olsen's resume that is truly notable to the masses. She has very little relevance to this point. Page has plenty of awesome performances to her credit and has continued to land roles in big time productions. It's really not a competition to this point.

And sure, I know you have mentioned your judgments are based mostly on acting quality, but the fact remains that Hollywoods is about money. Olsen hasn't proven that she can be attached to a big time movie and have it succeed. Page has done this and has done it in multiple genres, while presenting awesome performances. So why should her "star" stagnate? She has strong relationships with notable directors Bryan Singer and Christopher Nolan (who has shown a tendency to reuse actors and actresses he's worked with) which should only help her land roles in the future. And even on acting quality alone, Page has Olsen beat. I mean, Page has:
An American Crime performance (wow...)
Inception performance (classic movie)
Juno performance (period piece/classic)
Hard Candy (haven't seen this one, but heard really good things)

Page has the ability to seamlessly blend into big time hollywood productions (Inception, X-Men) while also carrying Indie films with her acting presence (HC, AAC, and Juno). She's done action, comedy, romance, drama. She's played as a hero, villain, and victim.

Honestly, I don't see Olsen as having proven herself to be in a class with Page or Lawrence. Especially not so much so that she's 'well regarded as being the future'.

I listed Emma Roberts only as an example of a celebrity family member who is in a similar boat as Olsen (unproven).

But in terms of strictly young talented actresses, in no particular order, I'd have any of these ladies/girls above Olsen:
a. Jennifer Lawrence
b. Ellen Page
c. Dakota Fanning
d. Abigail Breslin

3. Page isn't simply cute though. She's 'cute and dark'. Emma Stone is someone that's 'cute' and is more likely to be a 'flavor of the month' type of actress. But Page is so versatile and mature in her roles. She's very much beyond cute... or she wouldn't have lasted as long as she has. She's been putting in strong performances and having success in films since what, 2005? If I were to compare her to a male counterpart, I'd probably compare her to Jesse Eisenberg vs Michael Cera. Both males are considered in that 'cute' category, yet the former has enough 'edginess' to him that it allows him to fit into more genres. Only Page is a better talent than both.

4. This is biased an completely untrue. Her performance in Monster's Ball was extremely good... and she won an Academy Award for Best Actress along with a boat load of other awards. She also won a Golden Globe and Emmy for her performance in 'Introducing Dorothy Dandridge'. Then you consider her acting performance in Losing Isaiah. Halle Berry DEFINITELY can act and DEFINITELY has carried movies. Her only problem is that she has very little range as an actress. She does well in the graphic/dramatic films- things with abuse or struggle, but she fails quite horribly when thrust into other genres (horror, action, etc.) But to say she is awful is truly laughable.

5. Again, this is extremely biased and untrue. Will Smith is a terrific actor with a tremendous amount of range. I don't even understand how you can say 'I am Legend' wasn't a tremendous performance. Basically every critical review of the movie I've seen listed the movie to be flawed from a CGI perspective and had some notable plot holes... but found Will Smith's performance to be very good. The movie was a box office as well as critical success, to even try and state otherwise is ridiculous. Look at all the top sources: IMDB, metascore, Moviefone, rotten tomatoes, etc.

And you also stated that I'm only talking from an earning's perspective. I've stated over and again that I'm not. I'm talking about success being based on both movie earnings/relevance AND talent. Will Smith is an example of that.. along with the other names that I've listed. That's what I believe it truly means to be 'the future' of Hollywood. You have to be able to do both. Because if you can't than you're not going to have the staying power to maintain relevance. And how can one be 'the future of cinema' if they don't have the staying power to provide a lasting impact. You can't simply be just a strong actor/actress to be worthy of such a label that you threw out, you have to have the total package of both talent and box office relevance.

6. First off, Hunger Games can be counted. Because THG is the movie that will make her face iconic to the masses. They will be more likely to see other big time movies with her face attached to it now that they know who she is and know that she is relevant and talented. Twilight does count for Kristen Stewart. Movies like Adventureland and The Runaways likely saw a box office benefit due to her relevance... that said, Stewart also isn't nearly as talented as Lawrence and therefore fans aren't going to be as likely to follow her into other roles.

Secondly, how is THG J-Law's only big time movie? Are you forgetting that Silver Lining's Playbook was a box office winner, the production budget was only $21m, yet the movie ended up grossing 11x that amount with roughly $236m made.

She also was a part of X-Men: First Class- which brought in just under $354m.

Throw in the sequels to both THG and X-Men that will both likely produce trilogies... and with her star growing, you can probably expect her role in the X-Men movies to only grow... so yes, she has plenty of box office success to her credit in addition to her talents displayed in her Indy films. She's in a completely different class when compared to Olsen.

7. This is unbelievable false. How has Lizzie Olsen eclipsed her sisters when the vast majority of the public doesn't even know she exists yet? Just because she has acting presence does not mean she has cultural relevance. And furthermore, you keep mentioning MK and Ashley as being just known for fashion. Ask anyone and I'd bet the first thing they will list to you about them are Full House or one of those twin movies. They are cultural icons BECAUSE of Full House. Their fashion brand is only leveraging from that cultural relevance, it is not their relevance in and of itself. Lizzie Olsen has yet to even establish cultural relevance let alone surpassed her sisters who ARE global icons. Who cares if they are recluses or not, they still hold cultural relevance... just as Lindsay Lohan and Brittney Spears will always hold a cultural relevance as well. Those girls makeup the faces of a generation of Millennials. Lizzie isn't simply competing with a talented sibling, she's competing with two cultural icons.

Forever the public has known the Olsens as only Mary Kate and Ashley... adding a Lizzie to the equation is almost like changing the formula completely. We're not just talking about Lizzie Olsen establishing her own brand as a talent, we're talking about re-branding the Olsen clan... and 'rebranding is incredibly difficult to do'. It would probably be better for Lizzie early on to avoid as many connections with her sisters as possible or else it will confuse audiences and limit her growth potential as a star.

1. No, I just wanted an example of her work you enjoyed, I disagree that she's beautiful but I will check out your recommendations.

2. Yes I am refering to acting ability alone, and it is more than a competition. It's all about projection, what Elizabeth has done in her career so far has earned more respect than that of Page's. Olsen can get a studio movie greenlit right now with her name alone. Page is fading, X-Men may get her name back out there some. But she isn't the lead by any means, and will be overshadowed by veteran actors in that film. Olsen is going to be in Godzilla next year, a movie that by today's standards is too big to fail. All of this contributes to why I see Page growing stagant, and Olsen on the rise.

In regards to your list I see many names omitted, Lawrence I can agree with/accept. But you're leaving off many names, and if you really would choose Breslin over Olsen then you have some moxy friend.

4. I have nothing to be biased about lol, and she has overacting syndrome in everything she does. Why was her Monster's Ball performance so good? Because she won the Oscar, the award doesn't always go to the best performance. I agree she does have little range, but you give her ability to perform dramatically too much credit.

5. You're off base with you assesment of Will Smith, he is a raging narcissist who simply reads and reacts in every role. Just because he cried in "I am Legend", doesn't mean he can act. He is a joke in everything he does, and after seeing previews of "After Earth" smh.

6. When I referenced HGs and include First Class in this, those movies were big budget. SLB was not, though it did incredibly well it was not a big budget film. The responsiblity is different in taking a big budget and performing versus taking a small budget and performing. That's what I was talking about, and I don't see her in different class than Olsen.

7. The Twins and more specifically Mary-Kate made a fashion style huge, years ago. Since then, they have lost respect in the fashion industry and they never had it in film. Sure Mr. Regular Joe might know who they're but that guy doesn't know who Jlaw is. Elizabeth has been doing plays to rave reviews for years, and is a critics darling early in her career. The twins relevance is limited, and growing more so. I don't think you're giving Elizabeth her due, which of her films have you seen?(Not taking a shot, just honestly wondering)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Forum Index -> Baltimore Ravens All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group