i thought lindsay lohan was to take on this role???

Interesting choice. It would be nice if James Franco had stuck with the project.

But Sarsgaard is a better actor in my opinion albeit Franco is a better headliner.

A major plus are the script writers in this one.

This is a powerfully dark character. This will probably be her most challenging role if it goes forward. Lohan and Hudson could play this by the numbers just fine. But Amanda has that little dark place that she taps on rare occasions… She has what it takes to play such a tragic character. Can’t tell yet if she has refined it enough to come off with brilliance.

It’s understood that this is no money maker. This is an artistic choice that few young actresses would even dare to consider.

She’ll also need to go dark haired for this one.

Sarsgaard is a much better actor than Franco, but Franco would sell more tickets. I’ve seen Sarsgaard is several movies, and he is extremely good at playing sleazy, scummy types, so he’s ideal for this role.

This is definitely not a money maker, but I do worry about whether it will receive any critical acclaim since most critics are prudish by nature. I remember that many of the negative reviews for Chloe were due to the somewhat sexual nature of the film. I’m not sure that a movie that won’t make money and probably won’t be well reviewed is the right move to follow a string of disappointing box office performances (I’m assuming that Gone will be a bomb) at a time when other actresses in her age range are getting commercially viable projects.

On the positive side, it should change the way producers and studio execs look at her. Hopefully they will realize that she can do more than play the sweet girl roles. After this, she really needs to do something that will make money.

I forgot to mention that there are two Linda Lovelace movies that will be made early next year. Lohan was attached to star in the other Lovelace movie (Inferno) but was replaced with Malin Ackerman.

I think she’s looking for personal artistic growth, something commercial films rarely provide. And she’s going way out of her comfort zone to do it. Hell, it’s well out of any of our comfort zones.

She is a complex person, we just tend to linger on the Mama Mia girl we all love and forget to notice the many layered person just underneath.

Aniston or Heigle, 2 highly talented actresses who’ve abandoned they’re artistic endeavors in favor of commercial success. Many young actresses are happy to follow that model.

Amanda isn’t one of those actresses.

I think this is calculated to show that she is more than a pretty face who can do roms. She also makes decisions based on her opinion of the director (or directors, in this case) so that probably had something to do with taking this movie, assuming that she signs for it. Remember that she was announced for Now You See Me, and that deal fell through.

Since this isn’t scheduled to film until January, it looks like 2012 will be a pretty sparse year for Amanda fans. Gone in February, then a small role in the Wedding, then nothing until this movie comes out. Chalk that up to her crack agents. Second year in a row that she has involuntarily taken half a year off. The funny thing is that even a character actor like Sarsgaard is repped by CAA, and has a manager, while Amanda only has little Innovative Artists behind her.

There’s a cool interview with Diablo Cody floating around. Takes a while to load but worth it.

http://www.movieline.com/2011/11/watch-diablo-cody-interview-amanda-seyfried-and-revisit-mean-girls-and-jennifers-body.php

Yeah, I sent a link for the Cody interview to the admin of this site, but she hasn’t posted it yet. Amanda was pretty funny, but I have a feeling that her “people” advised her to keep under control in the interview because it wasn’t as raunchy as most of the Red Band Trailer interviews. I’m also wondering if that’s why Amanda wasn’t on Chelsea Lately to promote In Time? I hope she does C lately when she promotes Gone.

The reaction to Amanda doing the Lovelace pic has been somewhat mixed, but mostly positive. I still want her to do The Girl Who Conned the Ivy League, but that project looks dead now. I read the Rolling Stone story the script is based on, and it’s as good a role for a young actress as there is out there now. McG would have directed, which was the downside.

“advised her to keep under control ”
It’s probably just her new normal. She seemed very relaxed and at ease. She even made a comment about her sweaty odor at the time.

It strikes me at how she exudes this positive energy about her. It’s so much more noticeable when she’s with people she trust. Loved it when she got the Cody/Tatum connection. :)

The mixed reaction from Lovelace? It’s just so out of the blue. Imagining the role of Lovelace, Amanda would be the farthest from many a guy’s list. Lovelace is almost the exact opposite of everything Amanda is.

Lovelace could also be a career killer if it isn’t done just right, which is why some people are questioning taking a chance of that magnitude. Hopefully the script is good and the directors know what they are doing. Amanda hasn’t had much luck lately with directors. On paper, both RRH and In Time looked like winners, but Hardwicke and Niccol didn’t do their jobs.

Weak direction aside. An even weaker male lead exacerbates it even further. This is where RRH truly suffered.

Amanda once commented years ago that JT was a little too whitebread for her. It may hold true for most audiences.

You could say Dear John suffered the same weak direction and script, but the chemistry between Amanda and Channing was there. So people watched it. Amanda even had a slight resemblance to Jenna which probably helped Channing out.

Dear John made money because it was a Nicholas Sparks book and had a built in audience. It wasn’t a good movie, and it would have made a lot more money if it had been. That was another case of a weak director and a weak male lead. It still worked well for Amanda since it had a big opening and made $80 million domestically.

I don’t think the problem with In Time is Timberlake, his other movies have done well and people seem to like him. Her isn’t the best actor, but he isn’t bad either. In Time had a bad release date, a bad title, and a terrible marketing campaign. Lazy direction, lack of exposition to explain a fairly complicated concept, and too little back story for the main characters led to mostly negative reviews, which killed any chances of the movie being successful. High concept SciFi movies never make much money, but it could have grossed around $60-$70 million domestically if it had been a better movie with better marketing. Niccol is a good writer, but a mediocre director.

RRH, In Time, Gone (which will bomb) are negatives for her, and remember that she fought hard to remain on Sucker Punch, which was awful and a huge bomb. This string of disappointing movies has taken her off the list she was on in 2010. She isn’t up for the most desirable roles any longer. Amanda has a major problem since she clearly isn’t good at picking movies, and her agent isn’t either. If she wants to be a viable lead actress, she will need to fire Bluestone and get a real agent. A manager wouldn’t hurt either. Otherwise, her career will end up in straight to DVD movies and TV shows.

There was another Nicholas Sparks movie that year, but it didn’t fair as well despite being considered a superior film. Likable leads do matter.

Desirable roles mostly mean rom-com which she doesn’t take often. She’ll be alright, it’s easy to imagine her in a movie. We just have to accept that she’s not the Hollywood type.

Well ‘The Girl Who Conned the Ivy League’ seems to be back on the table.

Desirable roles don’t mean rom coms. Desirable roles either mean commercial projects like comic book/action movies, or awards bait movies. Rom coms are what you do occasionally to pay the bills. She isn’t up for projects likely to win awards, or for big budget action movies likely to make her seem bankable. The Girl Who Conned the Ivy League is the kind of movie that could put her back to being close to the top, so hopefully it will move forward with her in the lead. I think she could garner a nomination for that role if McG does a decent job as the director.

Likable leads do matter, which is why Tatum and Timberlake were decent co-stars for Amanda, even though they aren’t the best actors. They both have plenty of female fans, and Timberlake is probably a bigger draw than Amanda. Fan reaction when they appear together in public certainly indicates that. He’s definitely a bigger name. He was a plus for In Time, the movie’s disappointing domestic numbers can’t be blamed on him. After my fifth viewing, I realized that he did a pretty good job as Will Salas. The good news about In Time is that it is doing much better overseas than here. It’s made a little over $25 million here so far, but almost $38 million overseas. It could make around $85 million worldwide.

“doing much better overseas”
That’s one of the factors going for her. She is popular overseas, much more than any of her contemporaries. This will be a major consideration for any studios calculation for global releases.

Not to mention her peculiar ability of defusing potential boxoffice bombs. But can she do the same for ‘Gone’? Well, 2 out of 3 isn’t bad. Right?

The good thing about Gone is that there will be absolutely no expectation of success for it. If it does well, it will be a feather in her cap, if it doesn’t do well, it will have performed as expected.

I found more articles about Girl Who Conned the Ivy League, including one in Deadline, and they all have Amanda listed as the lead, so it looks like the movie is still hers. That’s the best career news she’s had in a couple of years. I’m hoping that McG is too busy to direct and will hire someone to handle that.

In Time rolls along overseas, crossing the $83 million mark worldwide. It hasn’t opened in France or Russia yet: Starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried, In Time pulled in $4.15m (-45%) at no. 7. (Domestic total: $30.66m; worldwide: $83.76m; cost: $40m.)

It should cross $100 million worldwide, which, when combined with DVD, cable, and VOD, might lead to a slight profit, even when marketing and distribution costs are factored in. It is definitely not the disaster it appeared to be on opening day in the US.

This would be Niccols biggest hit as a director despite all the negative criticism.

Yeah, the funny about Gattaca is that it has this great reputation, but it only made about 12.5 million in the US, and was never released anywhere else. It’s per screen average for it’s opening weekend was lower than In Time’s. Lord of War made about $72 million worldwide, and that’s it for Niccol as a director. He only wrote Truman Show.

It will be interesting to see whether In Time will eventually be viewed as a negative, or as a positive for the actors involved. Opening weekends are so important to how a movie is perceived that a poor US opening, despite strong international sales, can brand a movie as a failure. Hopefully the industry is paying attention to worldwide totals for In Time.

EW.com just wrote an article about that. The people who matter knows.

On another subject, looking at some recent pics. I don’t believe Amanda can tan. She just turns a little red and that’s about it. She was reading the Lovelace book in Miami.

Her skin is about as light as mine, and I have difficulty tanning in natural light. I can tan in tanning beds (very bad for the skin long term) and I think that’s what she did to get tan for Mamma Mia.

I expect that everything in the US will be wiped out by Twilight and Happy Feet 2 this weekend, so hopefully the foreign sales for In Time will hold up. $100 million worldwide would be ok, but $120 million would make In Time a sort of success.

This is the funniest thing I’ve ever seen with Amanda. It’s from some French TV show, with Amanda and JT answering questions from fans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGR6a-K1ht8

That was really cute and funny. Then you see the Gone trailer and you wonder if that is even the same person.

“$120 million would make In Time a sort of success”
This may well be in the realm of possibility at this point.

It looks likely now: Box Office Mojo on December 4th:
Domestic: $35,870,000 30.4%
+ Foreign: $82,000,000 69.6%
= Worldwide: $117,870,000

The only problem is that the industry is so fixated with opening weekend and domestic grosses that the stronger international performance might not help her much with future casting. This is still very nice to see. One interesting thing is that the audiences I’ve seen the movie with over the last two weeks have been much more enthusiastic about In Time than opening week audiences. I think the movie has finally found it’s audience, but that has come at a point when it’s lost nearly all of it’s screens in the US. It should do well on DVD/VOD. I still say that the Oct 28 release was a poor choice. It wold have done better in the US with a September or Thanksgiving weekend (counter programming for the family/kiddie movies and Twilight) release.

Timberlake haters gave a big opening salvo. :(

You’re right about the fixation thing. They still rave about ‘Easy A’ yet ‘Letters to Juliet’ made more money. Mean Girls was far superior to Easy A but it’s September timing was good.

Someone once commented that Amanda’s like Tyler Perry. No big splash but a steady earner. The big guys will hopefully realize this as they take a more international approach for future projects.

Very few female stars have a wide global appeal.

I read an interview with Jason Bateman where he said that Arrested Development restarted his career, not because it had high ratings (it was always on the verge of being cancelled) but because the people who decide what is made in the industry watched it. I think that’s why Emma Stone, Anne Hathaway, and Carey Mulligan are doing so well now. Amanda’s movies make more money, but they are the type of movies that the industry heavyweights, especially directors, are unlikely to watch. I can accept Stone and even Hathaway doing well, but I’m confounded by Mulligan being cast as DiCaprio’s object of obsession in Gatsby. She’s barely cute, not at all leading lady material. That role should have gone to Amanda, along with either Gwen Stacy, Lois Lane, or Catwoman.

There is still that drought of female centric roles in the films being made. So sad since there are more great young actresses in waiting. :(

I’d like to think that there was an alternate reason why she did not get the Lois Lane role. In the Superman/DC universe, who does Amanda really resemble the most and with similar powers?

If Zack Snyder wanted her in a kick ass role as he did with SP, it would not be Lois Lane.

Carey Mulligan is a good dramatic actress and she did earn her keep. She always has that sad look though.

I don’t feel the same for E. Stone. Her fame/celebrity status far outweighs her actual accomplishments which are mostly supporting. She is a very good example of Hollywood star packaging in order to fill a vacant slot in the usual rosters, the dark haired ingenue. Basically a fill in for Lohan, who despite her flaws is more talented.

Admittedly, Stone is kinda likable and can act to some degree. But she is nowhere near the caliber of any of the ‘Meangirl’ girls. But Hollywood would like people to think otherwise.

Mulligan is a good actress, but she isn’t good looking, and that means she isn’t a credible lead actress for studio movies. Stone is a decent actress and is reasonably good looking, and the public likes her. Stone is by far the biggest threat to Amanda’s career right now. If you look at the movies Stone had out this year, and the movies she will have out next year, you’ll notice that Amanda would have been right for all of them. Crazy, Stupid, Love and The Help would have been a lot better for Amanda’s career than RRH and In Time, though I think that she could have filmed In Time anyway. The Spiderman reboot and Gangster Squad would definitely have been good for her. Mullifug only cost Amanda one role, albeit a big one, but Stone will be taking lots of roles from Amanda over the years.

“but Stone will be taking lots of roles from Amanda over the years.”
I would agree, assuming the roles are not too heavy and within her range. She still can’t do ‘subtle’. She’s an Aniston. :P

The kind of roles Amanda might be more interested in are those in Mulligan’s range. Strong dramatic roles instead of light popular fare. Wanting to work with the likes of Fassbender? That tells a lot considering the type of work Fassbender has done.

Come on, take ‘Lovelace’. Stone would sh*t a brick before she cracks open that script. :)

Mulligan won’t be taking studio movies from Amanda, with the exception of ones where an eccentric director has control of casting, such as Alice and Gatsby. Amanda has said that she prefers studio movies since they get released. I think she’s doing Lovelace because she needs a game changer in order to be considered for the types of roles in studio movies that she wants. If Chloe had been well written (without the Lifetime Movie of the Week ending) it would have been the movie that she needed to move up a notch, but it turned out to be good rather than great due to the limitations of the screenwriter’s talent.

I’m optimistic about Lovelace and Girl Who Conned the Ivy League (especially if McG only produces it) and hopefully she will get a role in a tentpole next year to go along with those movies.

In Time continues to roll internationally:

Domestic: $36,058,872 28.4%
+ Foreign: $90,900,000 71.6%
= Worldwide: $126,958,872

On a $40 million dollar budget, I think it should be profitable once it’s on DVD. Studios get about 50-55% of the box office grosses, and they have to pay for marketing and distribution, but even allowing for that, In Time should end up in the black. I wish the US numbers had been close to the original forecast of $50 million. I’d like to know why it didn’t perform better here, and I don’t buy that JT is more respected in other countries. His other films have done well enough here. The international market has grown, but it’s not that much bigger than the US. I think it’s a combination of the US release date, bad marketing in the US, and right wingers here not liking what the movie is about. This country seems to be more politically polarized than those in Europe.

Whatever the reason, the US market kept In Time from being viewed as a hit, even though most movies in this budget range don’t make close to $130 million worldwide.

Perhaps they took ‘Friends with Benefits’ numbers too seriously. It came in right after the whole buzz from ‘Social’ and ‘Blackswan’. Inflating Timberlake and Kunis’ actual draw, just look at their pre-2010 numbers. There may have been some pushback after that. Plus all the stuff you mentioned.

But the numbers are in line with Amanda’s pull. The boost on the foreign side should be more attributed to her. Her Mama Mia cred still hold sway.

After this weekend’s domestic boxoffice disaster which studios hope is just a fluke. They should start hedging their bets and give more attention to talents that have wider international appeal. Instead of just propping up the oldies with all these ludicrously tilted polls, hoping people will still buy this crap.

The new movies this weekend were pathetic. Unless you like kiddie movies or Twilight, the releases for the last month and a half have been awful. I’m waiting for Amanda’s “people” to make their next move. Ivy League is being written, so it will probably not begin filming until the second half of next year. I’d like Amanda, for once, to not waste half a year while her agents find a movie for her to be in. Getting something lined up to film after Lovelace (it should be an 8 week shoot and will begin in late December) and before Ivy League would be nice.

It’s too bad that this site doesn’t have a forum. Some of these threads end up with 30+ posts since there is no other way to discuss things here.

Even the kiddie movies under performed. And those things have massive budgets.

My reservation with forums is that they attract the usual trolls with their back handed comments just to rile people up.

Not at all happy with the ‘Wedding’ teaser poster. Looking more like a Heigl vehicle. Come on, Heigl has been on a downward trajectory for a couple of years now. Her ‘Knocked Up’ cred is all but exhausted. She squandered it all on rom-coms. :(

Even if ‘Gone’ doesn’t do well, I hope it reminds audience and the right people of how intense an actress she can be. Avoiding typecasting is one of her real victories despite it all.

The poster for Gone is online now, and it looks pretty good, if a little cheesy in the wording. I haven’t seen The Wedding poster, but it doesn’t surprise me that Heigl is the main thing on it. The poster was probably in her contract, and studios still think she is bankable, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Yeah, I know what mean about trolls. The Kate Beckinsale site I help with has a forum that I run, and it has had it’s share of trolls over the years. I ban them at the first sign of trouble and that has worked well. None of the Amanda sites have a forum, as far as I know. I’d start an Amanda site on my own if I had the time, but running a good site and forum takes a large amount of time.

Kudos to the art team. The ‘Gone’ poster was far more inspired than I had hoped. A far cry form the formulaic ‘Wedding’, which was basically a cake with the plastic figurines on top.

I don’t mean to appear as a Heigl basher. I was an early fan of hers even before Roswell, but she totally gave up on a diverse career just when she was at her height. Amanda had a far weaker position, typecast as a dumb blond, but she persevered and got creative.

The only thing to do with Trolls is to ignore them, but the new fans usually don’t know that they shouldn’t feed the trolls. :(

Looks like they’re already starting on ‘Lovelace’.
http://forums.thefashionspot.com/f50/amanda-seyfried-116871-42.html

The real Lovelace was a homely woman, and it seems that they are doing their best to make Amanda look plain. I’m not sure that doing so is a good idea. No one cares whether she is a dead ringer for Lovelace, and who wants to see her look that plain?

In Time has surpassed the $130 million mark worldwide:
Domestic: $36,569,340 27.5%
+ Foreign: $96,500,000 72.5%
= Worldwide: $133,069,340

It will make a little more, even in the US since it hasn’t gone to dollar theaters yet. It will go over $135 million, and might come close to $140 million. It’s unusual to see a non epic type movie make so much more money overseas.

As long as she doesn’t smile too much. Amanda’s smile takes off 10 years from her face, making her look like a youngish Dakota Fanning even more.

Lovelace came together quite quickly ones she came on board.

It will be all about the performance. This being her darkest character to date. Funny how some people are confounded by her choice. She likes powerful dramatic roles, she even snuck one in Jennifer’s Body. It’s unfortunate that those kinds of roles are mostly slated for older actresses.

The Gone poster is out in theaters now, and the Gone trailer played before The Darkest Hour, since both are Summit films. The trailer looks very good in theaters, much better than online.

That is promising news. :)

And the $140 million mark for ‘In Time’ isn’t all that far off. Makes you wonder if the US missed out on something good just because of political prejudices.

Box Office Mojo hasn’t updated it’s international page since Dec 18, but Box Office Guru says that as of Dec 25, In Time had $100.9 million internationally. With the current US take, that’s $140,859,000, plus whatever In Time has made internationally since Christmas. Not bad for a $40 million movie. The funny thing is that In Time is still viewed as a failure, while Crazy, Stupid, Love is regarded as a success. CSL has made $142 million worldwide, and it’s likely that In Time has surpassed that by now. Moneyball is also considered to be a success, and it’s made only $103 million worldwide to date. It would be nice if the US media would accept that the worldwide total is what counts, not the US total. I’m hoping that the people who matter in Hollywood aren’t as ignorant as the so called entertainment journalists.

The DVD specs for In Time flat out suck. The standard DVD has almost nothing, while the Blu Ray has only deleted scenes, and a featurette explaining the time currency. No cast/director commentary, no making of featurette, no blooper reel, and no cast interviews. That’s a pathetic effort from Fox. It’s almost like they don’t want to make money. This is the kind of movie that does well on DVD, so they should load the DVD, instead of releasing it bare bones.

Adam Brody, Demi Moore, and Eric Roberts have joined the cast of Lovelace. Brody is especially interesting since he will be playing Harry Reems, a famous porn star of that era. Jennifer’s Body is my favorite Amanda movie, so it will be nice to see them reunited.

Crap, I like the commentaries. There’s always a few laughs. I love the blooper reels. Amanda always goofs around with them. Fox totally screwed up Jennifer’s Body too. :(

CSL cost more and probably had a more expensive ad campaign. Plus, it’s higher profile cast and ‘rating’ score. They sent everyone out to promote this.

In Time, on the other hand, just had the 2 leads do the work. In real world terms, it surpassed expectations.

The Lovelace cast is filling up with real talents, both new and veteran. They may not be top tier these days, but talent wise… The director must really have confidence with his lead to have such people on board. It’s risky with a weaker actress.

Recall that scene in Troy between O’Toole and Pitt. Even though Pitt was a capable actor, he looked so wooden opposite O’Toole’s performance.

Yeah, the commentaries and blooper reels are the best parts of DVDs, especially DVDs of her movies. She has much more personality than is shown in films. Fox screwed up everything with Jennifer’s Body, including the DVD.

It looks like Summit is dumping Gone with a minimal marketing campaign. The movie is out in less than two months and doesn’t have a site, or any social networking pages yet. The trailer has only been shown in front of Summit’s Darkest Hour, as far as I know. Amanda has had the misfortune to have been involved in quite a few poorly marketed films. Jennifer’s Body, Letters to Juliet, RRH. and In Time had piss poor marketing, and Gone is the latest in the string. Her crappy agent really needs to get her into better movies soon.

It looks like Amanda has been offered the role of Twitch in the new Les Mis movie. So far it’s only been reported by one site, but one of her relatives posted about Amanda playing the lead in Les Mis on Amanda’s Facebook page last week. I thought the relative was nuts since Anne Hathaway has the lead, but now it makes sense, the relative was mistaken about which role Amanda was offered, but she wasn’t mistaken about Amanda being offered a role in the movie. Here’s the link: http://twitchfilm.com/news/2012/01/breaking-amanda-seyfried-offered-cosette-in-tom-hoopers-les-miserables.php

Sorry, I was trying to multitask when I wrote my last post and I got something mixed up. Amanda has been offered the role of Cosette, and the source is Twitch, as in twitchfilm.

To hear her sing again…:)

Her range of roles is kinda insane. I don’t recall any actress with this huge variety of acting roles. From Lovelace to Les Miserables?

She has that unique set of skills that’s almost unheard of.

It’s a good mother/daughter pairing. Her and Hathaway both have distinctly noticeable eyes and can really sing. I can not believe Johansson was even considered for this and Lea Michele just didn’t fit. She probably had a better chance at Mama Mia’s Sophie, Amanda’s old role. And imho without Mama Mia’s success, Glee would never have seen the light of day.

This has been confirmed by quite a few sources today, including Broadway World and the Washington Post. I assume that Amanda will accept the role. This is a great cast, with a great director, working with famous source material. The release date is the first Friday of December 2012, so Amanda will have four movies out next year, five if you count Mark Webber’s End of Love, which will premiere at Sundance, but doesn’t have a distributor yet. Girl Who Conned the Ivy League will probably film after Les Mis, so she already has her first movie for 2013 lined up.

I don’t like Taylor Swift being cast in this movie. I think Evan Rachel Wood would have been good, and as long as she can sing, Johansson would have been fine. I agree with not casting Lea Michelle. I read that Tom Hooper didn’t like her look, and I agree, Michelle is a fug. I’m tired of seeing fugs like Carey Mulligan, Michelle Williams, and Mia Wasikowska in movies, so good for Hooper.

Box Office Mojo and Box Office Guru disagree about In Time’s worldwide total, but as of today, Box Office Mojo lists this as In Time’s take:

Domestic: $37,076,415 26.4%
+ Foreign: $103,200,000 73.6%
= Worldwide: $140,276,415

In Time hits second run theaters this Friday, so it’s domestic take should increase some. It looks like it’s almost out of steam internationally, but I’m guessing that it will end up with $142-$144 million for it’s final worldwide gross. I really want it to go over $143 million so that it beats Crazy, Stupid, Love.

I just checked Amanda’s IMDB page and another movie has been added, and IMDB says that it is filming. I’ve never heard of For Better or Worse, and it looks like it has been in development for a while. Here is the link, it’s a 2013 release: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1204899/

IMDB changed the status of For Better or Worse a minute ago. It’s now listed as being In Production. I’ve never seen that status used on IMDB. They have always listed movies as being in pre production, filming, or post production. Another odd thing is that Stanley Kamel is listed on this cast, and he died in 2008. The movie has a release date of 2013, but IMDB has 2010 by the title. Sounds like another wild goose chase, courtesy of IMDB.

Lea is also too small to be her rival. The rival of a protagonist should always be a little more imposing. I agree Evan Rachel Wood would have been a better choice so there might have been other reasons she wasn’t cast. Scheduling perhaps or maybe she was also going for the Cosette role.

I wonder if Firth recommended her to Hooper. He had first hand knowledge of Amanda’s real singing talent.

Yeah, there was some other dubious title tacked on there last year by IMDB. And it’s a rom-com with a 90% C-list cast. Nothing about it would interest her at all. Unless it’s just a cameo.

“really want it to go over $143 million so that it beats Crazy, Stupid, Love.” But CSL cost 10 million more to make plus Ad campaign. Deduct that and ‘In Time’ beat it already. :)

It could be that ScarJo and Wood aren’t good singers. It appears that Hooper wants the cast to sign live, basically, so a god singing voice is a must to be in this movie. Swift might bring in tweens, but casting her has created a lot of negative publicity for the movie.

Lots of set photos from Gone: http://forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3612721#Post3612721

Hmm… with the darker mane, a little bit of A. Jolie channeling here.
http://img273.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=56333_Amanda_Seyfried_On_the_Set_of_Lovelace_in_Long_Beach_January_5_2012_045_122_137lo.jpg

On Lovelace producer comments.
Damnit. Wish they never played up the nudity bit. We know it’s gonna be there, it’s about the life of a tragic pornstar, so it needs no mentioning. It just comes off sleazy and invalidates her efforts. Plus attract comments from the worse kind of people.

She’s doing the riskiest performance of her life, don’t belittle it with such spiel.

I just read a comment from one of the producers with the company making the film, and he said that she was doing a great job, and that there was nudity. He’s not one of the producers on the film however. Nothing said now will be remembered when Lovelace comes out at the end of the year but it’s unrealistic to expect that people won’t talk about nudity in a movie about a porn star. There will be plenty of that talk when the movie comes out.

In Time is within $200,000 of CSL worldwide. So In Time will pass one of the great triumphs of Emma Stone by next Monday. Something tells me that none of the entertainment “journalists” who have fawned over Stone this year will write that up. I also doubt that any of them will point out CSL and The Help are ensemble pieces, and that Stone didn’t carry either of them. The only movie that she has carried is Easy A, which made less worldwide than Letters to Juliet. None of that will stop Hollywood from anointing Stone as The Next Big Thing and giving her plum role after plum role. She already has Spidy and Gangster Squad, with many more to follow. Amanda has been the star or co-star in every movie she’s been in since Mamma Mia, and she loses roles to actresses like Stone who coast through their careers with glorified supporting roles, rarely taking the risk of carrying movies. The problem is that people within the industry pay attention to how much money a movie makes, not the size of the role the actress/actor had in the movie. That’s why Johansson has rebuilt her career with supporting roles in big movies, after a long streak of bombs in lead or co-lead roles.

The producer played it up then contradicted himself by a ‘respecting women’ spiel. That made it sleazy for me. She can be nude for the whole movie but it doesn’t need to be a cornerstone angle to push on the media. She’s a really strong actress, but that tends to get lost ones the media hears the word ‘naked’.

E. Stone is being actively groomed for stardom, but they lack confidence in her real abilities, that’s why she’s stuck with ensembles. They wouldn’t dare put her in a risky lead role otherwise the A-list star status facade will collapse the way it did for Johansson. I saw her Chelsea Lately interview and it was just dead air all round. This is not a complete person. What we see nowadays is a made up character created by her handlers. They may even be using Amanda as a reference point. British boyfriend, going back to blonde, panic attacks(really), clothing styles(oh, you got red pants too). And she hardly carries any weight outside the US.

Plus, her lisp is killing me. I’m very sensitive to lisps and there’s a whole batch of actresses with this issue, nearly all the Emma’s, K. Bell, A. Green etc. Amanda’s voice is warm, youthful and absent of lisps.

That producer screwed up with his quote. I know what he meant, but he worded it in the worst possible way. Clearly, a movie about a porn star will have nudity, especially one that is attempting to be realistic in it’s portrayal. Making a movie about Lovelace without nudity would be like making a movie about Peyton Manning with no football scenes. Despite the nudity, this is a movie about how the porn business and Chuck Traynor used and abused Lovelace, it clearly isn’t glorifying porn. If the producer had said that, then all would be well. Hopefully this guy will be muzzled during the actual marketing campaign this fall or winter.

Stone is a good enough comic actress, and her husky voice and attitude also makes her suited for action movies. She doesn’t appear to be much of a dramatic actress however. It would nice if the industry would let the E Stone’s of the world have the fluff, and leave the heavy lifting to actresses like Amanda. It would also be nice if the industry would reward actresses with the guts to take on lead roles instead of throwing choice roles at Stone and Johansson because they managed to get little roles in some successful movies.

Have you seen the trailer for Gone in front of anything but horror movies? It was in front of Darkest Hour (also a Summit film) and The Devil Inside (awful movie that gave me motion sickness due to the terrible hand held camera work) so I’m beginning to worry that Summit is making the same mistake as Fox did with JB. Fox thought that JB was a horror movie that teenage boys would like, and it was really a movie that had far more appeal for women. Gone also has far more appeal for women, especially young women, but it seems to be marketed towards teen boys. That crowd won’t watch any movie with a female lead (and no male lead) unless the actress is named Milla or Angelina, so I hope Summit is planning to market the movie to women in the closing weeks. Otherwise, Gone will go the way of Jennifer’s Body.

E. Stone’s ‘Attitude’ is just a character/persona. Early on she wasn’t considered beautiful enough to be the hot girl so she got the pretty spunky girl role instead, from which she developed her current persona after losing some weight. Her handlers have a tight leash on her(not many candids), at some point she’s going to strain. Is she this generation’s Kathleen Turner with the husky voice thing?

With Jennifer’s Body, not many knew Amanda was even in that movie. It was all Megan Fox, who by that time the public had turned against. JB was a black comedy and should have been marketed as one, not some straight forward teen horror flick. The JB trailer was also quite annoying and had little to do with the movie. The ‘Gone’ trailer is better, just hope the director did a good job.

With her current movie projects, Amanda is making some buzz on her own and might focus some attention for Gone. Lovelace was in nobody’s radar until Amanda came on board.

If you google Amanda’s name, you get noticeably more hits than E. Stone.

Remember, even Jolie had a bunch of under performing flicks before reaching icon status.

This is extremely bad news. HSX is not always accurate, but they are usually not off by more than 20% or so. Even 20% higher would be awful. I was expecting something around $11-$13 million for the opening weekend. Thank whatever you believe in that she has already been signed to Les Mis, that’s the only thing that will keep her career from tanking after this coming weekend. RRH and In Time had disappointing openings, this will be an outright bomb:

Good Deeds (GDEED) forecast at $17.4M unchanged
Act of Valor (AOVAL) forecast at $16.9M unchanged
Wanderlust (WLUST) forecast at $12.3M unchanged
Gone (GONE) forecast at $6.5M unchanged