she got it. she landed the part

Oh, how her cat will suffer. :D

For those whining that she’s not a proper soprano. This is not a stage performance, she does not have to belt out songs at full volume to reach the back rows. Her vibrato is fine. People bulls**ting about that are just trolling. These same people also question her classical training bkgd which is more bulls**ting because you learn vibrato from having a classical training bkgd.

They would introduce Emmy Rossum as a better choice. Emmy Rossum would be a better choice… as Fantine. Emmy doesn’t have a youthful speaking voice. She is a wonderful singer but her singing voice has the distinction of lacking distinction. You can’t distinguish her sound form other same level singers.

Amanda’s singing voice on the other hand has a certain noticeable warm, youthful quality about it. You’ll know when she’s the one singing. It’s very distinct.

I haven’t read anything about Rossum. Most of what I read was that Amanda was a good choice for Cosette but that Swift was a bad choice for her role. I try to avoid reading comments on film sites after years of wasting time arguing with trolls. Some people just like to complain and talk trash about actors they don’t know. The main thing is that Amanda has the role, assuming that her agent can lock it down in final negotiations. I do remember that her agent wasn’t able to come to terms with Summit on Now You See Me, after Amanda had been announced as being in the film. Now I wait until the contract has been signed before I get excited.

Here is one of the Les Mis cast members (Eddie Redmayne) talking about being cast, and meeting Amanda. he doesn’t know how to pronounce her last name yet: http://www.broadway.com/buzz/159363/eddie-redmayne-on-his-les-miserables-love-in-with-amanda-seyfried-and-helena-bonham-carter/

Just posting some ammo for people dealing with these organized trolls.

‘Now You See Me’ with it’s January 2013 release, could well have conflicted with ‘Les Mis’ schedule. And if Isla Fisher was an easy choice to replace her with, then the role must not have been too crucial. Isla is another actress well suited to fluf type roles.

Her only real lose; not having the chance to work with the 2 veterans. But there will be time for that later on.

The ‘Les Mis’ role is far more pivotal. She knows this musical very well, knows every song by heart, even the guy’s parts. Sings them at home, hence her suffering cat.

The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed that Amanda is part of the Les Mis cast: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/les-miserables-aaron-tveit-movie-hugh-jackman-gossip-girl-282807

I hope it’s true. This will bring back a lot of lost momentum.

She should be further along now if JB didn’t disappoint and Big Love wasn’t holding her back.

THR is a trade paper. They don’t print until they are certain.

I don’t know how many projects Amanda had to give up on due to Big Love, but that show did save her from being in Sucker Punch, which was a career killing movie. I don’t think JB would have helped her much if it had done well. It was always a Megan Fox movie. M Fox took the blame for it’s failure, and she would have taken the credit for it’s success.

The movie that kept her from moving forward at a faster pace is Red Riding Hood. It was a critical disaster and a commercial disappointment. In addition to that, it probably had bad early buzz within the industry around the time Gatsby and some other movies Amanda was interested in were being cast. I’m not saying that RRH cost her Gatsby and The Master, but it definitely didn’t help. Directors don’t want to work with actors who have a likely bomb in their future, and they get word of whether a movie is expected to do well long before the public and the so called entertainment media.

And she was the only one who did her job well in RRH. Nearly everyone else did a piss poor job, from the studio, producers, director, writers, to the co-stars. But at the end of the day she’s the one that gets punished for it, even though she was the only reason that movie made any money at all.

Despite Sucker Punch’s failure, no one else seems to have suffered much from that debacle. It was all a Zack Snyder spectacle and he only lost a few nerd points for it.

Probably better of if they swapped directors and have Snyder do RRH.

Snyder will get his due when the Superman reboot bombs. That will teach him for not casting Amanda as Lois Lane.

From what I’ve read, the industry and critics give Amanda credit for doing a good job in RRH, it’s just that a being in a movie that underperforms to that extent makes industry people gun shy about working with her. I’m pretty sure that Leo had a lot to do with her not being in Gatsby since he knew by that point that RRH was going to be bad. In Time doing well overseas and being cast in Les Mis should get momentum back for her. In Time is now within $65,000 of Crazy, Stupid, Love and might go over $143 million worldwide.

In Time’s current worldwide total, which beats Crazy, Stupid, Love:

Domestic: $37,397,211 26.0%
+ Foreign: $106,430,426 74.0%
= Worldwide: $143,827,637

Some sites put the production budget of ‘In Time’ at $35m. If that were the case it made 4x it’s cost. But the ratio difference between domestic and foreign is daunting.

Imdb finally took out the ‘rumored’ text for her casting in Les Mis.

I think Leo can be a little thin skinned. He might not have appreciated Amanda’s sense of humor which can take you aback if you’re not prepared. Maybe that’s one of the reasons she fancy’s British actors because they’re more self deprecating and gets her kind of sarcasm.

In Leo’s case, I think it has more to do with him always having leading ladies who are far less pretty than he is. If you think about it, his love interest is always in the cute, kind of pretty category, never beautiful. The story about Amanda making a joke about his age came from one tabloid and has never been confirmed. Copy and paste sites reprinted it over and over so that it took on a life of it’s own. She might have said it, but even if she did, I doubt that he would have held a grudge over one comment.

I can relax now that the mighty CSL has been defeated! I think that an analysis of why In Time did 74% of it’s business in other countries would make for an interesting read. I wonder whether it was marketed differently overseas? The US marketing campaign was atrocious and had only glimpses of Amanda in TV ads. The Halloween weekend release could have been a major problem since it was released later in all other markets. In Time isn’t the sort of movie teens and twenty somethings want to see on Halloween weekend, and I noticed that teens and twenty somethings were by far the most enthusiastic audience members. Older people either didn’t get the message, or didn’t like it.

Scroll to the bottom of the page for pics of her in W Korea: http://forums.thefashionspot.com/f50/amanda-seyfried-116871-45.html

Yeah, Halloween doesn’t apply so much for the rest of the world either.

Leo seems to be the buttoned up type though. Not the kind who would be receptive to Amanda’s personality traits. Chemistry might never work. For a guy who likes to date models, you could assume he prefers minimal conversations. More fun guys like Clooney and Jackman may work with her.

Lol. Channeling a little Lohan on the 4th pic?

Btw; I saw some younger pics of Leo and he kinda resembles Chris Colfer. And Colfer looks like a male(?) version of E. Stone.

Ides of March is one of the best movies of 2011 (along with Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy) and, though Evan Rachel Wood did a good job, I wish that Amanda had been in it. She wouldn’t have had more than one scene with Clooney as an actor, but he directed the movie, and it would be nice for her to work with top flight directors. That’s one reason why I’m so happy about Les Mis and Tom Hooper. Enough with mid grade directors like Hallstrom, Egoyan, and Niccol, it’s time to move on to the big leagues.

For a guy who was wild in his 20′s, Leo has become a bit of a stuffed shirt in his 30′s. He seems like a control freak, and people like that don’t like women with off the wall, random personalities like Amanda’s. That having been said, I think he’s a great actor and it would be nice if they could work together, but I don’t think Gatsby was the right movie. I think it will be a critical and commercial disappointment, and it’s being filmed in Australia, so Amanda would have been separated from Finn for at least four months (quarantine law), not something that she would have enjoyed.

Hallstrom seemed like he was still directing Hachi.

Somewhat ironically, Gary Winnick mentioned in the LTJ commentary that occasional weak acting from good actors are the fault of directors not doing their job.

At least, she actually got to act for her work with Egoyan.

Shouldn’t they wave the quarantine law on a fellow Aussie? He is an Australian Shepard.

Australian Shepherds aren’t Australian. The breed originated in the Western ranching states of the US, a mix of native dogs and a Welsh ranching breed. No one is exactly certain of why they are called Australian. One theory is that they were named in honor of Australian ranch hands who, while working in the US, helped develop the breed. Another theory is that one of the main blood lines used in developing the breed came in by ship from Wales, with sheep. At that time, most shipments of sheep came from Australia, so Americans mistakenly associated the Welsh dogs with Australia, and named them Australian as a result. They are a very rambunctious breed. I volunteer with animal rescue groups, and I’ve met some Australian Shepherds. Finn is about average sized for the breed, but one of my rescue contacts has one that is 95 pounds. He’s basically a tank.

Once again, one of Amanda’s movies is suffering from a terrible marketing campaign. I should say that Gone is suffering from the complete lack of a marketing campaign. As of today, the movie does not have an official site, Facebook page, or a Twitter page. It’s trailer did not play before Underworld or Haywire this weekend. Additionally, fanboy horror sites like Bloody Disgusting and Dread Central have labeled it as a horror movie. That’s a complete failure on part of Summit to at least define which type of movie Gone is. Summit has been busy marketing Man on a Ledge for the last two months, while doing nothing for Gone. I guess they will shift to market Gone after Man on a Ledge is released, but they will be playing catch up with other February releases. Even Act of Valor, some crappy pseudo documentary about Navy Seals, has had better marketing than Gone, and they come out on the same day. I suppose that with better movies will come better marketing campaigns, but she really can’t catch a break in the area of marketing.

Requires a person with lot of patience to have dogs like that. :)

Gone had the budget of a teen horror flick. It clearly wasn’t a marketing priority for Summit. Man on a Ledge had bigger names and likely bigger costs.

Being kind of the new girl, she has to make way for all the bigger names. Without a bona fide #1 blockbuster, they won’t take her seriously enough. But the occasional Lovelace shots are keeping her on the blogs.

But if Dhalia and Burnett did a great job, things could definitely change quite quickly.

I can’t find a budget on Man on a Ledge, but I’m sure that it cost more to produce than Gone. I would imagine that Amanda’s salary was the most expensive thing about Gone. I guess it does have bigger names overall, but I don’t think that Sam Worthington is a draw. He’s a lucky guy who has a bid budget movie career thanks solely to being cast in Avatar. Ed Harris and Elizabeth Banks are good actors, but have no drawing power. It makes sense to put money into marketing Man on a Ledge, but Summit could at least have a site, social networking pages, and a trailer in rotation for Gone. Darkest Hour was a bomb, and had the appearance of a bomb, but Summit put some effort into marketing it.

Whenever Summit decides to get around to marketing Gone, they need to forget the horror sites and fanboys and concentrate on young females. That is Amanda’s natural fanbase, and also the people most likely to watch a movie about a young woman taking on “the system” and a serial killer. Men, especially young men, don’t usually watch movies with only a female lead. Running the trailer before chick flicks, and advertising on TV shows with a large, young, female audience would be the best bet. Pretty Little Liars and Vampire Diaries would be the types of shows to concentrate on since they have strong female protagonists.

I agree. It is a marketing challenge for people who have not handled female centric films too often. Especially younger female centric films.

Considering that a few years ago, shows like Pretty Little Liars and Vampire Diaries would never have gotten green lit without a Buffy type character kicking butt. The female protagonist has finally matured from the ludicrous male teen fantasy of yesteryear.

I just read that Chloe Sevigny is taking over Moore on Lovelace. I think this is a much better outcome. Chloe is a far better actress than Demi. A she’s more familiar with Amanda.

Demi Moore’s personal life has become such a circus that she would have been a distraction in the build up to the release. Sevigny is a better actress and won’t put any negative light on the film’s marketing campaign. It’s quite a leap from sister wife to feminist journalist.

The In Time DVD/Bluray is receiving negative reviews, in part due to the lack of special features. I don’t understand how Fox could release a DVD with so little on it and hope to make money with it. It costs very little to include a blooper reel, cast interviews (taken on set), a making of featurette, and cast/director commentary. In Time is the type of movie that usually does well on DVD, so the decision by the studio to put out a bare bones DVD is baffling. There is a chance that Fox is planning a Director’s Cut DVD at some point, but that seems unlikely.

Fox, being the way it is was probably disappointed that In Time made money. So they’re sabotaging the DVD/Bluray sales as a last ditch effort.

Just look at the buttload of clunkers they dished out last year. The few hits were those wildly expensive, over marketed animated/special effect laden stuff. Only ‘In Time’ did not have an over blown budget and still made doe.

They just want to blow it all on Monte Carlo2 I guess. :(

I was surprised that a studio owned by a right wing corporation made In Time. I think it must have flown under the radar of the parent corporation. Now that they have realized what In Time is about, and how it fits with Obama’s reelection theme of economic fairness, they might be more than happy to simply dump it on DVD stores and be through with it.

Another possibility is that Fox was disappointed by the way the movie turned out, didn’t think it would make much money at the box office, and decided to not go to the trouble of making a good DVD. With the DVD release window so short, the DVD features are made during filming of the movie, or very soon after filming. Fox probably saw the opening weekend numbers and decided to not put much energy into the DVD. By the time the foreign numbers rolled in, the decision had been made. Either theory is plausible, and the truth is probably a combination of the two. Fox didn’t like what the movie was about, and was also disappointed by projections for the box office, and the opening weekend numbers. This really sucks, I was looking forward to hearing Amanda, Niccol, and Timberlake discuss the movie on commentary.

New pics from Lovelace. It looks like Amanda might be wearing brown contacts for this role: http://www.accidentalsexiness.com/2012/01/26/amanda-seyfried-juno-temple-laugh-set-lovelace/

The commentaries track are done before a movie’s release. So it may never have been planned for. But the gag real and cast interviews should have been there.

The early Lovelace pics already had her wearing darker contacts. I think it makes her eyes appear even bigger though.

I don’t know if it’s intended but she does have a knack for making funny faces.

Her schedule looks pretty tight with finishing Lovelace, promoting Gone and then Les Mis.

I’m hoping that she will film Girl Who Conned the Ivy League shortly after Les Mis wraps, and hopefully with someone other than McG directing.

Commentary tracks are as almost as common as deleted scenes and gag reels, and directors and lead actors are usually contractually obliged to do commentary. That In Time doesn’t come with at least that much is pathetic. It makes me wonder whether there was bad blood between Niccol and Fox, or New Regency. I think that Fox/Regency thought they had a bomb, which would explain the piss poor marketing campaign and bare bones DVD. It’s about to go over $144 million worldwide, so it wasn’t exactly a bomb. I think it would have done well on DVD too, if standard DVD features had been included. Amanda and JT seem to have a good time together, they probably would have made a good commentary.

Niccol as a director, never had a good boxoffice track record to base on. Even the title of the film never gave anyone any inkling that it would do well. The suits probably thought Monte Carlo would do much better than In Time. They can’t figure that Amanda and JT already have a built in audiences that’s just waiting for a good film, albeit not domestic ones.

They could have just spliced together all their interviews from their jaunt through Europe as a featurette. They were a lot more entertaining than the ones from the US.

Lovelace is turning into an ‘embarrassment of riches’. Mary-Louise Parker to replace Demi? It’s like a host of the most talented but underrated people are in that film.

It’s Sarah Jessica Parker, not Mary Louise. It’s a cameo, so no big deal.

I looked through the vids I downloaded from Youtube in October, and I realized that cast interviews were filmed for In Time, clearly by Fox/Regency. Amanda, JT, Cillian Murphy, and Kartheiser all did interviews. I think Olivia Wilde did also. The lazy bastards at Fox/Regency simply didn’t bother to put those interviews on the DVD. Including trailers and TV ads is also commonplace on DVD, and those won’t appear on the In Time DVD either. It looks like this DVD was just thrown together haphazardly. Maybe we’ve all been wrong about the politics of Fox, maybe they are communists. They certainly don’t seem to want to make money.

A cameo is fine I guess.
I have a dislike for SJP for creating another pseudo feminist stereotype that clearly doesn’t exist and then plunging into a slew of rom-coms that further inhibit the careers of young actresses. Sex in the city, by it’s success, further limited the roles available to women.

Her, Aniston and Heigl made the singular contribution of making rom-coms the pennacle of an actress’ success in Hollywood limiting all others to the genre. Yes, it’s a money thing, but it shouldn’t be all the time.

Amanda has to struggle through this reinforced stereotypes of rom-com and dumb blond roles thrown at her. Note that Letter’s to Juliet may fall in the rom-com category, it is very much not a rom-com at heart.

Lovelace is at least receiving lots of free press due to casting. Franco was on set playing Hugh Hefner, and that made lots of sites. I think that it will be a very good movie, but it is difficult to get used to seeing Amanda with brown hair and eyes, wearing awful 70′s clothing. By comparison, In Time was great since the red bob went well with her eyes and complexion.

I saw Man On a Ledge tonight (not as bad as critics would have you believe) and saw the Gone trailer. It seemed to go over well with the audience. I think it’s a well done trailer, but it keeps being played on misogynistic fanboy horror sites, which is the wrong crowd for it. We both thought that Man on a Ledge was a priority for Summit, but they did a deal with Living Social to discount tickets for it this weekend, and are still estimating that it will make only $8 million. I have to think that Summit should immediately change gears and get to work on Gone. It looks like a good enough movie that it should do well with young women, but it won’t have a chance unless young women are aware that it exists. Summit could use even a minor hit after the back to back bombs of Darkest Hour and Man on a Ledge, two movies that it put far more effort into marketing than Gone.

The non-romcom Heigl movie is doing well for what it is. I can see Heigl fans coalesce with Seyfried fans. Maybe the audience will follow it up by watching Gone.

I understand your thoughts on the darker do. Long dark hair is often more suited for slightly longer faces, less so to rounder faces. That’s why the short dark bob she had for ‘In Time’ suited her well.

Something I read from the Huff article ‘Katherine Heigl: In Defense Of Her Supposedly Dying Career’

Quote. “That said: does anyone think Seyfried, Kunis, Dunst, Johansson or Stewart could have actually done better with something as flaccid-looking as this dud? The answer you’re looking for is no; none of those actresses has ever led a movie by themselves to an opening as “lofty” as nearly $12 million”

Lol, Someone should have mentioned Letters to Juliet and Red Riding Hood to the articles author. More proof that journalist are ignoring Amanda’s achievements.

I posted a reply to that idiot writer from Moviefone. Typical online “journalist” who can’t be bothered to do even basic research.

One For The Money is a disappointment on the surface since it was originally forecast in the mid teens and opened at $11.7, but is a bomb when the Groupon promotion is taken into account. The distributor will see none of that money, the theaters will take all Groupon money. Minus Groupon, the movie would have opened in the single digits, and would have been considered to be an outright bomb. Still, I guess we should wish the best for Heigl since she’s in The Wedding with Amanda. I’m afraid that Heigl’s poor reputation and box office stench will hurt that movie. I can a lot of people saying “oh god, not another Heigl movie.” and staying away from it.

A small chunk of online journalist profess a dislike for Amanda, god knows why. She’s become their got to girl if they need a young actress to throw under a bus.

But he left out E. Stone from the list because of Easy A. Strangely though, Easy A had a huge marketing budget of $35m compared to it’s tiny production budget. It tells you that there was a great deal of market manipulation to get it to the no.1 slot. An industry creation. Sooner of later she’ll have to pay them back.

I still have some respect for Heigle, just not her recent movies. She had better potential before getting into Grey. Grey turned her into a one note actress. Now she only plays that same character over and over. She started out young in the industry and seem to have accumulated a good share of bitterness in the process. Amanda had a few, but kept them in check and having good people around her. But she could have easily gone the Heigl route.

I don’t think the guy who wrote the article for Huffpost disliked Amanda, he was just ignorant. There are some fanboy bloggers who dislike her due to her best known movies being chick flicks. Those same bloggers dislike Anne Hathaway, Jennifer Aniston, and pretty much all other female leads who don’t do primarily genre movies. About the only actresses they like are ones from fanboy favorite movies and shows.

For all of the money that was poured into marketing Easy A, it made less worldwide than Letters to Juliet, yet for some reason it was hailed as a huge success. Stone is going the Scarjo route, she is getting into big movies, but not as the lead. She’s taking what amounts to supporting roles in tentpoles, and will receive credit for their success, even though she will have little to do with it. Spidey, Gangster Squad, and the next Spidey will guarantee that she will be a hot commodity for the next five years, at least, even though she will have next to nothing to do with the success of those two films. She and Jennifer Lawrence are probably the two biggest threats to Amanda’s career, aside from maybe Scarjo.

This tells the extent of Amanda’s involvement with End Of Love. She cameos as herself in an audition where Mark Webber blows the audition with her: http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/138372289.html

As with A Bag of Hammers, Amanda is only briefly onscreen. It would be nice if the other Amanda sites would stop listing these cameo only movies, or at least mention that she only cameos in them.

Yeah, those cameo’s are misleading and only serves to pull down her rating.

I personally don’t buy the E. Stone threat anymore. She’s one of the most over hyped actresses out there and people will get tired and it will eventually wane. Her look is kind of snooty and is just a few steps above that of better actress Michelle Williams. They have similar smiles. She won’t really reach true iconic status at any point and will eventually move down to character actress. She’s just not that interesting. I couldn’t give a crap about her in that bunny movie and that was before I was a Seyfried fan. She has the same range as Anna Faris. Stone will do a few vanity projects just to be a lead and then… poof.

As for Spidey, Garfield lacks Tobey’s charisma for what little it was. Again, another over hyping project to sell the movie. I doubt it actually matters who the leads are in this effect laden drivel. How big will it be? Likely not as big as the first due to the superhero glut.

There’s a lot of money involved to keep Stone and Garfield popular for the sake of the Spidey flick. Should that flick fail or drastically under performs. The hype machine will drop Stone like… well a stone.

Great news today on Les Mis casting. Variety reports that a stage actress from the London Les Mis will play Eponine, not Taylor Swift. This removes the one threat to the film’s credibility: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118049558

I’m off to buy In Time on Bluray. I hope the deleted scenes are good.

There are 10 deleted or extended scenes, Amanda is in five of them. About six are good and should have been in the movie. The Minutes is an interesting pseudo documentary, but it doesn’t go into much detail about the time economy or the politics or geography of the time based world. In Time transferred beautifully to Bluray and looks better than it did in theaters. This could have been a great Bluray with a little bit of effort from Fox. They did include the theatrical trailer. I think they included the In Time game, but accessing it requires that your Bluray player be connected to the internet.

Great news indeed. Even though it was likely a rumor, it was having a life of it’s own and becoming a drag on the film.

Taylor’s voice is just too weak for such a serious vocal challenge.

Gone finally has a site, and it’s as bare bones as I expected: http://www.gone-movie.com/

It doesn’t help matters that Lionsgate bought Summit and has a movie of it’s own opening on 2/24. Different genre though.

Her interview in Glamour (March) is a good read.

About time, with Ledge winding down. They need to make a decent effort now since it’s up in a few weeks.

Yes, her mentioning Mulligan and Watson kinda confirms my thoughts on the type of roles she’s most interested in. Fluff actresses are safe. :P

But she is one of the few actresses who can bridge nearly all genres. Only limitation is her age.

Even though I’m a guy, I’m relieved she’s not going full frontal. Career wise, it would be fine in Europe but might not be taken so well in the US.

But wouldn’t a massive muff negate the ‘full frontal’ aspect of it? But I digress.

The copy and paste sites are having a field day with the Glamour interview. Favorite quotes being taken out of context and distorted involve the joke about having a kid with Cooper, not wanting to date JT, not doing full frontal, and fearing promiscuity. I think that it would be in her best interest to never do a print interview again. She doesn’t seem to realize how easily her words can be twisted by the press, even if not by the person doing the interview.

Gone was advertised on Gossip Girls, but not on Vampire Diaries. I guess that’s a step in the right direction. The Gone site needs to be updated, and they need to launch Twitter and FB pages. They can’t possibly care about Man on a Ledge at this point. That movie is a certified bomb.

I have to disagree. These interviews give good life lessons for girls without being condescending. They’re open and honest. Girls and young women, through Amanda’s experiences can pick up on these lessons. Okay to have missteps, just don’t keep doing it.

Her dalliance with promiscuity told her it was something she did not want. An old article hinted about this and why she isn’t a party girl. Good thing it didn’t turn bad because she was quite vulnerable then.

I think it’s sweet how she kept things with D. Cooper. As she mentioned in an old interview, they have a lot of similarities. She says they have similar personality quirks and that they both look like ‘frogs’, her words not mine.

She’s been in and out of a brooding phase for quite a while. She was already talking children during the Mama Mia interviews. She loves children.

She’s an active autism advocate. But of course the blog world don’t care about that.

Dismissing the full frontal bit is a good thing. It eliminates some of the misconceptions and lurid expectations about the project.

They expected Megan Fox nudity in Jennifer’s Body. When they didn’t get it… Well, we know what happened next.

It’s not about whether her print interviews are good for young girls to read, it’s about how badly a job she does of watching what she says, and how that generates more bad press than good press. A more press savvy person would know which questions to stay away from in interviews, and which words and phrases to avoid. Amanda doesn’t think before she speaks, and that is why her print interviews are a gold mine for copy and paste sites. The “articles” generated by the copy and paste sites, with excerpts from the Glamour interview, will be read by far more people than the interview itself, and nearly everyone reading the excerpts will have a negative opinion of her, since the excerpts are being used to make her sound like a fool.

Topics to avoid in interviews, especially print interviews, include sex, nudity, pubic hair, getting knocked up by exes, having children out of wedlock in general, not wanting to marry, and anything that might insult fans of high profile actors. Amanda regularly includes some of those in her interviews, and she included most of those in the Glamour interview. Her publicist needs to train her to avoid saying certain words, phrases, and answering certain questions. Otherwise, she will continue to accidentally generate bad press during press tours. Eliminating print interviews altogether might be the best move to make, since she doesn’t seem like the kind of person who responds well to coaching. If that isn’t possible, having her agent and publicist present during all print interviews, and severely limiting the number of print interviews given would be the next best step. Otherwise, it will become customary for her management and fans to have to brace for two weeks worth of bad press every time she gives a print interview. Blogs recycle bits of interviews for weeks at times, and they rarely use anything that makes the actor look good.

She has become active in animal rescue, in addition to autism, and the blogs don’t mention that either. The online media isn’t looking to do her any favors, so she needs to stop supplying them with ammunition to use against her.

This is kind of a quandary. You are correct in the ‘ammunition’ thing. I don’t find these excerpts negative at all though. It’s the following hater comments that are negative, of which have lessened lately.

Her 2010 interview with birth control pills probably drew more flack. Even if she was likely taking them for other medical reasons.

I’m sure a lot of her fans became more of a fan by reading her ‘open’ interviews. We get to know her as a real person and not an artifact. She becomes more than just a face on screen and her fans get to be involved vicariously with her challenges.

It’s hard to be a fan of someone you hardly know anything about other than a face and body. We’ll just lose interest in them as time goes by.

Her younger fans are likely facing the same topics she talks about and get her meaning. Her surprising openness is part of her appeal.

But perhaps a cutback on print interviews to one a year would be okay.

Birth control, anti depressants, panic attacks, are all fine to talk about. The only people who become upset about that sort of thing are jesus freaks, and they don’t watch many movies anyway. She does a good job of making points she intends to make, it’s the off the cuff remarks/jokes that get her into trouble online. For example, the joke about having kids with Cooper is probably being reprinted more than anything else she said in the Glamour interview. The pubic hair comment is probably second. That’s the problem with print interviews, it’s so easy to lift a quote and use it out of context to make the actor look bad or foolish. It’s far more difficult to do that with TV interviews since people can watch the interview and will be able to see what the actor meant. One thing I have noticed about actors who have been successful long term is that they are very careful about what they say in interviews, to the point of being dull and repetitive. If most actors were as open as Amanda, there would be a lot more Tom Cruise/Megan Fox style career meltdowns.

Gone’s trailer didn’t play before Chronicle. I missed the previews before Woman in Black. It looks like Summit/Lionsgate fully intends to dump Gone. The acquisition of Summit by Lionsgate will probably hurt Gone since Lionsgate has a movie opening the same day, and is gearing up for the Hunger Games release in March, which is their biggest release ever. I expect almost no effort on behalf of Gone, which will mean a bomb. Unlike RRH and In Time, which redeemed themselves internationally, it doesn’t look like Gone will have much of a foreign rollout. If my guess is correct, Gone will be the first true bomb of Amanda’s career since becoming a lead actress. Good reviews might be able to save Gone, but I’m not expecting those, partly due to critics disliking female led genre movies, partly due to the d-list cast (aside from Amanda), and because Amanda has a poor track record of selecting projects. Her RT scores since 2008 are atrocious, and I have no reason to think that Gone will be an exception. The girl is beautiful and can act, but she can’t pick movies and has terrible management.

Gone is fairly cheap so it won’t be a complete bomb and make it’s money back. We can only hope that the director and writer did their job, otherwise…

The current Hollywood system just doesn’t have a place for her. They don’t provide any quality resource for her to work with. No means for a 20 something lead actress. When they talk female lead, it’s always a rom-com. She can’t pick movies because there isn’t much to pick.

Remember when they tried to shoehorn A. Jolie into a rom-com? That was a total disaster. But later on she did parley that into quality action dramas. We could put Beckinsale and Jovovich in the same boat but they don’t do well outside the action genre.

Beckinsale had a long career before action movies, but you can only do so many corset movies, which is why she began to move into Hollywood movies in the early 00′s. I have a Kate B fansite, so I know all to well the struggles she has endured.

The thing about Amanda’s career is that there are plenty of roles for 20ish actresses, not all leads, but plenty of good roles. She just isn’t getting them. Emma Stone, Carey Mulligan, Jennifer Lawrence and others are getting those roles since Amanda is now viewed as being a less capable actress, thanks to having been in fluff like Dear John, L to J, and RRH. It doesn’t help that 30 somethings like Amy Adams and Anne Hathaway are poaching roles in that age range from time to time.

It goes back to not being able to pick good movies and having a lousy agent who is with a weak little agency. After a few questionable choices, Amanda’s career is now heavily dependent on the critical success of Lovelace, and the commercial success of Les Mis. At the beginning of this year she was almost at the top, now she is back to the middle of her age range. She needs to take a page out of Stone’s book and analyze the entire project (Stone stated that she does this in an interview) rather than making a decision based on a meeting with the director, which is how Amanda ended up with RRH, In Time, and Gone. Stone is only cute and has limited range, but there is no arguing with the success she has had since ’09. Look at her RT page (compare it with Amanda’s) and you’ll see that her movies have done well with critics too. Easy A was the only true lead role she’s had, but actresses don’t have to play lead roles to become successful. It’s better to have a supporting role in a good, successful movie, than to play the lead in a disappointment.

On the subject of terrible marketing, the official In Time site is now the In Time Casino. I’m not kidding. It is for entertainment purposes only, and features poker, blackjack, and roulette. You get a year to start with, and you can either make your own username, or you can be Will Salas. The casino scenes in the movie have been edited into the game. You unlock “exclusive” scenes with your initial victory in each type of game. The scenes are just bits from promotional interviews that have been on youtube for months. I was up to 53 years when the damn thing locked on me. It’s also advertising the Bluray/DVD. http://www.intimecasino.com/

McG has given an update on his projects. While Girl Who Conned the Ivy League is still on the list, it appears that he has several projects ahead of it. This guy has a lot on his plate: http://collider.com/mcg-spring-awakening-puzzle-palace-tink-interview/142824/

Once they iron out the script it could move fairly quickly the way Lovelace did.

The first talk show appearances in support of Gone have been lined up. Amanda will be on the Leno show on Thursday, Feb 16, and the Ellen show on Monday, Feb 20. I think this is her first time on the Ellen show.

Hopefully she will do more interviews for Gone than for In Time since this is her movie, and her’s alone.

Another new clip from Gone: http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2012/02/09/amanda-seyfried-gone-exclusive-clip/

Lots of new images from Gone: http://www.beyondhollywood.com/new-batch-of-images-for-amanda-seyfrieds-gone/

Considering how much time I spend looking online for items about Amanda, posting links, and sending in info to this site’s admin, I should just start my own Amanda site. I actually spend less time taking care of my Kate Beckinsale site. Granted, Kate hasn’t been that busy since ’09. The problem is that my host already has two Amanda sites, and certainly doesn’t need a third.

Amanda will be on Conan on Feb 21.

Rolling in the promos. I don’t think she’s been on Conan either. Big height disparity there.

How about an E.Stone anti-fan site. All we do is rant about how much she sucks, her rumored drug use and horrible taste in men. Just kidding! :P

She has been on Conan once, it was a pretty good interview.

Summit is putting out the trailer for it’s Bruce Willis movie already, but still hasn’t (and won’t) put Gone’s trailer in heavy rotation. Gone is still piggybacking on the Summit Entertainment Twitter page, and doesn”t have a Facebook page. How many movies aimed at young people don’t have Facebook or Twitter pages? Just pathetic marketing. Summit had (they no longer really exist since they were bought by Lionsgate last month) the reputation for not being able to market anything not named Twilight, and now I see why. I was disappointed by the job WB did marketing RRH, but that was a masterpiece of marketing compared with the job that is being done for Gone. Lovelace has already generated far more publicity than Gone, and it wrapped a week ago. I guess you’ve checked out the NY Times article about Lovelace. It’s on the other Amanda sites, which is why I didn’t bother linking to it here. I think we are just talking to each other now. With so few updates, I doubt that this site has any traffic.

Amanda will be on Chelsea Lately on Monday, Feb 20. She hasn’t been on that show since 2010, and she usually gives her best US interviews there. That’s four national talk shows scheduled so far, that we know of. I’m hoping for one or two more since she, as of today, has nothing announced for the Wednesday or Thursday before Gone is released.

From where I am they blocked her appearance on the Jay show. :(

Okay, watched it in the wild. She’s feeding Leno again?
I think this is her best appearance on Leno.

I think she needs to hire a coach just to help with talk show appearances. She does well in the three or four minute junket interviews, but once she’s in front of a live audience she just loses it as far as plugging films goes. She talks about them, but she can’t seem to get her points across, or give people a reason to see the movie. Her thoughts and sentences run into each other, which happens when people are nervous. She did ok on Leno, but if I’m just casually watching the show, she didn’t give me much of a reason to see Gone. A casual viewer would also think she’s nice, but scatterbrained.

IMDB just added another movie to her list. It’s titled Pete and Goat and also stars Anton Yelchin: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1086543/

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

The only thing that really counts is her performance on screen no matter the boxoffice take. Full range actresses always have these ups and downs. What’s important is that they don’t lose respect by settling to just one lucrative genre.

I found some more info about Pete and Goat. It’s part of a new production venture involving Dan Dubeicki and a couple of partners. He is one of the producers of Jennifer’s Body and Chloe, and is a frequent producing partner of Jason Reitman. His new production company is Allegiance Theater, and Pete and Goat will be one of it’s first projects. Here is an article with a synopsis of Pete and Goat: http://www.deadline.com/tag/the-allegiance-theater/

Here is the synopsis: Pete And Goat: Anton Yelchin and Amanda Seyfried are attached to star. Produced by Dubiecki and Ahmet Zappa, the script’s by Michael Vukadinovich (The Three Misfortunes Of Geppetto) with Mark Palansky (Penelope) attached to direct. The comedy focuses on the second worst day of Pete’s life, when an unimaginable, foul-mouthed friend storms into his world to take him and the love of his life on an adventurous road trip.

Interesting interview where Amanda talks about her career plans: http://www.ocregister.com/entertainment/movie-341348-movies-lovelace.html

Pete And Goat should go in the ‘in development’ box. Looks like an indie film and Yelchin could have chemistry with her.