Well
Thank you
Thank you Jmava

مملكة بنات مملكه بنات افلام عربي افلام هندي افلام اجنبي اغاني كليبات برامج العاب بنات صور بنات فضائح الفنانين مواضيع مثيرة أناقه وجمال البلوتوث الجوالات المنتدى العام عذب الخواطر آدم حواء منتدى البرامج قسم الألعاب الإلكترونيه
شبكة ومنتديات مملكة بنات

And no one can explain why studios believe Taylor's bankability.

It's gonna hit 100 in no time...

I think our dear well-informed Robert Pattinson fans misunderstood Neil's words. Like he has 'tried' to reiterate several times, bankability doesn't equal talent. Doesn't mean Lautner is anymore talented than Pattinson. However, he does have that action star thing going on (well mostly thanks to this one shirtless stint) and as long the general moviegoing people identify him with bare chests the studio is going to want to capitalize on that.

Pattinson? Bankable? Only to the Twilight fans, he is. His non Twilight movies aren't exactly box office and critical hits, don't you think? Outside of the Twifan-sphere, nobody is going to want to go to the movies to watch a pale-skinned guy doing a rehash of Edward Cullen (which coincidentally fits neatly into his acting range. Picking diverse projects speaks nothing about an actor's talent. And what isn't clear about the word 'aggressively bad indie projects'? His performances in them have been lacklustre. Those entire movies, in fact, got bad reviews and were flops, critically and box office-wise (even the Twifans decided to skip these, apparently).

As for the fact that he's starring in all those upcoming movies (Unbound Captives, etc), well that remains to be seen. As of now, Pattinson isn't any more talented than he has shown himself to be. That he is getting reported pick of scripts is probability due to studios looking to take advantage of his popularity from Twilight (note: not bankability); or that he has shown to possess a suitable emotive range for the role he was given. Neither is Lautner. Perhaps Pattinson could be bankable in the near or distant future, but as of now, the context of this article pertaining to 'Stretch Armstrong' and other such action flicks, obviously Lautner is more bankable.

Bottom line: Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner are nothing more than pretty faces; acting talent only constituting about 10% of body composition.

P.S. And in case anyone was wondering, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a female-based fanbase penned by female writers directed by female directors. There's no discrimination against female-powered works. Unless they're too bad for words, that is...

"Bankability" or even 'bankable' isn't a word. It's one of those jargon terms so beloved of those who write about the film biz but who don't actually pay actors, or fund movies. It's supposed to entail the notion, in this context, that casting an actor in a movie means money in the bank for that studio. I doubt if Mr. Lautner will be the proving ground for that idea. They could just as easily cast Shia LaBoeuf, ChanningTatum, Logan Lerman or any number of the young action dudes in a Hasbro/Mattel franchise and money would be made. It was Mr. Miller who tied the notion of ‘talent’ to job prospects ie. Lautner has some so he will prosper and Mr. Pattinson doesn’t so he will not. I think any mention of ‘talent’ is irrelevant to a discussion about casting someone to play a character whose main task will be to look cool while his arms are stretched by VFX. And how great will it be to see that in 3D? My issue with Mr. Miller, and other male twits, ie. those that twitter, is that they dislike “Twilight” because it is a franchise driven by an audience of female teenagers - God forbid! – and not males. And it better be better than ‘good’ because otherwise - woe betide its existence in the same world where numerous second-rate male-penned action flicks should rule the screens. I mean “Stretch Armstrong” can’t help but be better than any silly chick flick. The name alone thrills. However, I doubt Mr. Pattinson need worry about Mr. Miller’s prognostications. In ten years time, whether he is acting or not, he’ll have considerably more actually banked funds with which he can skulk in retirement, than I think Mr. Miller will from his living as a reviewer. I think that’s called “laughing all the way…”

if Mr. Pattinson has any intention of growing as an actor, i believe he has to pay attention to as many comments that are directed his way that he can, no matter good or bad. it has nothing to do with how much of money his overflowing coffers hold as he would be merely resting on his laurels (though he hardly has much to shout about yet) if he just pays attention to the good reviews (if any). and whatever hope the (honest and rational) critics have on him to prove himself will be as good as none.

I know Mr. Miller has no problem with any female-driven anything. I don't think Jane Campion, Kathryn Bigelow, Mira Nair or Sofia Coppola are in his bad books, are they now, Mr. Miller?

And I do think that it takes talent to look cool - that's why not every good-looking, muscular guy can be picked up by studios to be an action star.

And please tell me you don't think studios actually believe people are gonna see Lautner's films just because it's "action" and just because they identify him as that kid who has perfect abs?

As for talent, no one's saying Robert is the best actor ever; the guy is still learning the craft. In fact, he'd be the first to tell you he has a lot to learn. But his next projects which are all diverse show he at least has the balls to try and learn. And not be stereotyped. Unlike Lautner.

Well, if the studios didn't believe it to be so, they wouldn't have hired him now, would they? His perfect abs must have helped a lot (hey remember those Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sly Stallone action movies? Yeahh.. great abs... helps too that Governer Schwarzenegger was a bodybuilder too..). Unfortunately, 'action' movies are gonna appeal to more people of all kinds of ages than just the Twilight demographic (you, like a normal human being, enjoy action movies just as much as the next, don't you?).

I thought I made myself clear earlier. I'm not praising Lautner as the more talented star. Neither am I saying that Pattinson is so bad he's not worth watching. He can be an interesting actor 'sometimes'. But that sometimes isn't enough. So at time of press, Pattinson (who we shall justify as haven't learnt his craft properly yet [wonder where Dakota Fanning goes to train...]) is as yet not a great actor.

If Lautner wants to go the action movie star route, let him be. If Pattinson wants to go Johnny Depp-esque (here's to hoping he actually turns out to be a star at least half of Depp's calibre) then all the best. But as I will continuously repeat: at time of press, neither of them are particularly talented or great in any way as actors (not stars, mind you).

This reply of yours seem a bit more objective. I agree neither has proven they are good actors yet. But a big part of "being a great actor" is to know how to choose a project for yourself.

From this perspective, I think Pattinson far exceeds Lautner, who seems very short-sighted in his future movie project choices. Pattinson at least show a genuine interest in growing as a serious actor. Whether he can be a good one? Of course we don't know yet.

But do you agree that the author's assertion on Lautner's bankability is purely baseless?

I agree that Pattinson here may be the better for wanting to choose different projects and learn from them. But will they be any good? Will Pattinson be any good in them? Let's not look too far around; take New Moon for instance. Edward's story in New Moon is a little more expansive than in Twilight despite the Jacob intervention. If he really HAS learnt something from his diverse projects, he could have injected some variety and do Edward a little differently, give out some genuine emotion, improve the character. After all, this is basically a love story. Edward the book canon is supposedly a passionate person, but Edward movie canon is a bore. I say all that learning experience is wasted.