Comments on: Is Coppola Right About Al, Jack and Bobby? http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/is-coppola-right-about-al-jack-and-bobby.php A Website About Movies Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jackie http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/is-coppola-right-about-al-jack-and-bobby.php/comment-page-1#comment-87619 Jackie Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:21:38 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/is-coppola-right-about-al-jack-and-bobby.php#comment-87619 It's easy for a CRITIC to talk extensively about what an actor should be doing in his career. As a lover of movies there is plenty of blame to go around. The scripts are for s**t, and they throw a ton of dough at these guys just for box office draw. Just as it is true for women in film, once you've reached a certain age the scripts don't come as fast and furious as they once had. Jack is Jack, master of all trade! For Al and Bobby it's not that clear cut. You have to make a role for these guys and tailor it for them. Sophia Coppola did it for the aging Bill Murray in Lost in Translation. Did she hit the "nail on the head". You bet, she sent it out of the ball park. Until you have writers who write a part EXCLUSIVELY FOR AN ACTOR. Who knows that person up/down/front/back/sideways. Your'e gonna see crap. Now you have the master Spielberg using the wonderful talented YOUNG Shia LeBouf. When I saw Disturbia I named that kid MR. BOXOFFICE. Bet ya he stills the show in Indiana 4. It’s easy for a CRITIC to talk extensively about what an actor should be doing in his career. As a lover of movies there is plenty of blame to go around. The scripts are for s**t, and they throw a ton of dough at these guys just for box office draw. Just as it is true for women in film, once you’ve reached a certain age the scripts don’t come as fast and furious as they once had.

Jack is Jack, master of all trade! For Al and Bobby it’s not that clear cut. You have to make a role for these guys and tailor it for them. Sophia Coppola did it for the aging Bill Murray in Lost in Translation. Did she hit the “nail on the head”. You bet, she sent it out of the ball park.

Until you have writers who write a part EXCLUSIVELY FOR AN ACTOR. Who knows that person up/down/front/back/sideways. Your’e gonna see crap. Now you have the master Spielberg using the wonderful talented YOUNG Shia LeBouf. When I saw Disturbia I named that kid MR. BOXOFFICE. Bet ya he stills the show in Indiana 4.

]]> By: jack2jack http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/is-coppola-right-about-al-jack-and-bobby.php/comment-page-1#comment-182074 jack2jack Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:21:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/is-coppola-right-about-al-jack-and-bobby.php#comment-182074 It's easy for a CRITIC to talk extensively about what an actor should be doing in his career. As a lover of movies there is plenty of blame to go around. The scripts are for s**t, and they throw a ton of dough at these guys just for box office draw. Just as it is true for women in film, once you've reached a certain age the scripts don't come as fast and furious as they once had. Jack is Jack, master of all trade! For Al and Bobby it's not that clear cut. You have to make a role for these guys and tailor it for them. Sophia Coppola did it for the aging Bill Murray in Lost in Translation. Did she hit the "nail on the head". You bet, she sent it out of the ball park. Until you have writers who write a part EXCLUSIVELY FOR AN ACTOR. Who knows that person up/down/front/back/sideways. Your'e gonna see crap. Now you have the master Spielberg using the wonderful talented YOUNG Shia LeBouf. When I saw Disturbia I named that kid MR. BOXOFFICE. Bet ya he stills the show in Indiana 4. It’s easy for a CRITIC to talk extensively about what an actor should be doing in his career. As a lover of movies there is plenty of blame to go around. The scripts are for s**t, and they throw a ton of dough at these guys just for box office draw. Just as it is true for women in film, once you’ve reached a certain age the scripts don’t come as fast and furious as they once had.

Jack is Jack, master of all trade! For Al and Bobby it’s not that clear cut. You have to make a role for these guys and tailor it for them. Sophia Coppola did it for the aging Bill Murray in Lost in Translation. Did she hit the “nail on the head”. You bet, she sent it out of the ball park.

Until you have writers who write a part EXCLUSIVELY FOR AN ACTOR. Who knows that person up/down/front/back/sideways. Your’e gonna see crap. Now you have the master Spielberg using the wonderful talented YOUNG Shia LeBouf. When I saw Disturbia I named that kid MR. BOXOFFICE. Bet ya he stills the show in Indiana 4.

]]> By: Jorge Sosa http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/is-coppola-right-about-al-jack-and-bobby.php/comment-page-1#comment-65624 Jorge Sosa Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:06:26 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/is-coppola-right-about-al-jack-and-bobby.php#comment-65624 A few thoughts ... Maggie, you noted, "I suppose Coppola is making a ton of dough from his wine farm and doesn't care if he works with any of the three again. " Coppola makes some damn tasty wine, 'tis true, but he's not exactly as lean and hungry as he was in the '70s either. Now that he's back in the director's chair, I think it's ironic for him to take those kinds of pot shots. Where's he been this past decade? Of course, the hell of it is I think he's right. I believe Pacino, De Niro and Nicholson are victims of their own success. They rose to prominence at a time when Hollywood was willing to bank on creative risk. Those days are long past. Just look at how many remakes and sequels we're inundated with now. Today's Hollywood is all about playing it safe. So, the pool of good material is small. If you're an indie production shingle, can you even dream of casting a walking demigod like Pacino, De Niro or Nicholson? Hell no. So, those three guys, unless they are able and willing to take a big pay cut, are naturally gonna star in a lot of major studio dreck. Uninspiring and soul-killing paycheck movies. Ageism is a factor, also. The leading man parts don't go to older men anymore. Eastwood found that out the hard way. Fortunately, he was able easily seamlessly segue to just directing. It was a treat to see him in "Million Dollar Baby" but most of the time, he's behind-the-scenes now. I think "The Good Shepherd" was De Niro's way of testing the waters. Maybe he'll adapt by doing more directing. It's the sad truth that talent and lots of experience aren't enough to keep an actor in the catbird seat forever. Look at Harrison Ford. I think Indy 4 is the best thing that's happened to him in a long time. Maybe Ford will show Hollywood that it's OK to cast older guys as leading men. As long as I'm dreaming, maybe studios will start casting women over 40 in choice parts, too! Don't hold your breath :-) A few thoughts … Maggie, you noted, “I suppose Coppola is making a ton of dough from his wine farm and doesn’t care if he works with any of the three again. ”

Coppola makes some damn tasty wine, ’tis true, but he’s not exactly as lean and hungry as he was in the ’70s either. Now that he’s back in the director’s chair, I think it’s ironic for him to take those kinds of pot shots. Where’s he been this past decade?

Of course, the hell of it is I think he’s right.

I believe Pacino, De Niro and Nicholson are victims of their own success. They rose to prominence at a time when Hollywood was willing to bank on creative risk. Those days are long past. Just look at how many remakes and sequels we’re inundated with now. Today’s Hollywood is all about playing it safe.

So, the pool of good material is small. If you’re an indie production shingle, can you even dream of casting a walking demigod like Pacino, De Niro or Nicholson?

Hell no.

So, those three guys, unless they are able and willing to take a big pay cut, are naturally gonna star in a lot of major studio dreck. Uninspiring and soul-killing paycheck movies.

Ageism is a factor, also. The leading man parts don’t go to older men anymore. Eastwood found that out the hard way. Fortunately, he was able easily seamlessly segue to just directing. It was a treat to see him in “Million Dollar Baby” but most of the time, he’s behind-the-scenes now.

I think “The Good Shepherd” was De Niro’s way of testing the waters. Maybe he’ll adapt by doing more directing.

It’s the sad truth that talent and lots of experience aren’t enough to keep an actor in the catbird seat forever. Look at Harrison Ford. I think Indy 4 is the best thing that’s happened to him in a long time.

Maybe Ford will show Hollywood that it’s OK to cast older guys as leading men. As long as I’m dreaming, maybe studios will start casting women over 40 in choice parts, too!

Don’t hold your breath :-)

]]> By: Jorge Sosa http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/is-coppola-right-about-al-jack-and-bobby.php/comment-page-1#comment-182073 Jorge Sosa Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:06:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/is-coppola-right-about-al-jack-and-bobby.php#comment-182073 A few thoughts ... Maggie, you noted, "I suppose Coppola is making a ton of dough from his wine farm and doesn't care if he works with any of the three again. " Coppola makes some damn tasty wine, 'tis true, but he's not exactly as lean and hungry as he was in the '70s either. Now that he's back in the director's chair, I think it's ironic for him to take those kinds of pot shots. Where's he been this past decade? Of course, the hell of it is I think he's right. I believe Pacino, De Niro and Nicholson are victims of their own success. They rose to prominence at a time when Hollywood was willing to bank on creative risk. Those days are long past. Just look at how many remakes and sequels we're inundated with now. Today's Hollywood is all about playing it safe. So, the pool of good material is small. If you're an indie production shingle, can you even dream of casting a walking demigod like Pacino, De Niro or Nicholson? Hell no. So, those three guys, unless they are able and willing to take a big pay cut, are naturally gonna star in a lot of major studio dreck. Uninspiring and soul-killing paycheck movies. Ageism is a factor, also. The leading man parts don't go to older men anymore. Eastwood found that out the hard way. Fortunately, he was able easily seamlessly segue to just directing. It was a treat to see him in "Million Dollar Baby" but most of the time, he's behind-the-scenes now. I think "The Good Shepherd" was De Niro's way of testing the waters. Maybe he'll adapt by doing more directing. It's the sad truth that talent and lots of experience aren't enough to keep an actor in the catbird seat forever. Look at Harrison Ford. I think Indy 4 is the best thing that's happened to him in a long time. Maybe Ford will show Hollywood that it's OK to cast older guys as leading men. As long as I'm dreaming, maybe studios will start casting women over 40 in choice parts, too! Don't hold your breath :-) A few thoughts … Maggie, you noted, “I suppose Coppola is making a ton of dough from his wine farm and doesn’t care if he works with any of the three again. ”

Coppola makes some damn tasty wine, ’tis true, but he’s not exactly as lean and hungry as he was in the ’70s either. Now that he’s back in the director’s chair, I think it’s ironic for him to take those kinds of pot shots. Where’s he been this past decade?

Of course, the hell of it is I think he’s right.

I believe Pacino, De Niro and Nicholson are victims of their own success. They rose to prominence at a time when Hollywood was willing to bank on creative risk. Those days are long past. Just look at how many remakes and sequels we’re inundated with now. Today’s Hollywood is all about playing it safe.

So, the pool of good material is small. If you’re an indie production shingle, can you even dream of casting a walking demigod like Pacino, De Niro or Nicholson?

Hell no.

So, those three guys, unless they are able and willing to take a big pay cut, are naturally gonna star in a lot of major studio dreck. Uninspiring and soul-killing paycheck movies.

Ageism is a factor, also. The leading man parts don’t go to older men anymore. Eastwood found that out the hard way. Fortunately, he was able easily seamlessly segue to just directing. It was a treat to see him in “Million Dollar Baby” but most of the time, he’s behind-the-scenes now.

I think “The Good Shepherd” was De Niro’s way of testing the waters. Maybe he’ll adapt by doing more directing.

It’s the sad truth that talent and lots of experience aren’t enough to keep an actor in the catbird seat forever. Look at Harrison Ford. I think Indy 4 is the best thing that’s happened to him in a long time.

Maybe Ford will show Hollywood that it’s OK to cast older guys as leading men. As long as I’m dreaming, maybe studios will start casting women over 40 in choice parts, too!

Don’t hold your breath :-)

]]> By: www.latesthollywoodgossip.info » Is Coppola Right About Al, Jack and Bobby? http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/is-coppola-right-about-al-jack-and-bobby.php/comment-page-1#comment-65622 www.latesthollywoodgossip.info » Is Coppola Right About Al, Jack and Bobby? Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:54:21 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/is-coppola-right-about-al-jack-and-bobby.php#comment-65622 [...] Maggie Van Ostrand added an interesting post today on Is Coppola Right About Al, Jack and Bobby?Here’s a small reading“Pacino always wanted to do theater. He wanted to do `Peer Gynt.' He wanted to do Shakespeare. Pacino will say, `Oh, I was raised next to a furnace in New York, and I'm never going to LA,' but they all live off the fat of the land. … [...] [...] Maggie Van Ostrand added an interesting post today on Is Coppola Right About Al, Jack and Bobby?Here’s a small reading“Pacino always wanted to do theater. He wanted to do `Peer Gynt.’ He wanted to do Shakespeare. Pacino will say, `Oh, I was raised next to a furnace in New York, and I’m never going to LA,’ but they all live off the fat of the land. … [...]

]]>