Again, you miss me sir! :) I didn't limit to the CW, I said *all* of TV and the movies: NBC, CBS, Fox, indie films, major film studios, Showtime, HBO. I only threw out Supernatural and Angel as an example. My point is that whenever we talk of someone playing a pivotal role in a movie, we talk about half a dozen or so men and women who've made it to the A-list. But then we shoehorn characters into the shapes of the actors. It doesn't have to be Jolie even discussed. Surely you're not saying that all the TV stations--again, don't just think CW--can't produce an actress good enough to play Catwoman? I have seen 'em for darn sure.
-------------- Original message -------------- From: "Omari Confer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You are wrong again Mr Keith... There are only a handful of women that could share the screen with Christian Bale without seeming like some random hot chick. We are talking about actresses that can actually act.... Outside of Kristen Bell... The CW cannot, will not and does not create talented actresses... Get over the fact that they are hot...none of them can act... Period. c w m On 8/27/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Oh, I disagree. I just used those two shows as examples, but between them there were dozens of actresses. My main point is there's a huge source of TV and movie actresses from which to pull, without only thinking of Jolie, Berry, etc. Again, i'm not even necessarily talking about the main stars of those shows. I'm thinking of the many guest stars who did a good job. That's the point: move far afield, don't just look at headliners and stars. -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Omari Confer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I dont think any other the actors from Angel or Supernatural have the gravitas to act in this movie. The girlfriend role had to be someone that could act as a peer and not a subordinate to the playboy Wayne character. On 8/27/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That's the point I keep making, especially points 2 and 3. I think the focus on who the next Batman villain (and actor or actress playing him or her) is the wrong focus. Now the movie's more about the villain, the actor who gets the role, and that performance. It should be about the *story*, how will Nolan resolve teh end of two, with Batman not in a good place. And, what villian(s) would enhance that story, not who or what the fans want, or who'd be cool. Do the story first, find the villain that fills that story, and then find the actor who plays that villain best. That's who we got Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow, definitely not mainstream villains, and how Nolan resisted the pull to make Joker the villain in the first flick. Jolie would overshadow the role by virtue of who she is, and then we're back to that stunt casting I hate. I feel the same about Katie Holmes and Maggie Gillenhaal. They were chosen more for being known, in my opinion, than for being perfect for the roles. I can think of half a dozen actresses who've appeared on shows like Angel or Supernatural who would have been better fits. -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Omari Confer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jolie is.... 1. Great actor but overly sexual and would basically be the conceptual "next step" in the same direction for Catwoman 2. A star that is bigger than just about every movie she is in. She would eclipse whatever character she plays and any of her co-stars. 3. The best actors in Nolans Batman all played supporting roles. She would have to play maybe Bruce Wayne's girlfriend (think Drew Barrymore) and have maybe 3 scenes. 4. Cost too much. On 8/27/08, Mike Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I guess we have to wait and see how this all plays out. I would love to see the true dynamic she would bring but my vote is still for Angelina Jolie. Cher isn't even on my voting ticket for this movie. But I'm sure they won't waste any time cranking out another movie since the box office is about to get very dry. Cause looking at the fall movie preview there is nothing I want to see at all. On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Omari Confer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You see folks...thats the point. She will make a perfect Catwoman. Her > persona is uncommonly creepy and vain...perfect for a Nolan catwoman... > > i say thumbs up.. > > c w m > > > On 8/25/08, ravenadal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Oh, the horror! >> >> ~(no)rave! >> >> --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, StreetForce1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > Sent to you by StreetForce1 via Google Reader: Cher's the Next >> > Catwoman? via Celebrity gossip juicy celebrity rumors Hollywo od gossip >> > BR>>> > blog from Perez Hilton by Perez Hilton on 8/25/08 >> > >> > >> > We thought this was a joke, but The Telegraph is a respected newspaper. >> > >> > According to the UK's Telegraph, Academy Award-winner and music icon >> > Cher is in talks to play Catwoman opposite Christian Bale in the third >> > installment of the revamped Batman film franchise. >> > >> > A studio executive reportedly said, >> > >> > "Cher is Nolan's (director) first choice to play Catwoman. He wants to >> > her to portray her like a vamp in her twilight years. The new Catwoman >> > will be the absolute opposite of Michelle Pfeiffer and Halle Berry's >> > purring creations." >> > >> > Crazy! >> > >> > What do U think about Cher as Catwoman? >> > >> > [Image via W ENN.] >> > >> > Things you can do from here: >> > - Subscribe to Celebrity gossip juicy celebrity rumors Hollywood gossip >> > blog from Perez Hilton using Google Reader >> > - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your >> > favorite sites >> > >> > > > > -- > cwm blog > http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com > STRING THEORY > http://www.stringtheory.mypodcast.com > -- cwm blog http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://www.stringtheory.mypodcast.com -- cwm blog http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://www.stringtheory.mypodcast.com -- cwm blog http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://www.stringtheory.mypodcast.com
