#1  
Old 09-02-2013, 06:43 PM
Charlie Hunnam makes a bonehead career move

He has been cast as Christian Grey (50 Shades of Grey)

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/un...ey-1200596231/

Haven't read the novel but all my female friends have and to some its a guilty pleasure and to others it was described as basically Twilight fanfiction. It sounds awful and I hope it bombs.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-02-2013, 08:11 PM
I don't like him period.
Sick of his voice, and as Jax all he does when he walks is try to look tough, but seriously his gait is hilarious. It's almost like some mentally retarded kid trying to find a way to swagger, doesn't quite figure it out, and speeds up to steam along at a high pace while trying to hide a limp.

I doubt many have much interest in 50SoG anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-02-2013, 08:26 PM
I've always liked Charlie Hunnam. I'm so disappointed to hear this. After Pacific Rim, I thought he might do some bigger movies, but I didn't think it'd be this. Such a shame. I've never read the book, but knowing it began as a Twilight fanfiction that's supposedly not even as good doesn't exactly fill me with much hope for the movie. What is he thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-02-2013, 09:03 PM
Take your fucking hands off your belt, Charlie.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-03-2013, 11:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by echo_bravo View Post
He has been cast as Christian Grey (50 Shades of Grey)

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/un...ey-1200596231/

Haven't read the novel but all my female friends have and to some its a guilty pleasure and to others it was described as basically Twilight fanfiction. It sounds awful and I hope it bombs.
1. That's because it was a Twilight fan fiction. That's what it started as original, then the broad re-tooled it and found a publisher.

2. It's not gonna bomb, it's gonna make boatloads of cash (just like the book did).

3. All in all, I don't think this was the worst career move. It'll probably be a real quick and easy shoot, he'll be in one of the more successful films of the year and he's smart, he's finagled himself a fat pay day.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-03-2013, 11:55 AM
I have no interest in the schlock but I do not think it is a stupid career decision for Hunnam. This "mommy porn" is probably going to make an assload of cash. He'll do the series (how many ever there are) and sure it is probably not what he wants to do. Then he will probably talk shit about it in the years to come because that's the cool thing to do now-a-days.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-03-2013, 12:04 PM
.

Last edited by SS-Block; 03-31-2014 at 01:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-03-2013, 12:08 PM
Yeah while I dont think it'll bomb, I hope it does.

But I think it'll probably do pretty well and a LOT of women will go see it (on a ladies night out or something) similar to what a lot of them did for Magic Mike.

And I like Charlie as a actor. I just wish he didn't sign up for this shit.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-03-2013, 01:31 PM

I love how mature the schmoes are when a movie isn't made for them, "I hope it bombs", "Girls have cooties"

Don't spent too much time in this thread guys, we have to discuss how Batman is going to beat Superman for the next two years.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-03-2013, 02:23 PM
Presumably the theatrical cut will have to get a R rating anyway, meaning that it's unlikely to be that controversial. Hyped up maybe.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-03-2013, 02:34 PM
I don't see the harm in women watching a movie that could encourage them to engage in a little sexual exploration. At least they won't come out of the theater wishing we were sparkling vampires. Why would we be against this? I haven't read the book, but who in here has?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-03-2013, 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herald View Post
I love how mature the schmoes are when a movie isn't made for them, "I hope it bombs", "Girls have cooties"

Don't spent too much time in this thread guys, we have to discuss how Batman is going to beat Superman for the next two years.
Girls totes have cooties, though.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-03-2013, 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiert Spionam View Post
1. That's because it was a Twilight fan fiction. That's what it started as original, then the broad re-tooled it and found a publisher.

2. It's not gonna bomb, it's gonna make boatloads of cash (just like the book did).

3. All in all, I don't think this was the worst career move. It'll probably be a real quick and easy shoot, he'll be in one of the more successful films of the year and he's smart, he's finagled himself a fat pay day.
Pretty much agree on all accounts (though I didn't know it was Twilight fan-fiction.)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-03-2013, 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herald View Post
I love how mature the schmoes are when a movie isn't made for them, "I hope it bombs", "Girls have cooties"

Don't spent too much time in this thread guys, we have to discuss how Batman is going to beat Superman for the next two years.
Hey now I never said "girls have cooties" but yeah I do hope this movie bombs (but it most likely wont since the budget will be rather small).

I dont get why I cant root for a film to fail
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-03-2013, 09:33 PM
I'm at the point where I really can't fault an actor for taking any role, especially if it is a potential payday. Very few actors become genuine movie stars. For most actors, acting is their job. It's how they make a living, and most of them aren't living large.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-03-2013, 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by echo_bravo View Post
Hey now I never said "girls have cooties" but yeah I do hope this movie bombs (but it most likely wont since the budget will be rather small).

I don't get why I cant root for a film to fail
Because every other film has maybe a 20/80 chance for guys to root for it to fail. When its a film geared toward women, 9 out of 10 times it looks like this on the boards:






However, the argument can be made that Hollywood and the media tend to make a lot of crappy things geared toward women. I mean Twilight sucks, that's just science. But a lot of things made for women tend to suck because they stick within cliched/stereotypical/narrow ideas of what it is that interest women. And since that's the majority of what is available for us, well, you get Twilight and Twilight knock-offs (and there are a LOT of them out there, and Amazon is actually removing comments that out those books as Twilight knock-offs)

Cause women be eating yogurt and salads, ya'll


Anyway, as a female, I never read these books, had no interest in ever reading these books or watching the movie.... until Charlie Hunnam was cast. So now I just tell myself I'll get to see him being sexy and Charlie will finally get the money he needs to move out that house he lives in that keeps getting broken into. Its really charity... for both of us.

Last edited by electriclite; 09-03-2013 at 10:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-03-2013, 11:30 PM
.

Last edited by SS-Block; 03-31-2014 at 01:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-04-2013, 05:16 AM
Gotcha electriclite but in all fairness I always root for the Fast and the Furious movies to bomb too. Absolutely HATE that franchise.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-04-2013, 08:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SS-Block View Post
He looks like Spencer Prat. Each to their own, I guess.
Maybe if you were blurring your eyes while intoxicated. Charlie Hunnam, minus the grody facial hair, is straight up beautiful. Not just hot. Beautiful. But I'm a girl, so I notice these things.

I'll watch this when it's on DVD, just for Charlie Hunnam. I don't care about the book or the movie, but whatever. I actually can't imagine seeing a movie like this in the theaters, even if I was a fan. Maybe I'm a prude, but I feel it'd be kind of weird watching practically soft core porn with a bunch of strangers in a dark room.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-04-2013, 09:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
I'm at the point where I really can't fault an actor for taking any role, especially if it is a potential payday. Very few actors become genuine movie stars. For most actors, acting is their job. It's how they make a living, and most of them aren't living large.
Indeed! What a refreshingly rational opinion, and one that I very much agree with.

It's a very smart career move. It's a high profile role that will pay well and make him even more visible and well-known than he is now.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-04-2013, 01:19 PM
I certainly don't blame any actor for taking on this kind of high profile role. Heck, if I had an agent and lost 60 pounds and was in a position where I could audition, I would.

I've only seen a few episodes of Sons of Anarchy and remember seeing Hunham many years ago in the Katie Holmes flick, Abandon. I like what I've seen from him so far. I did miss Pacific Rim which is unfortunate. That's a movie I would have liked to have seen on the big screen. Oh, well.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-04-2013, 03:17 PM
I read there's a big backlash towards the casting of ol Charlie. A lot of the fans wanted Matt Bomer instead. Kinda reminds me of the recent backlash of Ben Affleck as Batman
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-05-2013, 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by echo_bravo View Post
I read there's a big backlash towards the casting of ol Charlie. A lot of the fans wanted Matt Bomer instead. Kinda reminds me of the recent backlash of Ben Affleck as Batman
The silly thing is, once the movie comes out, almost every woman is going to declare him the sexiest man alive probably. And every time there's a sexy character in a movie, they'll say, "Cast Charlie Hunnam!" People have virtually no imagination. If he wasn't a rumor that put the image in their mind, then he's not the man for the job.

It seems like it's the "in thing" to do petitions for casting now.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-24-2013, 06:37 PM
Remember when people said Interview with the Vampire was going to kill Brad Pitts career? Too much hyperbole from fans anymore when it comes to casting film roles.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-24-2013, 09:11 PM
I don't really see how this will "hurt" his career, since he isn't a totally bankable star. He's known for SoA, and his first spotlight role in a big movie was PACIFIC RIM, and it wasn't a stellar success at the box office. So, he has pretty much nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking the role.
With the 50SoG hype, he'll get more <ahem> exposure, and I think if it bombs, he'll be where he was before.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-25-2013, 07:00 PM
Pacific Rim is now at over 400 mil worldwide and has quietly became 2013 #1 highest grossing movie based on an original idea. Sure domestic box office weekend wasn't record breaking but people really need to stop calling the film a bomb or saying it underperformed because that's not a reality.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-25-2013, 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KcMsterpce View Post
...and as Jax all he does when he walks is try to look tough, but seriously his gait is hilarious. It's almost like some mentally retarded kid trying to find a way to swagger, doesn't quite figure it out, and speeds up to steam along at a high pace while trying to hide a limp.
Finally someone who gets why I can't watch Sons of Anarchy. Aside from him it would be a fairly watchable show but I can't get past him.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-25-2013, 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KcMsterpce View Post
Sick of his voice, and as Jax all he does when he walks is try to look tough, but seriously his gait is hilarious. It's almost like some mentally retarded kid trying to find a way to swagger, doesn't quite figure it out, and speeds up to steam along at a high pace while trying to hide a limp.
Hahahah, I don't watch Sons of Anarchy but the whole thing about his walk is exactly what I thought when I saw Pacific Rim. He tries to swagger so much that it actually comes off laughable.

I'm not particularly convinced that he's a good actor but he's a hot dude. I think that's pretty much the only prerequisite for this role. It's actually pretty smart casting probably as we can see from the totally accurate sample size of girls in this thread who aren't interested in the books but are now interested in the movie cause of his involvement. All the girls who like the books would see it regardless so finding the right actor to bring in the rest of the target audience is key.

It's like the flipside of Anne Hathaway in Havoc. Or, to come very shortly, Scarlett Johansson in Under the Skin (which I loved but I just know it's going to be *that* movie that most guys download and skim through for the naked Scarlett scenes).

Oh and girls - it's not really the macho front or physique that he puts up these days so may not be of interest to you, but there's plenty to see in the UK Queer as Folk series which features Jax and Littlefinger (or is that Mayor Carcetti?) fucking. A lot. It's quite graphic but a legitimately good series apart from all the nudity and a far cry from the trashy US/CDN remake.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-26-2013, 06:21 AM
no matter how hard charlie hunnam tries to be hard and manly in his work i will always remember him as the twink who blew littlefinger
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-26-2013, 07:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DareDevil View Post
Pacific Rim is now at over 400 mil worldwide and has quietly became 2013 #1 highest grossing movie based on an original idea. Sure domestic box office weekend wasn't record breaking but people really need to stop calling the film a bomb or saying it underperformed because that's not a reality.
My comment is more about how it was "underwhelming" domestically, and it didn't make much of a ripple in terms of "blockbuster" news.
It made it's budget/advertising costs back, but not by much. I think it will sell very well on video, though.

Also, I watched that movie's box office take week after week after week. I didn't even see it here in Korea until it was out 6 weeks in the U.S., and yet I still watched to see how it worked out financially. It's usually more fun to see how much money big movies make overseas. Sometimes I get obsessed by it.

But it really did "underperform" based on hype, the director's name attached to it, budget and overall opening weekend B.O. take... which is what is deemed quite important.

I liked PACIFIC RIM, though. It was what I was looking for. If there was even less talking, it would have been even better LOL!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-02-2013, 04:05 AM
Isn't Pacific Rim Guillermo Del Toro's highest grossing film to date? When you say "based on the hype of the directors name." what does that mean, this movie made about as much as both Hellboys combined? So what do you think people should have expected? Him to direct a movie that made more than all his films combined? I wouldn't be surprised if Pacific Rim at the end of its full run did eventually make more than all his other films worldwide grosses combined.

Just think you had unrealistic expectation.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-02-2013, 04:10 AM
And it got good reviews, fans loved it, the general public seemed to dig it according to metracritic score. Just don't see how this movie could be considered a failure, it's almost a guarantee it will be one the top 10 highest grossing films of 2013.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-12-2013, 05:30 PM
Looks like Charlie Hunnam dropped out of the movie. I approve. Very much so.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-13-2013, 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truthunwinding View Post
Looks like Charlie Hunnam dropped out of the movie. I approve. Very much so.
Yep. I approve as well. I think Charlie read this thread
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-13-2013, 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by echo_bravo View Post
Yep. I approve as well. I think Charlie read this thread
He's still in Del Toro's Crimson Peak though, right?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-14-2013, 06:22 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
He's still in Del Toro's Crimson Peak though, right?
Yeah he is still attached to Crimson Peak.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-13-2013, 10:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
I'm at the point where I really can't fault an actor for taking any role, especially if it is a potential payday. Very few actors become genuine movie stars. For most actors, acting is their job. It's how they make a living, and most of them aren't living large.
Exactly. It's every actor's dream to get to the point where they cherry-pick their roles. For 99% of all actors, it's "I can make rent this month appearing in this piece of shit? AWESOME!"

It's academic now since Charlie turned it down, but I rarely dis an actor for taking a role, unless he or she is one of those 1%, like De Niro in MEET THE FOCKERS, etc.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump