Timothée Chalamet is doing fine. Tom Holland and Zendaya will transcend Spider-Man pretty easily I think (she already had before). Florence Pugh already has an Oscar nom.

The funny thing about this is that Tarantino is one of those director’s who’s name outshines the majority of his cast unless they’re someone standout who already had a major career like DiCaprio or Samuel L Jackson. Most people won’t even recognize Zoe Bell or know her name despite being a character in several of his…

And John Cazale was only in 5 movies, which is even less than Chadwick.

Chadwick was a HUGE movie star from “42" on out. Absolutely iconic. That’s why his death hid so very, very hard (god, what a gut punch that news was), and one of the reasons re-casting was not an option. 

Stupid fucking take, son.

100%. It’s amazing. This is the second article AV Club has written about QT’s dumb take here, but on the other one, nearly everyone is totally on QT’s side about how absolutely fucking terrible it is to make films without casting a “movie star.” It’s the most bizarre thing: like two dozen odd fellows wrote hundreds…

IMO that is true to a degree. You don’t go see 20+ movies of a franchise unless the biggest actors are doing a good job with the role and consistently brought back. I don’t think IW or EG works that well if they recast Iron Man, Cap, and Thor. And there are characters that are not as well known, like Ant-Man, where…

I’d be curious to see what Tarantino even considers a “movie star.” Really, the age of the movie star that he seems to eluding to, a star who would sell tickets simply by being in a movie, died out at the end of the studio age when studios basically owned stars and could only be in that studio’s films. What movie…

So James Dean wasn’t a star cause he was only in three movies? 

This is why Karl Urban is one of my favourite actors. I have never once recognised him, even when I know he’s in the film.

The fact that Captain America cast Chris Evans was a big motivating factor in wanting to watch that movie for me.

My first reaction was “old man yells at clouds,” but he’s not wrong unless you choose to interpret it that way. But I’d say the two guys he picked are the possible exceptions. They’re both perfect casting for their characters and their own real-life personas fit the roles.

I don’t know, I felt like Pitt in a Tarantino film was a mutually beneficial setup. Tarantino usually does really interesting things with his movie stars and Pitt was no exception, plus it was the first time they’d worked together so people wanted to see what he’d do.

Personally, I think people drawn to the theater purely off a movie’s cast is a plus for the theatrical release model, which is floundering right now. We may be in the internet age where people are a lot more aware of who’s behind the camera, but once you get offline you’ll find a lot of people could give a dang. And I…

Kinda feels like everyone’s looking for the most outrageous interpretation of what (to me) boils down to “you go to see The Avengers because you wanna see Hulk and Thor fight, not because you want to see Ruffalo and Hemsworth.”

If I’m thinking about the actor instead of the character, then that’s not a very good actor.

Ultimately, it feels like even Tarantino should be celebrating the death of movie stardom, not lamenting it. He still casts bonafide movie stars of yesteryear in his movies, but nobody went to see Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood because Brad Pitt was in it. They saw it because Tarantino directed it, and they like his…

‘Twas the month before Christmas

Oh no, Sundown!!  I hate this news.