MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

BYOB w/ A Question

Am I the only one who thinks that Rob Pattinson is going to have a very, very short career as a movie star?
Good looking kid and all, but he seems a little lost.

Be Sociable, Share!

50 Responses to “BYOB w/ A Question”

  1. LexG says:

    Well, THE REAL STAR OF TWILIGHT will face no such troubles, as she is GUARANTEED to have a career as varied, beloved, and respected as STREEP or FOSTER.
    Eh, this Pattinson dude seems like a nice kid; Doesn’t EVERYONE who has a surprise hit like this INSTANTLY get cast in the next Bay or Spielberg flick?
    He was on Leno and said he never washes his hair. How fucking awesome is that? If I skip a wash for one day, I look like a Nick Nolte mugshot, but this dude has millions of chicks lining up, and he’s not even maintaining personal hygiene. That is BEING A KING.

  2. brack says:

    Why Dave, because he doesn’t play the interview game well? I haven’t seen him in enough roles to know how good he is, but he was just fine in Harry Potter and Twilight.

  3. Blackcloud says:

    What are you saying, Dave, that Pattinson is the new Mark Hamill?*
    Weren’t we just having this discussion a few weeks back about which hot young actors would stand the test of time and which wouldn’t?
    *A comparison that’s unfair to Hamill.

  4. Blackcloud says:

    TypePad is being shit again. I usually don’t swear here, but this is getting annoying as hell.

  5. yancyskancy says:

    Having seem him in only Twilight and Potter, I couldn’t really say. But the Twilight films alone assure him of at least five years or so of stardom. I assume his upcoming Dali flick won’t be much of a factor. But he’s 22, only about 4 years into his career. He’ll probably learn a lot in the next couple of years about how to handle his success (and how NOT to handle it). Early success throws these kids into the deep end, and you never know who’ll sink or who’ll swim. Some sink, then thrash around until they get the hang of it.

  6. leahnz says:

    his hair alone might keep him afloat, serving as a life preserver with all that air sealed in by copious amounts of oil…(i find his hair hysterical)

  7. Tofu says:

    When Potter came out in 2005, he was deemed the new Jude Law. That IS a career, although… 😐

  8. IOIOIOI says:

    Heat: Rachel Adams. How she doin? Again: STAY OUT OF THE PREDICTION GAME SIR! STAY OUT OF IT! STAY OUT! I say good day.

  9. lazarus says:

    That’s a surprisingly Wellsian post coming from you, DP.
    (not a typo; I meant Jeffrey, not Orson)
    I do agree though. Don’t get the attraction to this guy at all.

  10. Kim Voynar says:

    Hey, now … at least DP didn’t call Pattinson a low-thread count, fast-food grubbing schlub with nasty man-toes.
    And DP, I wouldn’t say he seems lost, I’d say both Pattinson and Kristen Stewart seem very overwhelmed by all the freaky fan attention surrounding Twilight. You sign up to do a little teen-loves-vampire flick, next thing you know you’ve got 75,000 people signing an online petition against you being cast in the role. Then the fans pretty much get behind you, and you’re suddenly dealing with a bazillion, hopped-up, squealy-ass tween and teen girls who view you as the physical embodiment of their vampire superhero. He’s a 22-year-old kid dealing the best he can with being the flavor-of-the-month right now. He struck me as intelligent and faily together — way more so than Stewart, who seemed like a deer in headlights. He’ll be okay, give him time to simmer down. \
    The Dali flick looks interesting, we’ll see what else he does. Also interested to see what use Taylor Lautner makes out of of all this for himself — I think the kid has some talent, and boy, he’s incredibly good-looking, with a killer smile. It would be nice to see him fully leave Shark Boy and Lavagirl behind him and make an interesting career for himself.

  11. Noah says:

    Rachel MCAdams has three huge movies coming out in the next year, so I think she’s doing okay.
    As for Pattinson, I think his lack of a movie-star swagger is kind of appealing. We always see these teen actors who seem so pre-packaged, glossy and phony and chide them for not opening up and being themselves. And Pattinson seems to be pretty honest about the fact that he wants to be an actor, not a movie star. The vibe I get from him is a young Colin Farrell more than young Jude Law; someone who might not necessarily have all the talent right away, but who might develop it.

  12. jeffmcm says:

    Noah, I agree with you completely, albeit without any specific knowledge of Pattinson (I seem to have managed to avoid all Twilight promotional materials except that hilarious Letterman appearance). Maybe ‘movie star’ isn’t what Pattinson wants to be, regardless of how useful his current stint may or may not be in his career.

  13. The Dali film (in which he has a gay sex scene if I read correctly) reminds me of when Leonardo DiCaprio had that Total Eclipse movie. Of course Leo wasn’t “LEONARDO DiCAPRIO” when he made that.
    Not that I think Pattinson will be “the next leo” but… ya know… girls like him. And he’s a hoot too, so that helps.

  14. IOIOIOI says:

    Noah: BULLSHIT. Until they make the cash. She’s still one of the bigger flash in the pans Heat has ever declared as… A STAR! Again; he sucks at predicting things. He gets a thing or two right occassionally, but the dude lacks the INTUITIVENESS it takes to determine who will HIT or MISS.
    If fucking Matthew Mac (Fuck his last name) can have a career based solely on his good looks. So can Pattinson. That’s how these things work. Now scurry along now son. There’s crows out in them fields. I say I say I say.

  15. Noah says:

    Well IO, considering McAdams has only had two small movies come out since that declaration, I think it’s a little too early to say that prediction didn’t pan out. Let’s discuss this again at the end of next year and if all three of her movies wind up being huge successes, I assume you’ll be man enough to eat your hat.
    Kami, good call on the Total Eclipse parallel, although let’s hope Pattinson’s Dali film isn’t as atrocious as that Rimbaud picture.

  16. LexG says:

    Just me, or does Pattinson remind anyone else (physically) of those DeLuise sons who were so ubiquitous like 15-20 years ago?
    And if I can go off-book for a couple fair-game BYOB rants:
    a) Hey, aren’t we now NINE DAYS AWAY from a “blockbuster”-type movie that by all rights should be expected under any normal circumstances to open to a 35-60 MILLION DOLLAR WEEKEND, and yet NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT? I AM LEGEND cleaned fucking house in the very same weekend last year, this movie is of the same genre, has a reasonably big star in the lead, and imagery and promo that are clearly modeled after an ALL-TIME MEGAHIT from 12 years ago.
    So where is the hype? Any buzz? ANYONE would’ve been excused for downright ASSUMING this movie would open to 40 mil or more… but do you think it will?

  17. LexG says:

    b) Did any of you guys who HAVE to see everything see a piece of shit called “Garden Party”? I’d be hard pressed to think of a worse 2008 release; Unpleasant, exploitive, boring, dreary, monotonous, and seemingly filmed on sets left over from 3am Showtime softcore flicks, just a total bullshit downer about an interlocking cross-section of L.A. fringe hangers-on selling out, videotaping each other, and using one another.
    Vinessa Shaw is a lovely actress but she’s ill-used here, and Brian DePalma’s Avril Lavigne-looking (step?)daughter Willa Holland has a commercial look but seems notably cold and unsympathetic for her queasy in-distress role here.

  18. Don Murphy says:

    Al this helium has got to be expensive Dave

  19. LYT says:

    Lex, do you mean THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL?
    I’m cautiously optimistic. Maybe we’re not talking about it because unlike almost every other movie coming out in December, no-one’s seen it yet.
    Plus even when I do see it, I’m embargoed from talking about it till it comes out. But I think they should be showing more Gort. Giant killer robots beat Keanu for appeal any day.

  20. Pwrgirl says:

    I wouldn’t say he seems a bit lost. I think he is smarter than people give him credit. But no one can prepare an actor for success and fame. He seems really humble and taken aback. Not lost. He is also a person unafraid to say whatever pops into his head. It actually refreshing not having to hear boring, rehearsed answers to questions from interviewers. His interviews are pretty entertaining, and hilarious most times. But yeah, he does seem to be a bit sensitive and shy dealing with screaming girls.
    Anne Thompson just posted the trailer for Little Ashes on her site. It looks interesting, and like a class production. I’ve read that the script is super.

  21. LexG says:

    “TOTAL OWNAGE” (working title) = GREATEST SCREENPLAY EVER. All agents, producers, critics, and hack actors, get on the bus early.
    23 STORIES. NO HAGGIS COINCIDENCES. JUST 23 CARVER-ESQUE STORIES on the Lexian themes of GETTING OWNED, the passage of time, and the intentional pursuit of being THE WORST HUMAN BEING IMAGINABLE, yet still irrevocably retaining a core of redemptive decency.
    23 STORIES, 23 MOTHERFUCKERS GETTING OWNED, with a mid-movie, Malickian sojourn of shocking decency and innocence in a world where EVERYONE IS A COMPLETELY CYNICAL, LOATHESOME ASSHOLE.
    Much like the mighty Michelangelo, the Lexman cannot be RUSHED in his pursuit of TRANSCENDANT ART, but be aware that greatness is on its way and one LOU FROM CADDYSHACK-looking LA film critic has already committed to buying a ticket, so all agents, all producers, BOW DOWN and make with those checks. IT WILL HAPPEN.

  22. James says:

    Good looking? Whatchu smokin’ and please pass it.
    Also, I concur.

  23. jbf81 says:

    I really don

  24. jbf81 says:

    I really don

  25. jbf81 says:

    I really don

  26. jbf81 says:

    sorry, this Typepad thig is a disaster

  27. movielocke says:

    7 lbs is all over your new charts in the 6-10 spots in all categories. And not even a throw away blurb to give us an idea of what it’s like?
    Interesting to see Rosario Dawson enter the supporting actress race.

  28. SJRubinstein says:

    Luis Guzman is actually pretty funny in “Nothing Like the Holidays,” but Freddy Rodriguez just kind of reaffirms that he’s one of the most underrated/under-appreciated actors around.
    I didn’t like “Lady in the Water” or “Bobby” all that much, but he was sure solid in them. Same with “Planet Terror” and even, to some degree, “Bottle Shock” which I really found to be a snooze.
    On top of that even, he was the one surprisingly kind of interesting actor in “Havoc,” really only known for Anne Hathaway toplessness as it’s pretty awful and he’s a great counterpoint to Bale in “Harsh Times.”
    That’s all, just here to announce my addition to the list of Freddy Rodriguez fans (that have never seen an episode of “Six Feet Under”).

  29. IOIOIOI says:

    Noah: he made his declaration after one flick from her. If I remember correctly. So it’s a fair response to his response about Pattinson.
    This is the thing with the net: your past can come back and bite you in the ass. In the case of Shanna Nonna Nonna Nah Nah; it can come up every time he brings up an Oscar prediction or discusses anyone being a STAR! That’s how it works.
    Heck; I like McAdams, but Heat went overboard for an actress who pulled it back for close to 2 years after her STARDOM erupted. Also, again, Matthew Mac is a movie star based on his looks. So it’s not like Pattinson would be the first guy to become a star from being good-looking.

  30. bmcintire says:

    “A small Cult film?” These wretched things were three wildly best-selling books deep before they even went into production (and are now four). It’s like calling the first HARRY POTTER a gamble.

  31. yancyskancy says:

    Dave wasn’t the only one predicting major stardom for Rachel McAdams. She was clearly on the cusp after Red Eye and The Notebook. It hasn’t happened because of her own choices. Without looking up Dave’s old articles, I assume his prediction allowed for the possibility that McAdams might not find or accept the kind of roles that would assure mega-stardom.

  32. jeffmcm says:

    Lex, you should really write at least a page or two of ‘Total Ownage’ before hyping it so, you know, people don’t get tired of it or something bizarre and unthinkable like that.
    Also, I don’t know why you would possibly bother with ‘a core of redemptive decency’. It would seem to go against everything you stand for.

  33. David Poland says:

    As I have written MANY times now… Rachel McAdams has done everything in her power to NOT be the movie star she can be. It’s not real complicated.
    We will see if K-Stew goes that way or not. I think, that like McAdams, it will probably have a lot to do with her headspace.
    As for Pattinson… not so much.
    And Don… you are turning into Lex with the helium… I don’t know what the hell you are talking about… but even more so, HUH?

  34. storymark says:

    I’m sure K-Stew’s upcoming turn as Joan Jett will make her a super-duper-star.

  35. LexG says:

    That Joan Jett thing is a TERRIBLE movie idea, and a fairly weird career move.
    Why would K-STEW wanna play some old lady she’s a thousand times more awesome than?

  36. yancyskancy says:

    I dunno, I think a Runaways movie is a cool idea. At any rate, Lex, Stew wouldn’t be playing the “old lady” Joan, but the younger version.
    I used to see Willa Holland on The O.C. (a guilty pleasure, ok?) and thought she had potential if she could work on her voice a bit. Kinda slurry and odd. Might’ve been in character though.

  37. Don Murphy says:

    Since you have come back you have started making these pointless, ephemeral, downright bizarre posts (Gran Torino to the tune of All in the Family?) which can only mean that you are sucking on Helium in your office.
    You need to go back to ranting about movies that you think are losing money (even though not yours) or mistakes that are being made by people you don’t know. There are plenty of good posts here still- the SAG rant was great though it omitted the main problem of a de facto strike. But every 2 or 3 post is Helium induced man!

  38. LexG says:

    I tend to think Elizabeth Banks kinda swooped in and flat-out became Rachel McAdams– career-, movie-, and even personality-wise.

  39. David Poland says:

    I can’t say that I am sorry that I am not angry enough for you, Don.
    I haven’t heard as much about a nasty review in a while as I have heard about the Gran Torino thing, which I thought was actually kinda generous.
    I am not really interested in dancing on the graves of people losing their jobs and businesses. There but for the grace of God and all.
    How many people are going to lose their jobs to Ben Button? Plenty. But Star Trek will be crueler.
    Or do you want me to wonder aloud why there is no Lovely Bones trailer yet?
    Do you need me to obsess on Watchmen?
    Do I really have to sweat out the overloaded and undermanned May already to make you happy?
    I’ll tell you, Don… I am not really enjoying watching people suffer… even if many of them have it coming. I decided a long time ago not to be the guy with the scythe, writing about every budget cut and round of layoffs, publishing the names of people who are already in enough pain without having their job loss publicized by fucking gossiping idiots.
    Is that “helium?” If so, get used to it. I am not a monkey with a switchblade. Not interested in becoming one.

  40. Don Murphy says:

    The helium is making you miss the point entirely. Today is really BLACK THURSDAY and there isn’t a single person losing their job today who deserves it. NOT ONE. The people doing some of the firing maybe. But I don’t know how you extrapolate that from my posts.
    It’s your blog you’ll do what you always have- whatever you feel like. But if you provide a place to comment and it becomes clear you have started to post a stream of pointless entries, you can either listen to my comment, ignore it or respond to it. But twisting it ain’t cool man.
    It’s the gas….

  41. David Poland says:

    Don… “helium” is not a comment… it is a jerk off, same as from someone who is not as smart or experienced as you.
    If you want to add something to the conversation, add it. If you want to throw water balloons, I don’t have any interest.

  42. Don Murphy says:

    so you choose “ignore”
    certainly within your rights

  43. Blackcloud says:

    Yeah, where is the trailer for “Lovely Bones.” It feels like that flick’s been in production for so long Obama was still a communmity organizer when it started.

  44. jeffmcm says:

    Wait a minute – is this the first ‘J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek is going to bomb’ comment that DP has made in these parts, or have I been missing something?
    And to Don Murphy: Don, everything is the same as it’s always been pre- and -post-Amsterdam.

  45. Don Murphy says:

    if you mean you’re still banal and butting in then I agree Jeff
    re Trek, David is convinced that his crystal ball is shinier and that everything Paramount has in the can will lose money. or something.

  46. jeffmcm says:

    I meant that David has always (at least in modern times) been this self-indulgent. But you stay classy, Don Murphy.

  47. David Poland says:

    I’ve never said that every movie at Paramount would lose money… not close. But they have a few very expensive pictures with serious problems with potential revenue. Transformers, which is basically a third quarter ’09 movie, is not a problem point. But for a company with cash flow issues, those dollars are a long ways away.
    I’ve never said that Star Trek would bomb. What I have said is that a franchise that has never grossed as much as $150m worldwide is unlikely to double that because JJ Abrams puts some young actors in it and has bigger explosions… and even at $300m worldwide, the movie will lose money.
    My crystal ball has been all too accurate lately.

  48. jeffmcm says:

    That makes sense, but I would also say that the previous films have all been designed for fans of the television series, and this new one is explicitly not, which would seem to raise the ceiling for the final gross.

  49. David Poland says:

    You know, J-Mc… anything can happen.
    Would you bet $300,000 of your own money for a house that is appraised at $110,000 max because you know a really cool designer who you will change the dynamic of the house and get a different kind of buyer to pay $400,000 for it?
    Good luck with that.
    That doesn’t mean it can’t happen.
    After all, Bond went up 40% in the last two films. Of course… that would make your house sale $155,000 on the $300,000 investment. Congrats on the increase… sorry about the loss…

  50. jeffmcm says:

    There’re a few too many hypotheticals in there for a meaningful answer. Except that obviously Paramount thinks they have the puzzle pieces for something to break out of that box worldwide. And those guys make millions to make those decisions and I most certainly don’t, so therefore they know more than I do, right?
    (I also hope that the movie flops because it looks like resteamed poop but that’s a different story).

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon