MovieChat Forums > The Lost City of Z (2017) Discussion > Cumberbatch = fine actor/unattractive, R...

Cumberbatch = fine actor/unattractive, Robert Pattinson=dreadful actor/


... but apparently good looking to women.

Cumberbatch has so many female fans who think he's a hunk.
Pattinson has so many female fans who think he can act.

reply

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. There are many who would disagree with you.

reply

I'm a woman and I don't get Pattinson, at all. Besides being a terrible actor, he always looks like he needs a serious bath. I don't know how he manages to convey that impression, but there it is.

Britain is so full of fabulous actors who are also gorgeous, I seriously don't understand how Pattinson gets any work.

reply

@ yopinkman123 and Nomad310: Which of Pattinson's films have you actually seen?

If he really was such an awful actor, how come directors like David Cronenberg, Werner Herzog and James Gray work with him? They can get any actor they want.


Another marvellous Brit: http://youtu.be/A4N3S9a_Jqs

reply

phosphorus, I have seen Cosmopolis, Bel Ami, Like Water for Elephants and the first Twilight movie. Because of Twilight, Pattinson has legions of fans who will put butts in seats. Therefore, films with him in them will attract financing. Those are good reasons to cast him, no matter what sort of actor he is.

reply

So you think all these directors are willing to let a terrible actor ruin their films just because financing will be easier - instead of casting a better actor? How on earth did they manage to get the money for their previous films without him then? And is he really the only actor around "who will put butts in the seats"?

he always looks like he needs a serious bath. I don't know how he manages to convey that impression, but there it is.

You are aware that he is the new face of Dior Homme? Looks like he was clean enough for them. It was the most successful advertising campaign last year, by the way.

I'm a woman and I don't get Pattinson, at all.

I gather that many fans love him for his interviews and his humour.

Another marvellous Brit: http://youtu.be/A4N3S9a_Jqs

reply

You can argue and respond all you want, phosphorus, to no avail. It is simply true that there are many women, of which I am one, who are not at all appreciative of Pattinson's charms or talent.

You apparently feel otherwise. Good for you!

reply

Now you write:

You can argue and respond all you want, phosphorus, to no avail. It is simply true that there are many women, of which I am one, who are not at all appreciative of Pattinson's charms or talent.

Before you wrote:
I'm a woman and I don't get Pattinson, at all. Besides being a terrible actor, he always looks like he needs a serious bath. I don't know how he manages to convey that impression, but there it is.


You asked how he could manage to convey the impression that he's attractive, so Phosphorus answered your original question. Why do you seem to have a problem with her answering your question?

And for some reason you seem to think that your opinion of Pattinson's looks matter but Phosphorus' opinion of Pattinson's looks doesn't. And you also seem to think that the fact that millions of women find Pattinson attractive which is why he was signed on as the face of Dior Homme doesn't count either since it doesn't match YOUR opinion.

So you are basically saying that only YOUR opinion matters and no one else's opinion matters.....




reply

I didn't actually ask a question and he/she didn't actually answer it, other than to point out that some people find Pattinson attractive as proved by Dior hiring him. I acknowledged that some people do, but that others don't. What your issue is by jumping in, I've no idea nor any interest, so don't think I'm asking you to reply because I'm not.

reply

[deleted]

This is a public forum and anyone can respond at any time, I don't need your permission to reply or jump in.

reply

Who said you did? Is it reading skills you lack, or do you just like to fight?

reply

Both

reply

True, I don't think he is such a terrible actor as you obviously do. Neither do I find Benedict Cumberbatch unattractiv.

It's strange, how easily you question the integrity of all those directors as artists because they gave Robert Pattinson a role.

It certainly helps to have him on board when it comes to raising money for a film but I don't think he gets casted because of that. If he really was such a terrible actor as you say, he'd ruin the film, meaning that the directors would have to be satisfied with less than they had in mind. Directors put so much thought, heart, energy and work in a film, they want every new film to be their best so far.

As I said before, there are other actors who also attract a huge audience. And Robert Pattinson doesn't come that cheap either, i.e. you have to raise even more money for the film to be able to hire him.

And the odd "he looks dirty"-discussion seems to be mainly an issue in the USA. A joke (about his hair) in Jay Leno's talk show that many people didn't get.

Another marvellous Brit: http://youtu.be/A4N3S9a_Jqs

reply

It's strange, how easily you question the integrity of all those directors as artists because they gave Robert Pattinson a role.

I don't question anyone's integrity. However, I'm a realist and recognize that movie-making is a business. As such, profits need to be made. I'm quite sure directors realize these facts as well and certainly casting directors do. Compromises are made.

I know of a current case where a producer is trying to push Pattinson for a role in which he would be utterly unsuitable. But the producer wants to tap into that Twilight fan base.

reply

Yes, compromises have to be made sometimes and are made - but only to a certain extend.

But the producer wants to tap into that Twilight fan base.


Considering Pattinson's choice of roles since then it looks like he does not want to tap into that fan base. Guess he had enough of screaming teenagers and obsessed Twilight moms. ;-)

Anyway, it will be interesting to see him opposite Benedict Cumberbatch. He has a large and loyal fan base, too, by the way.

George Barnett - another marvellous Brit: http://youtu.be/A4N3S9a_Jqs

reply

The negative viewpoint of the choice of Pattinson is hardly surprising. He does have a tough road ahead changing the narrow, limited view some have of him following Twilight. Obviously, the view is entrenched in some and will never change, but, he will make headway if he keeps making the choices he is. He is working with a broad range of film makers, established and emerging. Regardless of whether there is a desire to tap into his fanbase (honestly, that is a desire with most casting including that of Cumberbatch), this project is promising, the story very interesting. If some can dismiss it at this early stage due to a limited view of an individual's potential, their loss.

reply

Here is a short version of the NY Times Talk with David Cronenberg and Rob. The conversation does
go into why he hired Rob.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsuWapmcloo

Here is part of the RT Cosmopolis interview with DC

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cosmopolis/news/1925743/interview_davi d_cronenberg_on_cosmopolis/

Interview: David Cronenberg on Cosmopolis
The director on how he came to convince Robert Pattinson to star in his latest film, a surreal adaptation of Don DeLillo's infamous satire on modern capitalism.
by Luke Goodsell | Friday, Aug. 17 2012
Robert Pattinson. There were plenty of people who were a little surprised when you picked him for the role, but I have to say he gives a really sublime performance. You knew what you were doing, clearly -- so what was it that drew you to Robert?

Cronenberg: Well, casting always starts in a very pragmatic way. It's, "Is this guy the right age for the character?" "Does he have the right sort of physique, the right screen presence?" "Is he available, and if so, can you afford him? Does he want to do it?" You know, all of those things. But then you do your homework as a director, more specifically, and you watch stuff. I watched Little Ashes, in which Rob plays a young Salvador Dali; I watched Remember Me; I watched the first Twilight movie. And I watched -- interestingly enough, I suppose, because people wouldn't expect it -- but you watch interviews with the guy on YouTube, you know. I want to get an idea of his sense of humor, his sense of himself, the way he handles himself, his intelligence -- all of those things you can't really tell from watching an actor play a role in a movie. I suppose in the old days you meet the guy and hang out, and go to a bar or whatever -- [laughs] -- but these days nobody has time for that, or the money, and so you do it some other way. And once I'd done all that stuff, I thought, This is the guy I want. I thought, He'd be terrific and I actually think he's a very underrated actor -- and it would be my pleasure to prove that by casting him.

I think a lot of people will share that opinion after seeing the film. Was he difficult to get? I mean, he's clearly up for it, based on his performance, but how do you go about getting Robert Pattinson?

Cronenberg: Basically, I wrote the script before I went into production on A Dangerous Method, so Rob got the script about a year before we were really shooting. He's a very down to earth guy, and he was surprised that anybody would want him. [Laughs] It sounds odd, I know. Of course, he knows that his name adds value because of his star power, but he knew my movies, and he knew I was a serious director, and I think he was nervous, you know -- I think he was afraid, because he knew it was good. He immediately loved the script, especially because he thought it was very funny -- and the movie is funny; a lot of people maybe don't see that the first time around -- and the script was funny as well. But also he had seen enough of the now conventional stuff that he gets offered to see how different this was, and how it stood out -- and the quality of Don's writing, because the dialogue is really 100 per cent from the novel.

So I really had to convince him that I knew he was the right guy and that he could do it. And you'd be very surprised that a lot of actors, and very experienced ones, too -- not just young ones -- they worry that they don't want to wreck your movie. They don't want to be the bad thing in your movie that brings it down. They need to be convinced that they're good enough, especially if they know it's good. He said -- and I know this 'cause of interviews that we've done together, and I hear him saying these things -- that usually the dialogue is so bad that you, the actor, figure that you are responsible for trying to make it interesting, just by the way you spin it. But in this case the dialogue was great, and it's a completely reversed worry: "Am I good enough to get the best out of this?" So it took me about 10 days, and Rob said he was afraid to call me back because he's used to *beep* directors, like all actors do -- but because I'd written the script he couldn't do that with me. [Laughs] You know, actors can really tie themselves in knots, when really he just should've said, "Yes, I'll do it."

Was there a point during shooting where he realized, "Hey, I am good enough for this," or did you have to encourage him constantly?

Cronenberg: No, it's not like he's so insecure or anything like that. I never saw any of that on the set. I know he was constantly checking himself out and wondering if it was good, but I didn't feel that he needed an inordinate amount of that kind of encouragement, really. We just did it. He could tell. The best way for an actor to tell, ultimately, is that it wasn't long before we were just doing one or two takes of everything -- and that means the actor knows it's working.

Well it appears that you've started something of a trend now David, because Werner Herzog has just cast him in his next film.

Cronenberg: Well that pleases me no end, and I think that obviously this is what Rob needs. They just need to see that he's really, really good and really, really subtle; and that he can do a lot of different stuff. Once you break through that barrier then I think there'll be no turning back.

reply

[deleted]

Probably because HE is the actor they WANT! DUH!!! I'm afraid I'd trust the judgement of many fine directors over yours. Sorry, but really??

reply

Pattinson HIMSELF made that "I'm unhygenic... I don't like to bathe" joke, much to the dismay of his fanbase and the delight of his detractors. What can I say? He's British and has a self-deprecatory sense of humor. I know his fans have regretted his ever saying that but if you seriously think he LOOKS unbathed all the time, you need your eyes checked (or your prejudice examined).

I'm not going to say anything about his looks. They are in the eyes of the beholder. Subjective.

His talent. He's a work in progress. He's got something raw in him. I saw that in the first Twilight (the next ones pretty much ignored him and focused on the wolves) and I thought he was excellent in Remember Me and Cosmopolis. It didn't help that the former was trashed by the critics and the latter was a brilliant tale almost unfilmable. But, there you go: Cronenberg took it on and ran with it. It's almost no one's cuppa tea but the few who GET Cronenberg and Don DeLillo.

I don't blame you. You're not alone in your incomprehension.

---
"Fear not for the future; weep not for the past." -- Percy Bysshe Shelley
---

reply

Probably because HE is the actor the directors WANT! DUH!!! I'm afraid I'd trust the judgement of many fine directors over yours. Sorry, but really??

reply

I'm pretty pleased with his casting. I really felt Brad Pitt was an awful choice. I hope they make this movie....finally!

D

"The children being kidnapped and enslaved isn't portrayed in a particularly malicious fashion."

reply

Right??

It's astonishing the number of women who have the wrong idea about what is and is not attractive in a man!

Why, some women even MARRY these unattractive men... start families with them, love them, grow old with them... without ever finding out that the man they were attracted to and loved and eventually married was actually UNattractive.

Incredible.

reply