Post: #26

If she's worth 60 mil then I think she should put her money where her mouth is.

Apparently, says Portman, there's a huge market vacuum for movies centred around strong female leads. She should sink every last penny of hers into such a movie and obviously it will come back to her several fold when all the people of the world, starved for such content, shower her with accolades and ticket sales.

Post: #27

A leftist putting their money where their mouth is?
What an uncanny premise...

Post: #28

I read somewhere that Alicia Vikander snubbed her for the role in Ex Machine. The fact that Alicia basically looks like a younger hotter version of her with no problems parading around nude must have set off Natalie.

Post: #29

(11-29-2016 06:33 AM)James Bond Next level Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 08:59 PM)Roosh Wrote:  “Even if they’ll make the occasional sexist comment, they still have a central woman character who has a personality,” she said.

Apart from all the underlying feminist crap, don't you think she's right? I mean back then, women were better moms, knew how to handle an household, were more feminine, way less slutty and hadn't a mind full of SJW ideas. A man could respect her woman. Now with all this girls degenerates who only appeal to the sexual (cum dumpster), no wonder we can't respect them (although some are still exceptions of course). Start working on something else than just the pure sexual and then come back to talk to us.

Feminism says women acting like women is bad. Women are supposed to act like men instead. Anything we can do they can do better! That's why we keep getting women shoehorned into these parts that should obviously be played by a man, and damn few women in natural roles.

The whole Bechdel test crap feminists whine about illustrates the problem. Women acting naturally in real life fail the Bechdel test if observed for any length of time. And somehow that's a Bad Thing, just because some crackpot carpetmuncher said so.

Why women are so obsessed with aping men is beyond me. I like being a man, and I wouldn't change that no matter what, but it ain't like it's a bed of roses. What kind of retard trades in a comfortable life of maintaining a house and raising kids with a pretty fair amount of free time for a career, cats, and 50 years of post-wall regret?

Post: #30

If Hollywood cared about writing craft like it used to, instead of forcing teams of Ivy Leaguers to push the latest progressive agenda, maybe Natalie would get better parts.

Also someone should tell Hollywood it is acceptable to still make films about people in between Gods (super hero shit) and Demons (indie style movies that try to show the biggest degenerates as basic good humans).

One of the greatest movies of all time was about a fired reporter and a spoiled rich girl meeting on a bus ride (It Happened One Night).

Now he would be a PTSD case from Iraq with an adopted African child and she would actually be a she-he riding to Mexico to get his/her cheap transition surgery while on the run from cartels for the pound of coke they stole. And to promote the film the actors and director would go on various talk shows to tell us what the movie is "really" about, and how it is the most important piece of philosophy known to man, and you have to see it (not because it is solid but) because the message is a really really important one for you to accept and if you don't then you are obviously a bigot so fuck you... but see it anyway. Fuck you.

Post: #31

(11-29-2016 09:10 AM)Vicious Wrote:  I read somewhere that Alicia Vikander snubbed her for the role in Ex Machine. The fact that Alicia basically looks like a younger hotter version of her with no problems parading around nude must have set off Natalie.

In case you're wondering what Alicia looks like compared to Natalie - and yes, Alicia's a factory-fresher replacement part for Natalie:

Post: #32

The last interesting movie she was in was called "Mars Attacks!".

Quote:“Even if they’ll make the occasional sexist comment, they still have a central woman character who has a personality,” she said. “Now I feel like movies are all about white men and then you get a couple that happen to be about women.”

So she is "otherizing" the they. Replace the "they" with a minority group and she will be doxxed and kicked off twitter. The very thing she is criticizing (Hollywood) is saying "good job being a good liberal feminist Natalie"

Quote:Portman went on to speak about playing a younger Ruth Bader Ginsberg in the upcoming biopic On the Basis of Sex, explaining that the project was put on hold until the right female director was found. “With the issues of gender discrimination in Hollywood right now, how could we not do that?,” she said.

99% of films who have this kind of nitpicking don't do well, Natalie.

Example #7,439,051 of Hollywood indirectly ripping the people who pay them money to watch their movies.

Post: #33

(11-28-2016 08:59 PM)Roosh Wrote:  http://time.com/4583797/natalie-portman-...white-men/

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest...net-worth/

Funny, considering that Natalie made (tens of) millions with the one and only asset she ever had: her beautiful-thin-White-woman privilege.

How can a beautiful, thin White woman, have the nerve to complain about privileges and especially so-called "White-man privilege"? I mean, beautiful, thin White (or Asian, matter of fact) women are the absolute, world-wide Gods and idols of our 21st century... And, unless they are totally stupid (or post-wall), they have precious nothing to do to get favors, sex and plenty of easy money (from beta-orbiters or actual lovers): talk about privileges!

Post: #34

Vikander is nowhere near as hot as Portman in her prime.

In fact, Portman is probably one of the only actresses I would consider truly beautiful+sexy.

In her prime she was -- for my tastes -- pretty near a 10. At least in terms of her face. Being a breast man, I could have done with one cup size up, but there would have been no complaining.

Funny story -- I ran into her once in London. I mean that literally. I was going to the opening of Garden State at the London Film Festival, and was running late.

I saw a crowd in front of the theatre and just thought it was stupid people mulling about (happens a lot at festivals, and I have no patience for it). So I elbowed my way to the front door.

When I angled around the last guy in front of me, I realized that the "crowd" all had cameras. And I was standing next to Natalie Portman all decked out in evening wear. They were paparazzi taking photos of her.

She's even better looking in real life. Or...well... she was then.

Post: #35

(11-30-2016 11:23 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  Vikander is nowhere near as hot as Portman in her prime.

In fact, Portman is probably one of the only actresses I would consider truly beautiful+sexy.

In her prime she was -- for my tastes - pretty near a 10

Post: #36

She's 35. At 35, even the most carefully-preserved actress can see the wall approaching. It's usually at this time that they start complaining that they're no longer getting the roles they got when they were 20 - soccer moms instead of femme fatales.

Typically an actress will go through this "Patriarchywood" phase when they're in their mid-late twenties. That's when it begins to dawn on them that they are only stars because they were hot at 18-20, and just having a little more talent or luck or recognizability than the other hot 18-20s they were competing against gave their career enough inertia to lift them out of the commodity pool. Their trajectory has not yet peaked, and the conceit that their still-healthy celebrity status gives them a megaphone combined with the secret suspicion that their success is unearned leads them to "speak out" about how "unfair" it all is for (other) actresses. (Which is the same guilt-gymnastics thought process behind e.g.: the legacy rich funding socialist causes.)

Actress trajectory:
- <8: child star, low expectations of talent, just need to be precociously cute or mawkishly tragic
- 8-12: generally unmarketable in any foreground role, having lost child-like cuteness/vulnerability and going through various physical and emotional upheavals
- 12-15: has to be believable in sassy-smart-schoolgirl roles, or attractive in a plausibly non-pedo way in teen romance and young-adult drama roles
- 16-17: magic age in which her adult appearance is blossoming; she can take mature/mildly sexualized roles while still appearing wholesome or innocent
- 18-20: golden hour, in which she is old enough to fully deploy her sexual attractiveness to "transform" her child-star image into a grownup-actress image and gain name recognition
- 21-22: critical period in which her actual talent must come to the fore to set her apart from the 18-20 cohort as more than just an interchangeable sexy starlet
- 23-28: dining out on success in the previous stages, without a lot of effort; dawning recognition that her position is due to her looks and ability to exploit them; speaks out on the sexism of Hollywood, esp. its preference for young hotties over the fat and ugly girls who are just as talented and beautiful you guyz!
- 29-32: a surge in mature, serious roles in which she can plausibly portray an established, successful, but still attractively young-ish professional woman, which blinds her to the underlying implication that she's rapidly aging out of the hot-young-thing category
- 33-35: dry spell; now speaks out on the ageism of Hollwood, shown by the lack of roles for actresses in their peak, prime, perfected, matured, grown-up, or other euphemism for "middle age";
- 36-38: indian summer for wall-survivors and wall-evaders, who win the "last shot at love" drama and rom-com roles
- 39-45: dry spell, with time off for menopause, wall-adjustments, and massive cosmetic surgery
- 46-50: assertiveness replaces sexiness as dominant role trait, in pale imitation of the 'gravitas' and stocism of actors of similar age; roles are serious mothers, bossy corporate executives, powerful politicians, gritty police detectives, or marginally plausible cougars
- >51: relegated to grannies, witches, professors, "magic seniors", and other non-sexual roles

She's trying to stretch out her career arc. Can't really blame her for that, I guess.

Post: #37

I came in here to say some shit, but realized it had already all been said.

Except that Leon: The Professional is still one of my favorite movies of all time.

I like her in the same way that I like all actors I like: just do your fucking job and stay out of the shit in the real world that affects real people.

Post: #38

(11-30-2016 12:02 PM)Laner Wrote:  I came in here to say some shit, but realized it had already all been said.

Except that Leon: The Professional is still one of my favorite movies of all time.

I like her in the same way that I like all actors I like: just do your fucking job and stay out of the shit in the real world that affects real people.

Ditto on both latter points.

In "Leon", she was probably 10-11, but could still pull off the tragic child thing quite well. She's an outlier - she's been stretching the age ranges through all her career.

Post: #39

Meanwhile, cry-me-a-river De Niro is still AWOL... Robert, some input on mister Trump's victory? Another youtube video maybe?

By the way, De Niro might "escape" to Canada, but probably not to France, on account of an old French arrest warrant, more or less forgotten, possibly or not void, waiting for him... warrant for participating in a ring of hooker prostitution, plus threatening the life of a French-Vietnamese D.A (which makes him, de Niro, exactly what he accused D. Trump to be: a "racist pig and buffoon")... Those Hollywood famous people are indeed unsavory human beings.

Post: #40

She's a good actor but she's full of shit. She should just stick to acting instead of spreading undue hysteria about the mythical mis-representation of women in film.

American cinema is about making money. If casting primarily minorities and women in lead roles made more money then they would do it. You want to see more female leads? Use your $60m and make some.

Fuck, the biggest film production we've since this millennium (Star Wars reboot) is led by a female. Look at the list of big screen films released in 2016 in the US. How many were female led? Is she saying 50% of all films should be led by women? Does she think 50% of all big-production lead-role-worthy actors in hollywood are women?

Successful white women have got to be the most vocal in the Hollywood community about alleged "injustice" in their industry and everywhere else. These people pretend to be other people on camera for our entertainment. Why the fuck should we be listening to them? Just make movies and count your money.

Post: #41

(11-30-2016 12:02 PM)Laner Wrote:  I came in here to say some shit, but realized it had already all been said.

Except that Leon: The Professional is still one of my favorite movies of all time.

I like her in the same way that I like all actors I like: just do your fucking job and stay out of the shit in the real world that affects real people.

Leon was about Jean Reno for me, and not that gobby, wooden faced twat who got him killed.

Also, most writers are male are they not? If she wants more women why not go into writing, producing etc and get backing for projects for female roles.

Women centred movies are only successful when they are centred on emotions and men.

Post: #42

(11-30-2016 03:08 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Leon was about Jean Reno for me, and not that gobby, wooden faced twat who got him killed.

Fantastic movie and Jean's best role by far.

(11-30-2016 03:08 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Women centred movies are only successful when they are centred on emotions and men.

You bring up a very interesting point here I'd like to put a microscope on...

It's possible this is culturally/societally driven, but when the lead role is a woman we tend to like to see them vulnerable, emotional, and in someway pursuing love. They can satisfy a non-emotional and/or non-love role when they are a supporting role, but not the main. We like seeing women at the will of their emotions and falling for someone. To see them another way makes them difficult to identify with and honestly difficult to care about. Women aren't supposed to be stoic uncaring robots.

I think of Terminator. The first Terminator has Sarah Connor as the main character/lead role (Linda Hamilton) and she is vulnerable and falls for her protector Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn). In terminator 2 she has no love interest and is far more gruff, tough, and masculine - but she also only plays a support role in the film with John Connor (Edward Furlong) being the lead role.

I also think of horror movies with female leads but no love interest and/or no child to protect. It makes them difficult to connect with.

We like seeing males independent, unhinged, and lone wolf. They are masculine. We do not like seeing women playing masculine roles as it is does not naturally suit them. When you force a round peg into a square hole then it leaves some to be desired.

I also think of Mad Max: Fury Road and how one of the moist poignant scenes was when Max (Tom Hardy) was saving Furiosa (Charlize Theron) and he tells her his name. As cheesy and stereotypical as it may have been, I would have liked to see them kiss there, or for some sort of love interest between Furiosa and Max to spark as it would have made her character a little more warm and identifiable. That said, I wouldn't exactly call her the lead role in that film but I don't think it's accurate to say Max is the lead either.

Post: #43

=







I get she is trying to save her career by being pro-everything mainstream, against white males, against men in general, etc. I get that the media is pro feminism and she needs to maintain that view, movies are her source of income, I can't fault her for trying to bank some cash. However lots of guys(not on RVF) are idolizing this chick to an almost comedic extent...

Post: #44

(11-30-2016 03:52 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 03:08 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Leon was about Jean Reno for me, and not that gobby, wooden faced twat who got him killed.

Fantastic movie and Jean's best role by far.

(11-30-2016 03:08 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Women centred movies are only successful when they are centred on emotions and men.

You bring up a very interesting point here I'd like to put a microscope on...

It's possible this is culturally/societally driven, but when the lead role is a woman we tend to like to see them vulnerable, emotional, and in someway pursuing love. They can satisfy a non-emotional and/or non-love role when they are a supporting role, but not the main. We like seeing women at the will of their emotions and falling for someone. To see them another way makes them difficult to identify with and honestly difficult to care about. Women aren't supposed to be stoic uncaring robots.

I think of Terminator. The first Terminator has Sarah Connor as the main character/lead role (Linda Hamilton) and she is vulnerable and falls for her protector Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn). In terminator 2 she has no love interest and is far more gruff, tough, and masculine - but she also only plays a support role in the film with John Connor (Edward Furlong) being the lead role.

I also think of horror movies with female leads but no love interest and/or no child to protect. It makes them difficult to connect with.

We like seeing males independent, unhinged, and lone wolf. They are masculine. We do not like seeing women playing masculine roles as it is does not naturally suit them. When you force a round peg into a square hole then it leaves some to be desired.

I also think of Mad Max: Fury Road and how one of the moist poignant scenes was when Max (Tom Hardy) was saving Furiosa (Charlize Theron) and he tells her his name. As cheesy and stereotypical as it may have been, I would have liked to see them kiss there, or for some sort of love interest between Furiosa and Max to spark as it would have made her character a little more warm and identifiable. That said, I wouldn't exactly call her the lead role in that film but I don't think it's accurate to say Max is the lead either.

Working in a cinema gave me a front row view of what women like in films.

A particular breed of young women love horror, it makes them feel alive and taps into their safe but bad boy lust.

Sex & the City. Women who could be considered MILFs, cougars and younger women who love the life style fall for this smorgasbord of high flying independent life, sex, men and metropolitan consumerism. that is a full frontal assault on their emotions.

Action films - "I want to FUCK that guy".

Emotional films with a female heroine; Changeling starring Angelina Jolie. WHen a movie centres on female struggle it will be relatively well at the box office but not blockbuster material.

In regards to her bashing white males in Hollywood.

A black man named Will Smith would like to have a word. His recent box office flops and off-screen bashing of Trump supporters has not endeared him to the paying public but he was one of the top actors in the world and still is.

People lined up to see this guy in movies because they liked him then, not so much now. There is even a British black actor playing the gate keeper in Thor 1, 2 & 3 (out next year). A Nordic mythical character who is white was made black? How racist!

There are always rumours of him playing James Bond. "The first black James Bond. I fucking hate it because instead of credentials we get sensationalism and then he is automatically cast as an outsider because he is black.

Its bullshit and it reeks of American metropolitan white segregation policies which is infecting Western Europe, especially the UK.

Post: #45

I recall reading a Warhammer fantasy novel way back when I was 14/15 years old.
Well before being 'red-pill'.
I doubt the original Matrix had even been out long enough (if at all) for the concept of the red-pill to even be a thing in a cultural sense, let alone a manosphere sense..

Anyway, the novel dealt with a female half-vampire something or other, travelling along with an acting troupe.
There was another character as that of an aging actress.
Plus a young actress ready to steal the spotlight.

Part of the internal monologue of the aging actress, was her realization & response to the idea of a female actress only being as viable as her youth & beauty.

Even though I was only 14/15 years old at the time, I had no difficulty in understanding that premise, even though that was the first time I encountered said premise.
How these real-life actresses immersed in the acting game can't see it happening from a mile off, is either outright foolishness or mere hubris.

"I'll always be a star! I'm the greatest...!"

((("Hey chick, that 20y/o honey has perkier tits that bounce... just... right... Take a hike lady.")))

Post: #46

(11-30-2016 03:52 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 03:08 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Leon was about Jean Reno for me, and not that gobby, wooden faced twat who got him killed.

Fantastic movie and Jean's best role by far.

(11-30-2016 03:08 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Women centred movies are only successful when they are centred on emotions and men.

You bring up a very interesting point here I'd like to put a microscope on...

It's possible this is culturally/societally driven, but when the lead role is a woman we tend to like to see them vulnerable, emotional, and in someway pursuing love. They can satisfy a non-emotional and/or non-love role when they are a supporting role, but not the main. We like seeing women at the will of their emotions and falling for someone. To see them another way makes them difficult to identify with and honestly difficult to care about. Women aren't supposed to be stoic uncaring robots.

I think of Terminator. The first Terminator has Sarah Connor as the main character/lead role (Linda Hamilton) and she is vulnerable and falls for her protector Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn). In terminator 2 she has no love interest and is far more gruff, tough, and masculine - but she also only plays a support role in the film with John Connor (Edward Furlong) being the lead role.

I also think of horror movies with female leads but no love interest and/or no child to protect. It makes them difficult to connect with.

We like seeing males independent, unhinged, and lone wolf. They are masculine. We do not like seeing women playing masculine roles as it is does not naturally suit them. When you force a round peg into a square hole then it leaves some to be desired.

I also think of Mad Max: Fury Road and how one of the moist poignant scenes was when Max (Tom Hardy) was saving Furiosa (Charlize Theron) and he tells her his name. As cheesy and stereotypical as it may have been, I would have liked to see them kiss there, or for some sort of love interest between Furiosa and Max to spark as it would have made her character a little more warm and identifiable. That said, I wouldn't exactly call her the lead role in that film but I don't think it's accurate to say Max is the lead either.

That was the beauty of Leon. It was the lone wolf who never thought that there was anything more important in life than himself and his routines. But there was; innocence. Even the manipulative innocence of pubescent girl is enough to trigger the alpha instinct of protection.

Once that instinct is triggered, death is not a terrible thing. I would die for my son and not even think, though it would be terrible for him to grow up without me. I pray that it never comes to this, but its a situation as old as the first man.

Post: #47

(11-30-2016 11:46 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 11:23 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  Vikander is nowhere near as hot as Portman in her prime.

In fact, Portman is probably one of the only actresses I would consider truly beautiful+sexy.

In her prime she was -- for my tastes - pretty near a 10

Post: #48

I think the most beautiful actress ever was Audrey Hepburn, and Portman kind of had that vibe.

The lesson to learn though is that even Audrey Hepburn hit the wall. I won't link to pictures of an old Audrey, but they're out there.

(11-30-2016 11:23 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  Vikander is nowhere near as hot as Portman in her prime.

In fact, Portman is probably one of the only actresses I would consider truly beautiful+sexy.

In her prime she was -- for my tastes -- pretty near a 10. At least in terms of her face. Being a breast man, I could have done with one cup size up, but there would have been no complaining.

Post: #49

I wouldn't put Audrey Hepburn as the most beautiful actress, but she's certainly very attractive and feminine in a way that is pretty much lost today.



Girls could do worse than emulate Audrey Hepburn in more ways than by just hacking their hair off.

Too bad most girls choose to idolize Katharine Hepburn instead.

Post: #50

(12-01-2016 02:55 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 11:46 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 11:23 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  Vikander is nowhere near as hot as Portman in her prime.

In fact, Portman is probably one of the only actresses I would consider truly beautiful+sexy.

In her prime she was -- for my tastes - pretty near a 10

She's good looking, no doubt, but a 10 would be hard to muster. Not much tits, no ass, and a good face. WB, but would not pedestalize: