Scarlett Johansson reveals she has gotten such bad acting offers for studio movies in the past that she was urged execs not to make the movie.
  • Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    646·
    1 天前

    What a shit article, basically just an ad* for her upcoming movie.

    The titles is all the info on it, they don’t actually talk about the bad ideas. I should have known better.

    Edit: here’s the whole article actually, fuck that website, it doesn’t deserve clicks.

    Text

    Scarlett Johansson told the Los Angeles Times on her “Paper Tiger” press tour that she sometimes gets acting offers from major Hollywood studios that leave her questioning why the movie is even being made. The Oscar nominee’s studio output in recent years has been dominated by her role as Black Widow in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Her last Hollywood tentpole was 2025’s “Jurassic World Rebirth.”

    “Am I making something that other people want to see? Is there an audience for this movie? I’m not making a movie just for me,” Johansson said about the thought process behind selecting roles. “Sometimes I get studio projects that I have to say, ‘I don’t think you should make this. I don’t know who you’re making this for. It seems irresponsible to make this.’”

    While her latest release, “Paper Tiger,” is an independent drama (it was picked up by Neon shortly before its world premiere at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year), Johansson spent much of this year shooting back-to-back studio tentpoles “The Exorcist: Martyrs” (in theaters March 12, 2027) and “The Batman 2” (Feb. 18, 2028). Next up in her production schedule is “Scapegoat,” the new movie from “Midsommar” and “Eddington” filmmaker Ari Aster. The project is backed by A24 and co-stars Jude Law.

    “I don’t know what it is either,” Johansson told the Times about the movie. “I’ll have more information for you after a few weeks. The script is just so intense. It has this immediacy to it that is really different. I’ve never read anything like it before. [My husband] was like, ‘What are you reading?’ Because I kept going, ‘Oh, my God!’”

    Johansson did not name which studio offers were total busts, but she has been open in previous interviews about the studio movies she desperately wanted. One such movie was Alfonso Cuarón’s “Gravity” (the role went to Sandra Bullock) and another was “Iron Man 2” (Emily Blunt originally landed the role of Black Widow but had to drop out due to scheduling conflicts). In a previous Variety interview, Johansson cited losing out on both movies as the moment she went into crisis mode as an actor.

    “I got turned down for two roles — the first was ‘Iron Man 2’ and then the other one was ‘Gravity,’” Johansson said. “I had wanted that role so much. It was sort of the straw that broke the camel’s back. I felt really frustrated and hopeless. Like, ‘Am I doing the right job?’ The work I was being offered felt deeply unfulfilling. I think I was offered every Marilyn Monroe script ever. I was like, ‘Is this the end of the road creatively?’”

    Johansson has long traded off major Hollywood studio movies with edgier indie fare. She’s moving into shooting Aster’s “Scapegoat” after wrapping production on the Warner Bros.-backed “The Batman 2,” her role in which remains a mystery.

    “It was very hard to figure out,” Johansson told “Entertainment Tonight” earlier this month about the superhero sequel. “I don’t know why, whether it was just the role or it was just where I am in my life, but it was just hard to crack it. And that’s all I can say about it.”

      • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.comEnglish
        62·
        23 小时前

        She left Oxfam (the human rights charity) after they criticized her for working with a company that set up illegal factories in the West Bank. She fully stood by her decision and said there’s no right or wrong side of the issue.

        It’s ok to not know about something, but it’s certainly a take to act holier than thou about not knowing it. Most people on Lemmy seem to be pretty aware of the genocide in Gaza and the celebrities that have worked with companies perpetuating it. Her and Paltrow are some pretty mainstream high profile ones that generally come up often because of their involvement with Marvel, especially in contrast to other Marvel actors who have actively campaigned for a ceasefire and more aid (Ruffalo, Hiddleston, Comberbatch, some spideys, Olsen).

        There are obviously a bunch of other celebs that have supported the genocide, and others that stand against it, but I’m just listing some off the top of my head.

          • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.comEnglish
            1·
            19 小时前

            I appreciate you highlighting that there are issues with Oxfam, but I don’t think my statements are really contradictory there.

            Per the wiki page you linked:

            Working with thousands of local partner organizations, we work with people living in poverty striving to exercise their human rights, assert their dignity as full citizens and take control of their lives

            I’m not saying it’s the worlds best charity, or even a good one, and I’m not the one who decided to be an ambassador for it. I just noted that they are a human rights charity and apparently she aligned with them enough to want to be their ambassador, but was no longer interested when she faced criticism from them over a brand deal with a BDS company.

            If their controversy section makes you believe they should not be referred to as a human rights charity, please let me know what you feel would be more appropriate in this context.

            • Senal@programming.devEnglish
              2·
              17 小时前

              It was less the contradiction and more the calling out of an “holier than thou” attitude while also holding up oxfam as a foil,

              Though on a more thorough read it seems more like i misunderstood why the reference was there, so i rescind my reply , with apologies.

              I’m not saying it’s the worlds best charity, or even a good one, and I’m not the one who decided to be an ambassador for it. I just noted that they are a human rights charity and apparently she aligned with them enough to want to be their ambassador, but was no longer interested when she faced criticism from them over a brand deal with a BDS company.

              Fair

              If their controversy section makes you believe they should not be referred to as a human rights charity, please let me know what you feel would be more appropriate in this context.

              I’m not the arbiter of what people are allowed to call something, i personally consider oxfam to be a corporation disguised as a charity but i wouldn’t try and force anyone to adhere to my opinion on that.

              I would however use what i consider supporting evidence of my opinion as a foundation for an argument, as it evident.

              Ultimately “charity” is technically correct, i can’t think of a more appropriate title that isn’t forcing my opinion.