It'll be a year for us but for the characters in the movies it'll be no time at all.
Avengers: Age of Ultron- Grading & Discussion (spoilerific)
- Thread starter Ethros
- Start date
It'll be a year for us but for the characters in the movies it'll be no time at all.
Well now see there's a reason I used the word "if" in that sentence. We don't know one way or the other.
Save for the bit where IM2, Thor & TIH all took place in the same week, so far the MCU has progressed more or less in real time. Not counting TFA & 'Agent Carter' of course. For all we know the time gem will send them a year into the future, or they could spend the whole time out in space fighting.
I didn't see anyone post this, but everyone catch how Robert Downey Jr walked out on interview with a British reporter, when the reporter asked him about his past related to drugs and alcohol.
Hey Robert, reporters are journalists and not just doing an interview with you to promote your films.
Hey Robert, reporters are journalists and not just doing an interview with you to promote your films.
Robert left that part of his life behind him, and doesn't need to be reminded about painfull parts of his past just so a reporter can get a good quote in. So hoorah for RDJ to simply walk out. He was right. This shit is in the past and not important. It's personal, and has nothing to do with the film RDJ was promoting. It was blow beneath the belt. Actors are humans, with pain and regrets. We don't remind the people we know in our lives about their past mistakes and bad choices, so why should be do the same to celebrities?
I don't necessarily disagree with people wanting to put dark times of their lives in the past and leave it that way, but I also think it's arrogant narcissism among some in Hollywood that believes the only role the reporter has is to promote this film.
So what? Where does it say that Downey has to answer any question posed to him?
Some people forget that celebs are human, and that they only excist to do whatever pleases us.
The guy is out there promoting the movie, probably at thirty or forty interviews per day at 5 to 10 minutes on the clip.
The interviewer was just going for the big self promotion "close up".
Good for RDj.
The interviewer was just going for the big self promotion "close up".
Good for RDj.
It's arrogant for this reporter to ask such personal questions. I mean, don't assign roles to them, but think of them as human opposite human. Person against person. Would you then consider it normal and proper for someone to ask such a question of someone else if you don't even know the other person? No, you wouldn't.
I disagree. That notion that journalists are supposed to promote films stars or movie studios I think is a bad premise. They are looking for a story - and RDJ has a past the is fair game IMO when he's being interviewed.
In any case, the whole affair is at a minimum amusing.
Putting a human being in a uncomfortable position is never 'fair game'. You really do not see actors/actresses as humans do you? Only as objects?
I agree with Mage on this one. The 90's was a tough time for RDJ. With him being arrested multiple times and doing all sort of drugs from weed, cocaine, crack and heroin. His career and life started to turn around in 2005, when he did Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Then his career took off again in 2008, with both Iron Man and Tropic Thunder. He had another hit with Sherlock Holmes in 2009. Some projects like The Judge and The Soloist weren't the best received but it was not on the part of RDJ. He's expanding his craft as an actor. That's a success story. We should elevate his successes, not retread his failures.
Give this a read if you have the time.
http://quick-stop-clerk.tumblr.com/post/57584098982/thestarsinbetween-nuwanda13
Stuff like this is personal for me.
My brother suffered through addiction, pretty badly. His life is pretty great right now, bought a house, has a girlfriend, a steady job. Do you think he needs to be reminded of how bad stuff was? He knows. He doesn't arrogant knowitalls to remind him of stuff like that, and it's also private and personal.
Reporters and journalists need to sell their shows/papers/magazines. And sadly, these days, they are willing to hurt others to get results. It doesn't matter to them if the people they interview get hurt or feel insulted. As long as it sells. That's a horrible way to treat someone. RDJ payed his dues, now let's celebrate what he has been doing over the last few years and leave his misery behind us, just like he is trying to do.
FFS, I saw the clip you're talking about. Did you see his reaction? The hurt. The anguish. When the reporter mentioned his father, you could see RDJ's chest tightening. You call that FAIR GAME? I call that public humiliation to score some points.
My brother suffered through addiction, pretty badly. His life is pretty great right now, bought a house, has a girlfriend, a steady job. Do you think he needs to be reminded of how bad stuff was? He knows. He doesn't arrogant knowitalls to remind him of stuff like that, and it's also private and personal.
Reporters and journalists need to sell their shows/papers/magazines. And sadly, these days, they are willing to hurt others to get results. It doesn't matter to them if the people they interview get hurt or feel insulted. As long as it sells. That's a horrible way to treat someone. RDJ payed his dues, now let's celebrate what he has been doing over the last few years and leave his misery behind us, just like he is trying to do.
FFS, I saw the clip you're talking about. Did you see his reaction? The hurt. The anguish. When the reporter mentioned his father, you could see RDJ's chest tightening. You call that FAIR GAME? I call that public humiliation to score some points.
Hugely enjoyable, lots of humour. Elements I really liked were the Banner/Romanoff romance, SW and QS were great additions and the emphasis on protecting civilians, particularly in the 3rd act. Very emotional. As others have said, it does sometimes feel like a series of character moments sandwiched in between huge action setpieces, and personally I preferred the more visceral 'human' stunt action of WS to the CGI slugfests, but it's all marshalled with aplomb.
On the RDJ front, yes the journalist was being a showboating dick (esp. in the wake of his Tarantino face-off). I used to work in this very field and interviewed a ton of actors (and filmmakers). Unless you agree an 'anything goes/all areas' interview (which few will rarely do), there's a tacit understanding you're both there to discuss the agreed subject (their film, their career, their public works, whatever) and to go 'off-piste' is a big risk.
On the RDJ front, yes the journalist was being a showboating dick (esp. in the wake of his Tarantino face-off). I used to work in this very field and interviewed a ton of actors (and filmmakers). Unless you agree an 'anything goes/all areas' interview (which few will rarely do), there's a tacit understanding you're both there to discuss the agreed subject (their film, their career, their public works, whatever) and to go 'off-piste' is a big risk.
The specific purpose of this interview was to promote Age of Ultron, not to intrude of RDJ's personal life. If the reporter wants to do an interview discussing a celebrity's personal life, the proper thing to do is to ask for that in advance so the interviewee can prepare themselves instead of ambushing them under false pretenses during a promotional piece. Actors do those kinds of personal exposé Barbara Walters/Diane Sawyer interviews all the time, including RDJ, but they're not under any obligation to do it when they think they're just going to be promoting their film.
Quit acting like the guy was Woodward and Bernstein uncovering Watergate instead of a reporter doing a fluff piece where he decided to ask some personal questions outside of the agreed upon parameters of the interview in order to get a rise out of his target. He acts all shocked at the reaction, but I'm sure he's delighted, because now he's become the story and he's getting attention for what was supposed to just be a entertainment report. It's shitty gossip-style journalism, and it's insulting for you to compare it to real reporting.
QFT
Recall a few months ago, Amy Adams cancelled an interview minutes before she was scheduled to sit down with NBC on "Today". Adams was there to talk about her new film "Big Eyes". However the people on "Today" wanted to talk about the then recent Sony Hack. Specifically the rates of pay of actors, and why Bradley Cooper was paid more than Adams on American Hustle.
Really shallow shit. They're more interested in getting juicy details to spam on their 24 hours news cycle, as opposed to respecting people's privacy and integrity. Adams didn't want to gossip about money in Hollywood, so she cancelled. Which NBC made a stink about.
And if anyone wants the reporter's rationale:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/26/krishnan-guru-murthy-channel-4-news-robert-downey
it's quite revealing re: his attitude to interviews
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/26/krishnan-guru-murthy-channel-4-news-robert-downey
it's quite revealing re: his attitude to interviews
I can't reconcile the comment 'I do have sympathy for actors' with his behaviour.
*EDIT* He talks about how he had interviews with actors on subject like voilence and sexism and what not. Never does he mention talking about the horrid past one of these actors may have had.
But he wasn't asking RDJ about anything actually topical, was he? He wasn't asking about current events and his opinion on it. No, he was asking a tabloid-esque question, but now is quickly hiding that beneath a 'I had a purpose with it' feedback.
Bull. Have the balls to admit you wanted to score points as the interviewer who dared to call out RDJ. And I could even respect you for admiting that. But this.... this is just childish. Even ending that with a 'I'm still an Iron Man fan', trying to make RDJ a villian here. What a smallminded fellow indeed.
There's even some grounds for discussing addiction in an Iron-Man/Avengers promotional interview with RDJ, in that Iron-Man 2 (and to a lesser extent the other films) adapted some aspects of the "Demon in a Bottle" storyline from the comics to show Tony's alcoholism, though never to the depths that the comics did.
I'd say in that context it would be appropriate to bring the subject up, though again, the reporter's mistake (or rather, deliberate choice) in this case is to think that his role is to be adversarial and ambush RDJ rather than to simply ask him beforehand if that would be okay to discuss and let him decide. There's a time and a place for ambush tactics and investigative journalism, and that's when you're exposing corruption or crime, not when you're interviewing movie stars about their latest projects.
I'd say in that context it would be appropriate to bring the subject up, though again, the reporter's mistake (or rather, deliberate choice) in this case is to think that his role is to be adversarial and ambush RDJ rather than to simply ask him beforehand if that would be okay to discuss and let him decide. There's a time and a place for ambush tactics and investigative journalism, and that's when you're exposing corruption or crime, not when you're interviewing movie stars about their latest projects.
