X-Men: Apocalypse Will Be Jennifer Lawrence's Last X-Film

[hermes]

I came here to say that I don't understand the love Lawrence gets as an actress, but it seems like it is a fairly common opinion. Most of her performances has been extremely wooden.

I am not surprised for her departure, after she being casted for more "Oscar dramas", I bet she really got to regret having signed those "lowbrow and childish" franchise movies like X-Men and Hunger Games. I also think the character growing presence in the narrative comes as a response of her being the hottest star in those movies (outside of Jackman). I think, unlike Wolverine, the heavy makeup makes the character easy to replace, but we are not going to see a lot of Mystique in the future.

 

[The_Darkness]

My only regret is that X-Men:Apocalypse won't be her last movie at all. We don't need more flat actors and actresses.

Ouch, vindictive much? You could wish for her to improve, but instead you just want her to get out and get replaced? Yikes.

Okay, I'll be the odd one out - I really liked Jennifer Lawrence in both Days of Future Past and First Class. She brought a complexity to Mystique that hadn't been there for the original trilogy.

You may be confusing how the script gave the character more depth with her somehow playing a role in that.

The writers gave the character more depth, she did not. Sadly enough, the child actress was better at it than she was.

No, I'm not confused.

The script gave Mystique more depth and Jennifer Lawrence carried it. These are not distinct events - one would not have worked as well without the other.

However, we clearly have different opinions on her acting ability, so I don't see the two of us agreeing any time soon on this topic. Agree to disagree?

 

[rgrekejin]

I think it says everything you need to know about the situation that it was only when I saw "Jennifer Lawrence to stop playing Mystique!" headlines that I realized that Rebecca Romijn had ever stopped playing Mystique.

Seriously, Mystique only exists in the movies as a vehicle for CGI and makeup anyway. Who plays her is completely irrelevant. Heck, if in the next movie she was entirely CGI, and played by no one, I don't think I'd really notice or care.

 

[Lightknight]

My only regret is that X-Men:Apocalypse won't be her last movie at all. We don't need more flat actors and actresses.

Ouch, vindictive much? You could wish for her to improve, but instead you just want her to get out and get replaced? Yikes.

"Vindictive" is an unreasoned, passionate desire for revenge. As far as I know she's done me no harm and I haven't I indicated any desire for her leaving acting as being out of any such harm.

Ergo, it is by definition not vindictive. You could use a term like "critical" and that would be apt.

I am critical of her deplorable acting skills, yes. She has no place in AAA movies as far as I've seen. She got a really big roll that catapulted her into the spotlight too soon or without warrant and she's been riding that fame ever since. You're supposed to be critical of artists and their work.

If she gets better then I'll relent. Until then, I'm doing nothing wrong by not wanting her to kill movies I'd otherwise enjoy with her deadpan and uninspired acting. She's not ready now for the big leagues. Time to throw her back to the minor league and let her return if she gets better. There's no anger, I don't dislike or know her as a person. I only know what I've seen on the screen and it's a shame that actresses with acting abilities well beyond hers got passed over for them just because she's popular thanks to a kid's movie. It's like Daniel Radcliffe. He was a really bad actor in Harry Potter and everyone went nuts for him. But even he acknowledges his acting was rubish in the films.

The thing is, I don't know if she even wants to get better. She considers acting to be dumb, a nothing job. It comes across in her acting that she's not really into it. The only film I've ever liked her in was Silver Lining's Playbook and that was because the character she was playing was socially awkward so it played to her regular acting style and she didn't take me out of the movie like she usually does. So maybe she has types of roles that she would be good in. But displaying wide ranges of emotion? Nope. Not unless it's broody deadpan.

Okay, I'll be the odd one out - I really liked Jennifer Lawrence in both Days of Future Past and First Class. She brought a complexity to Mystique that hadn't been there for the original trilogy.

You may be confusing how the script gave the character more depth with her somehow playing a role in that.

The writers gave the character more depth, she did not. Sadly enough, the child actress was better at it than she was.

No, I'm not confused.

The script gave Mystique more depth and Jennifer Lawrence carried it. These are not distinct events - one would not have worked as well without the other.

However, we clearly have different opinions on her acting ability, so I don't see the two of us agreeing any time soon on this topic. Agree to disagree?

"Carried" it means she made it better. That the writing was bad but she, through her skill or whatever, carried it on her shoulders in some herculean rescue attempt. She didn't, she read her lines and then went back to her trailer where she did whatever "better" things she clearly had to do. The writing was there and didn't need to be carried. She did poorly and several critics called her out on it.

So you can think I have some sort of personal vendetta against her or you can accept that some people just genuinely don't like her ability to act in most of the roles she plays. Look at this thread in fact. You've already acknowledged that you're the odd one out with your claims. Why do you think that is?

 

[The_Darkness]

SNIP

"Carried" it means she made it better. That the writing was bad but she, through her skill or whatever, carried it on her shoulders in some herculean rescue attempt. She didn't, she read her lines and then went back to her trailer where she did whatever "better" things she clearly had to do. The writing was there and didn't need to be carried. She did poorly and several critics called her out on it.

Or by "carried" I mean that she was given a difficult task, and I feel that she pulled it off. As in the sense she "carried it out". I don't mean to imply that the writing was bad - it wasn't.
I feel that the writing was good, the directing was good, and the acting was good. Except clearly you and I disagree on that last point. (Which is fine - believe it or not, but I'm not actually trying to change your opinion.)

She considers acting to be dumb, a nothing job.

I'm assuming that's what you think, as opposed to being a thing that she's actually said at some point?

So you can think I have some sort of personal vendetta against her or you can accept that some people just genuinely don't like her ability to act in most of the roles she plays.

I don't think you have a personal vendetta against her. I think you were being hyperbolic with the call for her to never act again, and although being hyperbolic is nothing unusual on the internet, I called you out on it anyway.

I can and do accept that some people genuinely don't like her acting. Where did I say that I didn't? I've merely been defending my own opinion: I like the acting that she's done in the X-Men movies. (And thanks for reminding me about Silver Linings Playbook - that's somewhere on my to-watch list.)

Look at this thread in fact. You've already acknowledged that you're the odd one out with your claims. Why do you think that is?

By liking her I'm the odd one out in this thread. In the world? Not really. She's got a fanbase (who are FAR more passionate about her than I am), she's got awards, and she's got directors who are quite happy to use her in movies. And yes, she's also got plenty of people who dislike her. So people feel differently about her. So what?

And I'm really not sure what you're implying by that last question. That I'm wrong? By what measure, popular vote? It's an opinion.
So I liked her acting of Mystique - sue me.

 

[Vykrel]

ITT: people blaming the performer for the writing content. folks, if you have a problem with how Miss Lawrence did not play Mystique in the same dark and lethal way that Rebecca Romijn did, you are being idiotic. she first portrayed the character as someone who was nearly FORTY YEARS YOUNGER than she is in the first X-Men film. Days of Future Past takes place just a decade later, and her character has changed quite a bit, but is still not the hyper-lethal and villainous woman that she is to become down the line. do you people really not understand the concept of character development?

she has been playing the role exactly how it is written, and she is doing a damned fine job. i suspect that Apocalypse will show Mystique having gone through another big change, but you people will complain if she isnt exactly how she is TWENTY YEARS LATER.

Edit: i would also like to point out how lame it is that you people are upset that Mystique is no longer a one-dimensional character. Rebecca Romijn played her version of the character just as well, but she was a much more boring character. very emotionless, little dialogue; basically a glorified sidekick. if that is what you want, then i weep for writers everywhere.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Characters die and come back, are remade, redesigned, reimagined, what-ifed, rebooted and dropped into and out of teams all the time in comics and that's no surprise seeing how long some of these series have been running. If comic books heroes are gonna have any kind of enduring box-office success the public has to get used to any X-Man, Captain America, Iron Man, etc., as iconic characters that can and will have many actors playing them with different takes and styles. While RDJ might be Iron Man and Hugh Jackman might be Wolverine, the truth is, no matter how much it hurts, Iron Man and Wolverine aren't only RDJ and Hugh Jackman (sorry, Hugh.)

You are right about characters in comics being rejigged constantly and to an extent, about RDJ and Jackman. But the difference in movies and comics is huge and a change in actor is a massive change indeed. For the MCU in particular, the actors are crucial since the whole thing is predicated and enjoyed above all for one simple reason...continuity.

You mentioned Bond and that's an excellent example, as well as the different Batmans (Batmen?) over the years. Each actor did something different in their time as Bond and we, the audience can discuss the pros and cons of Connery's Bond, Moore's Bond, Brosnan's Bond etc. all day. In credit to Broccoli/MGM, the Bond films were continuous with each other right up until Craig's first outing that was a reboot. But we the audience, as well as the cast that remained (M, Q, Moneypenny) bought the new actor being the same character and the show simply went on.

It's a bit harder for the MCU since the whole schtick, Pre-Avengers, was Samuel L. turning up in all the movies and saying he's putting a team together. All these different films with common threads. Each actor reprises the role in each movie. The case of Iron Man is somewhat unique in that he's not a particularly famous superhero nor did he transcend the page into pop culture as others have...until RDJ came along and made IM into a breakout success story.

The bottom line is that actors get older, get bored, get other acting gigs, etc. and eventually want to move on, while the characters on screen never age. It is possible to recast them, but I think for the MCU it will be much harder than Fox/Sony with XMen, F4 or Spiderman. The alternative is to do what I believe Moviebob suggested and have another in-lore character pick up the mantle. One rumour is that Bucky/Winter Soldier can take over as Cap after Chris Evans leaves (which is likely since he's stated adamantly that Cap 3/Avengers 2 will be his last). Iron Man could become War Machine/Rhodey, and maybe some other random could be found "worthy" and become Thor by merit of Mjolnir's approval.

Else the characters may need to quietly retire for some time while Marvel Studios tells other stories (Dr. Strange, Black Panther, Guardians, etc). It's not like they lack for characters about whom to tell stories.

For the XMen, Wolverine will be hard to recast. Jackman defined, owned and nailed the screen version of Wolverine (now dead in the comics I believe). Not to mention the pairing of Stewart and McKellan as nemeses, two of the finest actors alive and arguably the best double act bar none. It wasn't surprising to me that Fox made prequels TBH since it made recasting a little easier to swallow. Who knows what McAvoy et all choose to do after Apocalypse....perhaps we'll need another all new ensemble cast.

 

[Lightknight]

Or by "carried" I mean that she was given a difficult task, and I feel that she pulled it off. As in the sense she "carried it out". I don't mean to imply that the writing was bad - it wasn't.
I feel that the writing was good, the directing was good, and the acting was good. Except clearly you and I disagree on that last point. (Which is fine - believe it or not, but I'm not actually trying to change your opinion.)

Oh, ok. So you just mean she did the job. Sure, she did. Carried typically means a lot more than that as I stated.

I just don't believe that she did a good job. I think any number of other actresses could have pulled it off in far more meaningful ways than her typical deadpan approach.

I'm assuming that's what you think, as opposed to being a thing that she's actually said at some point?

Her words exactly: ?Not to sound rude, but [acting] is stupid,?

Now, the context is that she was comparing it with the likes of firemen or doctors. So it does make for a nice self-depreciation piece.

I think as a person she seems interesting. Like someone who just says what they think and that's interesting to me. But as an actress I don't find her portrayals well and even if she's just playing self-deprecating she says things that agree with that sentiment.

"Don't go see the movies, I'm a troll. I think the movie was great, but their biggest mistake was me." -On watching herself in "The Hunger Games," on "The Late Show with David Letterman." [http://www.businessinsider.com/gross-and-honest-quotes-by-jennifer-lawrence-2013-2#ixzz3VVQtOiBd]

I don't think she was a troll, I do think they made a mistake casting her. Maybe she could improve to the point where casting her in these things make sense but I'd have to see that improved version to know.

I don't think you have a personal vendetta against her.

Then you shouldn't have used the term "vindictive" to describe my comment. Vendetta is from the latin term "vindicta", to say someone is vindictive is to say they're behaving as though they have a vendetta or desire to carry out revenge against the person.

Judgemental, extreme, critical, good looking. Those would fit.

I think you were being hyperbolic with the call for her to never act again, and although being hyperbolic is nothing unusual on the internet, I called you out on it anyway.

Called me out on using hyperbole? Ok, you've done that. Now please explain why you feel that hyperbole is an invalid manner of expression or why you feel like it's your role to combat it on said internet.

I can and do accept that some people genuinely don't like her acting. Where did I say that I didn't? I've merely been defending my own opinion: I like the acting that she's done in the X-Men movies. (And thanks for reminding me about Silver Linings Playbook - that's somewhere on my to-watch list.)

If you like her acting then Silver Linings Playbook is a must-watch. Probably the pinnacle of her career as far as quality is concerned. I actually enjoyed her in that roll even if I found the overall movie a bit off-putting (despite still liking the movie somehow, can't quite explain it).

You're defending your like of her acting, I'm defending my dislike. In order for me to like her in those other roles I'd need her to display a wider range of emotions that convey the notion that she IS that character. The ways she does things currently, it's just me watching someone act. I'm seeing a girl acting like she's Mystique say "X" to Wolverine rather than seeing Mystique say "X" to Wolverine, if you catch my distinction there. She breaks suspension of disbelief and while I don't wish her any harm at all for it, it is still something that is unacceptable to see in AAA titles.

By liking her I'm the odd one out in this thread. In the world? Not really. She's got a fanbase (who are FAR more passionate about her than I am), she's got awards, and she's got directors who are quite happy to use her in movies. And yes, she's also got plenty of people who dislike her. So people feel differently about her. So what?

What I mean is that there is a significant debate about her ability to act. She has fans, sure, so does Daniel Radcliffe who freely admits he's rubbish as an actor (or was, not sure if he's improved).

Being popular doesn't make you good at a thing. Being popular can easily just mean you were cast as a popular character and ergo were made popular.

Anyways, there are several other actors and actresses who are popular and good. You don't see lengthy discussions on whether or not they're good actors/actresses. Instead, you see debates about how they performed a specific roll and whether or not that was up to their usual quality.