Michael Fassbender

[Morgane]

Superstardom is possible with new actors. Jennifer Lawrence is a prime example. I think Brie can make it too with her high profile roles coming up. Alicia doesnt have what it takes to be a superstar. She is a good actor and I think she is quite content with that. I could be wrong about that.

Lawrence has yet to prove that she can sell a movie without a franchise attached to her name. Passengers is her big test (same for Pratt). Larson is the new Captain Marvel but people are going to see the new Marvel movie,not the new Larson's movie. Nothing indicates that she will be a BO draw. Evans is Captain America but I wouldn't call him a star.Movie stars are people like DiCaprio,Cruise (he has some flops in US but he's usually a BO draw overseas),Damon,Pitt and Jolie. Judging by her acting references,I think she's more interested in quality projects,mixing mainstream and indie stuff like many other actors.

Umm, Margot Robbie is known. She was in this little film called WOWS with an actor you may be familiar with, Leo DiCaprio. To compare the two actresses reminds me of when Macbeth and Tulip Fever were being put in the same sentence.

I'm comparing Oscar winner Vikander who is promoting Jason Bourne and TLBO with Margot Robbie who was in the WOWS three years ago and she didn't even have this great,iconic role.. It's funny how she wasn't even the "it girl" of that awards season because Lupita was everywhere. According to everyone this is/was going to be her big,breakout year. In this thread Vikander and Robbie can't be put in the same sentence. If Vikander is not "known",I don't see why people should know Robbie/recognize her face and remember her name.. She was on the VF cover simply because she was promoting Suicide Squad. It's the same reason why Vikander got her covers.
And yes,Macbeth and TF are actually comparable. Fassbender and Vikander are the lead actors and,according to a certain someone,Harvey is still planting stories to promote his "powerful couple" But he dumped Macbeth and he's currently dumping Tulip Fever for the same reasons (financial issues,he doesn't know what to do with them,he had/has other priorities) ,even if TF is more accessible than Macbeth.

This is somewhat true as far as ladling out basic facts/soundbites. But take a look at the clusterfuck surrounding the recent Vanity Fair profile of Margot Robbie. She thought the interview was odd, but had no idea what the actual written piece was going to come out like and was quite surprised by the firestorm it caused. Or MF's interview with Camilla Long. Journalists are completely capable of putting a spin on an interview that the subject might have no idea is coming or may not have anything do with how the actual conversation was perceived by them.

This. Fans have this misconception that actors approve everything.. I've read many,many interviews that would have never been approved. Alicia had some bad experiences last year. I've read things in Michael's interviews that would have never been approved by him or his publicist.

On the one hand, she can't stop a reporter speculating that she's wearing her boyfriend's shirt. On the other hand, she or someone on her team had to inform the reporter that she was skyping from her boyfriend's house. That's not necessary information. For all that the journalist knew, she could have been Skyping from anywhere. These bits of info are frequently dropped in her features. That she visited him on the set of Steve Jobs. That she visited him on The Snowman. That she rode on the back of his motorcycle to Barcelona. These are good examples of dropping "privacy".

That story about Barcelona was mentioned by Ghesquiére who met them there. We don't know if these bits came up when her publicist contacted the journalist/when the journalist contacted her or if they came up in their conversations. For example,I remember that she was promoting TMFU and a journalist called her while she was in Costa Rica. The journalist obviously mentioned that she was there but she didn't say that she was on vacation with him and Alicia didn't say anything,of course. The fact that he was with her was confirmed by a twitter sighting at the airport that only those who follow this kind of stuff may possibly know. It's possible that the journalist assumed that she was skyping from his house when she said that she was in Sydney. It's more likely that it came up while she was talking with him. And I don't see any problem with it (I know that you're not criticizing her). We usually read a small portion of what is the real conversation with a journalist. It's possible that Alicia mentioned her trip in Norway (even without mentioning him) when she spent several hours with the Vogue UK journalist. As I've already said,it's not really a problem. Outside of his fandom,no one really cares.. The fact that they're dating is not some kind of new info and journalists are going to mention it in any case.

But I do think it's basically impossible to do an interview promoting TLBO without featuring Fassbender/Cianfrance (interesting question though: why is Rachel Weisz completely absent everywhere?), and since this is a romantic melodrama in which they have virtually no other scene partners, it would be silly to expect that they wouldn't be asked or respond to questions about chemistry and the way they worked through scenes. Cianfrance comparing them to Pippen and Jordan isn't any different from Steve McQueen comparing MF and Carey Mulligan to Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Vikander talking about MF asking for notes is work-ethic based, not relationship based and not much different from many other actors have talked about how he develops rapport on set.

It's mostly the reporter who's putting a romantic spin on everything and filling in the gaps. "The gorgeous, smart, and wildly talented Vikander meets her on-screen husband, the gorgeous, smart, and wildly talented Fassbender. Is it any surprise what developed?" "It was little surprise to Cianfrance to see his two co-stars falling in love." "The real feelings invariably intensified the fictional romance. " All of this is speculation and and in fact, Cianfrance never actually says anything about a real relationship--he just said they were supportive and had great chemistry. It's possible AV didn't know that the reporter would spin it this way, but honestly, it works to everyone's promotional benefit that she did.

This. This last interview doesn't contain anything new. I don't understand why it's suddenly a problem for some people. The romantic spin was obviously put by the journalist because it's how they work. And while it's true that the reporter is working the romantic angle,it's also true that the part about TLBO is more about their partnership on set than their relationship. There's also a long part about her career that some people should read..

She spends more of her energy talking about being private than she does at actually trying to be private. I mean, fair game because she wants to put across a certain image but it does come across as very fake. Not unexpected from a celeb though.

If a NYT writer says that Vikander ignored her questions,I believe it. If another journalist remarks that she doesn't want to talk about her private life,I believe it. If he/she wants to add stuff that can easily be found googling them,I don't see how Vikander or her team can control it,as mollie has explained. In his Elle profile,it was mentioned that they were dating even if he didn't talk about his personal life. Was Fassbender name-dropping Vikander? Honestly,I think that some people really believe that her publicist calls journalists asking things like "I want three,four Fassbender mentions.. "

Another example is her talking about them writing their speeches together and playing Yahtzee on the way to Palm Springs. Earlier when I said Michael doesn't do it much, this is partly what I was talking about. We hear most of these tidbits from her side and rarely from him. If ever. His behaviour seems opposite. E.g his behaviour at XMA Sydney premiere was very strange.

Yeah I don't think any of us expected them to not mention Fassbender or anyone else. It's just that the real life romance thing seems so exaggerated and I wondered how big a part she and her team played in that.

You do pose a good question though. Weisz is nowhere to be seen.

Pete Hammond explicitly said that they were at the same table and Vikander told that story talking with him /other people. But apparently,she's not free to talk about whatever she wants,even when she's dining..
And why it's always "Vikander and her people".. I'm pretty sure that Michael and his publicist are perfectly fine with this "romantic spin"..

 

[Morgane]

Thanks for your opinions in this and following posts. I agree with you completely. Hollywood is a game of PR and carefully created images. I was pointing out Alicia talking about privacy every chance she gets until it is beneficial and profitable to talk about her relationship. Nothing wrong with it I guess, just another aspect of her chosen industry to work in.

I still want to understand how it's beneficial to talk about their relationship.. In response to your post about her past Oscar campaign and a possible (unlikely) campaign for TLBO,I don't see how their relationship had some kind of effect on her narrative.. She won because she had two critically acclaimed performances in contention. They have done very little in terms of PR during those months,and when she won most people didn't even know they were dating. Journalists who cover the AS didn't know they were still dating. I don't see why Academy voters should be interested in their relationship.. it's just ridiculous. Talking about TLBO,a romantic angle can be beneficial for her and for him in terms of promotion but it doesn't add anything to a possible Oscar narrative. It's not like Redmayne and his transformative role,Portman who was really dancing.
Anyway,this is worth reposting (Lainey gossip):

Michael Fassbender, like Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hiddleston, is internet famous. He’s fangirl famous. He’s not legit famous. He’s not Leo D. He’s not Johnny Depp. He’s not Justin Timberlake. So to say that Alicia is Amber Heard or Jessica Biel is kinda… well…is doesn’t make sense. There’s nothing he can give her. He can barely give it to himself!
I enjoyed them last night. Mostly because he was in great spirits – the Moet probably helped – and every time they cut to him he looked like he was having a good time.

This is what people think in the real world. I always see people being amused by the thought that she is using him for PR when his fans comment about it.

Also (I'm talking about the last comments in general),in every fandom there's a particular narrative. The woman is the evil puppeteer and the man is the hopeless,naive victim. If Alicia says they were happy to sit together at the Oscars,which is some kind of irrelevant info,and other 20 articles talk about it,it's indirect media exposure for him.. It's not bad PR. And I'm sure he's perfectly fine with it.

TLBO promotion: I've never seen Fassbender being uncomfortable. Like other people,I was surprised to see them so relaxed because this is a different situation for them. There's a reason why they asked to avoid personal questions. I don't understand why people continue to compare their interviews with his other promotional interviews. It's evident that some people believe what they want to believe. Let's see if he's interviewed by some magazines for TLBO.. What is sure is that Vikander has been promoting Jason Bourne for weeks. I don't understand the logic behind the comparisons. Michael has been filming for months and he doesn't have anything to promote. It's simply obvious that Vikander is getting more exposure.. And it's obvious why Alicia Vikander has got more exposure over the past 18 months. Testament of Youth premiered at the LFF in October 2014. She has been doing promotion since January 2015 for the UK and US releases of two movies (EM,TOY). Those movies were followed by TMFU backed by Warner Bros,TDG and everything related to Focus' Oscar campaign. Michael has barely promoted Steve Jobs. These comparisons are nonsensical,honestly. As I've already said,I'm pretty sure he's fine if Vikander has a VF cover story and promotes TLBO giving him the possibility to use other magazines to promote AC.. AC can't be promoted by Vikander. I've (valid) reasons to believe that some people have a distorted image of this "fauxmance".. and I'm not even talking about the fact that there's planty of evidence about them spending their personal time together,unless people think that they're hanging out hoping that someone posts something on twitter and fb. But I don't really care,honestly.. Talking about real misogyny, I'm more disturbed by the amount of idiotic,nauseatimg garbage that Vikander receives on a daily basis.

 

[kashlo]

If a NYT writer says that Vikander ignored her questions,I believe it. If another journalist remarks that she doesn't want to talk about her private life,I believe it. If he/she wants to add stuff that can easily be found googling them,I don't see how Vikander or her team can control it,as mollie has explained. In his Elle profile,it was mentioned that they were dating even if he didn't talk about his personal life. Was Fassbender name-dropping Vikander? Honestly,I think that some people really believe that her publicist calls journalists asking things like "I want three,four Fassbender mentions.. "


Pete Hammond explicitly said that they were at the same table and Vikander told that story talking with him /other people. But apparently,she's not free to talk about whatever she wants,even when she's dining..
And why it's always "Vikander and her people".. I'm pretty sure that Michael and his publicist are perfectly fine with this "romantic spin"..

I don't think Michael is exactly an innocent party in all this and I do think he is fine with this. But I gave examples of her because, like I said earlier, these tidbits mostly seem to come from her. Why do we never or rarely hear these things from Michael?

 

[FassbenderLover]

I don't think Michael is exactly an innocent party in all this and I do think he is fine with this. But I gave examples of her because, like I said earlier, these tidbits mostly seem to come from her. Why do we never or rarely hear these things from Michael?

Because he's a very private person. If he's serious about someone he'd say so and leave it at that. It is something to consider how he hasn't even said he's with her, cuz honestly, I don't think its serious at all. From the time that article came out saying they're "casually dating" I don't think that's changed. He likes being under the radar thats why he's not seen for weeks at a time. He's not gonna say "Im a private person" then in an interview he's dropping hints about any aspect of the relationship. He'll have no problem saying he don't want to talk about it, unlike the other party. But like you say, he's not innocent in this, he did sign on for this so has to deal with her using him for publicity

 

[Allie28]

A gift.
Sorry to bring this down to base level.....
But he is just sooooo pretty...View attachment 3430320 View attachment 3430321 View attachment 3430322 View attachment 3430323 View attachment 3430324

Ok. So maybe I'd watch til the kids show up...

 

[carmencrem]

Ok. So maybe I'd watch til the kids show up...

It's the best thing you can do if you know your heart can't stand blood and tortures.. I couldn't sleep the night I saw it, but I know it's me: I'm too sensitive.. Always.. I foud it difficult to watch him suffer that much in Hunger too. Probably even more since the story was true. His struggle was partially real, he really starved himself. Extreme actors are the best, tho..

 

[carmencrem]

http://www.scifinow.co.uk/news/assassins-creed-movie-has-a-very-old-school-feel/

 

[Allie28]

That story about Barcelona was mentioned by Ghesquiére who met them there. We don't know if these bits came up when her publicist contacted the journalist/when the journalist contacted her or if they came up in their conversations. For example,I remember that she was promoting TMFU and a journalist called her while she was in Costa Rica. The journalist obviously mentioned that she was there but she didn't say that she was on vacation with him and Alicia didn't say anything,of course. The fact that he was with her was confirmed by a twitter sighting at the airport that only those who follow this kind of stuff may possibly know. It's possible that the journalist assumed that she was skyping from his house when she said that she was in Sydney. It's more likely that it came up while she was talking with him. And I don't see any problem with it (I know that you're not criticizing her). We usually read a small portion of what is the real conversation with a journalist. It's possible that Alicia mentioned her trip in Norway (even without mentioning him) when she spent several hours with the Vogue UK journalist. As I've already said,it's not really a problem. Outside of his fandom,no one really cares.. The fact that they're dating is not some kind of new info and journalists are going to mention it in any case.

This. This last interview doesn't contain anything new. I don't understand why it's suddenly a problem for some people. The romantic spin was obviously put by the journalist because it's how they work. And while it's true that the reporter is working the romantic angle,it's also true that the part about TLBO is more about their partnership on set than their relationship. There's also a long part about her career that some people should read..

If a NYT writer says that Vikander ignored her questions,I believe it. If another journalist remarks that she doesn't want to talk about her private life,I believe it. If he/she wants to add stuff that can easily be found googling them,I don't see how Vikander or her team can control it,as mollie has explained. In his Elle profile,it was mentioned that they were dating even if he didn't talk about his personal life. Was Fassbender name-dropping Vikander? Honestly,I think that some people really believe that her publicist calls journalists asking things like "I want three,four Fassbender mentions.. "

Pete Hammond explicitly said that they were at the same table and Vikander told that story talking with him /other people. But apparently,she's not free to talk about whatever she wants,even when she's dining..And why it's always "Vikander and her people".. I'm pretty sure that Michael and his publicist are perfectly fine with this "romantic spin"..

I co-sign your whole post but especially what I quoted. And imo, it's always "Vikander and her people" because the woman is always the villian in these scenarios, especially when she's dating fans internet boyfriend. Talk about misogyny...

 

[carmencrem]

I co-sign your whole post but especially what I quoted. And imo, it's always "Vikander and her people" because the woman is always the villian in these scenarios, especially when she's dating fans internet boyfriend. Talk about misogyny...

It's a common narrative, in almost every fandom.. Nothing new, it's routine.. [emoji57] since the Beatles' times..!

 

[Allie28]

I still want to understand how it's beneficial to talk about their relationship.. In response to your post about her past Oscar campaign and a possible (unlikely) campaign for TLBO,I don't see how their relationship had some kind of effect on her narrative.. She won because she had two critically acclaimed performances in contention. They have done very little in terms of PR during those months,and when she won most people didn't even know they were dating. Journalists who cover the AS didn't know they were still dating. I don't see why Academy voters should be interested in their relationship.. it's just ridiculous. Talking about TLBO,a romantic angle can be beneficial for her and for him in terms of promotion but it doesn't add anything to a possible Oscar narrative. It's not like Redmayne and his transformative role,Portman who was really dancing.
Anyway,this is worth reposting (Lainey gossip):

This is what people think in the real world. I always see people being amused by the thought that she is using him for PR when his fans comment about it.

Also (I'm talking about the last comments in general),in every fandom there's a particular narrative. The woman is the evil puppeteer and the man is the hopeless,naive victim. If Alicia says they were happy to sit together at the Oscars,which is some kind of irrelevant info,and other 20 articles talk about it,it's indirect media exposure for him.. It's not bad PR. And I'm sure he's perfectly fine with it.

TLBO promotion: I've never seen Fassbender being uncomfortable. Like other people,I was surprised to see them so relaxed because this is a different situation for them. There's a reason why they asked to avoid personal questions. I don't understand why people continue to compare their interviews with his other promotional interviews. It's evident that some people believe what they want to believe. Let's see if he's interviewed by some magazines for TLBO.. What is sure is that Vikander has been promoting Jason Bourne for weeks. I don't understand the logic behind the comparisons. Michael has been filming for months and he doesn't have anything to promote. It's simply obvious that Vikander is getting more exposure.. And it's obvious why Alicia Vikander has got more exposure over the past 18 months. Testament of Youth premiered at the LFF in October 2014. She has been doing promotion since January 2015 for the UK and US releases of two movies (EM,TOY). Those movies were followed by TMFU backed by Warner Bros,TDG and everything related to Focus' Oscar campaign. Michael has barely promoted Steve Jobs. These comparisons are nonsensical,honestly. As I've already said,I'm pretty sure he's fine if Vikander has a VF cover story and promotes TLBO giving him the possibility to use other magazines to promote AC.. AC can't be promoted by Vikander. I've (valid) reasons to believe that some people have a distorted image of this "fauxmance".. and I'm not even talking about the fact that there's planty of evidence about them spending their personal time together,unless people think that they're hanging out hoping that someone posts something on twitter and fb. But I don't really care,honestly.. Talking about real misogyny, I'm more disturbed by the amount of idiotic,nauseatimg garbage that Vikander receives on a daily basis.

I love your posts.

 

[Morgane]

The film definitely has a worthwhile message and was largely well acted. Yes the kids were good - two of them are making names for themselves now as adults - Jack O'Connell ( in Tulip Fever with Alicia!) and Thomas Turgoose. The kids thought Michael was great - he treated them to a day out at Thorpe

Working with Finn was great. She was really cool and I still speak to her regularly now. Michael Fassbender was amazing - he wasn’t quite as massive then, but still he’d done 300 and a lot of other good work. He’s such a genuinely nice bloke and he’d do anything for anyone. He had his own car on the set, which I don’t think he asked for. If there was anyone waiting around after shooting he’d say, “don’t wait around, jump in this car.”

http://www.leftlion.co.uk/articles.cfm/title/thomas-turgoose/id/5651#.USbCYL-ceSo

Not a direct film question but how much do you allow film critics views to influence you? If they say rubbish do you ever think "I won't bother then"? Ok so most of us will watch Fassbender put sugar in his coffee and think it a classic but other films. Ever put off watching something because critics hated it only to then watch and really like it?

If I really want to see a film or I'm really interested in a particular performance,I will see it in any case. But I must admit that bad reviews from critics that I particularly value can affect my enthusiasm. In the end,my opinion is not really influenced by them.
Talking about critics..
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/suicide-squad-rotten-tomatoes-asked-916787

Well, that wasn't a very pleasant experience, reading through a lot of today's pages! Thanks, Just Askin, for posing a film question

Eden Lake. I found some of the plot devices too ridiculous, and I found myself screaming at the onscreen couple "Just leave! You wouldn't stay there in real life!".

I didn't think Michael's chemistry with Kelly Reilly very strong at all, although I read somewhere that the director tried to give as little away about the couple as possible, so that they could become an everyman's couple - much easier to project our own fears on to. Perhaps I just felt a sense of disconnection.

The kids and their attitudes I found scarily realistic, at least up to the point where the violence came in. I found the violence too strong, personally, although I thought Michael did a great job of conveying intense pain, especially in the hut in the submerged water.

Overall, I wouldn't say I enjoyed the film, but it is definitely a worthwhile British thriller.

I totally agree with you. It's a worthwhile thriller,but I really doubt I will watch it again.

 

[Selayang430]

It's a common narrative, in almost every fandom.. Nothing new, it's routine.. [emoji57] since the Beatles' times..!

Also don't understand why women are presumed the guilty party while it takes two to tango. In almost every relationship , fangirls are systematically accusing girlfriends of their internet boyfriends calling the paps. The men are pressured either innocent or passively participate ......

 

[Morgane]

I don't think Michael is exactly an innocent party in all this and I do think he is fine with this. But I gave examples of her because, like I said earlier, these tidbits mostly seem to come from her. Why do we never or rarely hear these things from Michael?

They didn't have /don't have the same opportunities. Her 2015 (2016) is like his 2011(2012). Michael has barely promoted Steve Jobs. Funnily enough the most "revealing" bit in her last interview comes from him.
Anyway,I don't think he didn't want to talk about TLBO at the XMA premiere. He was just annoyed by the journalist.

 

[Allie28]

They didn't have /don't have the same opportunities. Her 2015 (2016) is like his 2011(2012). Michael has barely promoted Steve Jobs.

And he did the bare minimum to promote XMen: Apocalypse. A skype interview and the premiere in Sydney.

 

[kashlo]

They didn't have /don't have the same opportunities. Her 2015 (2016) is like his 2011(2012). Michael has barely promoted Steve Jobs.

So he didn't have even a couple of opportunities at least where he could have slipped something in? Did he not talk to ANYONE in Palm Spring? Cannes? Not in any of his interviews since being with her? Not even at the XMA Sydney premiere where instead of saying something he literally just walked away? What did the journalist do that was annoying?

And I also don't remember everything in that article. So please refresh my memory, what did he say that was revealing?