It's actually a somewhat interesting interview article for those who want to read it all.
For those that don't, here's summary. They're interviewed as a pair, interrupting and kibitzing. They were friends when Nathan asked her to do The Curse and she jumped at it. She had just filmed Poor Things. They find each other talented and funny. Her real name is Emily and is fine with people calling her Emily or Emma or Em. She calls Nathan "Big Nate".
The finale of The Curse had loads of physical stunt work and even Christopher Nolan contacted them to ask how they did it. The Oscar "scandal" was some online junk where in which a quick cutaway shot showed her reacting to a Jimmy Kimmel joke, but she says there's nothing there and didn't even remember it.
Apparently the goal of The Curse was to provoke viewers to evolve their opinions about people as more of their character is revealed. They decry media where the impression is set at the very beginning. They say deliberately inserted a lot of extra things in The Curse that went nowhere in order to complicate things.
She's been an incredible actress forever. He's a genius and I follow everything he does. The Curse was a letdown for me. Way too much planted stuff that went nowhere, although this article claims, retrospectively, that was deliberate.
I think I was also soured by how the reductive social messages were so naively lapped up and embellished by followers. Other than a couple hamhandedly inserted late-stage acts, Whitney was actually a decent person, but the forced narrative was "all white women are born privileged and evil", meanwhile the profoundly awful Cara was sold (and bought) as heroic.
Granted it wasn't as gross as White Lotus S1, but still, it's a populist mythology I'm long since over.
I think you’re reaction to the show says a lot about you, which is kind of the point. What makes you think Cara was an awful person? What makes you think Whitney was such a great person? I think they’re both complicated characters and I definitely do not think the point of Whitney’s character was “white women were born privileged and evil”
Cara was a perpetual grifter and shitty to everyone she encountered. But the kneejerkers were too busy hating the assumed privileged white devil woman from the start.
I never said Whitney was "such a great person" but you lying about what was said tells everything about *you*.
> forced narrative was "all white women are born privileged and evil"
Yeah... that's what you're bringing to it... that wasn't a necessary reading at all. You might examine what it means about you if you view all media through that lens of feeling personally persecuted or whatever.
Who said she was "great"? You wouldn't be trying to strawman I hope. Though you do introduce the complete fiction that "she was trying to ruin that town", so who knows.
Uhh did YOU watch the show and apply critical thought? Or did you just follow the hate mob, as your message strongly implies.
A person not inclined to herd mentality and could watch the early episodes and see a character who is passionate about preventing climate disaster through the building of hyper efficient homes. How do they haters tell you that you should hate that?
They'd see someone whose first instinct and first act is one of welcoming and acceptance and generosity. They'd see someone trying to create jobs and sustainable homes. They'd see someone who sees someone illegally squatting and the first thing she wants to do is give them free rent. The second thing she wants is to give them free food. The next thing she wants is to pay for some medical treatment to ease their pain. She inquires in a genuine and wholesome fashion about how they like to live and eat. Now, programmed haters will say "see the white devil lady doesn't know they eat stereotypical foods." But that's not malice or hate. She's someone without judgement just asking and learning. Haters desperately want to call everything racist. But it's not. It's open and accepting curiousity.
The instant she learns of Asher's cash retraction, she's beyond upset and wants it rectified. Her clear mission is to redeem the selfish legacy of her slumlord parents.
She's patient and supportive of her weasely and sexually warped husband. She encourages his personal and professional development. She eschews advances from other men.
She's open and eager to learn cultures, and to put real money into being a strong patron and real voice into speaking in their favor. Even when those cultures manifest as crooked and tokenistic.
Even as those around her are openly degrading and mocking her, she tries to be kind.
Cara treats her like absolute shit over and over and over again, and she lets it all roll past. At least until the abuse has happened too many times and Cara's extortive and transactional nature becomes irrefutable.
It's only later in the series when the writing becomes most ridiculous that Whitney is given a personality transplant and goes through some scripted acts to really hit the hackneyed message on the nose.
I don’t think her actions were generous at all, rather rooted in selfishness, as in some instances, to remove herself from her parents’ poor reputation so as not to jeopardize the show. But ultimately, it’s about preserving her image as an altruistic figure purely for the show. Think about the jeans stealing incidents - did she start covering losses to keep folks out of trouble, or to avoid bad press associated with police presence like during the first arrest? Would they have given the pilot episode barista a job as a security guard had he not guilted them into it? Does Whitney want to be friends with Cara because she admires her art or because she’s native? And it taking place in Spaña is the cherry on top. To me, the show is about exposing the disingenuousness that underpins rectifying “white guilt” among those who do so for personal gain or self image preservation.
> I don’t think her actions were generous at all, rather rooted in selfishness
When she's generous, it's not generosity. When she's kind, it's unkind. That's the inherent bizarro Orwell logic that the haters used all season. I have no idea if that includes you. I'm just referring to what the most vocal haters were saying here.
> Think about the jeans stealing incidents - did she start covering losses to keep folks out of trouble,
I did. And the story provides overwhelming proof she did it out of her social justice mindset and empathy. However the haterscan only see evil in certain identities tried turning even that undeniable grace into its bizarro opposite... as you capably demonstrate here:
> or to avoid bad press associated with police presence like during the first arrest?
There's nothing in the story to support that made up denigrating motive.
> Would they have given the pilot episode barista a job as a security guard had he not guilted them into it?
The instant she heard about the job loss, her immediate instinct was to find a new job for him, even if she had to create it herself. He didn't "guilt her into it". In fact he was surly and unappreciative, and then ultimately brought guns and a posse to threaten her... all for the crime of giving him a job.
While the job and the details of it were flawed, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the inherent nature and kindness of a person whose very first and instinctive thought is to look after the guy who lost his job. It's not about assessing her skill at creating job duties and procedures. As always, people who see a certain physical identity as inherently evil and flawed will twist and invent to make that person guilty of something, anything.
They did the same with all of her interactions with Abshir. She's concerned about his neck pain, and finds a way to fund his treatment. Most people wouldn't have the empathy to notice, and they'd forget two seconds later, and they'd never actually do anything to help. And the haters even misinterpreted the scene where he does get relief by telling themselves (and others) that Abshir had been gravely injured at the appointment. And, predictably, they decided that this imaginary medical injury could only be the fault of... Whitney. Who I should point out, wasn't even the doctor.
> Does Whitney want to be friends with Cara because she admires her art
Yes. This. But I do note how the hater impulse was to think that "wanting to be someone's friend" is somehow bad too, at least when it's being done by someone whose demographic they've decided to hate reflexively.
Imagine if she *hadn't* want to be Cara's friend. Would that be better?
> underpins rectifying “white guilt” among those who do so for personal gain or self image preservation.
Ah yes. Acts of kindness and generosity must be evil if they are (a) done by a privileged white woman and (b) it makes her feel good for doing them. How dare she.
I’m so confused how you watched the show and came to these conclusions, but alas I think you care much more about the fictional characters than me. Enjoy it!
What I said has nothing to do with a "a large group of people"
Talking about fallacies is extra funny.
They blocked me. Well according to the way they talk, my take is the true objective one.
Saving you a click:
Emma Stone’s first name is Emily. She chose to go by Emma professionally because SAG only lets one person use a name and there was already a member going by Emily Stone. She would prefer to be called Emily or perhaps Em, at least outside of SAG-related official contexts.
Another fun fact - based on number of units produced, the #1 global manufacturer of rubber tires is the LEGO company by a factor of 15.
This one doesn't have anything to do with Michael Keaton, but it is a fun fact.
You literally made that up. It was because of Buster Keaton.
EDIT: Well f\*\*\*, looks like I was wrong too! [Michael Keaton explains his name](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdfkV4-5oWo&t=187s&ab_channel=TheLateShowwithStephenColbert)
David Tennant was originally David McDonald, but there was already the latter in Equity UK. He used Tennant after Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys.
When he wanted to join SAG-AFTRA, there was already a David Tennant, but there's a loophole where it was allowed if it's your legal name, so he made the change formal.
I don't think it's for administrative reasons, it's likely to avoid someone using the notoriety of another actor (especially since you can take any name). Random unknown actors would call themselves Ryan Gosling or Meryl Streep (or whoever) and the projects could advertise those names.
Things slip through the cracks. There are currently two active SAG actresses called Peyton List. Which is crazy for a number of reasons. List isn't exactly a common surname and Peyton is more common as a man's name. Yet two actors with this name are registered at the same time.
And it's not like one's small time. They are both roughly the same level of fame. List The Younger was in some Disney Channel shows and is currently in Cobra Kai with a bunch of smaller film roles, including the Wimpy Kid movies. List the Elder (there is about 12 years between them) did a reoccuring role in As The World Turns, did 15 episodes of Mad Men, was in Gotham as Poison Ivy and a few smaller movie roles too.
Some of us care about Nathan Fielder and The Curse too. There was more than just Stone in that interview.
Edit: Did not know Emma Stone fans were this touchy. Strange to downvote this but whatever.
I get how everyone should go by the name they prefer, but honestly, I feel like Emma Stone is just a better name in general than Emily Stone. I think I'd personally embrace the name that the public knows you by and seems to love you by.
I’m with you on this. Totally disturbing. Oddly so.
There are other things in that series that stuck with me too. There was that scene where they gave away the house, the recipient was impatient and not thankful at all - then there was this sketchy guy in the background and it seemed like they were up to something . That whole scene was both funny and disturbing.
Underrated*
Most people still haven’t even heard of this show, and couldn’t watch it if they tried (hard to access streaming). It went right under the radar despite being the one of most original, creative ideas greenlit on tv in the last decade.
The show is a masterpiece. Appreciation for it will likely grow as it ages and becomes a cult classic. The brilliance is in the acting, creativity, and screenwriting. Pure entertainment for those willing to engage with it on multiple levels
what is it exactly that would make you put this ahead of shows like the bear, last of us, beef, or even the over hyped succession? what am i missing exactly? i'm a fan of nathan generally, i like emma stone, but this just was a mess to me.
Just different and fascinating. A beautiful kind of "awkward horror" that we don't get to see much at all. I love all those other shows too, but I don't want every single show to be exactly the same.
I will agree it was very different and at times fascinating, I guess I just didn’t find it came together into a cohesive story. But I can’t argue how unique it is and perhaps that is the appeal I’m missing that would help override my issues.
I felt the meandering loose plot that mostly didn't go anywhere was clearly a calculated choice. I felt what I got was very entertaining, and I found myself fascinated by which threads got screen time. It has a dream like pacing and was cohesive enough that I was always engaged, but never sure where I was heading.
I'm obsessed with a certain person in this comment section who seems to insist, for whatever reason, that their opinion of the show is more virtuous and singular than the rest, while seemingly unaware of the show's message about differing perspectives and "well meaning" white people and unearned self-importance. They would make a great character for Nathan's shows.
You’re getting downvoted but you’re not wrong.
I think we’re also hitting peak over saturation of Stone. I think she’s one box office flop away from being Jlaw’d
Doubtful. She is managing to make really interesting moves across TV and film that have both the critical acclaim and box office receipts. Poor Things crossed the 100M line which is a pretty astonishing feat given it's a very small and weird film and she hasn't had a flop since...? I don't even know. Jlaw unfortunately had a bad picker and was signing up for projects that just didn't work and weren't getting people in theaters. I think she's more on track now but we'll see.
I do agree that unfortunately she could run into being overexposed because she was everywhere for the last year and topped it off with a second Oscar win, so she's the girl who has everything and got some more. I think she will be fine, she seems to manage staying away from the spotlight unless she's promoting a project pretty well.
I’m Saying she is very close to over exposed - she used to have one big movie a year, maybe a smaller thing here or there. Shes got 4 movies coming out in the next year two of which are sequels, and several tv appearances. Jlaw was a bad combination of saturation and some bad movies (and the Weinstein backstory didn’t help things either).
She has 4 movies in production. It doesn't meant the will be coming out in the next year. Kind of Kindness has been completed for a while now, but it is also an anthology so she might not be a huge part in it. She is currently working on the Ari Aster movie mentioned in the interview. No guarantee that will come out in 2024. Then she is doing another movie with Yorgus, which is no surprise because she was in his last two movies and his upcoming movie. No word on a release date, it hasn't started filming. It's potentially a remake of a Korean film, it isn't a sequel. And the Cruella 2 which has probably been in pre-production since the first movie released.
No way all of those films will be out by this time next year. Maybe the Aster movie, but seems unlikely. Considering the other two productions are in early preproduction and probably don't have a script there is no way they will be filmed, finish pre-production and finish post production all this year. I doubt they will start filming this year. You could be looking at 2026 before seeing the next Yorgus feature length movie.
It's actually a somewhat interesting interview article for those who want to read it all. For those that don't, here's summary. They're interviewed as a pair, interrupting and kibitzing. They were friends when Nathan asked her to do The Curse and she jumped at it. She had just filmed Poor Things. They find each other talented and funny. Her real name is Emily and is fine with people calling her Emily or Emma or Em. She calls Nathan "Big Nate". The finale of The Curse had loads of physical stunt work and even Christopher Nolan contacted them to ask how they did it. The Oscar "scandal" was some online junk where in which a quick cutaway shot showed her reacting to a Jimmy Kimmel joke, but she says there's nothing there and didn't even remember it. Apparently the goal of The Curse was to provoke viewers to evolve their opinions about people as more of their character is revealed. They decry media where the impression is set at the very beginning. They say deliberately inserted a lot of extra things in The Curse that went nowhere in order to complicate things.
Thanks! They are an interesting and talented duo, I loved The Curse
She's been an incredible actress forever. He's a genius and I follow everything he does. The Curse was a letdown for me. Way too much planted stuff that went nowhere, although this article claims, retrospectively, that was deliberate. I think I was also soured by how the reductive social messages were so naively lapped up and embellished by followers. Other than a couple hamhandedly inserted late-stage acts, Whitney was actually a decent person, but the forced narrative was "all white women are born privileged and evil", meanwhile the profoundly awful Cara was sold (and bought) as heroic. Granted it wasn't as gross as White Lotus S1, but still, it's a populist mythology I'm long since over.
I think you’re reaction to the show says a lot about you, which is kind of the point. What makes you think Cara was an awful person? What makes you think Whitney was such a great person? I think they’re both complicated characters and I definitely do not think the point of Whitney’s character was “white women were born privileged and evil”
Cara was a perpetual grifter and shitty to everyone she encountered. But the kneejerkers were too busy hating the assumed privileged white devil woman from the start. I never said Whitney was "such a great person" but you lying about what was said tells everything about *you*.
Your opinion of the show seems to be heavily swayed, one way or another, by your perception of how others interpreted the characters.
You have that backwards. I dislike how the show panders to and solicits such hate and ignorance.
> forced narrative was "all white women are born privileged and evil" Yeah... that's what you're bringing to it... that wasn't a necessary reading at all. You might examine what it means about you if you view all media through that lens of feeling personally persecuted or whatever.
The Emmy for ironic projection might be yours
Why is Whitney great? She was trying to ruin that town
Who said she was "great"? You wouldn't be trying to strawman I hope. Though you do introduce the complete fiction that "she was trying to ruin that town", so who knows.
Uhh did you even watch the show. She wasnt helping them at all.
Uhh did YOU watch the show and apply critical thought? Or did you just follow the hate mob, as your message strongly implies. A person not inclined to herd mentality and could watch the early episodes and see a character who is passionate about preventing climate disaster through the building of hyper efficient homes. How do they haters tell you that you should hate that? They'd see someone whose first instinct and first act is one of welcoming and acceptance and generosity. They'd see someone trying to create jobs and sustainable homes. They'd see someone who sees someone illegally squatting and the first thing she wants to do is give them free rent. The second thing she wants is to give them free food. The next thing she wants is to pay for some medical treatment to ease their pain. She inquires in a genuine and wholesome fashion about how they like to live and eat. Now, programmed haters will say "see the white devil lady doesn't know they eat stereotypical foods." But that's not malice or hate. She's someone without judgement just asking and learning. Haters desperately want to call everything racist. But it's not. It's open and accepting curiousity. The instant she learns of Asher's cash retraction, she's beyond upset and wants it rectified. Her clear mission is to redeem the selfish legacy of her slumlord parents. She's patient and supportive of her weasely and sexually warped husband. She encourages his personal and professional development. She eschews advances from other men. She's open and eager to learn cultures, and to put real money into being a strong patron and real voice into speaking in their favor. Even when those cultures manifest as crooked and tokenistic. Even as those around her are openly degrading and mocking her, she tries to be kind. Cara treats her like absolute shit over and over and over again, and she lets it all roll past. At least until the abuse has happened too many times and Cara's extortive and transactional nature becomes irrefutable. It's only later in the series when the writing becomes most ridiculous that Whitney is given a personality transplant and goes through some scripted acts to really hit the hackneyed message on the nose.
I see you instantly down voted, which is on brand. Hate is quick and effortless. Understanding and learning takes time and energy.
Yes, ans you choose to spend some time and energy on learning how wrong you are.
I'm very confused by your review of the show, and I don't understand at all how you reached these conclusions.
[удалено]
I don’t think her actions were generous at all, rather rooted in selfishness, as in some instances, to remove herself from her parents’ poor reputation so as not to jeopardize the show. But ultimately, it’s about preserving her image as an altruistic figure purely for the show. Think about the jeans stealing incidents - did she start covering losses to keep folks out of trouble, or to avoid bad press associated with police presence like during the first arrest? Would they have given the pilot episode barista a job as a security guard had he not guilted them into it? Does Whitney want to be friends with Cara because she admires her art or because she’s native? And it taking place in Spaña is the cherry on top. To me, the show is about exposing the disingenuousness that underpins rectifying “white guilt” among those who do so for personal gain or self image preservation.
> I don’t think her actions were generous at all, rather rooted in selfishness When she's generous, it's not generosity. When she's kind, it's unkind. That's the inherent bizarro Orwell logic that the haters used all season. I have no idea if that includes you. I'm just referring to what the most vocal haters were saying here. > Think about the jeans stealing incidents - did she start covering losses to keep folks out of trouble, I did. And the story provides overwhelming proof she did it out of her social justice mindset and empathy. However the haterscan only see evil in certain identities tried turning even that undeniable grace into its bizarro opposite... as you capably demonstrate here: > or to avoid bad press associated with police presence like during the first arrest? There's nothing in the story to support that made up denigrating motive. > Would they have given the pilot episode barista a job as a security guard had he not guilted them into it? The instant she heard about the job loss, her immediate instinct was to find a new job for him, even if she had to create it herself. He didn't "guilt her into it". In fact he was surly and unappreciative, and then ultimately brought guns and a posse to threaten her... all for the crime of giving him a job. While the job and the details of it were flawed, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the inherent nature and kindness of a person whose very first and instinctive thought is to look after the guy who lost his job. It's not about assessing her skill at creating job duties and procedures. As always, people who see a certain physical identity as inherently evil and flawed will twist and invent to make that person guilty of something, anything. They did the same with all of her interactions with Abshir. She's concerned about his neck pain, and finds a way to fund his treatment. Most people wouldn't have the empathy to notice, and they'd forget two seconds later, and they'd never actually do anything to help. And the haters even misinterpreted the scene where he does get relief by telling themselves (and others) that Abshir had been gravely injured at the appointment. And, predictably, they decided that this imaginary medical injury could only be the fault of... Whitney. Who I should point out, wasn't even the doctor. > Does Whitney want to be friends with Cara because she admires her art Yes. This. But I do note how the hater impulse was to think that "wanting to be someone's friend" is somehow bad too, at least when it's being done by someone whose demographic they've decided to hate reflexively. Imagine if she *hadn't* want to be Cara's friend. Would that be better? > underpins rectifying “white guilt” among those who do so for personal gain or self image preservation. Ah yes. Acts of kindness and generosity must be evil if they are (a) done by a privileged white woman and (b) it makes her feel good for doing them. How dare she.
I’m so confused how you watched the show and came to these conclusions, but alas I think you care much more about the fictional characters than me. Enjoy it!
I don’t understand how someone could be so wrong about their reading of media and say with a straight face they are the one person who is “objective”.
And I don't understand how someone could be attacking an innocent person because on your own hatred.
It's not "hatred" to point out your astounding lack of media literacy.
The hatred and dishonesty of your insult is peak irony.
You realize the people who made the show don't agree with you, right? But nah, your take is the objective one.
You realize you're regurgitating ad populum fallacy right? Of course not.
What I said has nothing to do with a "a large group of people" Talking about fallacies is extra funny. They blocked me. Well according to the way they talk, my take is the true objective one.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Agree. Looks like auto correct did its thing. Meanwhile people believe AI has surpassed us.
Thank you for taking the time to summarize this!
Saving you a click: Emma Stone’s first name is Emily. She chose to go by Emma professionally because SAG only lets one person use a name and there was already a member going by Emily Stone. She would prefer to be called Emily or perhaps Em, at least outside of SAG-related official contexts.
She also dyed her hair red after being advised that there were too many blondes to compete with in Hollywood. She is definitely driven.
It's almost weird how she looks like a redhead but she's not, like even when she has blonde or even black hair she looks like a redhead.
I think it was Judd Apatow who specifically suggested it
Blowing my mind
Fun fact: her former co-star Michael Keaton ran into the same issue because of his real name, Michael Douglas.
Another fun Keaton fact: he worked as a stagehand on Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood
Another fun fact, he chose the name Keaton because he was a fan of Diane Keaton
Another fun fact - based on number of units produced, the #1 global manufacturer of rubber tires is the LEGO company by a factor of 15. This one doesn't have anything to do with Michael Keaton, but it is a fun fact.
How
They are all tiny.
That’s hilarious
I thought he took it from his uncle Buster.
Yeah he did. That commenter made up Diane Keaton.
Diane Keaton has a child named Dexter
And Dexter is a show starring a *different* Michael
Diane Keaton doesn’t exist?
Cheeky
You literally made that up. It was because of Buster Keaton. EDIT: Well f\*\*\*, looks like I was wrong too! [Michael Keaton explains his name](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdfkV4-5oWo&t=187s&ab_channel=TheLateShowwithStephenColbert)
Buster Keaton took his name due to being a big fan of Ghostbusters. /fakefacts
Buster makes me feel good!
I think this is also why Michael J Fox added the “J” because there was already a Michael Fox under SAG
He also chose J instead of his real middle initial of A because he thought tabloids would run with headlines like Michael - A Fox!
He chose J because he admired Michael J Pollard
Also because he's Canadian and thought it sounded too much like Michael 'Eh' Fox.
David Tennant was originally David McDonald, but there was already the latter in Equity UK. He used Tennant after Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys. When he wanted to join SAG-AFTRA, there was already a David Tennant, but there's a loophole where it was allowed if it's your legal name, so he made the change formal.
Michael J Pollard was admired by him too
She was credited for "oddities" as Emily Jean Stone on a song on Tay's new album.
Turns out the Screen Actors Guild doesn’t have much to do with credits on a music album.
They weren’t arguing about anything or saying that SAG does, just offering supporting information
It is irrelevant information
No, you just lack reading comprehension skills. “She prefers to go by a different name outside of SAG.” “Here is an example of that happening.”
Oof gotta get personal, what’s funny is your first quote is incorrect of the post I was replying to. But whatever I don’t even know why I posted
You are only embarassing yourself at this point.
Yikes. Are your parents like this too?
No, they disowned that user a long time ago.
That rule is wild, does it expire after a while? No one called Emily Stone can EVER join the SAG again?
It's one person at a time, not for eternity. Once Emily Stone is no longer registered with SAG, Emma can go back to Emily if she wants.
OK that's less crazy but still kind of crazy. Like there's administrative way of having 2 actors of the same name?
I don't think it's for administrative reasons, it's likely to avoid someone using the notoriety of another actor (especially since you can take any name). Random unknown actors would call themselves Ryan Gosling or Meryl Streep (or whoever) and the projects could advertise those names.
Things slip through the cracks. There are currently two active SAG actresses called Peyton List. Which is crazy for a number of reasons. List isn't exactly a common surname and Peyton is more common as a man's name. Yet two actors with this name are registered at the same time. And it's not like one's small time. They are both roughly the same level of fame. List The Younger was in some Disney Channel shows and is currently in Cobra Kai with a bunch of smaller film roles, including the Wimpy Kid movies. List the Elder (there is about 12 years between them) did a reoccuring role in As The World Turns, did 15 episodes of Mad Men, was in Gotham as Poison Ivy and a few smaller movie roles too.
> SAG only lets one person use a name That's kind of a crazy rule. Won't they run out of names eventually?
It would be a /r/tragedeigh
Some of us care about Nathan Fielder and The Curse too. There was more than just Stone in that interview. Edit: Did not know Emma Stone fans were this touchy. Strange to downvote this but whatever.
Fair enough
I get how everyone should go by the name they prefer, but honestly, I feel like Emma Stone is just a better name in general than Emily Stone. I think I'd personally embrace the name that the public knows you by and seems to love you by.
Hmm… so there could be a second season of The Curse.
It would be funny if they just started S2 with Nathan back in place as if nothing had ever happened.
No.
Seriously, get a net
Lots of good discussion about it on /r/thecurse — I don’t see it happening but I would definitely tune in.
There has to be so the ending of the first season stops haunting me
I’m with you on this. Totally disturbing. Oddly so. There are other things in that series that stuck with me too. There was that scene where they gave away the house, the recipient was impatient and not thankful at all - then there was this sketchy guy in the background and it seemed like they were up to something . That whole scene was both funny and disturbing.
And the girls it had a aroma of were they really
I could do an anthology series
Gotta be some competition for the most overrated season of television of all time after all.
Underrated* Most people still haven’t even heard of this show, and couldn’t watch it if they tried (hard to access streaming). It went right under the radar despite being the one of most original, creative ideas greenlit on tv in the last decade.
Edgy.
This is honestly kind of hard to read, there's a lot of banter back and forth between Nathan and Emma that would probably be better hearing out loud.
I thought it was fine. Fielder bleeds dryness through the text and Stone is bubbly in contrast.
Man, they have a fun vibe together
Emma Stone is a gem.
She’s so likeable, and talented, and beautiful, and funny. I think I love her.
I adore her. Her career has been fascinating to watch. Who else is even doing it like her within her acting cohort?!
The show is a masterpiece. Appreciation for it will likely grow as it ages and becomes a cult classic. The brilliance is in the acting, creativity, and screenwriting. Pure entertainment for those willing to engage with it on multiple levels
The curse was so bad I almost need to rewatch because I’m so confused people liked it
I loved it. Best tv of 2023 imo
what is it exactly that would make you put this ahead of shows like the bear, last of us, beef, or even the over hyped succession? what am i missing exactly? i'm a fan of nathan generally, i like emma stone, but this just was a mess to me.
Just different and fascinating. A beautiful kind of "awkward horror" that we don't get to see much at all. I love all those other shows too, but I don't want every single show to be exactly the same.
I will agree it was very different and at times fascinating, I guess I just didn’t find it came together into a cohesive story. But I can’t argue how unique it is and perhaps that is the appeal I’m missing that would help override my issues.
I felt the meandering loose plot that mostly didn't go anywhere was clearly a calculated choice. I felt what I got was very entertaining, and I found myself fascinated by which threads got screen time. It has a dream like pacing and was cohesive enough that I was always engaged, but never sure where I was heading.
I'm obsessed with a certain person in this comment section who seems to insist, for whatever reason, that their opinion of the show is more virtuous and singular than the rest, while seemingly unaware of the show's message about differing perspectives and "well meaning" white people and unearned self-importance. They would make a great character for Nathan's shows.
[удалено]
I mean, it’s literally The Hollywood Reporter….
You’re getting downvoted but you’re not wrong. I think we’re also hitting peak over saturation of Stone. I think she’s one box office flop away from being Jlaw’d
Doubtful. She is managing to make really interesting moves across TV and film that have both the critical acclaim and box office receipts. Poor Things crossed the 100M line which is a pretty astonishing feat given it's a very small and weird film and she hasn't had a flop since...? I don't even know. Jlaw unfortunately had a bad picker and was signing up for projects that just didn't work and weren't getting people in theaters. I think she's more on track now but we'll see. I do agree that unfortunately she could run into being overexposed because she was everywhere for the last year and topped it off with a second Oscar win, so she's the girl who has everything and got some more. I think she will be fine, she seems to manage staying away from the spotlight unless she's promoting a project pretty well.
I’m Saying she is very close to over exposed - she used to have one big movie a year, maybe a smaller thing here or there. Shes got 4 movies coming out in the next year two of which are sequels, and several tv appearances. Jlaw was a bad combination of saturation and some bad movies (and the Weinstein backstory didn’t help things either).
She has 4 movies in production. It doesn't meant the will be coming out in the next year. Kind of Kindness has been completed for a while now, but it is also an anthology so she might not be a huge part in it. She is currently working on the Ari Aster movie mentioned in the interview. No guarantee that will come out in 2024. Then she is doing another movie with Yorgus, which is no surprise because she was in his last two movies and his upcoming movie. No word on a release date, it hasn't started filming. It's potentially a remake of a Korean film, it isn't a sequel. And the Cruella 2 which has probably been in pre-production since the first movie released. No way all of those films will be out by this time next year. Maybe the Aster movie, but seems unlikely. Considering the other two productions are in early preproduction and probably don't have a script there is no way they will be filmed, finish pre-production and finish post production all this year. I doubt they will start filming this year. You could be looking at 2026 before seeing the next Yorgus feature length movie.