MovieChat Forums > Kristen Stewart Discussion > It seems that Cali is back

It seems that Cali is back

posted 6 years ago by Mody (183)
12 replies | jump to latest

According to the last update pf production weekley March 7/ 2018 cali is back on track and Kristen is attached to star also sasha lane and it will start filming August 2018. I really hope it's true because the story sound so good.

https://twitter.com/TeamK_1/status/971475687969234944?s=19

[–] LLOwens (983) 6 years ago

Perhaps this thread should be renamed "Going Back to Cali", which by the way, is my fave song from LL Cool J, as well as from The Notorious B.I.G., who also recorded a song which goes by the same name. Saying Cali is back, is a bit of an understatement as Kristen was announced to star in this film almost 6 years ago, so I too am glad it finally appears to have gotten greenlit as I felt Nima Nourizadeh did a good job directing Kristen and Jesse Eisenberg in "American Ultra".

If it goes as planned, Kristen's co-star in this film, Sasha Lane, is one of the best up-and-coming young actresses working in Hollywood today--she showed much promise in "American Honey" and is making a name for herself as she is playing a supporting role in the upcoming reboot of "Hellboy" which I'm looking forward to watching. I was a bit disappointed that Guillermo Del Toro, who directed the first two films in the "Hellboy" film franchise, won't be at the helm. But if there's any consolation, Neil Marshall will direct. In my opinion, Marshall did a phenomenal job with "Doomsday" which is severely underrated--in my opinion, this film was superior to most films in the post-apocalyptic actioner sub-genre including "Mad Max: Fury Road" which was nominated for 6 Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director. So I'm guessing "Hellboy" will be even darker and truer to the graphic novel it was based upon compared to the first two installments with Marshall being the vision behind this complete reboot--although I highly doubt it will be as breathtaking as Del Toro's films in terms of visuals, namely his trademark artistic and poetic beauty.

All of these upcoming acting roles for Kristen, including being cast in "Against All Enemies" and "Charlie's Angels" have taken me by surprise, as I mistakenly assumed she would take an extended break from acting for a while in order to focus on adapting Lydia Yuknavitch's memoir "The Chronology of Water" into a screenplay. It seems she will be quite busy acting, writing and perhaps even directing over the course of the next couple of years. So much for Kristen's 15 minutes of fame being over--by the looks of it, she could be as busy working in the film industry as ever.

[–] Ron2011 (907) 6 years ago

Thanks for the update and info Mody. If I recall right, this film was off and on a few years ago? Now going forward.

I'm also a bit surprised that Kristen is so busy, figured she was getting into a more diverse set of work with some directing and writing. But I guess I'm not really surprised since she has a number of films in post or pre-production so is keeping up with her acting work. I'm glad to see it too as I like the types of roles she takes on. She got me more interested in the smaller, Indy type movies that may not have the flash of big box office movies but they're closer to real life and experiences of real people.

[–] LLOwens (983) 6 years ago

She got me more interested in the smaller, Indy type movies that may not have the flash of big box office movies but they're closer to real life and experiences of real people.

Same here Ron. Kristen almost single-handedly made me grow to appreciate indies, as big-budget studio films were what I was predominantly interested in prior to watching her performances back in '09/'10, most notably for her roles in Adventureland, Into the Wild, The Cake Eaters, Speak and Welcome to the Rileys. For example, in '08, my fave films released that year were mostly big budget studio films such as "The Dark Knight", "Iron Man", "WALL-E", "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", "Hellboy II", "Wanted", "Eagle Eye", and "Valkyrie". Of course, I still enjoy watching studio films, but if such films lack good acting, screenwriting and/or directing, I'm quick to lose my patience and my mind begins to wander, as expensive special effects and elaborate backdrops don't impress me as much as they used to. Out of all the Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress nominees for 2018, only one, Meryl Streep for "The Post" was a performance in a film produced by a major Hollywood studio. The other nine nominees starred in indie films, most in the $10-$12 million range. So bigger definitely doesn't necessarily mean better in terms of acting performances.

[–] Ron2011 (907) 6 years ago

" most notably for her roles in Adventureland, Into the Wild, The Cake Eaters, Speak and Welcome to the Rileys."

Those were very good character films. Adventureland [/I] brought me back to my adolescence. [I] Into the Wild [/I] was a very good film; Kristen played a good role in that which certainly helped her into other roles. Kristen was excellent in [i] The Cake Eaters [/i] The first film I saw her in was [I] Panic Room and she was just a kid. But I felt she did such a great job, was so unique and mature, that I kept her name in mind to see what she would do in later older roles. I had never really thought of such a young actor/actress doing so well, but that gave me more appreciation for when I see a very young actor do very well in a role.

I actually get a bit tired of the shoot-em-up movies, to some extent. Also tired of the industry trying to turn so many actors into action actors. But hey, that stuff sells so studios produce lots of them. And if the film has a bit more character to it then all the better from my perspective. There are just so many good stories that can be told about more realistic life without the need for so much gratuitous violence. Those tough guy/gal movies can be fun but totally unrealistic of course. Usually no one can actually do what they do. But when a story is done about more realistic people and happenings that most people can relate to, then it can really evoke a lot of feeling and emotion.

[–] LLOwens (983) 6 years ago

I actually get a bit tired of the shoot-em-up movies, to some extent. Also tired of the industry trying to turn so many actors into action actors. But hey, that stuff sells so studios produce lots of them. And if the film has a bit more character to it then all the better from my perspective. There are just so many good stories that can be told about more realistic life without the need for so much gratuitous violence. Those tough guy/gal movies can be fun but totally unrealistic of course. Usually, no one can actually do what they do. But when a story is done about more realistic people and happenings that most people can relate to, then it can really evoke a lot of feeling and emotion.

Nicely put as much of what you say is a major reason why some films have become my all-time favorites. Take for example my fave film of all time, "Star Wars: A New Hope". Despite its PG rating, war is raging across the universe, yet it does not contain the kind of violent depictions that would give children nightmares. In my opinion, no film compares to it in terms of movie magic. And then we have "The Godfather". Although this film is rated-R, it remains one of the hardest hitting crime dramas of all time not because of its violent content, which is much less than comparable gangster films released in the past few decades, but because it was so realistic and believable despite it being a fictional work. "The Shawshank Redemption" is another R rated film that has some violence, yet it is grittier than virtually any film with far more gratuitous violence because the portrayals of the main characters were so believable. And lastly, I should mention my fave films from Alfred Hitchcock. While "Psycho" was rated-R, it probably would be rated PG-13 if it were released right now, "Vertigo" and "Rear Window" both had PG ratings. Yet it is hard to find any film of any rating which is more thrilling than these three classics. Besides being the master of suspense, he is virtually unrivaled when it comes to implying violence--he can make a moviegoer imagine the worst without even showing it. The excuse many filmmakers could give for making their movies overtly violent and sexualized is that real life is at times rated-R, especially if it involves vice or war. But the thing is, movies if done right have the power to imply violence and sex without ever having to show it with just as big of an impact if they are creative enough and spur the imaginations of moviegoers.

Thus I tell myself, if I ever write a screenplay, it will not contain gratuitous violence. The storyline I'm currently working on could easily be told using graphic violence. But instead, I will imply violence through metaphors, no matter how ominous and menacing the violence being implied really is. For example, a scene involving war does not have to show thousands of soldiers being gunned down with blood splattering out of their guts or their limbs being blown off by grenades and mortar shells. A scene involving a nuclear warhead leveling a city doesn't have to show all the carnage for a viewer to know that violence of a greater magnitude than he can imagine has just occurred. Or a scene depicting a show of force coupled with the enemy in shambles, with their homeland lying in ruins, is enough for a viewer to know extreme violence has occurred previously. I believe such scenes can still have as big of an impact with the right actors and capable direction without all the gore and senseless violence so common in action movies today.

[–] Ron2011 (907) 6 years ago

There are places where violence is needed for the movie, especially making realistic war movies. I actually prefer newer war movies because they generally seem a lot more realistic depictions of what service members went through. I have lots of older relatives who went through wars and while it pains me a bit to see what they went through, it also does a did-service to them and us if it gets sanitized too much to where it doesn't seem as bad as it was.

My point about violence is that it sells so studios continue making it more and more. Such as Fast and Furious movies which IMO jumped the shark a while ago with so much unrealistic car chases and craziness. But those movies sell well, hence studios continue them, even as society complains about crime and violence in society.

Take martial arts films as an example. I used to be into martial arts and liked the movies to some extent. But so much is unrealistic that I have rarely watched such movies for a very long time. I do like Steven Segal's movies as his fighting seemed more realistic as self defense though of course he never loses.

[–] LLOwens (983) 6 years ago

There are places where violence is needed for the movie, especially making realistic war movies. I actually prefer newer war movies because they generally seem a lot more realistic depictions of what service members went through. I have lots of older relatives who went through wars and while it pains me a bit to see what they went through, it also does a did-service to them and us if it gets sanitized too much to where it doesn't seem as bad as it was.

I should start off by saying most of my favorite war movies of all time are rated-R for the reasons you mentioned--Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, Apocalypse Now, Black Hawk Down and The Deer Hunter all rank very high in my opinion. My fave war movie of 2016, "Hacksaw Ridge", contained lots of graphic violence as well.

However, in 2017, the two best war dramas contained substantially less violence and had PG-13 ratings. "Darkest Hour" probably would have been rated PG had it not been for the characters engaged in smoking and drinking. As far as the violence it was very mild in comparison to the aforementioned films and most of it was implied violence. For example, there is a war scene involving German bombers dropping bombs on a British stronghold causing massive damage to their fort. In my mind, this meant mass casualties even though the extent of how many were killed or injured wasn't depicted. In another scene, a sick bay chock full of severely injured troops were observed by a high ranking army officer, which implied they were a result of being vastly outnumbered by Nazi troops on the battlefield, even though this particular battle wasn't graphically depicted. Of course, I'm guessing all eyes are on Gary Oldman who spent a year studying Winston Churchill's mannerisms before becoming the role which won him the 2018 Best Actor Oscar. Then we have "Dunkirk" which contained more violence, yet avoids showing blood and gore altogether. There was also implied violence in the sense that there were loud explosions going off, yet the soldiers who were killed by the bombs weren't depicted with their limbs blown off their bodies in real time. In other scenes, soldiers are depicted as wincing in pain as a result of various acts of violence, but again, no blood or gore is shown in such scenes. Despite the lack of graphic violence, I still felt this film was realistic in its depiction of the violent and stressful nature of war as director Christopher Nolan intended it to be.

One analogy I've come up to illustrate that implying acts of violence may be the better choice as opposed to depicting it graphically is a rape scene. Some filmmakers cross the line in depicting rape onscreen, going full tilt and making it almost pornographic in nature in an effort to make it look as realistic as possible. In my opinion, such scenes should be implied, as where is the art of being overtly sexually explicit?

As far as martial arts films made in the past few years, the one film that blew me away was "The Raid 2". I guess in the case of martial arts films I'll make an exception--that graphic violence trumps implied violence in this sub-genre most of the time.

[–] Ron2011 (907) 6 years ago

"Darkest Hour" great film, Oldman was superb in it! Amazing performance. No real blood and gore needed to get the point across, but if battles had to be shown in more detail then I'm ok with showing it. That's in spite of the fact my father and all my uncles saw combat in WW2 so you'd think I would want the graphics of it toned down. But by toning down it does a did-service to what these soldiers saw and
went through.

Dunkirk was an excellent movie also. I just wish we'd seen more of the small boats being called out and then more showing them doing their part to pick up soldiers. That was truly an amazing feat. Over 200 ships, barges and small boats were sunk and many damaged. They evacuated well over 3330k troops, British, French and probably some other nationalities. So there was more that could have been shown to really get the impact of the entire operation.

Another amazing movie was "Hacksaw Ridge" showing what that medic went through but also all the soldiers in the movie. Amazing even more especially because it's a true story!

"One analogy I've come up to illustrate that implying acts of violence may be the better choice as opposed to depicting it graphically is a rape scene. Some filmmakers cross the line in depicting rape onscreen, going full tilt and making it almost pornographic in nature in an effort to make it look as realistic as possible. In my opinion, such scenes should be implied, as where is the art of being overtly sexually explicit? "

I agree with you. This is one thing that I don't want to see done graphically.

[–] LLOwens (983) 6 years ago

"Darkest Hour" great film, Oldman was superb in it! Amazing performance. No real blood and gore needed to get the point across, but if battles had to be shown in more detail then I'm ok with showing it. That's in spite of the fact my father and all my uncles saw combat in WW2 so you'd think I would want the graphics of it toned down. But by toning down it does a did-service to what these soldiers saw and
went through.

The first thing that comes to mind when I read your comment was William T. Sherman's immortal words, "War is hell", which was consistent with his scorched earth policies. So in line with this, depicting battle scenes, especially with regard to WWII, which was vastly more harrowing than General Sherman's battles against the Confederate States, it would be inaccurate if the battle scenes were illustrated any other way. So I believe I understand your point of view that depicting WWII battle scenes any other way would do a disservice not just to the soldiers who fought for our country, such as your father and uncles, but would also falsify and misrepresent history itself.

[–] Mody (183) 6 years ago

Welcome!! And yeah it was supposed to be made in 2012 but then she dropped i am glad it's gonna be made again. And i am so happy she has alot of movies cominh soon. And agree i love her choices and true not meant for box office but for people.

[–] Ron2011 (907) 6 years ago

"And agree i love her choices and true not meant for box office but for people."

Yes, nicely said.

[–] Mody (183) 6 years ago

You are so right! I am excited to see her adaption of the memoir she ha a unique directing style. And agree about sasha