No offense, but Kiernan doesn't cut it. At all.
"Hey guys! Whoa, Big Gulps huh? All right! Well, see ya later!" Dumb & Dumber
Yes many of us agree with you. There are similar threads about this all over the board. They will need to find someone stunning to play Cathy for Petals On The Wind or her revenge scheme will not make sense. She has to be able to compete with Corrine.
shareI think Kiernan was a cute girl.
shareThat's the point Cathy is not supposed to be cute she is supposed to be stunningly gorgeous and doll like. Kiernan is cute but not doll like.
share[deleted]
quite right - the actress was very poorly cast, same as her 'mother' heather graham.
REPLACE those two with beautiful actresses who can act, the whole thing might have been a success.
I wish Katherine Kelly Lang (The Bold and The Beautiful's Brooke) was young enough to be Corrine, but she's not, even though she looks fantastic for her age (50's). When she was younger, she'd have been perfect for a part like Corrine or Cathy.
I want the girl who plays Brooke's daughter Hope on B&B to be adult Cathy, Kim Matula. She's a natural blonde with gorgeous blue eyes and perfect features, her blonde is a darker shade than Cathy's should be but it would be easy to lighten it, and she wears it very long. And she's good at playing the daughter born under weird circumstances, weird family connections, and playing the daughter of a beautiful man-magnet.
Lifetime, if you're reading, check out Kim Matula for Petals on the Wind!
Well Kiernen is pretty, though not "beautiful" in the way Cathy was described in the noviel. But she has some acting skills, which were needed for Cathy, especially because she is the main character in the movie. It is very hard to find an actress who is both flawlessly gorgeous AND talented as well. And Kiernan looks like she could grow into a beautiful woman when she gets a couple years older. i was fine with her playing the part, because i like how she portrayed Cathy as a bit stronger, rather than the typical weak female heroine that we saw in the book. she wasn't such a "victim" and I kind of liked that. girls today can't really relate to these weak sterotyped girls who just pout all the time and depend on their looks to get through life. Today girls are a bit smarter than that..
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
I truly don't get why these people are cast at all. They aren't cast because they are well known and will draw an audience.. because they're not. Cathy's actress was not beautiful in anyway. She was maybe cute but she would never been seen as gorgeous, beautifully, womanly, sexy.. nothing. Not in the way she looked in the movie anyway. That guy would very easily be able to resist her.. he is much better looking. Leaps and bounds.
Plus I'm not sure why people are saying she was chosen because she can act.. I cringed at every line she had. She was terrible and absolutely could not deliver her lines or act in any way. She was mediocre at best.
So she didn't have the looks, the talent, or the famous name.. So I honestly have no idea why she was cast.
Famous name? Who do you expect to ber cast? Jennifer Lawrence? It's a tv movie; they can't afford to pay those salaries. I'm sure most of the budget went to Ellen Burstyn; she is famous and an Acadamy Award winning actress. chris could resist her? Apparently you have never been a 15 year old boy just growing into manhood. the girl was very cute, nothing wrong with her looks at all. As far as her acting goes; you might not have liked the way she portrayed Cathy, which is understandable because Cathy does have a different personality in the book..however that doesn't mean Kiernen is a "bad actress." now the boy who played Chris was simply cast for his looks; he is very handsome, but his acting skills are not as strong as Kiernen's..so why don't you insult HIS acting? People need to understand that these tv productions have very little money to work with, and very little time to shoot, edit and produce the product. i believe this whole movie was filmed in a week! And i think the end product is very good considering everything working against it. Great script, and beautiful cinematography too. I really don't know what people expect..this is probably the best thing lifetime has done...
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
I think another thing people should keep in mind is that when a book writes a character to be so drop-dead gorgeous it's not even funny, it's hard to find actors/actresses or any real-life people for that matter to meet up to that. I see nothing at all wrong with Kiernan's looks, in fact I think she is beautiful. I certainly wouldn't mind looking like her.
Maybe she doesn't match the exact description and maybe the movie should have made her hair a lighter blonde and put in extensions, but that's not Kiernan's fault. Either way, she was effective for me. And I think they chose her because she's young but has been acting for a long time and in serious drama.
That's the problem whenever a book is adapted into a movie. People always have pictures of what they think the character looks like or who they think should be cast in the part, and they're not happy if it doesn't match that.
I know there are characters in some books I've read that are supposed to be so gorgeous it's not even realistic, so even though they cast a beautiful actress to play it, I think "hmm, I don't know if she's so beautiful she could tame the playboy" or whatever her part is. Or there will be a man that's so handsome that when I think of who could be cast, I'll think of a handsome actor, but not be sure if even he is that handsome.
It's part of what makes it hard to translate what's on a page to what's on screen and what's fantasy into reality.
now the boy who played Chris was simply cast for his looks; he is very handsome, but his acting skills are not as strong as Kiernen's..
Don't get me wrong; I liked Mason Dye as Chris, and thought he was perfectly cast. It's just that Cathy's character is given more opportunities to show dramatic range, as it is more her story. I wish they had utilized Mason's abilities more, and brought him more to the center of the story..
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
She was maybe cute but she would never been seen as gorgeous, beautifully, womanly, sexy.. nothing. Not in the way she looked in the movie anyway. That guy would very easily be able to resist her.. he is much better looking. Leaps and bounds.
I liked Kiernan as Cathy as well. I think people on this board keep forgetting Cathy in the book is 12 when it starts and right around 15 at the end of the first book and right around the time girls go through puberty - she still has time to mature and gain the beauty. I do however love the casting of Rose McIver for Cathy in POTW....saw the trailer for it a few minutes ago and she is stunning. Still uncertain at how some parts will be handled though.
Link to trailer: http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/04/18/petals-on-the-wind-trailer-exclusive /
"It's better to be hated for who you are than be loved for who you aren't."
Most of you are just embarrassing yourselves.
For starters, however you think the actress looks, could you perhaps have some empathy for a girl who turned 14 a couple of months ago and might actually read the IMDB?
Next, she is, and I've looked around a bit, quite strikingly gorgeous.
As far as her talent, well she has been working steadily since she was 6 and is a big part of "Mad Men", a critical success.
Oh yes, "Cathy's actress"..her name is Kiernan Shipka.
[deleted]
Neither, Kristy Swanson or Victoria Tennant was strikingly beautiful either. Just simply pretty. I thought the two ladies that portrayed "Corrine" and "Cathy" were just as attractive as the two of them in the original movie.
share[deleted]
Also she didn't have the long hair. The Cathy in the book had waist length hair or beyond. Or at least by the time they left the attic it was very very long.
In the book, her hair isn't cut after the tar episode - they do manage to get the tar out and then Cathy wears a towel/turban for the rest of the time they stay there. Her brother only cuts some hair around the front of head (like some real short bangs) to fool the grandmother. And it does because she smiles smugly when she sees that.
I noticed that too! Even after she'd been in the attic for a year, her hair was still only shoulder length! Really, now--they gave her the bad wig for the post-haircut scene, why not a good wig, or at least extensions, for before?
shareThe girl that played Cathy was ok , but ya not nearly as pretty as they make her sound in the book! She's also supposed to have like extra long hair in the book as well. The rest of the children were actually pretty close to the book though.
share