| |
Celeb News: Emma Stone's Lohan problem
Member Since: 5/25/2010
Posts: 23,013
|
Emma Stone's Lohan problem
My first celebrity thread. 
Emma Stone's Lohan Problem
Quote:
Emma Stone looks so much like Lindsay Lohan, she’s become her natural replacement in Hollywood. But Ramin Setoodeh asks if she really can measure up to our former favorite redhead.
They share the same red hair, the same husky voice, the same freckled complexion—but only one of them is a movie star.
Emma Stone has essentially landed the career that Lindsay Lohan was supposed to have, back when she was a rising Disney star. “Well…you could say I'm cheating,” Emma Stone recently told Australia’s Herald Sun, when asked about her Lohan-like locks. “I’m the false one. She’s the real redhead.”
At least Stone, 22, is in on the joke. Last fall, she was a relatively unknown actress peddling Easy A, a movie that was a remake of The Scarlet Letter with a dash of Mean Girls. When Stone hosted Saturday Night Live, one of her first skits was a fictional episode of The View, where she impersonated Lohan. What dramatic decisions did Stone bring to the role? Other than biting her fingernails, Emma Stone as Lindsay looked exactly like the real Emma Stone. She didn’t even need to change the tenor of her voice.
But as Lindsay’s career has flailed from a string of scandals that include drugs, booze, and shoplifting, Stone’s squeaky-clean demeanor has propped her up as a natural replacement. After an awards show in January, MTV asked: “Was it just us, or did…[Stone] look a lot like Lindsay Lohan, circa 2005?” A blog post from BlackBook.com’s Ben Barna took the parallels even further: “Come to think of it, Emma Stone isn’t so much the Lindsay Lohan that could have been—she’s the Lindsay Lohan that was.”
As likeable as Stone is onscreen, it’s not necessarily her acting that has everyone—including Jim Carrey—buzzing. In Crazy, Stupid, Love, Stone was a fine romantic comedy player, but still eclipsed by Ryan Gosling’s abs. The Help was a dramatic vehicle for standouts Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer. And Easy A was an exercise in Stone channeling her Lindsayness, before we knew she had the potential to overthrow the teen sweetheart.
Which brings up an even bigger question: Is all the Emma Stone hype because we secretly miss Lindsay Lohan?
It’s hard to remember now, but Lohan was one of the great child actresses of Hollywood. In 1998’s remake of The Parent Trap, she was as adept as Hayley Mills was at playing twin girls trying to reunite their divorced parents. In 2003’s remake of Freaky Friday, film critic Roger Ebert wrote that Lohan “has that Jodie Foster sort of seriousness and intent focus beneath her teenage persona.” And then there was 2004’s Mean Girls, exalted as her generation’s Clueless, propelling Lohan into full-fledged star, someone teenage girls wanted to be and teenage boys wanted to be with.
After fame, Lindsay spiraled into the purgatory of lunacy reserved for teenage starlets. Lindsay never shaved her head like Britney Spears did, but the paparazzi chronicled her every inebriated move outside the L.A. club scene. She was arrested twice for DUIs in 2007 and booked herself into rehab three times (this, by the way, is according to her official biography on TMZ). This year, she was charged with grand theft, after she was accused of snatching a $2,500 necklace from a jewelry store.
“You have acted like a spoiled child, and in doing so have alienated many of your co-workers and endangered the quality of this picture,” wrote James G. Robinson, the CEO of Morgan Creek Productions, in a letter he sent to Lohan when she wasn’t showing up for work on Georgia Rule. She drifted into some TV, with a recurring part on Ugly Betty. And now, not even Steven Soderbergh will hire Lohan for a supporting role in his upcoming movie about male strippers. “He didn’t want to deal with all that,” a source told E! News.
It’s not that we’ve lost our fascination with Lohan—she still has 2.4 million Twitter followers. It’s that the tweens who grew up idolizing her can no longer relate to her (or any of the other bad girls from the Paris Hilton generation). That’s where Stone holds the advantage. She can project all the qualities we liked about Lindsay, without any of the baggage.
There are, of course, a few noticeable differences between the two actresses. Lindsay, who is only (can you believe it?) 25, found fame at 12. Stone, now 22, had an entire life of privacy before Easy A. Lindsay had Dina and Michael Lohan, stage parents who clung to their daughter for fame. Stone grew up in a more functional household in Scottsdale, Ariz. In an interview with Vanity Fair, Stone says, “I have some of the coolest parents in the world. My dad’s whole philosophy, my mom’s too, is start with the reins out, and if you do something that should break the trust, then the reins come in.” She adds that, like Pinnochio, “it really is incredibly hard for me to lie.”
And yet, isn’t that what acting is all about? In her best films—Mean Girls especially—there is a fierceness in a Lindsay Lohan performance, a desperation, a vulnerability, all the qualities of a great, accomplished performer. When I see Emma Stone on the big screen, crinkling her nose and flashing her smile, my mind can’t help but think...she’s a little bland. If Stone wants to emerge as a leading lady for the ages—something that her next performance in The Amazing Spider-Man probably won’t determine—she’s going to need to take bigger risks. She’s going to need to feel less safe. She has to discover her own inner Lindsay.
“There’s going to be another 22-year-old redhead on my heels,” Stone told the Herald Sun. “It’s inevitable, and there’s nothing I can do about it.” But if Mean Girls taught us anything, it’s that you at least have to put up a fight.
|
Do you agree? Are we only fascinated with Emma Stone because she fills our appetite for "old Lindsay Lohan?" Is she as talented an actress as Lohan? I personally feel she's more of an Anne Hathaway replacement.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/11/2008
Posts: 10,964
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Vin
I personally feel she's more of an Anne Hathaway replacement. |
Yes.
But she must do more comedies like Easy A.
And she's hotter. 
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 11/24/2009
Posts: 61,404
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/20/2010
Posts: 12,356
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Vin
My first celebrity thread.
Emma Stone's Lohan Problem
Do you agree? Are we only fascinated with Emma Stone because she fills our appetite for "old Lindsay Lohan?" Is she as talented an actress as Lohan? I personally feel she's more of an Anne Hathaway replacement.
|
Interesting....
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/8/2008
Posts: 24,791
|
Emma is here to stay, Lindsay is a joke in the entertainment industry and Anne remains a nonfactor.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/25/2010
Posts: 23,013
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Haus_of_Nicole
|
Well, one thread has substance and the other is solely fluff.
Quote:
Originally posted by LightandDarkness
Interesting....
|
I feel Anne Hathaway is highly overrated, forgettable, and easily replaceable -- enter Emma.
...Vin
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/15/2011
Posts: 5,842
|
Weird, I've never once been reminded of Lindsay circa-any era at all by this girl. They don't even look a like. I'm sure if her hair were a different color, nobody would create the similarities, either.
But I've never seen her films, so what do I know?
|
|
|
|
ATRL Moderator
Member Since: 2/19/2003
Posts: 34,484
|
Ramin Sebatdoh is an idiot. A hot idiot, but an idiot nonetheless. He's the one who also said gay actors can't play straight. 
Lindsay Lohan was no one's Meryl Streep.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 11/24/2009
Posts: 61,404
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Vin
Well, one thread has substance and the other is solely fluff.
...Vin |
You'd know all about that, now wouldn't you?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2011
Posts: 31,849
|
wow Emma Stone>>>>>>Lindsay (in her prime)
Emma was awesome in Easy A and Superbad.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/20/2010
Posts: 12,356
|
Lindsay Lohan did it to herself..... Plus, most of the actresses from her generation are either has-beens or irrelevant, besides Evan Rachel Wood. Sorry that Emma Stone took her place as the current "it girl."
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/25/2010
Posts: 23,013
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ace Reject
Ramin Sebatdoh is an idiot. A hot idiot, but an idiot nonetheless. He's the one who also said gay actors can't play straight.
Lindsay Lohan was no one's Meryl Streep. |
Gay female actors can easily and effortlessly play straight, because men are programmed to think all women have "experimented" at some point and women are programmed to think it's "hot," "sexy," and "cool" to say they have kissed or "been with" another woman. (I can write a thesis about it.) Gay men, on the other hand, are more questionable in playing straight. It's a bit of a double standard, but it's not an "equality" issue, it's an "ability" issue. A lot of gay male actors are simply not believable in straight roles. That is it -- plain and simple. And the industry has only a handful of examples of gay men successfully playing straight roles: Neil Patrick Harris, Matthew Bomer, Ian McKellen. You have to be a talented actor to portray the role, so, when you step on set, unless you're a Clint f*****g Eastwood, in terms of talent, a gay male actor would be better off "omitting" his personal life before entering auditions, or automatically be typecast. I don't feel it's preposterously outrageous to say "gay men can't play straight roles" or "gay men in Hollywood should stay in the closet for work." It's just one of those touchy, loaded statements that hold a lot truth, that no one likes to hear out loud.
And yes, Lindsay Lohan is a trainwreck, but a talented trainwreck. If she would have continued her acting career without a hitch, she may very well have been on track to become Meryl Streep, who also was, and still is, versatile in film roles.
...Vin
|
|
|
|
ATRL Moderator
Member Since: 11/1/2010
Posts: 26,750
|
This entire 'replacement' business is just annoying.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/9/2008
Posts: 32,819
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Vin
Gay female actors can easily and effortlessly play straight, because men are programmed to think all women have "experimented" at some point and women are programmed to think it's "hot," "sexy," and "cool" to say they have kissed or "been with" another woman. (I can write a thesis about it.) Gay men, on the other hand, are more questionable in playing straight. It's a bit of a double standard, but it's not an "equality" issue, it's an "ability" issue. A lot of gay male actors are simply not believable in straight roles. That is it -- plain and simple. And the industry has only a handful of examples of gay men successfully playing straight roles: Neil Patrick Harris, Matthew Bomer, Ian McKellen. You have to be a talented actor to portray the role, so, when you step on set, unless you're a Clint f*****g Eastwood, in terms of talent, a gay male actor would be better off "omitting" his personal life before entering auditions, or automatically be typecast. I don't feel it's preposterously outrageous to say "gay men can't play straight roles" or "gay men in Hollywood should stay in the closet for work." It's just one of those touchy, loaded statements that hold a lot truth, that no one likes to hear out loud.
And yes, Lindsay Lohan is a trainwreck, but a talented trainwreck. If she would have continued her acting career without a hitch, she may very well have been on track to become Meryl Streep, who also was, and still is, versatile in film roles.
...Vin
|
That's assuming that all gay men are stereotypical and immediately identifiable as gay. If you met one of my friends, you would have NO idea that he was gay; he blew my mind when he played straight so effortlessly when other kids from his hall walked into his dorm room. Obviously that's just an anecdotal example, but personally, I could pretty easily pass as straight for the rest of my life as well, if I wanted to. I just don't.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/24/2006
Posts: 24,963
|
She's starting to grow on me, she's so..beautiful.
Just back from watching crazy love etc, amazing.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/13/2010
Posts: 5,334
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/25/2010
Posts: 23,013
|
Quote:
Originally posted by eli's_rhythm
That's assuming that all gay men are stereotypical and immediately identifiable as gay. If you met one of my friends, you would have NO idea that he was gay; he blew my mind when he played straight so effortlessly when other kids from his hall walked into his dorm room. Obviously that's just an anecdotal example, but personally, I could pretty easily pass as straight for the rest of my life as well, if I wanted to. I just don't.
|
But you and your friend aren't professional actors. Let's see if you can "keep character" throughout an entire hour-and-forty-seven-minute movie without the audience catching one glimpse of a mannerism or "clue" that you're probably gay. (Disclaimer: I am not implying that you or your friend are stereotypically gay or effeminate.) I'm simply stating, it's one thing for a gay actor to play a "straight" waiter or a walk-on role for 30 seconds, as opposed to a gay man playing a major lead role as a straight man. "Atypical" gay men who come off straight, always have a "sign" that eventually gives way to who they may really be. That's just the way it is and there's nothing wrong with that either. I'm just sayin'... masculine gay guys like to sometimes boast how non-gay they are, when in reality, the majority of people who have a prolonged interaction with you, will know your orientation at some point, and not because you told them.
...Vin
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/18/2011
Posts: 2,565
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LightandDarkness
Lindsay Lohan did it to herself..... Plus, most of the actresses from her generation are either has-beens or irrelevant, besides Evan Rachel Wood. Sorry that Emma Stone took her place as the current "it girl."
|
so true.
I loved Amanda and Mandy though 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/13/2011
Posts: 5,701
|
Why won't they give Lindsay another chance? She's still a good actress.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/15/2010
Posts: 3,610
|
So stupid. I don't think of Emma as Lindsay at all. Lindsay in her prime was so much better, I hate to say. Not as like-able in interviews and such. But acting-wise and looks-wise way better. I just don't understand the comparisons, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
