Kate Hudson
- Thread starter Acid
- Start date
MartiniKiss
Active Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2010
- Messages
- 36,766
- Reaction score
- 53
dailymail.co.uk
nita-karoliina
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2007
- Messages
- 5,766
- Reaction score
- 5
She's been looking great!
SallyAlbright
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2013
- Messages
- 2,524
- Reaction score
- 129
She's in awesome shape!
MartiniKiss
Active Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2010
- Messages
- 36,766
- Reaction score
- 53
dailymail.co.uk
MartiniKiss
Active Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2010
- Messages
- 36,766
- Reaction score
- 53
shopping at the Miu Miu store on Thursday (May 29) in London, England.
justjared.com
justjared.com
MartiniKiss
Active Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2010
- Messages
- 36,766
- Reaction score
- 53
InStyle magazine's June 2014
dailymail.co.uk
dailymail.co.uk
happycanadian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 8,211
- Reaction score
- 279
BROADWAY.
It could be the first step back. After years and years of terrible films, it's time that she turns it back on and goes for some great parts!
There's still an immeasurable amount of goodwill in Hollywood for Kate Hudson. She was born into this industry and she knows everybody there is to know within it --- and most importantly, those who know her or have worked with her, only have positive things to say. So people are rooting for her! The struggle is that she's less of an actor and more of a moviestar. That's not a slight on her talent; it's an entirely different skillset and natural gift to be a moviestar. She's truly not all that dissimilar to her mom, Goldie Hawn. And, ultimately, Goldie probably wouldn't have any more success than Kate does, were she to have come out at the same time.
The entire genre of inexpensive-yet-profitable-movie-star-driven-films literally doesn't exist anymore. If Kate Hudson came out 25 years ago, they'd be writing films for her, with her as the lead, and driving the whole business. The film would have a $25-$35 million dollar budget, and it would turn a very favourable profit for the studio. And they'd keep pumping them out, and Kate Hudson would be a hugely profitable moviestar. But that formula no longer exists. "Celebrities" have destroyed the value of Moviestars and studios have turned to far more costly and faaaarrr more profitable film genres to make their money. Sure, there has been a rise in Indie and Art House films, but that's not the kind of actor that Kate Hudson is. She's a MOVIESTAR. She's the kind of actress that they write or adapt the screenplays for, not the other way around.
SO. What does she do? I think that the answer is twofold. First, BROADWAY. Second, since they aren't writing roles necessarily for her these days, she has to adapt to the roles that are available, but change it up a bit so that her options are broader.
She kind of dipped her toe in the Broadway water when she did Glee. And she got an extremely positive reaction. People loved her on that show. If she had a successful run on Broadway, it would generate a lot of press. Positive press. And all of it would focus on her talent, on her comeback, on her presence and charisma, etc. Then, she could make a real effort to get in with the off-kilter comedians in Hollywood (like Judd Apatow and crew) and be part of their circle. She's so 'golden' and 'beautiful' and 'sunny' that I think it would be hilarious and amazing to see her play a kind of raunchy character. Or a b*tch. I also think she'd be amazing in a kind of quirky film, maybe a Wes Anderson film. Try and stretch her natural moviestar charisma and natural comedic timing into a real juicy and fun character role.
It could be the first step back. After years and years of terrible films, it's time that she turns it back on and goes for some great parts!
There's still an immeasurable amount of goodwill in Hollywood for Kate Hudson. She was born into this industry and she knows everybody there is to know within it --- and most importantly, those who know her or have worked with her, only have positive things to say. So people are rooting for her! The struggle is that she's less of an actor and more of a moviestar. That's not a slight on her talent; it's an entirely different skillset and natural gift to be a moviestar. She's truly not all that dissimilar to her mom, Goldie Hawn. And, ultimately, Goldie probably wouldn't have any more success than Kate does, were she to have come out at the same time.
The entire genre of inexpensive-yet-profitable-movie-star-driven-films literally doesn't exist anymore. If Kate Hudson came out 25 years ago, they'd be writing films for her, with her as the lead, and driving the whole business. The film would have a $25-$35 million dollar budget, and it would turn a very favourable profit for the studio. And they'd keep pumping them out, and Kate Hudson would be a hugely profitable moviestar. But that formula no longer exists. "Celebrities" have destroyed the value of Moviestars and studios have turned to far more costly and faaaarrr more profitable film genres to make their money. Sure, there has been a rise in Indie and Art House films, but that's not the kind of actor that Kate Hudson is. She's a MOVIESTAR. She's the kind of actress that they write or adapt the screenplays for, not the other way around.
SO. What does she do? I think that the answer is twofold. First, BROADWAY. Second, since they aren't writing roles necessarily for her these days, she has to adapt to the roles that are available, but change it up a bit so that her options are broader.
She kind of dipped her toe in the Broadway water when she did Glee. And she got an extremely positive reaction. People loved her on that show. If she had a successful run on Broadway, it would generate a lot of press. Positive press. And all of it would focus on her talent, on her comeback, on her presence and charisma, etc. Then, she could make a real effort to get in with the off-kilter comedians in Hollywood (like Judd Apatow and crew) and be part of their circle. She's so 'golden' and 'beautiful' and 'sunny' that I think it would be hilarious and amazing to see her play a kind of raunchy character. Or a b*tch. I also think she'd be amazing in a kind of quirky film, maybe a Wes Anderson film. Try and stretch her natural moviestar charisma and natural comedic timing into a real juicy and fun character role.
dragonstone
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 0
I love everything about her, she's just gorgeous.
MartiniKiss
Active Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2010
- Messages
- 36,766
- Reaction score
- 53
in Spain.
dailymail.co.uk
dailymail.co.uk
Similar Threads
Users who are viewing this thread
New Posts
-
-
Vogue Arabia November 2025: Plestia Alaqad by Tanya Traboulsi; Saja Kilani by Mazen Abusrour (4 Viewers)
- Latest: marsnoop2
-
-
-