Post: #1

Quote:THEY are the four faces instantly recognisable to a generation of fans who embraced their post-Sex And The City coming-of-age in New York City.

So it seems remarkable that most of the cast of millennial cult TV series Girls — which has just wrapped its sixth and final season — are struggling to find work.

In fact, the single breakout star from the controversial HBO drama isn’t a girl at all — and his four castmates Lena Dunham, Jemima Kirke, Zosia Mamet and Allison Williams believe that is a big factor in his success.

While Adam Driver has parlayed his role as a serial boyfriend on Girls into a stellar film career, including a key part in the Star Wars franchise as Kylo Ren, his female co-stars say they are largely overlooked. [Have these morons seen The Force Awakens? An overhyped female character had the biggest role in the entire damn film and Kylo Ren was an unstable little bitch.]

Kirke, who plays Jessa, says her career options are far more limited than the those of 33-year-old Driver, who plays her boyfriend Adam in season six.

“We don’t get a lot of job offers, not like you would expect,” Kirke told News Corp Australia. [Maybe you just aren't good enough?]

“I mean I can give you the five roles that get asked of us to do.

“Mine are like tough girl with undertone of sadness, I cannot read another script about a bad bitch who’s actually sad in the end and that was what the whole problem was.

“Every script Lena gets is like she starts out eating a sandwich and says something like: ‘what the hell!’” [A much meatier role than she deserves.]

“It’s just silly, I don’t understand it. And then Adam Driver’s like — whoosh (she says, making a shooting star with her arms).”

When asked what’s next for her, Zosia Mamet (Shoshanna) jokes “maybe a cab driver”.

“We are all sort of typecast,” she concedes.

“I also just think it’s a really sad reality of the gender discrepancy in our industry that still exists.

“After season two, Adam Driver was just like the most famous human ever [Valley girl exaggeration is alive and well in NYC.], and he’s insanely talented and he deserves it.

“But people often think that people are just throwing movie roles at us and we basically have to fight tooth and nail for every other job we’ve ever gotten. [The Titanic violinists are rising from the dead to play for you.] So yeah it’s tough to get a job in this industry right now.

“And it’s really tough to get a job that’s anything moderately different from the roles we’ve already played.”

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/...5c03deb6d1

For anyone who doesn't know, these four girls come from extremely privileged backgrounds. All their parents are multimillionaires. Compare that to middling-class Driver, who, despite the awful choice to appear in Girls, served in the Marines and worked his way through Juilliard.

From Jennifer Lawrence to Amy Schumer, Melissa McCarthy to Evan Rachel Wood, we have reached peak "roles for women". If these four can't succeed now outside Girls, when the fuck can they succeed?

It's also fair to say that many in America are sick of women like the cast of Girls being political activists before they are stars (which the three better-looking cast members are certainly not). Despite what the article says, the actresses are not "instantly recognizable", aside from mentally ill Dunham.

Self-reflection is really not their strength. Jemima Kirke recently blamed her divorce on "acting".

Post: #2

IMDB of Girls cast is here: http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1723816/fullcr..._=m_ttfc_3

The 3 actresses with the most episodes have nothing that sticks out on their movie or TV series resume. They're average faces in average hollywood and nowhere near the top in terms of the pyramid.

If anything the older actress, Becky Ann Baker has a more established film resume than them all combined. http://m.imdb.com/name/nm0048250/?ref_=m_ttfcd_cl10

The average worker has to slog it through the mud like everyone else but the entitlement issues is ramped up because someone stucka camera in their face and told them to play pretend.

Post: #3

(02-19-2017 10:28 AM)david.garrett84 Wrote:  

Quote:“I mean I can give you the five roles that get asked of us to do.


“And it’s really tough to get a job that’s anything moderately different from the roles we’ve already played.”

In other words, they get plenty of offers but they feel like the roles are beneath them. Like a girl who claims she can't get a date but ignores the many men in her friendzone.

(02-19-2017 10:28 AM)david.garrett84 Wrote:  It's also fair to say that many in America are sick of women like the cast of Girls being political activists before they are stars (which the three better-looking cast members are certainly not). Despite what the article says, the actresses are not "instantly recognizable", aside from mentally ill Dunham.

You can't make your entire identity about your stupid politics and still expect to be liked by a large enough audience to support stardom. Either pick a non-polarizing cause like African hunger or abandoned pets or get known for acting before trying to stump for a cause at all.

Post: #4

Very simple, those three girls aren't hot enough to get by on their looks. I don't know one big time young actress who isn't extremely attractive (at least when professionally made up)

Post: #5

So, Lena's decision to be HRC's Youth Outreach Ambassador didn't work out for her, huh?

Post: #6

Better title: "Female 'Stars' of Lena Dunham's 'Girls'; We Don't Get Roles Because All We Offer is Holes"

Post: #7

More than likely it's because they actually don't have any talent or personality whatsoever.

Post: #8

(02-19-2017 10:28 AM)david.garrett84 Wrote:  From Jennifer Lawrence to Amy Schumer, Melissa McCarthy to Evan Rachel Wood, we have reached peak "roles for women". If these four can't succeed now outside Girls, when the fuck can they succeed?

The problem is that no-one cares about a hideous, obese, morally-reprehensible Bog Troll like Dunham except for the hideous, obese, morally-reprehensible Bog Troll Female Typists in the Feminist Media.

Look at the dreadful ratings numbers for each episode:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Girls_episodes

So doing further research on Wikipedia and comparing to other HBO programming, I'm curious as to why HBO has persisted with the show for so long to begin with, when the show has consistently-gotten numbers below a million viewers that have gotten most other HBO shows immediately-cancelled when they dip to similar levels.

Why is so much written about Dunham when 'Girls' doesn't even break the Top 200 most-watched shows in the year of its greatest success?

Hell, why is so much written about Dunham when it's far out-rated by Progressive-Skewing Children's Shows my nephew used to watch, like 'Adventure Time', 'We Bare Bares' and 'Steven Universe'?

Adventure Time's series peak: 3.6
Steve Universe series peak: 2.4
We Bare Bears 2.1
Girl's series peak: 1.1

The show's reach is tiny. It's as far from the Zeitgeist as possible. It perfectly-illustrates the Progressive Bubble: Hillary Clinton thought Dunham was relevant and popular enough to waste her time campaigning with, whilst Trump was out talking to the masses.

This is why no-one is offering them scripts. They generate such low heat that they're considered Z-List actors.

Doesn't matter. Keep flogging that Dead Horse, Typists!

Post: #9

Oh well. Yeah I guess it's sad they were born with a moist pocket instead of an awesome dick.

On the other hand they can have kids. Why not give that a try instead of acting.

Post: #10

(02-19-2017 04:22 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  Oh well. Yeah I guess it's sad they were born with a moist pocket instead of an awesome dick.

On the other hand they can have kids. Why not give that a try instead of acting.

It shows how bad Lena Dunham is when the least disgusting, least vomit-inducing name for her genitals is "moist pocket".

Post: #11

Thinking about Lena Dunam nude will buy you a good 30 seconds of additional fucking but will haunt you in your nightmares for days after.

Post: #12

Came in to mention the dismal ratings that have always plagued the show. Glad to see it's already been mentioned. The show's continued existence is entirely due to the backstage political hackary of HBO execs. (although there are a few other exceptions in HBO's history of shows where they would give renewals to low-rated series: The Life and Times of Tim (I think it was called) lasted for several seasons and routinely got 0.0 ratings)

I actually have been impressed with Zosia Mamet's acting range- when she was younger she portrayed a much older character on Mad Men. Comparing that with the air-head "college-age" girl she's played on Girls shows that she does have some skill. Granted, at the end of the day acting is a pretty worthless skill, but still.

Post: #13

It's real simple. When I watch women on tv, I may want to masturbate. These women on that show make this very difficult.

The only one who I WB is Allison Williams. It seems she was cast as the hot girl in their group on the show. Ironically, she's also the token shiksa.

Post: #14

AnonymousBosch summarised it best in another thread where he said something like, "you give a woman the world and she will want the moon"

These are some of the most privileged people on the planet with more money and opportunities than practically everyone else. Are they happy with that? No, they still see themselves as victims.

Post: #15

(02-19-2017 10:28 AM)david.garrett84 Wrote:  For anyone who doesn't know, these four girls come from extremely privileged backgrounds. All their parents are multimillionaires. Compare that to middling-class Driver, who, despite the awful choice to appear in Girls, served in the Marines and worked his way through Juilliard.

From Jennifer Lawrence to Amy Schumer, Melissa McCarthy to Evan Rachel Wood, we have reached peak "roles for women". If these four can't succeed now outside Girls, when the fuck can they succeed?

It's also fair to say that many in America are sick of women like the cast of Girls being political activists before they are stars (which the three better-looking cast members are certainly not). Despite what the article says, the actresses are not "instantly recognizable", aside from mentally ill Dunham.

Self-reflection is really not their strength. Jemima Kirke recently blamed her divorce on "acting".

The lack of unbiased self reflection women are incapable of never ceases to amaze me. Article reeks of shade for Driver. But of course they're not getting offers they're not acting. I wouldn't be surprised if all the "girls" are the same in real life as they are on the show

(02-19-2017 02:48 PM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  Better title: "Female 'Stars' of Lena Dunham's 'Girls'; We Don't Get Roles Because All We Offer is Holes"

Modern day shakespearean poet

Post: #16

What kind of roles should they get?

Now let us truly think about it.

They are all rich girls playing disfunctional fucked up not overly nice women who take it up a notch from Sex and The City. When they reach SexAndTheCity ages, then they will look truly like crap being much more run down and demented.

The show celebrates dysfunction and no one wants to see those actresses playing any lead romantic roles, they also don't want them in character roles because they are so far typecast in those lousy parts.

All of those bitches will have millions even if they lost everything they earned and stopped working altogether. This statement of their next jobs being cabdrivers is so much bullshit. Daddies little girls never need to work real work - the most those deluded bitterbitches worked was during the show when they pretended to be waitresses, unemployed writers or unknown singers. Their real life they grew up is closer to Fifth Avenue rich girls than to anything they portray.

Maybe the reason why roles are scarce for them is because no one likes them except for the few feminist shitheads out there.

Post: #17

Perhaps even in the severely "progressive" TV and film industry, talent is still a more valuable commodity than whiny ideology and parental connections?