logo
#

Latest news with #MadMax:FuryRoad

Skins Stars Who Became Hugely Successful Actors
Skins Stars Who Became Hugely Successful Actors

Buzz Feed

time7 days ago

  • Entertainment
  • Buzz Feed

Skins Stars Who Became Hugely Successful Actors

Nicholas Hoult Nicholas Hoult is the only Skins alumni who was actually pretty established before he landed the role of Tony Stonem in Seasons 1 and 2 of the show. He is, after all, the child actor who starred alongside Hugh Grant in the 2002 movie About A Boy, which was released to huge critical acclaim. Nicholas was just 11 years old at the time, and the film was nominated for Golden Globes, BAFTAs, and even an Academy Award. However, it was his performance in Skins at age 17 that really asserted Nicholas's place in mainstream consciousness, with his character Tony — a manipulative anti-hero — the main focus of Season 1. Since then, Nicholas's career has gone from strength to strength. His commercial success no doubt kicked off in 2011 when he was cast as Nux in Mad Max: Fury Road, and Hank McCoy/ Beast in the X-Men franchise. In 2013, he also garnered attention with his starring role in Warm Bodies. Nicholas worked steadily on several well-received projects over the years, but returned to the spotlight with a bang following his standout performance in the 2022 hit The Menu. And despite this huge back catalogue of incredible films, it feels as though Nicholas's career is only just starting to peak, with the star dominating the headlines at this very moment thanks to his charming press tour for the new Superman movie, where he plays villain Lex Luthor. Needless to say, 18 years later, Tony Stonem is booked and busy. Jack O'Connell Jack O'Connell also enjoyed his moment in the sun this year following his critically acclaimed performance in the Ryan Coogler hit Sinners, where he played villain Remmick. He also starred as Sir Jimmy Crystal in 28 Years Later. However, longtimers will know him for playing Cook in Seasons 3 and 4 of Skins, which he landed when he was 17 years old. Similarly to Nicholas, Jack — who comes from a working-class background and had run-ins with the police throughout his teen years — was already acting when he was cast in the show, but had not yet had his breakout role. After Skins, the star mainly focused on hugely successful independent films like Starred Up and '71, and he even won the prestigious Rising Star BAFTA in 2015. Jack has also enjoyed stage success, and starred opposite Sienna Miller in the London production of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof in 2018. Daniel Kaluuya Interestingly, Daniel Kaluuya's Skins character wasn't even part of the main cast in Season 1 and 2, with Daniel landing the recurring role of Posh Kenneth when he was 18 years old. Despite this, he has arguably had the most success out of the show's entire cast, with the star earning an Oscar, two BAFTAs, a Golden Globe, two SAG awards, and even an Emmy nomination for his 2021 appearance on Saturday Night Live in the years since he made his Posh Kenneth debut. Daniel enjoyed steady work after his stint on Skins, but it was his appearance in an episode of Black Mirror that ended up turning his career around, with his performance catching the eye of Jordan Peele, who cast him as the lead in his hugely acclaimed 2017 movie Get Out. From then on, Daniel was unstoppable. He starred in Black Panther in 2018, Jordan Peele's sci-fi horror Nope in 2021, as well as the 2021 hit Judas and the Black Messiah, which earned him most of the aforementioned accolades. Dev Patel Dev Patel has also come a long way from his Anwar Kharral roots in Skins Seasons 1 and 2, the breakout role that he landed at just 16 years old. One year after his debut on the series, Dev was at the center of critical acclaim for his performance in Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire, which earned him a BAFTA nomination. His career then exploded thanks to his pivot into comedies like The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, before he achieved staggering success as the leading role in the 2016 movie Lion, which saw Dev get nominated for an Academy Award, Critics' Choice Award, Golden Globe, SAG Award, and win a BAFTA. And just last year, Dev was lauded even more when he made his directorial debut with the action movie Monkey Man, which he also starred in — proving that he is pretty much unstoppable. Kaya Scodelario Kaya Scodelario is the only actor to appear in two generations of Skins, with Kaya attending the open auditions for Season 1 of the show when she was just 14 years old, which was too young for showrunners at the time. Still, she ended up catching the eye of one of the producers, and was cast in the recurring role of Tony's younger sister, Effy Stonem, for the first two seasons. She then took center stage in the second two seasons, which focused on Effy and her group of friends. And it's not just the creators of Skins that saw Kaya's spark; the show proved to be the catalyst for some serious acting success, with the star being cast as the lead character Teresa in the Maze Runner film franchise in 2013. She also had a leading role in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, and starred opposite Zac Efron in the 2019 independent movie Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile, where she played real-life serial killer Ted Bundy's wife. Since then, Kaya has been praised for her performances in some pretty big TV shows, including Guy Ritchie's 2024 Netflix series The Gentlemen, and Senna, which is a biographical drama about F1 driver Ayrton Senna. Thank goodness she had the guts to attend that Skins audition despite being underage! And some honorary mentions... Hannah Murray Hannah Murray previously admitted that she only attended the open audition for Skins at the age of 16 for the experience, and it worked out pretty well for her, as she ended up being cast as one of the fan favorites, Cassie. She starred in the first two seasons of the show, and reprised her role for the two-episode seventh season in 2013, which caught up with Cassie as an adult. And in the time inbetween, Hannah established herself in another hugely popular TV series, starring as Gilly in three seasons of the HBO hit Game of Thrones. Hannah has enjoyed steady TV, movie, and stage work since then, and in 2024, it was revealed that she is working on an autobiography for release in 2026. Joe Dempsie Joe Dempsie is another face that you might recognize from either Skins or Game of Thrones, with the actor being equally beloved in both. He was actually the oldest of the core gang when he was cast as Chris in Skins at age 20, with the actor part of the first generation of characters. Joe then played Gendry in five of the eight seasons of Game of Thrones, and appeared in three of Channel 4's This Is England miniserieses. He has been acting steadily ever since, and was most recently seen in four episodes of the Netflix series Toxic Town earlier this year. Who is your favorite Skins alum? Let me know in the comments below!

Superman star earned $1,250,000 less than highest paid member of cast
Superman star earned $1,250,000 less than highest paid member of cast

Metro

time13-07-2025

  • Entertainment
  • Metro

Superman star earned $1,250,000 less than highest paid member of cast

Everyone knows you shouldn't ask your colleagues what they're getting paid. However, the new Superman, David Corenswet, might want to ask his agent why he earned 1,250,000 less than his co-star Nicholas Hoult. Yes, despite playing the title character and arguably the world's most popular superhero, it turns out that David, 31, didn't earn as much as you might expect for leading a film like Superman. According to a new report from Puck, David and his onscreen love interest Rachel Brosnahan only earned a relatively meagre $750,000 for their work. The former Skins star, however, earned a much more impressive $2,000,000 for playing the vile Lex Luthor, which makes him the highest paid member of the cast. That may sound unfair, but there's method in the madness. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video While David and Rachel are stars in their own right – especially Rachel, who led her own TV show, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel on Prime Video – both actors lacked the big screen experience. Nicholas, meanwhile,e who's starred in critically acclaimed flicks like Mad Max: Fury Road and Nosferatu alongside bigger franchise fare like X-Men, was able to negotiate a higher wage. Before you start shouting about how unfair this is, though, be aware that all three actors are in line for more money if the film performs at the box office. That means if you think David and Rachel deserve a bit more cash in their pocket, you ned to head to the cinema and see Superman. And why would you go see Superman? The film has been a critical and commercial hit. At the time of writing, Superman has an impressive 82% critics score on Rotten Tomatoes and an even healthier audience score of 93%. Those are some pretty impressive numbers, and it's translating to box office success. The following figures are US only and unadjusted for inflation. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice – $330,360,194 Man of Steel – $291,045,518 Superman Returns – $200,081,192 Superman – $134,218,018 Superman II -$108,185,706 Superman III -$59,950,623 Superman IV: The Quest For Peace – $15,681,020 The film, which is directed by James Gunn, is on track to become the second-biggest Superman movie ever. More Trending Recent Deadline reports suggest it's earned $123 million in its opening weekend in the US. Once you factor in foreign film markets it's expected that Superman will have brought in $210 million worldwide. Now that may sound like a lot, but with The Wall Street Journal reporting that Superman had a $225 million budget not including marketing costs (which can double the cost of making a movie), the film hasn't quite turned a profit just yet. Still with numbers this good and little in the way of blockbuster competition until the release of Fantastic Four: First Steps it looks like Superman has saved the day… for the accountants at Warner Bros. Superman is in theatres now. Got a story? If you've got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@ calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we'd love to hear from you. MORE: Does Superman 2025 have a post-credits scene and does it set up a sequel? MORE: What is the 'Superman curse' and why has it made the role so hard to cast? MORE: I'm a film critic and Superman's Rotten Tomatoes score doesn't make sense

Charlize Theron calls out Hollywood for avoiding the ‘risk' of female-led action films
Charlize Theron calls out Hollywood for avoiding the ‘risk' of female-led action films

Time of India

time13-07-2025

  • Entertainment
  • Time of India

Charlize Theron calls out Hollywood for avoiding the ‘risk' of female-led action films

Charlize Theron , the Oscar-winning actress, has spoken against the gender gap that still exists in Hollywood, especially in the action genre. Despite her achievements in the genre, she criticized the industry for being reluctant to approve action movies with female leads. In a recent interview with The New York Times, Theron and fellow actress Uma Thurman openly discussed the challenges women face in action films while promoting their upcoming Netflix sequel, The Old Guard 2. During the conversation, Theron candidly talked about the difficulties women encounter when fighting for lead roles in action-packed blockbusters. Theron stated bluntly, "Yeah, it's harder. That's known. Action films with female leads don't get green-lit as much as the ones with male leads.' She underlined how, in spite of proof that female-led films can be both critically and commercially successful, the film industry continues to view male-driven action films as a safer investment. Additionally, Theron drew attention to the industry's double standards, which allow male actors to get away with box office failures more easily than female actors. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Brain tumor has left my son feeling miserable; please help! Donate For Health Donate Now Undo 'I think the thing that always frustrates me is the fact that guys will get a free ride,' she said further adding, 'If a guy does a movie that bombs, he'll get another chance. But a woman has to constantly prove herself.' Theron has previously addressed the issue of gender inequality in Hollywood. She has been a vocal supporter of equal representation throughout her career and has starred in popular action movies like The Old Guard, Mad Max: Fury Road, and Atomic Blonde. However, she did observe that systemic bias is still a major obstacle. Later this year, The Old Guard 2 will be available on Netflix. Theron hopes that the audience's continued support will encourage studios to take more risks with action movies starring women. 'We've proved it works,' she stated. 'Now it's time for the industry to catch up.'

Charlize Theron calls out Hollywood for not taking ‘risk' on female hero action films
Charlize Theron calls out Hollywood for not taking ‘risk' on female hero action films

New York Post

time13-07-2025

  • Entertainment
  • New York Post

Charlize Theron calls out Hollywood for not taking ‘risk' on female hero action films

Actress Charlize Theron criticized the film industry for being reluctant to support female-led action films, in a new interview with The New York Times. Theron and fellow actress Uma Thurman spoke to the outlet about the challenges women face in the genre as they promote their new Netflix superhero sequel, 'The Old Guard 2.' Theron said that securing the lead roles in action films is more challenging for women because Hollywood viewed these films as more of a risk. 'Yeah, it's harder,' Theron said. 'That's known. Action films with female leads don't get green-lit as much as the ones with male leads. I think the thing that always frustrates me is the fact that guys will get a free ride.' The Oscar-winning actress suggested there was a double standard in Hollywood. Theron claimed that when male actors star in films that flop at the box office, they are often given a pass, while women are rarely given the same leeway. Charlize Theron attended the Charlize Theron Africa Outreach Project 2025 Block Party in Universal City, Calif. on June 28, 2025. Getty Images Theron played Furiosa in the 2015 film 'Mad Max: Fury Road.' Jasin Boland 'When women do this and the movie maybe doesn't hit fully, they don't necessarily get a chance again,' she said. 'With this, we were very aware that eyes were on us. It's not a risk that studios want to take, but they'll take it many times on the same guy who might have a string of action movies that did not do so well.' Both she and Thurman have starred in successful female-led action films. Thurman famously played an assassin in 'Kill Bill,' while Theron has taken on iconic roles in films like 'Mad Max: Fury Road' and the 'Fast & Furious' franchise.

Before the Sphere, There Was the Wall
Before the Sphere, There Was the Wall

Atlantic

time10-07-2025

  • Entertainment
  • Atlantic

Before the Sphere, There Was the Wall

Picture yourself at a concert. If you're standing by the soundboard, usually near the rear center of the venue, you'll enjoy the best possible version of the band's performance—what the 'sound guy,' whose job it is to make everything coalesce inside the room, hears. But if you step away to grab a beer and end up watching from a different place, you'll hear something else. At an outdoor show, the experience is even more varied, because of the open acoustics and elements such as wind, which break up sound waves. Far too often, the song you've waited all night for may finally reach your ears as a distorted puddle. How does a band ensure that it sounds like the most pristine version of itself, no matter where the show takes place or where the audience listens? In the early 1970s, the Grateful Dead tried to solve this dilemma with the help of their on-again, off-again sound engineer, Owsley 'Bear' Stanley, who conceptualized one of the boldest innovations in music history: a literal 'wall of sound.' On hits such as the Ronettes' 'Be My Baby,' the music producer Phil Spector had famously created a figurative wall of sound by layering instruments and orchestral sweeps. But the Dead's wall was essentially a behemoth sound system, a hulking electrical mess of amps, speakers, wires—like the menacing heavy-metal rig in Mad Max: Fury Road, but far larger, louder, and, perhaps, more ludicrous. The grand idea was both utopian and egalitarian: The wall placed virtually every piece of technology needed for a live show behind the group, allowing the crowd to hear precisely what the Dead heard as they played. The wall, the journalist Brian Anderson writes in his new book, Loud and Clear, 'weighed as much as a dozen full-grown elephants' and 'stretched the length of a regulation basketball court.' At each tour stop, roadies would assemble the nearly 600 speakers that, when operable, stood at about the height of a small apartment building and sounded 'as loud as a jet engine at close range.' During outdoor shows, fans could be up to a quarter mile from the stage and still hear Jerry Garcia's guitar runs with depth and clarity. But a relatively short time after its creation, the complexity and expense of maintaining the wall catalyzed the band's first serious brush with burnout—and, Anderson argues, played a factor in its hiatus. In trying to shorten the pathway from instrument to eardrum, the Dead's wall had simultaneously created a host of previously nonexistent issues. On paper, the wall was a tool to expand the scope of their sky-reaching jams; more than any of their rock contemporaries, the Dead were known for extended, full-band improvisation. But relying on engineering in order to achieve a perfect sound brought a new set of anxieties: Because there was frequently some glitch with the wall, the band was often held back from reliably playing at its best. Stanley helped the Dead reach a new stratosphere of live performance, but he also established an impossible standard—one the band couldn't measure up to. Grateful Dead fandom invites—and thrives on—obsession. Though the Dead's jam-band sound is undoubtedly groovy, many of its songs concern heavy themes such as life and death. There's a deceptive weight to their songs, even when the tunes feel bright; the music is an ongoing search to unlock something hidden in the recesses of your mind. Though the band has a wonderful collection of studio recordings, the real juice is in the live stuff: the thousands of concerts performed over dozens of years, with a different set list every night. There's a lot to get lost in, and from their early days as a touring band, the Dead won legions of stoned and tripping devotees. Anderson's book, though, is dizzying in a different way: It's a detailed, almost show-by-show breakdown of the band's live performances across its first decade (roughly 1965 to 1974), augmented by insider stories. Readers meet not only Stanley but also other engineers, roadies, and crew members who worked long hours under difficult conditions to help the Dead put on incomparable shows. (Many of the roadies also relied on, according to one band member, 'mountains of blow.') But undergirding this occasionally exhausting narrative effort is a tale about the tension between innovation and hubris. The wall was, in a sense, a physical manifestation of a brainiac's acid trip; after Stanley took LSD at a legendary Dead show at an upstate–New York speedway, Anderson writes, he believed that he could weave an unbreakable connection between the wall, the band, and the crowd. His acid-tinged goal with the wall was 'hooking it up to a whole sea of people like one mind,' he said. For years, most other bands had played the same way in concert: with instruments connected to amps, and amps and vocals running through the house PA. Even when traveling with their own sound guy, they'd still be beholden to each venue's setup—unless they toted all of their own gear, which just wasn't realistic. The wall, in theory, allowed for both top-notch sound and show-by-show consistency. In practice, though, it was an unwieldy nightmare. Speakers often blew out or failed mid-show. Stanley drifted in and out of the band's orbit; other engineers and roadies expanded on his original visions. All the while, maintaining the rig became more convoluted: The band kept booking larger venues, thus requiring more sonic power, more crew members, and more attention to detail. Peak functionality was far from guaranteed, and Anderson convincingly makes the case that many early versions of the wall sounded better than the 'official' wall shows in 1974, because the smaller scale allowed for relatively more control (though it was far from an efficient process; early iterations could still take five hours to set up and another five to break down). Within the band itself, the wall was divisive. Bassist Phil Lesh called the wall 'apocalyptic,' but also compared it to the 'voice of God.' For him, the wall allowed for 'the most generally satisfying performance experience of my life with the band.' Bob Weir, who sang and played guitar, called the wall 'insane' and 'a logistical near impossibility.' Drummer Bill Kreutzmann, according to Anderson, said it was a 'creature that was supercool to look at, but impossible to tame.' And Garcia, it seems, would have been fine keeping things a little more down-to-earth. At the wall's official debut, on March 23, 1974, technical difficulties led to Garcia's guitar volume plunging moments into the first song. When you listen to this show today, the beginning sounds, well, kind of crappy. In the end, the Dead played only a few dozen shows with the fully built-up wall, as the cost and draining elaborateness of touring with the device eventually became too much. At the end of 1974, the Dead downsized its crew and, in Garcia's words, 'dumped' the structure. When they hit the road again almost two years later, their sound setup was more practical—in essence, sacrificing the perfect for the sustainable. They remained road dogs until Garcia's death in 1995, and have kept offshoots of the band rolling along since. Though I never saw the band perform with Garcia—I was 7 years old when he died of a heart attack—I've seen its different configurations over the years. Last summer I saw Dead & Company play as part of their residency at the Sphere in Las Vegas. That night demonstrated the clearest and most all-encompassing live sound I'd ever experienced. Most people have heard about the Sphere's mind-bending visuals and mondo LED screens; fewer may realize that it also contains 167,000 individual speakers (including in each seat). Though I was able to lose myself in the show, a very real part of me almost would have preferred hearing these same songs outside in the sun, in an uncontrolled setting, where any number of variables—the breeze, a storm, air pressure—might have affected the sound. Imperfection can feel just as right, in a different way, as technical perfection. It's freeing to accept that something might always be a little off, no matter the herculean effort; the Dead seemed to accept this too. Anderson's book makes a compelling argument that reaching for total audio domination was—and is—a noble endeavor, albeit one rife with pitfalls. But even the most advanced rig in the world doesn't necessarily make the songs any good. That much is up to the band.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store