Lindsay Lohan loses film role to Amanda Seyfried

Lindsay’s latest paying gig: posing for an ad campaign for Italian designer Fornarina. But where are the film roles? Photo credit: Bauergriffin.

And the hits keep on coming for troubled actress Lindsay Lohan. Last year, her guest spot on ABC’s “Ugly Betty” was cut short, her film “Dare to Love Me” was indefinitely shelved, with a possible release date of 2010, and her other movie, “Labor Pains” is also in limbo after test screenings didn’t go so well. She was rumored to be starring in a new comedy with Jack Black, but that seems to have disappeared, too. Seems like the only work she can get these days is modeling for ad campaigns and playing sidekick to her girlfriend’s DJ gigs. Now, reports are surfacing that “Big Love” and “Mamma Mia” star Amanda Seyfried has beat Lohan out for a role in the much-anticipated adaptation of Oscar Wilde’s “A Woman of No Importance,” co-starring Annette Bening.

Mamma Mia! star Amanda Seyfried has beaten Lindsay Lohan to the lead role in a big-screen adaptation of Oscar Wilde play A Woman Of No Importance. Mean Girls star Lohan was first linked to the part in 2006, but she appears to have lost out to Seyfried, who will step back in time for the upper-class dark comedy, set in Britain’s Victorian era.

She will star opposite Sean Bean, who will portray womaniser Lord Illingworth, and Annette Bening will play his mother, according to Variety.


It certainly isn’t a big surprise – with questions swirling about Lindsay’s sobriety, and rumors about her on-set antics at “Ugly Betty,” casting her in a major role would be a huge risk that not many studios would be willing to take until she proves herself to be reliable. And Seyfried is a hot commodity right now, winning critical reviews for her role as the daughter of a Mormon polygamist family on the HBO drama “Big Love,” and gaining even more visibility as Meryl Streep’s daughter in “Mamma Mia.” As a veteran of the business, Lindsay should know all too well that there is always another pretty, talented young actress waiting in the wings if you should stumble.

Amanda Seyfried is shown looking smashing at the Golden Globe Awards. Photo credits: Bauergriffin.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

42 Responses to “Lindsay Lohan loses film role to Amanda Seyfried”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Ned says:

    Linsday is not pretty nor talented.
    Amanda is pretty.

    So, naturally- Amanda or any other pretty actress should get preference to Lindsay.

  2. Feebee says:

    Lindsay loses out to Amanda… like taking candy from a baby. How hard did Amanda even have to try, really?

  3. Eileen Yover says:

    Oh yay! I love victorian period movies, the costumes and scenery…sigh.
    I haven’t seen this girl in a movie yet, but she looks very naturally pretty

  4. sissoucat says:

    Sorry Ned, she’s very pretty, though very underweight right now. If she were not, you would never have heard of her !

    As for talent, I saw “A Prairie Home Companion” and she did a decent job in it. So I wouldn’t call her untalented either… You’re just being mean, Ned. Need for attention much ?

  5. Raye says:

    I can’t picture Linday in a period piece. She’s too modern. I could definitely see Amanda in some corseted dresses and bad ass Victorian era hats.

  6. tigerlille says:

    I don’t think this would have been the right vehicle for Lindsay, given her current circumstances. But if you doubt her talent, watch Parent Trap or Freaky Frday again. And she is gorgeous. Given the tremendous and seemingly insatiable public interest in her, it amazes me that someone hasn’t given her another chance yet.

    Every time Lindsay’s father has another publicity seeking outburst, I shudder inside. It is a woder that Lindsay isn’t a serial killer, given both her parents and how they exploited her as a child. I hope that she comes into her own soon.

  7. Sauronsarmy says:

    LOL what a loser. I wonder how long til she starts complaining that shes just as “talented” and “hard working” as Amanda?

  8. Emily says:

    That’s ironic considering she and Amanda starred in Mean Girls together and that was the movie that brought Lindsay brief movie stardom!

  9. jess says:

    @emily…ha! i was wondering why no one had mentioned that she was the ditzy karen in mean girls. irronnyy.

  10. Melanie says:

    @Emily, I agree. I was waiting for someone else to bring that up.

  11. tiff says:

    yeah i was getting ready to say “hello people, Mean Girls??” lol it must suck to lose a part to your former co-star…Considering how Big of a star Linds was when that Movie came out.. Oh how we have fallen from grace!

  12. the poop says:

    yes! amanda is so gorgeous and can actually act. its nice to see some real movie stars again; we’ve been without fresh movie stars for what seems like an eternity now. time for a generation shift!

  13. vdantev says:

    LH needs some hips, stat !! Not even a Victorian style corset could help her.

    Also Ned, Amanda doesn’t have a previous history of showing up to work late (or skipping out entirely) due to ‘exhaustion’ *wink wink*

    Good on Amanda !

  14. Ash says:

    I’ll be looking forward to this because love period films. Even though I love Kiera Knightley, it seems she plays in a lot of these lately. It will be nice to see a fresh new face. She’s very pretty.

  15. piedlourde says:

    The hair, my God, THE HAIR! That ratty, heavy mass needs to be incinerated promptly. A darker dye job wouldn’t hurt, either.

  16. Murmur says:

    Citing Parent Trap and Mean Girls as testament to her acting ability is laughable.

  17. Jaclyn says:

    I love Amanda Seyfried! She was great in Mamma Mia!!!! 😀 And she is A LOT prettier and more talented than Lindsay too.

  18. anonymous says:

    Amanda can act, she was awesome in mamma mia.

  19. dude wtf says:

    sooo? is Lohan’s career over? Its looking like it might be …eekk!

  20. boomchakaboom says:

    @Murmur: Amen to that!

    I guess all those cocaine par-taays don’t seem like such a good idea now.
    She probably enjoyed the flames from all those burning bridges, but now they’re just cold ashes.

  21. Annie says:

    I like Amanda.

    She’s cute and is a hilarious actress. And talented too. But you know, that mean girls stint she did was HILARIOUS. She was much better than Lindsay in that movie.

  22. Zoe says:

    I loved her in Mean Girls, she totally stole every scene she was in.

    and Lindsay was great in Freaky Friday and Parent Trap. Never seen her in anything else tho, can she do serious at all? She def. has talent, it’s a shame.

  23. Ned says:

    Hollywood is managed in a silly way.

    They keep taking the same failed actors- some are not even taleneted or pretty- a la Lindsay Lohan.

    Why don’t they try new faces more often is beyond my understanding.
    Especially when their films are failing, and they keep acting like a diva.

    I have no idea if Amanda got talent, but I am surprised we don’t new actors getting more chances more often.

  24. Zoe says:

    oh, by “her” in mean girls, i meant amanda

  25. Kate says:

    The press is spinning this story as they want.
    Lindsay moved away from this film in 2006 ,then Jessica Biel took it up and she was dropped and then Sienna Miller and now Amanda.

    Do a litle movie search.I more and more believe the press has an agenda against Lindsay.
    It was pretty wellknown she refused this role back in 2006.If Amanda took it from someone it was from Sienna.

    But the press is using Lindsays name.

  26. KateNonymous says:

    I saw part of Freaky Friday recently, and it made me sad–LL really was quite good in that, and had a vitality that she really lacks now.

    The result is that she’s losing roles. Once upon a time, she probably would have been considered for the lead in True Blood on HBO; it’s the kind of role she ought to be getting, and ought to be able to play. But Lindsay has just been through the wringer too much, and wouldn’t be plausible in that role or any like it.

    Seyfried is doing some very good work in Big Love, and it’ll be interesting to see her in something very different.

  27. Codzilla says:

    Murmur: Lol! No kidding.

  28. anon987654 says:

    I agree with those who say Lohan had some talent back in the day, but whatever it was, it’s gone now. I saw part of “Just My Luck” on TV recently and she was really bad. Horrible.

  29. Trillion says:

    An actor/actress has to be extraordinarily talented to pull off any character when they are in the public eye constantly for non-actor-ly things. How can you believe Lohan as anyone but someone trying to pretend to be another person?

  30. NotBlonde says:

    Amanda Seyfried is beautiful. Lovely hair, healthy weight. For those who claim that the Hollywood ideal is stick thin lollipop heads…um what?

  31. Granger says:

    I think Lohan was decent in The Parent Trap and Freaky Friday, but she was also *very* young (12 and 17, respectively), so I think her acting abilities take a backseat to the qualities that make most child actors so appealing: that wide-eyed, fresh-faced cuteness. But that’s all long gone. Instead of spending the last few years working hard and improving her craft, she’s partied, gone to rehab, shown up late for acting jobs, chosen a few ridiculously stupid gigs (I Know Who Killed Me, Just My Luck, Georgia Rule), and generally pissed off a few important industry people. It seems to me that she decided after her early success (and way too much fame) that she was better than all of the other young actors out there, and made a conscious decision to ride the wave instead of taking stock and pursuing a respectable career. So if she’s losing out on jobs now, it serves her right.

  32. allison says:

    THE WORLD HAS JUST TAKEN A TURN FOR THE BETTER. lol seriously this is awesome news. Im so happy for amanda and looking forward to seeing her in more movies!! shes a great actress and grounded person…and as for lindsay, i dont have to say it, we all know her problems…but YAY amanda!! 🙂

  33. CB Rawks says:

    HAH! Yes, that is awesome. Amanda is infinitely more talented than Lindsay.

  34. Ophelia says:

    Oh thank Goddess.. If LL butchered my beloved Oscar Wilde, I would die. Good luck to Amanda, but I doubt she needs it. She is perfect in Big Love.

  35. ChristinaX says:

    Wonder who Lindsay Lohan’s going to blame now.

    And whoever it is (I don’t feel like rereading the thread) saying that an actress deserves a “chance” for movies roles because she’s pretty is what’s wrong with the piss poor quality of young actresses today. So congratulations.

    No, let’s give everyone a fair chance, okay?

  36. Bodhi says:

    LL USED to be pretty, now she looks like a strung out middle aged woman. Likewise, she USED to have talent. But she has pissed everything away.

    Its sad to see someone so young washed up so early, but she did it to herself.

  37. Mel says:

    while LL has personally and career wise made BAD choices her acting chops are undeniable…she wouldn’t have been given this many chances if she wasn’t that good. Hopefully she’ll clean up her act soon and make movies that showcase her amazing talents.
    …and fyi while Georgia Rule undoubtedly sucked LL’s acting did not!

  38. cheetahstripes says:

    I can’t say I’m surprised that LL is losing roles to other more together actresses. She needs to get her personal and professional act together and take some time away from the public eye, maybe then she can get the better roles once more.

    Either that or she’s headed for a Denise Richards type reality show.

  39. bazokbros says:

    Do Hollywood white girls understand how lucky they are and the amount of advantages they have over people of color? I don’t feel empathy for any of those self-destructive actors that piss their careers away. Minority actors would kill to have just half of the opportunities white actors are afforded.

  40. dovesgate says:

    What?! LL as Sookie? What are you smoking and can I have some? There is no way LL has the acting skills to pull off that role. Anna Paquin was perfectly cast.

  41. KateNonymous says:

    @dovesgate, LL used to be better than she is now. And I don’t think much of Anna Paquin’s performance, BTW.

  42. paula.b. says:

    i’m not surprised that amanda seyfried got the role over lilo.. because not only is amanda pretty but she’s extremely a very talented actress.. she’s very versatile.. playing dumb in mean girls made me think she’s really dumb plus she’s effortlessly funny.. second, she can play an effective drug addict in alpha dog.. also, she surprised me with her unbelievably the most beautiful singing voice among all the actors when she sang in mamma mia.. she’s also great in jennifer’s body.. she can portray her characters well and naturally.. i can’t wait to see her in chloe where she plays a hooker seducing both liam neeson and julianne moore.. let’s see if she plays well for this role.. she’s the lead role by the way.. also, not to forget her upcoming movie dear john which i predict she pulled out a very strong acting just by watching the trailer.. she ha a lot of movies coming next year by the way.. and they are actually rumors that she has to back out in playing the lead role for the movie sucker punch because she has commitment in her tv program big love..