Tom Hiddleston agreed to another MTV ‘After Hours’ skit: awkward or funny?

hiddles mtv

On Tuesday, MTV dropped their “After Hours” video with Josh Horowitz, Jessica Chastain and Tom Hiddleston. Some background: Josh Horowitz and Tom Hiddleston love each other. Josh has been covering Tom’s career for years now, and for whatever reason (???), they just get along really well and Tom gives exclusives to Josh at MTV. Josh has also convinced Tom to make several of these After Hours videos or weirdly themed interviews. The best one, of course, was the one where Tom danced on a bed and talked about seeing Chris Hemsworth naked. The worst? Well, it might be this new video. Josh and Tom’s relationship gets even weirder when they add Jessica Chastain to the mix.

If I’m being nice, I would say that it’s sort of refreshing to see that both Jessica and Tom are gloriously uncool. Chastain is really trying to make this video work, to keep it funky, funny and weird. And it is all of those things. But mostly it’s just awkward and extra, which is the dark side of Lord Dragonfly. Why does Tom keep agreeing to this stuff? And why does Josh Horowitz want this? Well, I know why he wanted to do this one – he got multiple kisses from both Tom and Jessica (Josh didn’t want Jessica’s kisses though).

So, was this video Code Red: Peak Annoying Dragonfly? Eh. Tom’s performance on The Graham Norton Show was worse, in my humble opinion. Tom was so extra on Norton’s show, I was literally cringing every time he spoke. I actually chuckled a few times during this MTV video. What’s the answer then? Does Tom need to stop doing these kinds of appearances? Does he need media training? Or should we just accept Tom for his awkward, extra, uncool self?

wenn22986146

wenn23021917

Photos courtesy of WENN, MTV.

Related stories

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

279 Responses to “Tom Hiddleston agreed to another MTV ‘After Hours’ skit: awkward or funny?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lilacflowers says:

    Balance it against the appearance on Charlie Rose, which was measured and professional. MTV is geared towards young teenagers, who are all about EXTRA.

    Any way, we’re venturing deeper into the jungle and Tommy has gone silent. Be sure to apply your sun protection and insect repellent and send your drink orders to Colin. Drinks will be served to the fray in the mouth of Kong’s cave via drone.

    • M.A.F. says:

      I would love to see him on Charlie Rose. He might be the rare celebrity intelligent enough to be on that show. And surprising, I didn’t find this cringe worthy.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        The cast was on earlier this week. It may still be available on the PBS website. You may have to sit through half an hour of Ray Lewis pretending he didn’t murder two people before you get to Tom, who looked absolutely stunning

      • Dara says:

        @M.A,F – try this link – it should just be the CP segment. Not sure it will work in all regions, but worked for me. http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60636679

      • M.A.F. says:

        Oh my goodness. How did I miss this? Was it discussed? I’m at workso I will have to watch it later but thanks ladies.

        Edit: I went to their website and saw a clip. The link you posted Dara works for me (at least on my phone). This aired on Monday?

      • NUTBALLS says:

        I want to hear him on Fresh Air. Terry Gross knows how to ask great questions.

        M.A.F., the whole Charlie Rose episode is up now. I posted the link below.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        It hasn’t really been discussed in depth here. It’s a nice interview and he says some really supportive things to Mia.

      • Dara says:

        @M.A.F – it aired Tuesday evening for me, every PBS station runs Charlie at a different time though so it could have been any time in the last few days. They never announce their guests very far in advance which makes me crazy. The show tweeted out a clip a few hours prior to it airing. Thank God some of my Tumblr peeps lost their sh*t about it (in a good way) or I would have missed it too.

      • M.A.F. says:

        Thanks @NUTBALLS

        *your name just made me giggle like an 8 year old

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Nuts & Balls. The things of happiness, m’dear.

  2. MexicanMonkey says:

    Have people ever seen any of the after hours shows on MTV? They’re always like this, camp nonsense.
    People seriously need to lighten up, I don’t think there’s anything embarrassing about this, it’s not a documentary of his life it’s a comedy skit.

  3. Sixer says:

    I think accept it. It’s who he is. Bit too desperate.

    I think it looks so weird because posh Britishers aren’t supposed to be like that. They’re supposed to be gracious and polite but with an underlying, understated assumption that adoration is their DUE. Not like an over-active vacuum cleaner hungrily sucking all the attention from the room with the inner monster going MORE, MORE, MORE.

    Ho hum. Never mind. LEGS.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      LEGS forever!

    • SloaneY says:

      Over-active vacuum cleaner…… I laughed so much at this.
      Maybe it just seems weird because Tom is the only posho that actively wears his insecurities on his sleeve.

    • Sixer says:

      Lilac – Cos y’know. It could be booty shorts, right? LEGS will always save the day.

      Sloane – this is the cleaner I had in mind: http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1LNLlaRflqU/maxresdefault.jpg

    • InvaderTak says:

      So his whole personality is desperate because he’s over the top in a video farce? This is the “real” TH? Seriously? He does really well when he’s talking about projects and important things (on the rare occasion he’s asked) but when he’s supposed to be OTT, that’s when people make assessments of his personality? The guy cannot catch a break it seems. Can we please just take things at face value once in a while?

      • Sixer says:

        Do you mean LEGS value?

        (I think I’ve made much the same comment about Puddletom about eleventy gazillion times over what seems like forever on here. From my snarky point of view, he’s just as much of a Noo Noo attention-vacuumer when he’s being serious as he is here. You won’t persuade me otherwise. Tommy is the impetus behind my EXTENSIVE ball-gag purchasing habit.)

      • Bay says:

        Tom’s an excessive, desperate attention whore for acting like an excessive, desperate dummy in a silly comedy clip. In the same way he really is a dark-haired genocidal maniac for playing one in that other movie, I’d guess.

      • ennuiarethechampions says:

        @Bay, and a vampire as well, and a country music legend. What a complicated life he must lead!

      • neutral says:

        Bay, you mean he isn’t? :cry:

      • cranberry says:

        @Sixer
        It seems that you’re always intent on hating on Tom no matter what he does even if another actor is right there doing the same thing.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        Cranberry–as a card-carrying member of the ‘why you so negging on Tom’ brigade (see my name! Also previous posts re people shading Tom), I feel I must come to Sixer’s defense (not that she isn’t perfectly capable of defending herself, but I feel you and I have some key things in common that may help our communication.)
        There are and have been for years people who come into Hiddleston posts and make comments which seem designed to be the thread version of how the 10th Doctor got the Prime Minister turfed out–he just walked up to one of her people and whispered ‘doesn’t she look tired’. Some are more obvious, some even more subtle, but all with that insinuation aspect. See discussion this thread re schadenfreude.
        THIS IS NOT SIXER. SIXER baldly states her opinions of the man, never claims they are other than her opinions (although she is sure she is right!) and takes the piss out of Tom in a relatively loving way.
        Read Sixer with any regularity these days, and I think it’s clear she appreciates his talent and charisma. It is hard to understand for some of us, but if you read her comments in the context of how she discusses he who was once known by far too many commentors as PuddleTom, her snark is about aspects of the fellow. She isn’t down on his career as a whole, or hating on Tom the entire person.
        Frankly, I think Hiddleston the non-conforming posh boy bemuses our Sixer.
        Anyway, I know this is quite a dissertation–but I’m hoping you will save your ire for those who really, consistently, seem aimed at doing Mr. H a disservice in thread after thread.

      • cranberry says:

        @TotallyBiased
        Ok.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        TB has summed it all up quite nicely and Sixer has made it known for quite some time that she believes Thomas is a kind man and he has talent and she loves his LEGS but pass the ball gag, please, and everyone needs a bit of snark once in a while. And that’s what it is, a bit of friendly snark.

      • Carrie says:

        I just…????

        It wouldn’t have mattered where the snark was coming from. It’s a gossip site, not a fan site, and it’s full of differing opinions. Sixer has the right to say what she thinks regardless without people jumping in like someone has wounded Tom’s honor. And people have the right to respond.

        There is a lot of unfriendly snark on other posts on this website anyway, you can’t have it both ways.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        Cranberry–I’m glad you see the difference between friendly snark and unfriendly snark (which is simply renamed passive-aggressive spite, in my book.) ;)

      • Sixer says:

        HOW EXCITING! I CAUSED A CONTROVERSY!

        All over a silly posh boy with LEGS, too.

        For future reference:

        I don’t need defending because I have the hide of a rhino. It’s impossible to hurt my feelings. (But thanks to those who did).

        I think Noo-Noo-LEGS is a good actor but I prefer the naturalistic/instinctive style over the classical/presentational style, so he’ll never be my favourite.

        I think Noo-Noo-LEGS is a fundamentally decent guy but one with a grating personality, whether he’s being serious or silly. I’m not keen on EXTRA.

        And that about sums it up.

      • Catherine says:

        Sixer, I love your snark. One of the reasons I come here is your snark (+ I actually agree with you most of the time).

        I think Mr Noo Noo is great new name for Puddletom.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Ha Ha… PuddleTom threads just aren’t the same without Sixer’s snark.

        You know, you’re going to have to keep that link to the Noo Noo in handy file so you can explain over and over again to new posters here where the hell you got that nickname.

      • jammypants says:

        @cranberry, Sixer is actually pretty neutral with a healthy serving of snark. A few years ago when I was new, I mistook her snark the same way. She can be partial to Tommy in some regards.

    • neutral says:

      So what about Jessica doing it too?

      ps but I did find it cringemaking!

    • NUTBALLS says:

      I see what you mean Sixer, based on his early years promoting Marvel, but I’m not convinced this is the “real” Tom — OTT, goofball, sucking the energy out of the room guy. What we typically see is a sedate, over analytical, polite, loquacious guy, who minds his manners and acts appropriately in an interview.

      The only time we seehim being silly is the MTV sketches and when Marvel sends him to Asia, where he’s clearly playing to his audience with the campy humor. As long as this isn’t his normal shtick, I enjoy it when Tom the Goofball comes out.

      I enjoyed the skit, particularly the spanking and the cowboy parts.

      Charlie Rose interview is up on the website (www.charlierose.com) and CP segment starts around the 33 min mark.

      • jammypants says:

        my thoughts exactly

      • SloaneY says:

        I somehow doubt he is this attention seeking with people he is close to. It almost seems like a defense mechanism. It could be insecurity about his talent/chosen career field. It could just be straight up people pleasing. Either way, I don’t think it’s narcissistic in nature, which can’t be said about a lot of actors.

  4. Catherine says:

    I liked the dancing/spanking bit. Note that Tom is the star of this skit, with his party soliloquy.

    • Vesta says:

      His soliloquy in front of the mirror was an award-worthy performance.
      “I know I seem like a clown… but I’m just… simple ol’ Tommy H”

      Stay gold, Tommy 👏👏👏 😉 ❤️❤️❤️

  5. InvaderTak says:

    It’s Josh Horowitz and MTV. It’s always like that. Bit over the top, but whatever. At least he does things like this. When did TheOtherGuy or Henry Cavill or Redmayne do anything like this? They’re busy being serious actors. At least LDF can make us all laugh, awkwardly.

  6. Meee4 says:

    Over analysis of this meant to be silly video and correlating it with his career is ridiculous. After a very long mostly serious press tour, I bet he was happy to do something that didn’t ask him about Loki, undying fandoms, his naked tushy and being posh.

    • SusanneToo says:

      Yes. I found both Tom and Jessica funny and charming in this skit. It set off a longing in me to see them teamed up in a really good romcom.

      • Miss Jupitero says:

        I don;t see him doing rom-com, but he would NAIL a screwball comedy. Something involving banana peels. We might end up with a TommyAnnE overdose though.

      • Sixer says:

        I wanted him to be in the Dads Army film as Pike.

      • neutral says:

        Sixer, that would have been superb.

      • SusanneToo says:

        @MissJ. I was thinking along the lines of Grant/Hepburn(K), so that might be more screwball than romcom. But Cary and Katharine always ended up together at the fade, so perfect!

      • Sixer says:

        Rather than a US-style rom-com or screwball comedy, or even a Britisher-type rom-com along the Notting Hil lines, I’d rather he did some Britisher farce/banana skin stuff – like Dads Army! Can’t he be the butt of the Edina/Patsy joke in the Ab Fab film?

      • antipodean says:

        He would have been great as Pike, a yard of pump water. I can just see him snivelling into his hanky as the German captain asks him “and vot is your name”, Captain Mannering says “don’t tell him Pike”.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        @Sixer, would love to see him tackled by Patsy but sadly, I think they’re filming now while he’s off in the jungle

      • Lilacflowers says:

        He could do something similar to a Harold Lloyd film – Tommy hanging off a clock face – but not silent because we need that voice

    • Lilacflowers says:

      And the suit fits really well.

    • EnnuiAreTheChampions says:

      I agree! He needs media training because he agreed to do a silly video with his co-star? As opposed to someone like Jeremy Renner who digs himself into a bigger ughhhh-hole every time he opens his mouth? I thought it was goofy and funny. And I’m ever impressed with his ability to squirt out a tear at will.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        The Charlie Rose interview and both Times Talk, the one in Madrid and the one in NYC when he substituted for GDT, demonstrate he knows how to behave properly during a serious interview and additional media training is unnecessary. He matches the behavior with the situation.

      • neutral says:

        @ ennui which he had to do 8 times a week to order in Coriolanus.

      • Dara says:

        @neutral, I’m not entirely convinced all the waterworks in Coriolanus were scripted.

      • neutral says:

        Dara, what do you mean?

      • Dara says:

        @neutral, I don’t think I’m going to explain this very well, but I think a lot of his tears during emotional performances are involuntary and are just the way his body reacts to strong emotions. I’m not sure I would even call it crying. Tom said somewhere that his “tear ducts just release” in scary situations and I think that happens in more circumstances than just when he’s frightened.

        I’m probably projecting because tears like that happen to me all the time, I can no more control them than I could control my heart beating. The more I try to suppress them, the more they flow. I’m rather envious that Tom is praised for his easy access to tears, when it happens to me people just think I’m a weak, weepy girl most of the time.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Dara, I totally get you. When I’ve had that phenomenon happen when feeling something deep (not sad) and it annoys the hell out of me, ’cause I can’t stop it from happening.

      • cranberry says:

        @Dara
        I loved the tear that appeared below his eye in Crimson Peak when Edith slaps him on the staircase when he’s trying to break her heart. You couldn’t see it unlit right after she slaps him and runs away, so she probably never saw that tell of his real feelings. I don’t think that that was a fake tear. I think it was all Tommy’s touch.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        Cranberry–ooooh! I missed that, and will have to watch more carefully next time! Thanks for the heads up.

      • cranberry says:

        @TotallyBiased
        You’re welcome, and it’s just under his left eye.

    • Phoebe says:

      Agreed! This was just a funny, goofy thing for his fangirls to go crazy over. Josh Horowitz knows, he’s one of us. Put him in a tux and make him do anything and I’m on board.

    • jammypants says:

      yup.

  7. anon says:

    I don’t have a problem with this video. It is supposed to be funny and amusing. What really annoys me is people talking to him about his naked ass, sex scenes, Loki and how gorgeous he is. I mean, we already KNOW he is, give him a break ask him a serious question for the love of god

    • jammypants says:

      exactly

    • chelsea says:

      If he’s willing to do something like this, he is hardly above being asked about Loki, his naked ass, and The Dragonfly Army. Oops.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        I disagree. There’s a place for being silly and talking about his arse and fans and it’s not when he’s in a serious interview wanting to talk about his work or the artistic process.

        Bear in mind that those ridiculous questions are not being driven by him. But it’s worse when he is asked about them to always be shooting them all, dontcha think?

  8. Angie says:

    They’re cute, talented and witty but c’mon, enough!! They can keep doing these idiotic skits and it still won’t change the disappointing storyline and lackluster dialogue in Crimson Peak. I saw it last week and kept hoping for something to actually happen and was left waiting for the “OMG!! Yes!” moment the entire time. Tom’s ass was not enough to save this crap.

    • Twilly says:

      I agree. The skit could of ommitted the “I killed a homeless man…..” dialoge. Funny is one thing, but that bit was insensitive and downright crass.

  9. browniecakes says:

    We’re heading into a Hiddleston drought. We’ll take what we can. I thought Jessica was more natural than Tom at the funny. He was good at the tears and angry parts. Someone said the outtakes are probably the best. Maybe we’ll get to see those, Josh?

  10. neutral says:

    And apparently Thor 3 is being filmed in Australia.

  11. Hannah says:

    Omg he needs to stop! Cringe.

  12. WaffleHour says:

    Yikes. Tom…might not be funny….

    But the Chastain must be redeemed! Here’s a palette cleanser and a reminder that these things can actually be pretty good:

    https://youtu.be/k1n2Z6ThrB8

    • neutral says:

      I feel a little better now I have seen James Mcavoy making a fool of himself too!

      • KTE says:

        You should have seen The Ruling Class!

        You can’t be an actor and be shy of making a fool of yourself, otherwise you’d never get up on stage or in front of a camera to do anything.

      • cranberry says:

        @KTE
        Exactly.
        In many ways I feel like Tom does a lot of these things not just for the promotional aspect (MTV, internet, etc.) but also cause a lot of his training was based on this premise, and so he tends to view any promo project as an opportunity to exercise his craft -even if it’s the craft of being a fool.

        Sure I don’t think he needs to do every silly, little promo opt like this, but then again, this industry is so fickle, you can’t blame him for just embracing what ever opportunities comes his way. They may not always be there the next time.

        I’m a little concerned for Tommy doing too many silly or cringe like promotional stunts, but I think he has a very positive outlook about the industry and acting and life in general. He decides he’s going to do what’s required of him and have a good time. If it works out, great; If it doesn’t, learn something from it and keep trucking – at least you got your butt on the stage & tried.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Speaking of my favorite Scots, Lainey had some lovely snaps of The Mac on his Bike and he had a lovely interview on Steve Wright today.

    • SusanneToo says:

      Thanks for that. Truly hilarious. It made me like them even more.

  13. A.Key says:

    I saw Crimson Peak last night and holy sh*t is he beautiful and adorable in that film.
    I don’t care how awkward and weird he is in real life, I still definitely, definitely would.

    • cranberry says:

      Oh yeah baby, me too. I saw it twice, and I’ll go see again too before it goes off the big screen. I liked the film a lot, but if I see again it’s all to see Tommy. He is perfect in this. It’s tailored just for him, and he’s yummy.

  14. jammypants says:

    This skit was pretty funny, made me wince, but I also couldn’t look away. Anyway, it’s just a silly, fun skit and overanalysing his career and character is a bit OTT.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      Anyone who has been on SNL in the past 5 years has done far worse

      • jammypants says:

        Exactly. Telling an actor to rethink his career because of an after hour tiny 5 minute skit on MTV for funsies is overly dramatic.

  15. neutral says:

    Just watched the Charlie Rose interview and really enjoyed it. Tom talked the right amount (!) and Charlie didn’t ask any stupid, embarrassing questions.

  16. seesittellsit says:

    Per Guardian, CP had a dismal opening, the worst ever for a GDT film, and is headed for Flopsville until it heads to DVD, where it will very likely make back its money. ISTL: DOA. Hiddles has had a disappointing time of it (not throwing shade at him, his performances got good reviews and I though he was delicious in CP but that’s not enough to turn a film loaded with miscalculations unable to decide whether it’s a gothic romance or a horror movie, and leaning on production values instead of a tight script) and I think is working his butt off to get higher celeb status to offset failing films. I like the Charlie Rose TH much better than After Hours one, and I wish he’d get his netherparts back to the stage and do something like Daniel Craig is doing next year on Broadway (Iago to Oyelowo’s Othello) and recover himself as an actor – and from that photo up there on the side, that hairline is receding and fast – go back to acting where there’s real meat and potatoes in the writing, Tom! Please!

    • Hannah says:

      I am a massive fan of pans labyrinth probably one of my favourite movies. But truth be told the clips I have seen of CP didn’t make me want to go see it at all. Despite my fondness for the director and the stellar cast.

      My thoughts on Hiddleston is the same as yours. He’s a good actor but I don’t think he will ever be a movie star in the leading man vein. I reckon he should stop chasing leading man parts in so so projects and rather do smaller character parts in better projects.

      • KTE says:

        I’m not sure he is chasing leading role parts – he’s not really the lead in Crimson Peak, even though he’s done most of the promotion for it. He’s taking the roles that interest him – he turned down the awful-sounding remake of Ben Hur! There’s been a few other mooted project over the past couple of years that sounded interesting but never came to fruition.

        I think we sometimes forget just how hard it is to get films made. There’s a certain amount of luck involved – you can attach yourself to all kinds of interesting projects, but it’s only the ones that get financed that you get to make. He’s just reached the point where being attached to a project helps to get it financing, and might be able to get more of his interesting projects made.

        The thing is, he has quite niche tastes, so what’s interesting to him may never be the sort of films that do great box office or even are of interest to his Marvel-fanbase. I personally loved High Rise and Crimson Peak, but clearly not everyone has.

      • Hannah says:

        High rise is definetly an interesting choice. That’s the one I would want to see of his movies this year. I don’t really think his taste are that niche. I think he wants to work with good filmmakers. The thing I have noticed is he has worked with quite a few filmmakers who have a name but are perhaps past their best, like jarmusch. He needs to find those new filmmakers that haven’t broken through quite yet. In my opnion.

      • cranberry says:

        That’s too bad. You’re missing out on an excellent Gothic Romance in the spirit of the classic cinema tradition. Del Toro is a very knowledgeable and dedicated film maker, and he does the genre justice as a large scale film. Gotta see in the big screen, really.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        Must politely disagree with ‘he works with filmmakers past their best’ (though that really does reek of the ‘she looks tired’ type of comment I discourses on above). Warhorse wasn’t a commercial or even critical darling, but many found it a beautiful, moving film and I, for one, am NOT ready to say Spielberg is ‘past it.’ OLLA is, in not only my opinion, one of Jim Jarmusch’ five best works. As he has at least made an appearance in all of her feature length films, not sure how at all what you said applies to Joanna Hogg. So to whom, exactly, were you referring? Wheatley? Joss Whedon? GdT? As for that last, I’m firmly in the camp that Guillermo made exactly the movie he intended and that it is a beautiful, intense movie-going experience.
        As for CP’s success or not, it has already made back more than half its initial budget, and Universal being both shrewd and under a rather large umbrella of entertainment/media related companies–I don’t think they laid out NEARLY as much for advertising as everyone thinks.

      • cranberry says:

        @TotallyBiased
        Totally agree with you especially about CP advertising budget. It didn’t seem to me that a whole lot was spent on mainstream advertising for a film this size. From what I could tell the trailer didn’t air on TV until end of Sept at earliest. Non of the big mainstream entertainment media outlets really talked about it until October (like the week before opening).
        I also read some critics posting tweets that they wished they weren’t under restriction from publishing their review until a couple days before CP’s opening cause they liked it and wanted to give it praise. One reviewer thought it was a mistake of the studio to keep the embargo so close to the release date and that the film would fair better if people were to hear about it through proper reviews. He thought it was a strong enough movie that good reviews would weight out any negative. Last I looked, it does have far more good to fair reviews that bad among film critics. Like 5:1 good to bad, or under 20% of reviews negative. (note: when I say good rating, I’m including the “fair” ratings in that)

      • jammypants says:

        “He needs to find those new filmmakers that haven’t broken through quite yet. In my opnion.” If that’s the case with Marc Abraham, then I’d vote for a no on that count :P Ben Wheatley, yes. Loved High-Rise. I actually loved that he worked with Del Toro. CP is the best thing he’s done since Pan’s Labyrinth (all those nerdy films in between are awful to me). I don’t think it’s his best work at all, but it’s miles better than Hellboy, The Strain, and Pacific Rim. He’s also working with a new filmaker in Skull Island. Ragnarok also has an interesting new director. This all seems quite risky and I admire that.

    • neutral says:

      Look back two or three years, and actually I think it has hardly receded. From his twenties yes.

      • KTE says:

        The shorter and more slicked back it is, the more it looks like it has receded. When he was younger he had it a bit longer and it hung over his forehead or around his face, which hid his hairline.

    • Miss Jupitero says:

      This has got to be so disheartening for an actor. In both cases, I think Tom’s performance ranged from perfectly fine (CP) to superior (ISTL). But there is so much over which they have no control whatsoever.

      One thing I hate about this conversation though is that it veers off in schadenfreude. I keep thinking of that scene from Gosford Park:

      Constance: It must be hard to know when it’s time to throw in the towel… What a pity about that last one of yours… what was it called? “The Dodger”?

      Ivor Novello: The Lodger.

      Constance: The Lodger. It must be so disappointing when something just *flops* like that.

      All that said, I have long felt that Tom is excellent character actor material, rather than leading man (which might not be what he wants, I dunno). Character roles do not have to be small by any means– one of my favorite character actors is Frank Langella, who started out as leading man but whose career took a sharp turn as he got older. Then he did Frost/Nixon. Nothing wrong with any of this.

      • chelsea says:

        You do know that’s a joke at her expense, right? That The Lodger is Hitchcock’s first great film?

      • Hannah says:

        Mrs Jupiter

        frank langellas performance in frost/Nixon was immense.
        There’s no schadenfreud in saying someone is more suited as a character actor then a leading man. Quite the opposite.
        Yes the character actor can play leading parts but it has to be the right part they are not leading by default. I feel like is doing so so projects because that’s were he’s offered the lead. The fact is he is not big enough to compete for leads in the best projects around so he gets the so so projects that other people turn down. I think he needs a new career strategy.
        Funny you should mention frost/Nixon because I see him having a career like Michael sheen. Wonderful actor but not a leading man.

      • jammypants says:

        “One thing I hate about this conversation though is that it veers off in schadenfreude”

        I get that sense too and the disclaimers don’t do much convincing.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        @Hannah, as he has said, he gets the scripts Fassy turns down and now it seems Jack Huston gets what he turns down.

      • SusanneToo says:

        I agree with MissJupitero and jammypants that the original post reeks of schadenfreude. I was going to respond “What a downer” but MissJ said it much better.

      • Hannah says:

        @jammypants
        I just compared him to one of the greatest actors of his generation. Michael sheen. And it’s apparently a put down? Newsflash the best actors are usually character actors.
        Be nice to have a normal conversation without accusations flying for once. He’s a good actor and he seems very ambitious therefore I don’t see what’s wrong with a discussion about his career choices. One shouldn’t be accused of all kinds of mean stuff just because one question his choices. There should be room for this discussion a different opnions bar the personal attacked.

      • neutral says:

        Re Jack Huston seems as if the Ben Hur remake has had its release date pushed back from March to August.

      • jammypants says:

        @Hannah, my post wasn’t addressing yours. It was a reaction to seesittellsit’s post. No one is being personally attacked. I’m not trying to be mean or rude in any way. In a past post, you manage to misinterpret my comment about feeling no investment towards his romantic life as, and I quote:

        “Gay is not a bad thing. Don’t think that should be put in the same category with Cad and PR relationship (faking).”

        I never once mentioned a thing about gay rumors whatsoever, but you managed to misconsrue my words. I’m starting to think it’s you who’s personally going after me, twice now, for things I never addressed (1 being your post here and the other addressing his romantic life).

        Check out the “Tom Hiddleston looks dapper, handsome at the NYC ‘Crimson Peak’ premiere” post to see what I mean.

      • Miss Jupitero says:

        Character actors can have immensely long and interesting careers. Absolutely no shade on any of this.

        Chelsea, yes I do get it, but as I recall in that scene The Countess is doing her best to shred Novello. And she does succeed in making him miserable.

        Not to segue too much: Gosford Park is so well written. Subtle, tragic, and funny in all the right places.

      • Hannah says:

        @ jammypants!
        I can assure you that nobody’s out to get you, certainly not me. I dont even recall having a conversation with you previously (although I may have had one but let me tell you I don’t even remember your name or anyone else’s for that matter, theres a lot of posters here you know.
        Look, I am interested in discussing the subject at hand, not so interested in personal attacks and accusations. I don’t even think the original poster meant it as badly as you think.
        Chill!

      • jammypants says:

        @Hannah, I don’t need to chill. I have every right to express my thoughts. If you are expressing your opinion, so am I. I just find it strange you target me when several people share the exact same sentiment. You also made the weirdest argument in a previous thread, addressing me, for things I did not even say, UNLESS you are a different Hannah, because there are several confusing pairs of users with the same name. If that’s the case, then apologies for bringing up the other discussion.

    • Miss Jupitero says:

      I would like to see him do more stage, more Shakespeare, and more cool indies where the writing is really solid. No more genre, no more franchises aimed at 12 year old boys.

      • SloaneY says:

        But perhaps he is doing those franchises because he has the offers right now, knowing they won’t last forever, to enable him to do the theatre and Indy stuff. He doesn’t come across as stupid. I think he’s painfully aware of how up and down the business is and how easily it could go away. That’s probably why he’s so ambitious and not focused on his personal life so much.
        Just my 2 cents.

      • KTE says:

        He enjoys doing franchises that are aimed at 12 year old boys.

        I must have an inner 12 year old boy, despite being a 33 year old woman, because I’ve enjoyed him doing them too, so far.

        Yes to more Shakespeare and more stage appearances, yes to interesting indies, yes to working with exciting directors with unique visions. I loved Crimson Peak, and Only Lovers Left Alive, so I’d say yes to more genre films too.

      • jammypants says:

        @KTE, I love genre films too so yes to more of that.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        He is making a fairly good attempt at that balance. Since November 2013, we’ve seen: comic book superhero villain, Shakespeare tragedy on stage, depressed vampire in an indie film, a cameo in a muppet movie, voice work in a Disney cartoon, estate agent in a very British indie, a GDT gothic romance, a country western indie biopic, High-Rise indie dystopia, with a high production quality spy TV series on the way, and an adventure movie blockbuster now filming. I wouldn’t be surprised if he squeezes in another small indie next spring before Thor 3 starts or if he ended 2016 on the stage

    • jammypants says:

      The movie has been out a week, rated fresh on RT. People are overreacting. No one flinched when Michael Mann made the awful Blackhat or Ridley Scott with The Counselor. Both of those performed poorly AND had terrible reviews.

      It’s pretty obvious he does not choose roles based on potential success. He only got lucky with the Marvel stuff, but the rest was never a box office AND critical hit in the same breath.

      • Dara says:

        Putting aside the actual artistic quality of the film for a moment, no one would be saying Crimson Peak is a flop IF its budget had been half of what it was, and if Universal hadn’t spent so much on the marketing campaign and had been banking on it being a blockbuster. It may make all that money back at some point in the distant future, but it will take a while. It’s not a coincidence that in every interview GdT has done recently he’s said he wants his next project to be weird AND small. The monetary expectations for this film were high, and it didn’t live up to them.

        I think it was Roger Ebert that said it makes absolutely no difference how much a movie cost as long as it’s a great film. If it’s merely good, average or actually bad then it becomes a legitimate topic of conversation. Sadly, I think CP is a good, but not great, film.

      • Miss Jupitero says:

        Oh lots of people flinched, jammypants!

        Personally I think weird and small is the way to go. I have plenty of criticisms for the film, but in my opinion trying to turn this into a blockbuster was the biggest misstep.

        As for TommyAnnE’s career, come on. He’s fine. Not soaring to the top fine, but fine nevertheless. He’ll always have work.

      • jammypants says:

        @Dara, samesies. CP is not great, but it was enjoyable. Good mention on Ebert. Room, for example, was very effective with just a $6 million budget.

        @Miss Jupitero, I must have missed the flinching then. I just think Del Toro was hoping for the next Pan’s Labyrinth, but he didn’t get it with CP, but it’s hardly a massive failure people are making it out to be. As for CP’s marketing, I agree. It just did not work for this film, and the fact that it’s a very flawed film didn’t help it. High-Rise fits into small and weird and Tom was wonderful in that film, very understated acting.

      • Miss Jupitero says:

        Did you get to see it? I’m looking forward to its coming to Boston. I have high hopes.

      • jammypants says:

        @Miss Jupitero, it might be right up your alley. I saw it at TIFF. Really enjoyed it. Hope you get to see it.

      • cranberry says:

        @jammypants Totally agree ” People are overreacting”. CP is pretty good and worthy of being seen in theaters. Furthermore, a lot of people were under wrong impression of what kind of film it is and stayed away the opening wkend.
        @Dara
        @ seesittellsit

        There’s nothing terribly wrong with the script. Yes the film was improperly marketed as a horror film instead of a Gothic Romance. That’s the major miscalculation. Unfortunately mainstream audiences don’t appreciate that kind of genre and compare it to other movies that are not operating on the same level both cinematically or plot wise.
        The other troubling miscalculation also was not whether Tom wasn’t able to be enough of a box office draw, again the mis-marketing and R rating worked against that potential gold mine.
        The reason the studios gave GDT a big budget to make a “block buster” scale film was because it was a FEMALE CENTERED film. The protagonist is a young woman (right demographic age), *spoiler* the villein is a woman (popular actress), and Tom is huge female draw. A lot of productions are targeting the female audience based on the success of other films like Twilight, Hunger Games and not to mention the protests over the lack of films for & about women. Unfortunately if CP really fails, the big looser is not going to be Tom, but is going to be large budget films made for women. Yes you could argue that CP is too romance oriented than Hunger Games which has more action for male audiences, but that’s where GDT comes in. His name was supposed attract the guys. Legendary was trying to do the right thing and show what a proper large scale film with good actors and master director is supposed to be, not like Twilight which was successful cause it spent very little to make.
        This really hurts the argument for women to be equally paid as their leading male counterparts. The studios major argument for the inequality is that leading men sell tickets. The studios will still try to tap into the female market, but less likely with big budget films that are too female heavy. Which means a lead actress might be able to get equal pay on a smaller budget film, but they won;t take a gamble with a big costly film.

      • Dara says:

        @cranberry, if you are right about GdT getting funding to make a female-centric film then CP not being a commercial success sucks even more than I thought. If they really were targeting a female audience, then the marketing scheme was doubly flawed because I don’t think it appealed to women in the slightest – except for a few shots of Tom looking dashingly handsome.

        I was their target audience – female, Tom-obsessed, appreciative of strong female characters, and I even knew going in it was a gothic romance rather than a horror film. Even with all of that, I didn’t like the film as much as I wanted to – and I really wanted to love it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad I saw it on the big screen and I think parts of it were genius, but the piece as a whole just didn’t resonate with me.

        Knowing the history and themes of gothic romance does make me appreciate it more after the fact, but I don’t think you can reasonably ask your average theater-goer to have a deep understanding of a rather obscure (at least nowadays) genre, or work through a reading list of gothic novels to properly appreciate the film they are about to watch.

      • cranberry says:

        continuation:
        Studios won’t take a gamble on paying leading woman equally on big budget films UNLESS it’s Jennifer Lawrence, and there’s a lot of shooting and things blowing up.
        My 2 cents.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Sicario proves that a woman can be in a tough, gun-fighting role and they don’t need to spend a fortune making a the movie. It had a 30 mill budget and made it back within a month a release. Not only was the script, direction and production very well done, they didn’t make it as gory as a drug cartel film can be, which would make it more female-accessible.

        After the disappointments I’ve had at the cinema as of late, Sicario was a reminder that great films are still being made.

      • Dara says:

        Sicario, The Martian and Spotlight are next on my watch list.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        I’m seeing Steve Jobs tonight… Spotlight and Room as soon as they arrive here.

        I enjoyed the Martian. More that I expected to.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        I enjoyed The Martian far more than I expected. It was funny! Hope to see Room this weekend but it will take some juggling. Sicario was brutal and disturbing but well done. Steve Jobs is a good Fassbender performance but the film left me cold. I just don’t care about the Apple 2. Looking forward to Spotlight.

      • cranberry says:

        @Dara
        Aside from the marketing mishaps which I blame on the studios trying to reassure the male movie goer, still you’d think CP would have been better received than it is regardless of mainstream movie goers not understanding the literary genre. My point is that on it’s own without any knowledge of Gothic Romance, CP is a good movie experience at least comparable to the average block buster like TL, Hellboy or Transformers. It’s real obstacles is that it either doesn’t have enough action and violence for dudes -or- it doesn’t have enough relationship driven plot or is too scary for girls.
        I just think the average movie-goer doesn’t appreciates that we don’t get dark toned, cinematic films like this too much that are rated for adults. What would have made CP more BO success is to not be rated R. For this you’d have to take out that real violent scene and Tom’s 1 sec. butt shot. So I’m really happy it got made and that GDT made what he invisioned in his style. I think it’s perfect.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Lilac, I want a review of ROOM if you see it this weekend. Crossing my fingers we get it next weekend.

        I was surprised that only 30 people were at the showing of Steve Jobs last night. Martian and Bridge of Spies must be attracting more of the 40+ crowd that were going to the cinema. I liked it, but I find him a fascinating person so if that interest wasn’t there, I’m not sure it would have gone over as well. Fassy, Winslet and Rogan were great in their respective roles, I thought. LOTS of dialogue… can’t zone out for even a minute without missing something important.

    • A.Key says:

      Oh come on, quality has absolutely NOTHING to do with box office success.
      Do people really only care about numbers and cash?
      For heaven’s sake, TWILIGHT, TRANSFORMERS and basically any Marvel film is a box office success. Would you really call these films good, great or of high quality?!
      The last really good, properly well done in every aspect, film that I can think of that broke the box office was Inception. Anything else that makes money is either young adult or comic books.

      P.S. Crimson Peak isn’t great, but it’s a lot better than Pacific Rim.

      • Dara says:

        @A.Key, I’m not saying quality and box office are linked, and as a fan I don’t really care what the budget on a film was – but you can be damn sure that the folks that spend the money to make and market that film care, and care quite a lot – especially when we’re talking about the amounts of money that were poured into CP.

    • NUTBALLS says:

      seesittellsit, you’ve been pretty down on Tom’s choices and assume that his career is hurting because his films aren’t getting critical acclaim, so this is consistent with your past comments. You also like to mention his hairline more than most, I’ve noticed. But I don’t think it’s as bad as you say.

      What I get from the roles that he accepts (which he can only accept those he’s offered) is that he’s looking to explore various types of characters and roles and all he can bring to the table is his talent, dedication and hard work. He’s not going to be an expert at analyzing a script for plot holes, lack of backstory etc. He’s going to read it and if the story and character lights his fire, he’s going to be interested in it. How the director shoots the film and more importantly, how it’s edited and presented in final form and how it is subsequently marketed is completely out of his hands. It takes a lot of luck to have all the elements come together to result in a film that has a big box office draw. A lot of those films are quite formulaic and not terribly interesting. Tom seems more interested in the indy fare that isn’t as broadly appealing, but it still showcases his work.

      Considering that most actors are unemployed or underemployed, I think Tom is doing just fine. While I’m less likely to see his work on stage or on TV, it would be good to see him doing more of that in the coming years. A smart TV series is a good way to explore a character in depth and keep the paychecks coming in too.

    • Sochan says:

      Saw CP on IMAX this afternoon. It was the middle of the day and I had some time off so I went. I was the only one in the theatre. Alone. In a huge IMAX theatre. Granted, mid day and all.

      This is not a good movie. It’s not even as gorgeous as many people have made it out to be. A few gorgeous dresses does not a gorgeous movie make. The plot is boring, played out, predictable. Mia and Tom have no chemistry, Jessica seems over-the-top most of the time – especially in the very end she is plain ridiculous. Tom, who is always so, so good with timing, was off on a few scenes and lines. The movie is just lousy. And the IMAX ticket cost me $20. Really, really disappointed.

      • cranberry says:

        Lousy? IMO you’re way off. Of course you’re entitled to not like it, but “lousy” is too strong and just inaccurate. I think it’s quite entertaining even if you’re not completely loving it or Gothic romance is not your thang.

      • A.Key says:

        I enjoyed it a lot. Then again I wasn’t expecting much going in.

        20$ for a cinema ticket?!?!?!?!?

        LOLOLOLOL

        WTF

      • jammypants says:

        Holy hell, $20?! I was already grouchy about mine costing $15 :P I didn’t hate Crimson Peak, but it was definitely disappointing as a film.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        I guess I should be happy I only had to pay $12 to see it in IMAX.

      • Catherine says:

        I’ve seen some poor user reviews who obviously thought they were going to see a horror film.

        $20 for an IMAX ticket?! That’s about £12 in the UK which is a standard cinema price. IMAX tickets in London are £18, that’s about $29.

  17. TotallyBiased says:

    Hmmmm…this thread is missing something.
    Oh, I have it! The obligatory ‘why do we have another Hiddleston post’ whine, sorry, I mean comment.
    There, consider it done and we can just skip it this time.
    Now for a mimosa (or do I mean Buck’s Fizz?)

  18. Leah says:

    He’s always cringey, whats new?

  19. lunchcoma says:

    Tom keeps agreeing to this stuff because there’s a huge faction of the entertainment world that doesn’t know what “extra” means and who often like it when celebrities behave that way. It gets him positive attention at a time when a couple of his most recent movies haven’t met expectations, and thus far doesn’t seem to have stopped people from taking him seriously when he plays relatively serious roles. As for Josh Horowitz, this kind of nonsense is his job. It’s the whole point of his show.

    I can definitely see why people might not enjoy watching this, and I find this one pretty annoying myself, but there’s a career rationale behind it, and Tom doesn’t need media training. He’s actually pretty adept at figuring out what people want. His Twitter was annoying and was getting him mostly negative attention, so he backed off from it. People liked the dancing bear, so he brought it out to dance every now and then. If people tire of this sort of thing, I think he’ll back off from it at that point too.

    • KTE says:

      And, you know, he obviously enjoys it! He’s a bit of a clown, enjoys the comedy of cringe and dark humour and likes doing weird things to make people laugh.

      People seem to be missing that he’s taking the piss out of himself – the dancing, the crying, ‘I’m a cowboy’.

    • Anne tommy says:

      I don’t know what “extra” means in this context either. I first noticed it in reference to TH on the Norton show. It seems to mean embarrassing. I thought the short film was quite funny. Either way it’s not a big deal.

    • Sochan says:

      I think himself or his people are VERY involved in reading what’s going on online about him. And they aren’t subtle about it either. He’ll wear a blue shirt and then it’s 48 hours of how the fans love when the blue shirts make his eyes pop, and next thing you know he’s wearing a blue shirt for a week. And so on. Personally, I think he or his people are way, way to invested in what people think online. God, just be yourself.

      • neutral says:

        Sochan, to refer to your example, Tom has always worn blue shirts. Some of us even believe he buys them in sets of six! He may not be to one who is too invested here.

      • neutral says:

        wrong place.

      • KTE says:

        Sochan, have you not heard of a capsule wardrobe?! When you’re going to be travelling a lot you pick a colour scheme and make sure all your clothes fit in with it, so you can mix and match all your clothes in different combinations.

        Tom picked blue, this trip. Doubtless because of his eyes.

  20. SugarMalone says:

    Not the best one I’ve seen but I don’t find it that awful or embarrassing. They’re all just so likeable.

    My all-time favourite Josh Horowitz video is still the one where Jessica Chastain and James McAvoy trick him into robbing a cafe. It makes me laugh every time.

    • cranberry says:

      Agree.
      Gotta look for that one. IMO Tom’s all time cutest After Hours is the slumber party one. In fact I just think it’s so cute the way he says “party”. Absolutely no “R”.

  21. Ivo says:

    Lol Tom is always awesome I love it !

  22. EN says:

    Sorry, no, that was cringeworthy. Best forgotten as soon as possible.
    Everybody has cringeworthy moments, no need to defend them, just move on.

    I remember Tom has been on this same show before, I remember them jumping on the bed or something. That was OK. This was too much.

  23. jammypants says:

    I’m getting tired of people saying his career is on the rocks. He’s doing fine.

    • SloaneY says:

      Right?

      • KTE says:

        Could not agree more. At the end of the day it’s the industry perceptron that matters, and he has demonstrated his acting range and his social media pull. Directors care about the former, and studio execs the latter. He’s not going to lack for offers.

    • ennuiarethechampions says:

      Yup. I’d venture to say that most actors would give their right arms to have a career as “on the rocks” as Tom’s.

    • InvaderTak says:

      Yeah I don’t get the overreacting either. Over anything. The fan expectations of him are ridiculous. Hope he doesn’t crack and makes career choices to suit himself. Also hope the fanatics get bored of him soon.

      • jammypants says:

        I’m glad he doesn’t make choices just to please people. Act this way, say this much, don’t do this, don’t be uncool, be a leading man, don’t be a leading man. I mean people can think what they like, but the huge thing I love about him is he makes his choices for himself. He always has. He’s both serious and dorky. I mean by now if people haven’t gotten the memo it’s who he is, then they are wasting their time trying to mold the perfect ideal celeb. Until he does something unforgivable, like most of the celebs featured here, I’ll continue to find him completely inoffensive and not scrutinize every single tiny gesture as insecurity, famewhoring, or character flaw.

      • cranberry says:

        Here, Here jammypants !

    • Lilacflowers says:

      Right? It is almost like a constant state of hysteria that ignores reality. He is working constantly. His performances garner critical praise. Folks like Alan Rickman and Donald Sutherland have never had Oscar nominations and they’re doing just fine and Tom will be fine too. I find it particularly amusing when someone says he should model his career after someone else (like Clooney) and you look at the other person’s IMDB page and see that by Tom’s age, the guy had done nothing but failed TV pilots or D-level slasher films. Tom’s career is doing fine and he seems really happy

      • Leah C says:

        @Jammypants
        Well said. He needs to keep following his own path. I hope he doesn’t start listening to fans or critics. Either of them will steer him right in a ditch.

      • lunchcoma says:

        Are people even saying that anymore? I’m surprised. He’s got a franchise, and when he hasn’t been doing that, he’s pretty much checked all the boxes when it comes to what actors seem to want to do – some oddball indies, working with a couple directors he’s admired, some time off on stage, the prestige limited series, the big dumb action movie that’s not in his franchise.

        That’s a successful career by almost anyone’s measure. Some films won’t be as good as their creators had hoped and others might not do well at the box office. As long as one or the other doesn’t become a pattern, that’s not the end of an actor’s career. Tom will be around for a long time.

      • waitwhat says:

        Clooney, Cumberbatch. RDJ was a mess at 34.

      • cranberry says:

        @lunchcoma Right. By all standards his career is full of diverse work and progressing forward. Unfortunately people seem to judge actors only my their mainstream work and whether that work is financially successful. I’m happy he did Crimson Peak. It’s perfect for him, and he needs the mainstream recognition for non-Loki roles. Hopefully people will recognize him and start looking into his other work.

      • Gingerly says:

        Even compared with his Marvel contemporary actors like Chris Hemsworth or Chris Evans, Tom is doing just fine.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      @Lunchcoma, yes, they are still doing it. Of course, there are the discussions of what people would like to see him do just for their enjoyment preference but if you look over the last month worth of threads, there are quite a few questioning his choices, predicting dire consequences for failing to score Oscar nominations, calling his career path “unfocused” and full of “stupid decisions” and insisting that he should follow this or that actor, whose career was usually in worse shape at age 34. It is all quite puzzling

      • NUTBALLS says:

        I just went off about it upthread, before seeing this one. He’s done good work and he’s been recognized for it. He’s taking roles that interest him and stretch him artistically and he’s remaining employed. I don’t see what the concern is about.

        BCoop may be considered more successful, but I find his choices boring, so to me, he’s doesn’t have a “better” career.

        ETA: Just saw Sicario and wowza, was it good. I had forgotten how much I enjoy watching Benicio Del Toro.

      • lunchcoma says:

        They’re saying Tom should imitate Bradley Cooper, NUTBALLS? That’s an odd one, since they’re starting from different positions. Bradley made his name doing comedy work, at 34 had just had his big break with The Hangover, and transitioned into a leading man who could do dramatic work when he teamed up with David O. Russell for his comeback movie.

        Tom’s career is obviously going to look different, since he started with Loki and Shakespeare and the roles people think of him for first are different ones and he has a different type to fight against. Still, I think he probably wouldn’t mind following Bradley Cooper’s career path and find a successful director who wants to work with him constantly and casts him in everything. I mean, I think they all want that. It’s just that it’s hard to find.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        lunchcoma, “they” haven’t been saying it. I was just using BCoop as an example of someone who has some of the things they think Tom should have in order to be successful (box office draw, oscar noms etc.). I just don’t find his career choices as interesting so being “popular” and “in demand” isn’t necessarily better than building and interesting body of work. Not that they are mutually exclusive.

      • InvaderTak says:

        Is the “they” in this convo actual industry people whose opinion is worth listening to, or are “they” just posters like us? I can’t recall the industry really having an opinion. He’s not exactly a non entity nor an up and coming hot shot like BC was supposed to be; he’s just feeling things out imo.

        @nutballs: B coop is just lame to me. I don’t like his acting or him for that matter. I fail to see why he’s such hot stuff.

      • M.A.F. says:

        The fact that he can be in these small art house films and not resort to over-the-top big budget films says a lot. He is picking stuff he wants to do and not because he has to for a paycheck. Who knows how big he wants his name in lights but a lot of actors wouldn’t mind having the trajectory he is currently on.

      • Gingerly says:

        I am not very angry with shadefreunde or snarky comments. But I don’t like inaccuracy and simplistic ideas. Thus I expect people to respond when some facts are stated or a new angle proposed. He will not be a role model for a fantastic Hollywood carer and I am not sure he wants it at all. I guess he will do his theater works throughout his career and remain as a Brithsh/European type of actor whether it will be a leading actor or a character actor.

        I also think he as well as some other actors I love can be both ways. Have loved Ralph Fiennes for some years, and I will not exchange him with Colin Firth. Both RF and CF are excellent actors, but RF’s works mostly interest me. CF’s, not so much, although I loved him in the Single Man.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        @InvaderTek, “they” as in other posters, not industry people.
        @Nutballs, saw Sicario two weeks ago and I’ve been telling people ever since that if I see Benecio walk into a room I’m in, I’m leaving immediately by any way possible, even if it means jumping off a fire escape. He was terrifying in that film.

        @Gingerly, people are always going to have different views but, like you, I don’t like the inaccuracy either or the habit of calling names like “Nannie” or “police” or complaining about “tone” when people ask for facts. I also don’t like when somebody puts forth conjecture and supposition then follows up by treating that conjecture as fact and lambasting others for not believing the conjecture. People have a right to disagree, especially when no facts are present.

      • cranberry says:

        @Gingerly
        @Lilacflowers

        Yeah, me too. Don’t much like inaccurate meanness or a bunch of self referential conjectured facts.

      • SusanneToo says:

        @Nutballs. We think alike(again). I saw Sicario the day it opened here and loved it. It reminded me that my always and forever favorite del Toro is Benecio. He was so good in it. And looked good, too.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        SusanneToo, even with the extra weight and aging of his face, I thought man, I’d totally hit that still.

        That film is the best thing I’ve seen all year. I suspect even with all the Oscar-buzzed films coming out in the next couple of months it sill still be in my top 3 at year end. I really couldn’t fault anything about it. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it wasn’t a gory as it could have been. I didn’t have to hide my eyes at any point.

      • jammypants says:

        “Yeah, me too. Don’t much like inaccurate meanness or a bunch of self referential conjectured facts.”

        “I also don’t like when somebody puts forth conjecture and supposition then follows up by treating that conjecture as fact and lambasting others for not believing the conjecture. People have a right to disagree, especially when no facts are present.”

        Ditto.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Differing opinions make for healthy discourse. One of the reasons I only chat with people here is there’s is a level of maturity and self-regulating that is not present on other sites. While there are some that react emotionally to comments made here, *most* have the ability to think logically and allow those of differing opinions to express themselves. There is such a nauseating extreme of fawning and negativity towards Tom on social media that isn’t rooted in anything substantial that I just can’t engage in.

        I think the day I stop commenting here is the day it gets overrun with those that either can’t see any fault in him or those that only express criticism. Or, I get too busy and simply don’t care enough to take the time. That’s probably the more likely possibility now that my ultramarathon training is ramping up again. Glad it’s coinciding with his jungle shoot so I won’t miss as much.

  24. ennuiarethechampions says:

    Based on the Tommy threads, some folks seem to spend such a large percentage of their time cringing that I’m surprised no one has yet suffered cringe-related nerve damage. A crinjury, if you will. (I understand if you won’t).

  25. TotallyBiased says:

    Better sound quality than previous phone vids of Tom in Nashville Saturday night–he doesn’t sound too bad! The crowd is enjoying him, and his partner with them sounds VERY Hank-like.
    Facebook.com/scott.h.morrison/videos/10206827095870366/
    Fun.

  26. TotallyBiased says:

    Another video from Saturday night that is much better quality.
    youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=h9DgMtEiZlE
    I wish these were what went viral and spread through the media rather than the rather poor quality mishmash we first saw.
    I find him far more convincing in these.

  27. neutral says:

    and:
    variety.com/2015/biz/news/wme-img-night-manager-tv-distribution-1201624174/

  28. Guest says:

    Give the guy a break. Geez. If he dances, it is called as embarassing. If he makes spots for Mtv it is called as attention seeking. If he is lost for words and clearly nervous it is called cringeworthy. If he talks about serious stuff and works for UNICEF it is called PRying the shit out of it. If he shuts up and keeps a low profile it is called as dull and boring. If he doesn’t have a Blockbuster on his own, he is called a failure. Honestly Tom Hiddleston should stay in the porter potty with his helmet full of jelly. Btw I watched CP today and I loved it. I don’t get the bad script comments. Being a Blockbuster doesn’t mean that the movie is good. I never expected more. But all the talk about the sex scene was so over the stop. It was nothing special and not very realistical. Last point: I laughed about the Mtv Clip. Thanks Josh.

    • murphy says:

      this.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      Applause for Guest!

      Also just saw CP for the second time because I promised a seriously ill friend I would do whatever she wanted tonight. The theater was packed. And I still didn’t see anything bad happen to the dog

      • cranberry says:

        Lilacflowers I think you’re going to have to come to terms that the little doggy went down. Like down with the ship down :(

      • Dara says:

        Sorry @lilac, I know you’re not a fan of speculation or conjecture, but I’m with @cranberry – that little dog was no match for Lady Lucille and has taken its place amongst the other spectral inhabitants of Allerdale Hall.

        Now that I think about it, I’m wishing we had seen a little Ghost Doggy roaming the halls, nipping at the bony heels of Ghost Lucille. That would have made a lovely (although probably not thematically appropriate) easter egg scene at the end of the credits.

      • Guest says:

        May be I have a weird humor and that is the reason why I laughed about Josh and Tom. Honestly I like Hiddles. He might be like a puppy sometimes but I prefer a puppy over an arrogant guy. As for CP… There is just one thing I didn’t like: the chemistry between Mia and Tom because it was non existent for me. I seriously think that Mia is the problem as she also had no chemistry with Fassbender. But Jessica and Tom. Wow…..

      • jammypants says:

        *joins in the applause*

        @Guest, I didn’t believe in Thomas and Edith’s “romance” either. It felt by the numbers, but he was scorching with Lucille.

      • SusanneToo says:

        No, no Cranberry and Dara. The dog is a survivor. He survived being out in the elements for who knows how long, escaping Lucille the first time, and I’m certain he made it this time. He probably dashed after Edith and sailed home with her.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        SPOILERS COMING!!!

        Doggie Tracking: final minutes of movie

        SPOILERS START!!!

        Dog and four people standing in foyer.
        One person does something bad to another person and the victim stumbles outside.
        Second person goes outside and does something else bad to victim
        Two outside people turn and look back in at two inside people and DOG
        If anything were to happen to DOG, it would happen now and there would be no time to clean up but we see nothing.
        Two people go downstairs in elevator to basement immediately
        Two people are upstairs in a room
        Third person goes upstairs
        Two people go back to first floor.
        Two people join third person in basement
        Two people go outside
        One person goes back to basement
        Two people walk through foyer where mess from earlier bad things is still evident but no sign of DOG, dead or alive.
        Two people go outside. No sign of DOG

        SPOILERS END

      • Dara says:

        @lilac – that is quite the comprehensive, yet dizzying, summary of events. And I think you have now revealed yourself to be the one and only voter on doesthedogdie.com to believe the lil’ yipper made it through the movie alive. There are larger plot holes than the lack of a doggy carcass for me to spend time worrying over. Sorry, kid – no sale.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Bear in mind that for a lawyer, Lucille is innocent until PROVEN GUILTY. If her offing the pup isn’t in the final edit, then she’s free to believe it didn’t happen.

        Even if she’s the only one!

      • cranberry says:

        @Lilacflowers
        The black moths ate the doggy.

        Oh *spoiler* … maybe

      • Lilacflowers says:

        @nutballs, actually, they were in England so the standard is reversed. But when would she have had time to off the dog? And clean up?

      • SusanneToo says:

        I stand with lilac. I BELIEVE. Cute doggy made it, lived happily ever after. Will not accept any alternative.

    • NUTBALLS says:

      Yep, he can’t please some and some are determined to find fault no matter what he does. With all the douches that are portrayed on this site, Tommy is a breath of fresh air and a ray of sunshine. Time will tell that he’ll be fine and will stay busy as an actor.

      • cranberry says:

        Yup. I concur. A dancing ray of sunshine and a breeze of pixie dust kisses. – omg I sound like I’m nine. Geez what this man does to me. LOL

    • cranberry says:

      This 2 :)

      This, & more. I’m totally with you on Crimson Peak. It was good – totally worth the ticket price. All the bad script comments are from people that don’t really know what they’re talking about IMO. Many of them admit they’re comparing it to modern horror movies, and they don’t understand it’s a Gothic Romance and how GR is supposed to work. Also people tend to read a negative post and then go into the film assuming it’s bad and looking for anything to criticize, again not keeping their selves open to the experience.
      Before I saw CP I tried to ignore all the plot spoilers that were out there cause I wanted the film to lead me, and because I didn’t want to spend my time watching something that I believed I knew what was going to happen. When ever I’ve done that I’ve usually been majorly wrong.
      Sex scene being over-hypped, yeah. I think they kept bringing up Tom’s butt scene to get all his female fans running to BO – and it worked. But the sex scene was what it was supposed to be for the film and * spoiler * puts us into a state of sexual tension and frustration which is then released in the third act of the film.

    • Phoebe says:

      You know what Joey Tribianni says about chemistry- if the actors haven’t had sex in real life, then they have chemistry- but if they’ve done it, then no chemistry. Mia seems so boring and beige to me, I can’t see Tom wanting to hit that, but maybe during OLLA and now = no chemistry?

  29. TotallyBiased says:

    A pretty gif(t) for Lilacflowers, Gingerly, and Cranberry–a thank you for some recent comments I particularly enjoyed.

    We’ll see how it goes. ;)

    • TotallyBiased says:

      Gotta be honest. That is one of the sexiest things I’ve ever seen him do. And yet ostensibly totally innocent. Guitar pick>>sharpie!

    • Gingerly says:

      Ohhhh, that bastard. I seldom use this word. He genuinely loves performing on the stage, doesn’t he? He can be a so-so singer, silly clown, or terrific Shakespearean actor, but he will entertain himself and his audience anyway and feel happy for it. Thank you TB. That gif really made me smile.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      Thank you!

    • TotallyBiased says:

      Psst, Kaiser and Co–thank YOU as well!

    • cranberry says:

      Oh my. I need to find myself a dark corner somewhere and be alone with my thoughts.
      Thank You TB

  30. neutral says:

    @Mark Ruffalo has responded to a tweet by Horowitz regarding the porta-pottie.

  31. hermia says:

    I have just one question: should I go see Crimson Peak? Is it worth it? I loved Only Lovers Left Alive.

    • Anin says:

      Yes, Crimson Peak is worth it. The movie is not as good as Only Lovers Left Alive, but still good and very good looking movie. And if you a fan of mr. Hiddleston Crimson Peak is a must see.

    • NUTBALLS says:

      Yes, but don’t go in expecting a horror film. It’s a gothic romance that’s visually stunning. Tom’s enjoyable to watch, but Chastain steals the show, imo.

    • Dara says:

      Yes, worth it. Part of me wants to see it again to get a better look at the details, it’s something that definitely needs to be seen on the big screen.

    • guest says:

      Yes, it is. Go and watch it. Don’t listen to bad comments. I am no fangirl or whatever and I really enjoyed the movie. The costumes, the colours… very nice. And despite some people saying that Jessica acted over the top, I assure you that Chastain was great. Loved her. Forget about the ghosts, just listen and watch Mia becoming more and more confident, less naive.

    • cranberry says:

      Yes, yes. Make sure you see it while it’s still in the theaters. As one of the Nerdist.com people said, folks are going to kick their selves later on for not seeing it on the big screen. I still plan to buy the DVD too.

  32. neutral says:

    For those who may not know – Noo-noo is the cleaner in the Teletubbies, a children’s programme in the UK. It does not have legs! :)

  33. neutral says:

    For those moaning upthread about cinema prices I’m going to make you really sick – as a “mouldy oldie” I recently saw Fassy’s Macbeth for £4.80 (approx $6.90) and could watch Crimson Peak for £6.40 ($9.60) having travelled into the city using my bus pass!! :)

    There, I’ve given myself away, what am i doing posting here at my age? :-?

  34. neutral says:

    If you google Getty Images I Saw The Light Assignment there are some great images of Tom and Rodney and the two of them fooling around.

  35. Queen says:

    I saw crimson peak yesterday. What a movie!! I want to see it again, will definitelly buy the dvd. One cannot hate tom, s characters. Even loki is loved nit hated as he should be. The sex scenes were very overrated though. Jessica chastain was amazing. I liked mia as well.

  36. TotallyBiased says:

    Something else to Google, because it is hilarious and perfect–
    The toast Nicole and Mallory yelling Crimson Peak.
    I have never seen this site before, but this SPOILERIFIC review is a riot. The comments, too!

  37. Catherine says:

    ..

  38. Anin says:

    I saw crimson peak for the second time the other day. I wish this movie was getting a prequel. Not about Lucille and Thomas´ childhood, but about their twisted life together before meeting Edith. That could a very interesting movie…. ;-D

    • applesauce says:

      Oh yeah and all the sex they were having all over the house. I bet you Lucille imposed a different theme for every room. Remember the last thing she said to Edith regarding her mother’s portrait, something about how she “..wants her mother (portrait/spirit) to see everything they (Lucille & Thomas) do in this house”. She said it Very mischievously.

  39. NUTBALLS says:

    Crimson Peak will surpass $50 mill this week. Foreign receipts are outpacing domestic. It’s disappointing, but it’s not a flop. Other openers haven’t fared as well against The Martian, Bridge of Spies and Goosebumps.

    indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/top-10-takeaways-why-this-weekend-was-a-box-office-horror-story-20151025

    I see on the interwebs that Emma got married this weekend. He was spotted outside the London church on Saturday where the ceremony took place. That’s some serious jet lag if he was flying back and forth from Hawaii. Oy.

    • neutral says:

      And have you seen the box office for Steve Jobs this weekend? :shock:

      • Dara says:

        @neutral – You mean how the Ashton Kutcher Steve Jobs movie opened better than the Fassbender version? Ouch.

      • waitwhat says:

        Even Bridge of Spies isn’t doing as well – only $39M so far worldwide, behind CP.
        But yes, ouch to Steve Jobs… I still would have liked to have seen the David Fincher/Christian Bale version.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Yeah, I was surprised that Jobs box office wasn’t better but then I read that box office isn’t as good this year as last year so it’s in good company. Jobs is the kind of movie that will have a specific audience that will trickle in over the next couple of months. I think it’ll do ok and good enough for awards attention.

        We could be seeing biopic fatigue… curious what happens when Joy opens Christmas Day. Will Star Wars pretty much swallow everyone else up?

      • Lilacflowers says:

        Good or bad, Star Wars is going to devour every screen in its path. Stuff won’t be seen because there won’t be screens to show them. I hope the experience sends a message to studios to stop saving their quality releases until the end of the year when people have time constraints and aren’t able to see 3 films a week just because the studios decided to wait until October-December to release anything worth seeing. And oh, before Star Wars even gets here, Hunger Games is coming and will still be drawing crowds when Star Wars opens. Leaving fewer screens for Steve Jobs, Suffragette, Spotlight, In the Heart of the Sea, Our Brand is Crisis, Carol, Joy, Hateful 8, and everything else to show on.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        Nutballs–I’ve seen some reviews of Jobs that make it sound like it actually has a lot in common with IStL. Great lead performance, incoherent story and often less than stellar (shall we say) dialogue. Several reviewers noted that it failed to convey either what produced Jobs’ genius moves or the impact he had.
        Wondering now if avoiding TIFF was deliberate–it is one of the toughest reviewing crowds of any festival.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        TB, I see why it could be compared to ISTL. It’s a fast paced movie with a shitload of dialogue and while I enjoyed it, I can see why those who aren’t interested in Jobs would pass. Since they primarily focused on three major events of his life, you don’t get a sense of his genius. You do get a sense of what an asshole he could be, however.

        As with ISTL, I read the bio the Jobs film is based on and was able to fill in the blanks. But I think it would be hard to sell the public on the history of Apple, especially since the technology they pioneered is now so commonplace and ordinary. It’s easy to forget that the iPhone was first introduced just 7 years ago.

        I wonder if it would have done better had it been released closer to the time of Steve’s passing, instead of four years later.

        I lived through that entire history though — our family had one of the original Macintosh computers from the mid-80′s and I well remember my company getting us the tangerine iMacs in the mid-90′s — so I enjoyed that bit of nostalgia.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        Fassbender was good but I really couldn’t work myself into caring about the “Apple 2 team” other than to wonder why, if it really was so important to Wozniak, he didn’t acknowledge them during one of the launches when Jobs was not with Apple.

      • cranberry says:

        @Totallybiased “..it failed to convey either what produced Jobs’ genius moves or the impact he had.”

        @Nutballs “Since they primarily focused on three major events of his life, you don’t get a sense of his genius. You do get a sense of what an asshole he could be, however.”

        A really good show to watch that has a Steve Jobs-esque character played by Lee Pace is “Halt and Catch Fire” on AMC. It’s not about Apple or Jobs but it’s during the same time period in the 80s. Apparently it’s about the IBM/ Compact clone war (not a Star Wars ref), but it’s pretty obvious they’ve modeled Pace’s character with Job’s in mind, most certainly for dramatic effect and because so many people know of Jobs and his story in the tech industry. The series is very well done. Anyone interested in Steve Jobs-alternative or the world he was apart of, the virgining PC industry, might be more entertained and satisfied with HACF than some of the theatrical bios on the man.

    • Dara says:

      @Nutty, Hurrah! Congrats to Emma and Jack!

      Consulting my handy-dandy travel abacus, I see that Honolulu to London is a 17 hour trip (at minimum, with at least one connection). I think we’ve already established the Tomster is apparently immune to jetlag, but that’s a heck of a long way to go for just a few days. I totally believe he was at the wedding, just wondering if the supposed sightings in Hawaii are entirely accurate.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Brie was still promoting ROOM last week, so she wasn’t in Hawaii. So with the wedding the weekend, he may not have flown out yet either.

        Brie’s pretty active on Twitter so I expect a tweet when she arrives on the island.

      • neutral says:

        She was still in Santa Barbara on Saturday!

  40. neutral says:

    So Crimson Peak has now made $48.6 world wide. Another week and it will be in profit?

    • Ana A. says:

      No, sadly not because they spent a lot on advertising. I think it was reported by variety that they spent 13 million just on TV ads in its opening week. So they have to make something like double to only break even.

    • KTE says:

      A couple of things to remember about box office reports: 1) movie studios don’t get all the box office take, because cinemas also take a cut, and in some countries they take more than others (e.g. in the UK the cinemas reportedly take 70% of box office). So rule of thumb is that a film needs to make at least twice its budget in box office takings to break even, plus marketing costs.

      The reported film budgets are not always accurate: GDT has been saying he had a budget of $50m and came in under-budget, but box office mojo has the budget at $55m. Ditto cast salaries – Jessica Chastain says she was paid less than a quarter than was reported for The Martian, Jennifer Lawrence only found out she was paid less than her male co-stars for American Hustle because of the Sony hack. Basically, take anything you read about money on a Hollywood film with a large pinch of salt!

      Hollywood accounting is notoriously shady – according to the studio, the Lord of the Rings films didn’t make a profit. This is obviously ludicrous, because if even monster-hits like that didn’t make money, there wouldn’t be a Hollywood film industry.

      So, and bearing in mind that Hollywood accounting is not reliable, even notorious past ‘flops’ like Anthony and Cleopatra made money eventually. It may take a long time for them to do so, but it seems that the reason why Hollywood as an industry is able to keep going is that the many many films that aren’t box office hits do eventually make enough money to cover their costs, through TV licensing sales, DVD sales, etc. This would also be why box office flops don’t generally kill the careers of directors.

      • Ana A. says:

        Agree with everything. It’s more like a broad rule that a movie needs to make twice the budget to break even. As it is a broad rule that it has an advertising budget of half his film budget.

        What they never include is how much funding they got (they don’t need to pay that back) or how much on tax reductions, etc. Look at the new Australia deal for Alien: Paradise Lost and Thor 3. Movies that are funded in total don’t need to make any money at all. Sometimes part of the financing comes from hedge funds that want to lose money so that they can claim tax reductions. It’s really shady as fuck.
        You can say if a movie did great or not by comparing it’s budget to the ticket sales. You can’t say though if it really made any money or not.

        As KTE said most of the money comes from the licensing sales, DVD sales, etc. not from the cinema.

  41. neutral says:

    variety.com/2015/tv/global/amc-global-night-manager-1201627403/

    And Tom is going to be talking to Josie Rourke about playing hank Williams on BBC 2 Artsnight on 6 November 11pm

  42. TotallyBiased says:

    Um…testing?
    Tom has donated a pair of Converse trainers to the Small Steps Project this year. Supposed to go live today, but so far his page still goes to last year’s Jimmy Choos.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      Small Steps Project link is live to this year’s pair of shoes now. They’re only up for the week, so it will be interesting to see how much they go for.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      Well, that’s escalating quickly. Already going for more than the latest Loki Premium figure. But then, they ARE autographed.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      Wowsers! 670£ already! Meanwhile, Bendybatch’s red carpet shoes may still be bid on for under ten. That won’t last, of course–perhaps Hiddles’ fans are just more tech-savvy, as the Small Steps process is NOT user friendly.