Moviefone Editorial

Tag: @tv2014dl

Marc Guggenheim Talks del Toro’s ‘Trollhunters,’ Confirms More DC/CW Crossovers

As any fan of the The CW’s superheroic series “Arrow” and “Legends of Tomorrow” knows, writer/producer Marc Guggenheim‘s got a pretty solid track record for translating imaginative adventure projects from the page to the screen.

For his latest effort, Guggenheim’s turning his attention from the comic book page to the world of young adult fantasy fiction by “Trollhunters,” the 2015 novel by acclaimed filmmaker Guillermo del Toro along with Daniel Kraus. Long before the book was published — five years, to be precise — Guggenheim was collaborating with del Toro on an animated adaptation of the tale that finds seemingly average teenager Jim inadvertently elevated to the role of Trollhunter, defender of a secret, centuries-old community of trolls hidden beneath his hometown, and finds himself balancing the demands of his title with making sure he makes it to gym class.

When del Toro’s expansive universe proved too big to be contained in a single film, Guggenheim put on his executive producer hat and built out a “Trollhunters” saga for the small screen as a 26-episode animated series for DreamWorks Animation, debuting on Netflix Dec. 23, featuring an all-star voice cast (including Steven Yeun, Kelsey Grammer, frequent del Toro collaborator Ron Perlman and the late Anton Yelchin in his final performance as Jim)

Guggenheim joined Moviefone to delve into his behind-the-scenes experiences bringing del Toro’s vision to animated, serialized life, and he also shares his thoughts on the wildly positive reception to the ambitious recent crossover of all four of the DC Universe TV series and what it promises for the future.

Moviefone: You’re no stranger to adapting characters that are created by somebody else or in some other medium, but Guillermo del Toro has such a specific vision for everything he does; he’s such a very specific type of artist. How was the process different in trying to realize Guillermo’s very specific vision for “Trollhunters”?

Marc Guggenheim: I think that’s a really smart and savvy question. I will say it helps enormously that Guillermo is able to, I think in many ways, sort of square the circle in the sense that, you’re right, he does have an incredibly specific vision, and that’s amazing, and that’s why he’s, quite frankly, Guillermo del Toro.

At the same time, it threatens to be contradictory. I think, for anyone else, it is contradictory. But in Guillermo’s case, it really isn’t. He is incredibly collaborative, and he’ll take a good idea from anywhere. He goes into these things without any ego. He’s able to always keep his eye on the ball of what he wants, and he never looses sight of that, which is terrific. But at the same time, that vision still has room for other people’s contributions. It’s a remarkable thing, and it’s a very rare thing, as you might imagine.

What did you learn from collaborating with Guillermo?

Oh gosh. I honestly don’t know if we have the kind of time to list it all! The truth of the matter is that I always describe working with Guillermo as like going to film school. I don’t think there’s a single meeting, or phone call, even from the longest story breaking session to the shortest touch base, where he doesn’t end up saying something where I don’t learn something either about the business or the craft, or about storytelling in general.

I would say probably the biggest thing I learned from Guillermo is trusting your audience. I think Guillermo, he really does trust the audience. Even when we’re working on something where we intend for the audience to include young kids. He’s very much about trusting the audience. They’ll get it. They will follow the narrative, no matter how rich, no matter even how complex, and I don’t think he’s wrong. He trusts that the audience can handle it, even young kids can handle it.

I think he’s right. I think it’s something that we tend to lose sight of, particularly in television. It’s a very, very invaluable lesson.

This is a great time for animated work on TV, with shows incorporating a little bit more complexity and serialization in the storytelling. For you, what was the fun and the challenge of a serialized story in the animation sphere?

First of all, it was a huge amount of fun. It’s funny. I never really looked at it as like a challenge. It honestly really felt like a series of opportunities. I think the project ended up benefiting a little bit from the fact that I hadn’t really done animation, and I hadn’t done children’s television. The approach that we all took, consistent with Guillermo’s vision, was that we’re not writing it for kids. We’re just writing it basically for people, and for people of all ages. So it’s something that kids can watch, but there’s plenty of humor that adults can appreciate.

There’s a timeless quality to the setting that makes it appeal to people of all ages. I think the story is very universal. It’s essentially a “Chosen One” story, but sort of within that very generic description there was a huge amount of room for us to play with those tropes, and tweak them, and turn them on their head a little bit, which I think, again, is the kind of thing you come to associate with Guillermo’s writing.

I think one of the things Guillermo doesn’t get enough credit for is, everyone understands and recognizes he’s a visionary director, and he has this incredible visual style, but he’s also a remarkable writer, and brings a lot of heart and humor to his work. It’s a lot of fun to put that all in the mix and see what we ended up with. I’m sorry, I realize I started to run very far field of your original question.

Are you energized to develop some more stuff in the animation field? Is that now a territory that you feel really attracted to?

Yeah. I have to say that this whole experience — and I’ve been working on “Trollhunters” now for about five years — has been just so joyful. I can’t express that enough. Part of it’s the animation side of it. Part of it is just the wonderful people at DreamWorks who we work with.

Whenever I go over to DreamWorks and see the animators, and see the designers, and just even walk around the space, quite frankly, it’s so inspiring, and I come back to my offices at “Arrow” and “Legends” almost re-energized.

So, yeah, I would like to think that it’s not my last foray, as always. I’m very much about not picking things based upon the genre, but rather “Is the story interesting to me? Is the world compelling? And are the people involved people that I want to be spending time with?”I imagine you were pretty gratified to see the enthusiastic response to the big crossover among the DC/CW series, particularly to the 100th episode of “Arrow.” When you started seeing the fan reaction to what was happening on-screen, how did you feel?

I’d probably have to say, first of all — just because it’s the nature of my personality — relieved. You know what was really nice? What was so great about the response — I was reading Twitter and checking social media and everything, was for one night at least, the “Arrow” 100th, we all sort of dropped the tribalism of which relationships we wanted, and what plotlines were upsetting us, and it was just the celebration of the show. And that was really, really wonderful.

Both the 100th episode and the crossover, it really was written with fans in mind. The whole thing really was an exercise in “What do we think is cool? What do we think the audience will think is cool? Trust that what we think is cool and what the audience thinks is cool is the same thing, and just go for it.”

I think the cherry on top of the sundae was, I think everyone watched with an eye towards what we were trying to accomplish. They recognized it was a TV show and it wasn’t a movie, so they were I think impressed by the scope of it. They recognized that each of these shows has their own identity, so they understood that the “Flash” episode is an episode of “Flash,” same with “Arrow,” same with “Legends.”

I think what was most gratifying was just the fact that everyone was on board for this ride that we had constructed for them. It was super great. Definitely everyone, both here at the office and the studio and network, we’ve still been on a high.

Do you see this as being an annual event?

Yeah. I think, certainly, each year we’ve done a crossover, and each year it’s gotten bigger and more ambitious. Those sorts of decisions are actually made well above my head — though I don’t think it’s hard to look at the landscape and go “Well, surely there will be a proper four night crossover next year with all four shows — ‘Supergirl’ properly included.”

But who knows? I think all of us are still recovering a little bit from this crossover. It is a lot of work. I’m not going to lie to you. It’s a labor of love for sure, but it’s definitely — it’s kind of like childbirth. You don’t want to immediately start thinking about the next baby. You’re still holding the newborn in your arms.

I felt with the “Arrow” 100th in particular, by the time we got to the end of that particular episode, for “Arrow,” the table’s really been reset; everything seems open to a whole new way of looking at things and the possibilities are wide open. Do you guys feel that way creatively on staff?

Yes and no, in the sense that, look: I think on “Arrow,” we’ve always sort of felt like, once we introduced Barry Allen, and once the universe sort of expanded to include metahumans, and now time travel and parallel universes, and now aliens, I think we all recognize that the world is much bigger, and that “Arrow” can absolutely do episodes where he’s fighting a metahuman, or, like we did last year, introduce magic.

I think, last year, we leaned pretty heavily into metahumans and magic. I wouldn’t say the results were mixed — I would say that the response was mixed. I think what’s a fun challenge for us on “Arrow”; how do we acknowledge this larger universe that has grown, while at the same time allowing “Arrow” to do what it does best? Which is: each of these shows has its own identity, and “Arrow” is the gritty, grounded crime drama. We do 23 episodes a year. So that’s a pretty big canvas, and I think that out of 23 episodes, the show can benefit from, and withstand, the occasional foray into genre.

December 20, 2016
Long-Lost ‘Star Trek’ Footage Presents a New, Not-So-Final Frontier

Call it a 50th anniversary present or the ultimate “Star Trek” holiday gift: either way, fans of the sci-fi franchise — especially the original 1966 TV series that started it all — are about to unwrap something special.

“The Roddenberry Vault,” which debuts on Blu-ray Dec. 13, is a startling three-disc time capsule that takes viewers viscerally back to “Star Trek’s” very beginnings. For years, “Trek” creator Gene Roddenberry had maintained a warehouse space that was kept up long after his death in 1991. When Roddenberry’s son, Rod, investigated its contents almost a decade ago, he made an astounding discovery: reels and reels and reels of long-believed lost production footage from the set of the original series, which aired on NBC for three seasons from 1966-1969.

The husband-and-wife team of Mike and Denise Okuda have a long association with the “Star Trek” franchise: Mike designed the now-iconic look of the computer displays seen in “Star Trek: The Next Generation” and subsequent sequel shows, as well as serving as technical consultant on the show’s pseudo-future science; Denise has served as a scenic artist and computer and video supervisor on various film and TV incarnations of “Star Trek”; and together the couple have co-authored several books about the series — including the seminal and recently updated “Star Trek Encyclopedia” — catalogued historic memorabilia for from the productions for Christie’s auction house and created special DVD content and consulted on high-definition upgrades of the series.

Over nine years, the two passionate uber-fans painstaking reviewed the bits and pieces of film discovered within the warehouse, looking for historic and archival gems that would ultimately shed a unique and brand-new light on a 50-year-old series that has been discussed and dissected by legions of fans: lost scenes from the classic episode of “City on the Edge of Forever,” evidence of an alternate ending to “Who Mourns for Adonais?”; a long-suspected deleted sequence between James T. Kirk and his orphaned nephew, Peter, from “Operation: Annihilate!”; a long, unedited, single-camera take of Leonard Nimoy in character as Mr. Spock.; and more.The result of their labors — as spotlighted in “The Roddenberry Vault” among a series of extensive documentaries, special features collected clips, interviews of “Trek’s” original cast and creators and a roster of current Hollywood movers and shakers they inspired, and a dozen original episodes presented for context — will be, for “Star Trek” fans everyone — downright thrilling, as the Okudas recounted exclusively to Moviefone.

Moviefone: I would imagine that you are thrilled to bring these amazing discoveries to the “Star Trek” fandom at large. When you first got wind of the possibilities locked up in all of these film canisters, given how close you’ve been to the franchise over the years, tell me what was running through your mind when you first found out you were going to have the chance to go spelunking.

Denise Okuda: It was a dream come true. For years, I just felt like there was more out there. We’ve seen clips of things that were filmed. We’ve seen stills like the end of “Operation: Annihilate!” with Peter Kirk on the Bridge. We know this was filmed. So where is that film? For years and years and years and years, I would ask directors, I would ask people, and nobody knew where it was.

I just had this faith that something was out there. So nine years ago, when we were contacted, we were told to meet at this obscure warehouse in Los Angeles. We signed nondisclosures, and they took us in to this room where there were rows and rows and rows of cans of film.

Mike Okuda: It was very much a “Raiders of the Lost Ark” moment. We walked in. They showed us the films and our jaws just dropped.

Denise: Dropped! And, of course, because we know “Star Trek” very well, and I don’t know why, but dialogue just sticks with me, we started looking at some of the stuff, and it was like, “Oh, my God. That’s an alternate take,” or, “Oh my God, that’s an omitted line.”

It’s like Christmas and Easter and Halloween, and any other special holiday that you could think of, wrapped up into one, and we cannot tell you how thrilled and excited we are that other “Star Trek” fans like us are going to be able to see this stuff. We’ve been waiting for this day for nine years.As you started exploring, how quickly did you start finding the most significant pieces that have been hidden away? Did they slowly reveal themselves, or was it early on you were like, “Oh, we’ve got a goldmine here?”

Mike: The footage wasn’t organized, so when we saw them, it was almost entirely in random order, which means you’d have a whole bunch of things that were, “Eh? Basically the same that’s on the air.”

Then, suddenly, there’d be a line of dialogue, but we were lucky: very early on, we found the footage from “Operation: Annihilate!” There’s a famous scene that everyone knew existed because they’d seen clips of Kirk’s nephew Peter coming on the Bridge, and it was a different ending to the episode. We found some of that footage. Needless to say, we were thrilled.

Denise: Now, you need to remember, and what we try to tell people, is that these are snippets from the cutting room floor. There aren’t many entire scenes that are intact. Most of this is alternate takes, omitted dialogues, different angles. Some of them are relatively short. Some of them are a little longer. But it’s magical because this stuff, we’ve never seen before. It was the cutting room floor. It was meant to be thrown in the trash, and it was rescued.

So if you are big fans of “Star Trek,” as we are, and you know the scenes and you know the dialogue and you can tell that there’s new dialogue, that’s really special. But if you don’t know, then we will give you context. And how we did context was through a couple of documentaries.

Our coworker, a very fine filmmaker, The Big Bang Theory.” We talked to [original series writer/producer] Dorothy Fontana. We talked to several of the original series actors. So we hope that there’s something for everyone on this Blu-ray.

From watching the documentaries, it sounds like, perhaps, that legendary, lost alternate ending to the episode “Who Mourns for Adonais?” was the Holy Grail that you were looking for, and you had some success. Tell me about that particular one, and then some others that were just truly tremendous finds among all of these little snippets.

Mike: One of the most satisfying pieces we found wasn’t a deleted ending, but was some dialogue that was cut, purely for time, from “The City on the Edge of Forever,” when just after Kirk saves Edith Keeler from falling down the stairs, they exchange a romantic moment. But after that moment, there were several lines of dialogue which were very sweet between the two of them, and you can just see that they’re in love. It’s a great character moment for both Kirk and Edith, and of course it makes Edith’s subsequent death that much more poignant.

Denise: I think another thing that is very special is what I call the fly on the wall. It puts you there behind the camera. You can see the shooting company. You can see the actors getting ready for their takes. That’s like being there. For anyone that is a fan of “Star Trek,” that’s a very magical feeling.

Michael and I worked on the other incarnations of “Star Trek.” We never, of course, worked on the original, but that’s our favorite. And so to be there, vicariously, watching this footage was very, very special, and an unexpected treasure. We knew that there would probably be omitted dialogue and alternate takes, because you shoot a master and then you shoot the close-ups and so forth. So we figured there would be some of that, but we also were very pleased to be able to have that experience of being there.

You present so much material on the disks. Is this just scratching the surface of what you discovered? Is there a lot more, and is there any plan to figure out a way to get that out there for the fans to see?

Mike: We tried to use the best material, and we’re not aware of any plans in the future. We certainly did not approach this saying, “OK, let’s hold some stuff back for another product.” We said, ‘Let’s go for it. Let’s make this as good as we can. This is a lot of good stuff.”

Denise: Yeah, we worked really, really, really hard on this project. It’s a passion project, as you can imagine. Roger and Mike and I worked just seven days a week for months and months, trying to mine the best stuff, weave it into the documentaries, so that we could share the best, the very best stuff. So I think that’s probably, this is it, and we’re so lucky to have what we have.

How did working on this project make you think about the original series or Gene Roddenberry or any aspect of the phenomenon that is “Star Trek” in a different, new, or fresh way?

Mike: We grew up with the original “Star Trek” series. We watch the reruns all the time. So we started out as fans of the show. We started with “Next Generation.” We were connected with the productions, so we have a different perspective on this show. That is, we love the [sequel] shows, but we think of them as, “This is what I worked on.”

You have a different relationship to it. So watching this footage from “The Roddenberry Vault,” you get a sense of the team that’s involved. You get a sense of what the actors went through. You get a sense of what the writers did. One of my favorite bits in “The Roddenberry Vault” is watching these moments of Leonard Nimoy. You can see him working on in his brain how to play the character of Spock. You get a sense of, as Denise said, what it was to be there.Is this the last undiscovered bit of “Star Trek,” do you imagine? Or are there still places to look for amazing discoveries like this? It feels like, here we are, 50 years later, and 50 years from now there’s still going to be an appetite for this kind of material.

Mike: If you had asked this before this stuff was revealed to us, we would have said, no, there’s nothing else. So who knows?

Denise: Who knows? But I can’t imagine. I’m happy. I’m satisfied. I still can’t believe how lucky we are, and how lucky everyone is going to be when they see this Blu-ray, that we have the opportunity to see this lost footage and be there on set, vicariously. I’m almost speechless, but you can tell I’m not speechless, because I’m so absolutely head-over-heels excited that this is finally, finally coming out.

I have to say, all of the interviews were a treat, but there seemed to be something special about William Shatner‘s comments in the documentaries. Did you guys get the sense of that? Was there a little bit more magic in his memories this time around?

Mike: I think you’re exactly right. We had originally arranged to do a very short interview with him, and Bill just kept saying, “Oh no, I just want to keep talking.” He delved into his feeling as an actor, into the process of bringing to Kirk to life, of living in Kirk’s emotions, and he spoke of the drama of the storytelling of “Star Trek’s” mythology. Frankly, I’ve never heard him open up like this before.

Denise: I’ve not, either, and we had occasion to work with Mr. Shatner on several of the feature films, and also just see him from time to time, and of course listen to many interviews that he’s done. Roger Lay conducted the interview, and he’s very skilled at asking questions and doing interviews, puts people at ease. But I have never seen an interview with Bill Shatner like this before. He was so gracious and so giving and so open that we share your opinion as well. We were blown away, quite frankly.

Next year, we’re looking at the 30th anniversary of “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” a series in which you of course were so intimately involved. Anything special on the horizon that we can look forward to, to kind of mark that big anniversary?

Mike: Honestly, we haven’t thought that far ahead!

Denise: We just wrapped the “Star Trek Encyclopedia,” which took two years to do, and “The Roddenberry Vault,” which took around nine years to do, and we just wrapped relatively recently. It was a really tight deadline. So, right now, we’re decorating our Christmas tree, and we’re doing Christmas cards, and we’re playing with our dog. So we don’t know. January is around the corner, and I hope something transpires because it’s a real special anniversary.What keeps you guys motivated to do the great archival work on the “Star Trek” franchise that you’ve done?

Mike: Like so many other people, we’re “Star Trek” fans. We love the stuff, and we know how much “Star Trek” has meant to us, and we know how much “Star Trek” means to so many people, and it’s worth it to do it.

Denise: Mike and I feel very, very strongly in the vision of Gene Roddenberry for hope for the future, that we are one human family, and that we need to be kind to each other. And particularly in the world right now, that is sorely lacking. And, so, we feel that through “Star Trek,” we can reach out to other people and say, “Hey, you know what? It’s going to be OK, and we need to pull together, and we need to be kind to each other.” I think that that is something that’s extremely important and part of the reason we enjoy these projects.

Gene Roddenberry was a great futurist, but do you imagine he envisioned that preserving this material was the right thing to do, to keep it all stored away, at a time when archiving television material was not the norm? Do you think he suspected the significance it was going to have?

Mike: We have no idea what Gene thought. But his son, Rod Roddenberry, he, from a fairly early age knew the stuff was there, and he was the one who actively preserved the stuff, even after his mother was gone. So Rod Roddenberry certainly had understood that this stuff was unique, and thank goodness he did what he did.

Denise: We also have to give a big shout out to CBS and to CBS Home Entertainment … I think they thought we were crazy at times, because we were so passionate. We just fought. We just said, “No, we’ve got to do this. We’ve got to squeeze every inch out of this so we could put it into this Blu-ray set of discs and share it with other ‘Star Trek’ fans.” We kept saying “It’s really, really important. And it’s the 50th anniversary. So that’s kind of just a tip of the hat to CBS for their support. We can’t thank them enough.

December 13, 2016
Printable Golden Globes Ballot: 2017 Golden Globe Nominees

Looking for a printable 2017 Golden Globes ballot? We’ve got you covered. Click on the ballot below to download your very own PDF featuring all of the Golden Globes‘ 2017 nominees, complete with check boxes and score space — perfect for your office Golden Globe pool. Or, download our 2017 Golden Globes ballot here.The 74th Annual Golden Globe Awards airs Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 8 p.m. ET / 5 p.m. PT on NBC.

PrettyFamous | Graphiq

December 12, 2016
‘Mozart in the Jungle’ Star Lola Kirke on Hailey’s Season 3 Excursion

For its new season, “Mozart in the Jungle” is sending Lola Kirke‘s Hailey into the wilderness across the Atlantic, where the notes she strikes may not be as harmonious as she’s used to.

Following its surprise win at last year’s Golden Globe Awards where it took home the trophy for Best Television Series – Comedy as well as a Best Actor win for star Gael Garcia Bernal, Amazon’s acclaimed, alternately classy and messy look inside the world of a New York orchestra returns for a third season, shaking up the status quo by sending several of its characters to follow their muses on intertwining treks through Europe, while the remainder battle out a dispute between the union and the symphony back home in the Big Apple.

Hailey’s journey as an oboist abroad is central to the new storyline, of course, as she joins the brilliant but egotistical Andrew Walsh (Dermot Mulroney) on his tour across the continent, encountering her mentor and brief paramour Rodrigo (Bernal), who’s staging the comeback for an alluring but troubled opera diva (Monica Bellucci).

Kirke joined Moviefone for a disarming chat about Hailey’s upcoming excursion, as well as the effect of the symphonic series on her own musical mode.

Moviefone: This season really blows up the show’s established format, and you guys get to take a lot of creative risks this time around, coloring outside the lines. Tell me what the fun of that was for you.

Lola Kirke: I think it’s always fun, in life and in art, to be able to be yourself a little bit more. I don’t think that Hailey and I are definitely that similar, but to graduate or evolve from being just afraid that you’re messing up all of the time, and nervous around great people, to being more comfortable with yourself, I think that arc has been really fun. I think that does, as you said, blow up the format a little bit.

To get out of the typical New York setting and explore, geographically, some new places for her, what was intriguing to you about putting her in different contexts?

What was fun about putting her in a different context is a little complex to explain, I suppose. I’m deceptively British. I was born in England and lived there until I was five. I actually had spent a lot of time out of the country to visit my family, and so on and so forth. But Hailey is a person that I imagine hasn’t.

I like to think of Hailey as a vessel for all these experiences that I’m jealous of having, like seeing new places, because your art has taken you there, and not because your family or any kind of previous privilege has taken you there. So I think it was really fun to put Hailey into a new world and have her be completely lost there, and have her really just rely on her luck — which, thankfully, according to the writers of the show, always comes through for her.

Of course there comes a point where she does get back to the old stomping grounds and reuniting with everybody, instead of being a little bit off on her own storyline mixed in with appearances by the rest of the cast here and there. What was it like to get back with the group and get back to the familiar ground after almost half of a season?

It’s amazing. I think that it’s interesting: I don’t know what year “Mozart in the Jungle” is really meant to be taking place in anymore, because you start a show, I think that this happens in TV time, like for most shows, or all shows that are on TV. They run in this kind of, they start out like in the time that it is, and then they just stick — they don’t evolve in real time like everything else.

So “Mozart in the Jungle,” though it is shot in New York, for the most part, lives in its own world, in its own time, and it’s always just a pleasure to be able to get back to that group of people.

What did you love about Hailey when you first signed on to play her? And what do you love specifically about her now?

What I loved about Hailey when I first signed on to play her was this kind of deceptive boldness that she has always had. I think I also really related to being a young person with creative ambition, and being surrounded by people that you never thought that you’d be in the same room with, and being recognized in whatever way for your talent, and being really scared that that was going to be taken away, and wondering.

I think that I really connected to Hailey on the level of what it was to be a young artist. Our creative and professional paths have definitely evolved along the same lines. I’m very happy for her to get more confident, as I do, and to feel more comfortable in making choices that are made for her own artistic integrity, rather than for what she thinks she has to do.

Like the decision for her to become a conductor is, I think, something that speaks volumes of where she’s at, and the kind of agency and independence that she is carving out for herself.

Tell me about playing the will they / won’t they aspect of Hailey’s relationship with Rodrigo.

I think that there is something very fun in playing a dynamic relationship with somebody, one that exceeds just romance and that is a mentorship relationship, a deep friendship. I think that romance, even in a romantic relationship, is just a part of that kind of a relationship. I think that there are so many other levels that come in to that. So it’s very fun to explore all of the different levels of a relationship between two people. I felt it just very fun to work with Gael. I love working with Gael.

Tell me about your own relationship with music. How do you define your connection to the musical arts?

I think that relationship is one that is still being defined, that is constantly growing. I spent a lot of time just admiring music, and a certain kind of music, which was typically rock and roll. Then I started playing my own kind of music, but wasn’t too confident with it, and then this show kind of came and turned music on its head for me — or my conception of music — and continues to do that, because I think I have a really naive relationship to classical music, and I have a very learned relationship to other kinds of music.

I feel like classical music is a language and a world that I don’t understand, and that I try to understand. It’s its own beast, so it’s really fun to get to play, to get to be in the show, and to be an expert on something that I’m definitely not an expert on in real life.

But then I think that this season, getting to conduct, weirdly, once again became another parallel in my own life. I started taking my own music that I make — in real Lola Kirke-life, not Hailey Rutledge-life — more seriously, and getting to use or employ some of the things I learned — just in terms of talking to musicians and how to do it — from Hailey has made my life a little bit easier when I’m talking to musicians who I respect and don’t feel that I should be directing, but I am.

There’s a great scene in the beginning of the season where she has an issue in the middle of a performance.

Yeah, I love that scene!

Has anything like that ever happened to you in the course of your creative life? Have you ever had that, this is just what’s got to happen right now?

To vomit in the middle of something? [Laughs] I’m trying to think. I’m sure, but no, surprisingly not. Let me get back to you on that — when it does happen, you’ll be the first to know!

This show was obviously something special from the get-go, but tell me what it meant to you, your cast mates and the creative team to get that acknowledgement with the Golden Globe win and to get that extra push in front of eyes that might not have seen the show at their first opportunity, and have come to it since.

I think it meant that we could say, “Oh, I do this show called ‘Mozart in the Jungle’” and people would actually be like, “Oh, yeah!” instead of, like, “What the f*ck?” That’s a nice feeling.

What other kinds of opportunities have opened up for you as a result of the exposure that this show has given you?

Oh, lots of opportunities, I suppose. My whole life has changed, and in a really nice way. I think, also, the opportunity to work with actors that I love and respect, and to have had a stable situation, professionally, for the past three years has been amazing. That’s a real privilege as an actor, and luxury.

It always takes a certain impulse to put yourself out there as a creative artist. I’m curious: how early in your life did you recognize that ability in yourself? What was your path to enabling yourself to put yourself out there like that?

I don’t really know that I saw it as a choice. I come from a family of artists, and we exist in a bubble of privilege in which thinking about things, like how you’re going to live practically, is not something that was generally done. I don’t say that in a way that is elevating that way of thinking. It’s just how it was.

So, from a young age, I think I thought, well, how am I going to communicate my individuality to the world? That’s a bizarre thing for a small child to be thinking about, but it is also something that I feel really lucky to be able to do. Yeah, it wasn’t some kind of origin story of me coming out to the world as an actor when everyone thought I was going to be something else.

“Mozart in the Jungle” Season 3 premieres Friday, December 9 on Amazon.

December 9, 2016
Constance Zimmer Gets Real About Hollywood, Fan Love, and ‘UnREAL’ Season 3

It’s one of the most delightful aspects of a professional life in Hollywood: You can find your niche in the industry, do good work on good shows, and carve out a solid career for yourself. And then, one day, a certain special role on a certain special project clicks with a certain special audience, and just like that, you’re a superstar,

Just ask Constance Zimmer.

Zimmer’s been a familiar face appearing on dozens of television shows since she first hit the scene, especially after breakthrough roles in “Joan of Arcardia,” “Boston Legal,” and, most significantly, “Entourage” as studio exec/Ari Gold sparring partner Dana Gordon. An array of high-profile projects followed — including “Grey’s Anatomy,” “The Newsroom,” “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” and “House of Cards” — establishing the diversity of her range, but it took an unlikely pitch-black comedy on an even unlikelier cable network to shoot her into the stratosphere: as the deliriously manipulative dating show producer Quinn King on Lifetime’s “UnREAL,” Zimmer’s reveling on the role of her career, one that’s earned her an Emmy Award nomination and a degree of notoriety she hadn’t experienced before.

As she preps to head into “UnREAL” Season 3, Zimmer can next be seen on the big screen in “”Better Things.”

Moviefone: I’m sensing a pattern here in your work with “Run the Tide”: finding seemingly unsympathetic characters and making them surprisingly sympathetic.

Constance Zimmer: Yeah, sure. I’ll take that. I’ll take it!

What was the challenge here in figuring out who she was, owning the dark side, but showing that she did have the potential for some light side, too?

Once again, it’s a character that I was scared of because of everything you just mentioned, but realizing that the characters that I’m afraid of are the ones that tend to have the biggest reward in the end, because you have to find what it is, who they were before they were broken. Because we all have that in us, but it’s been marred along the way from this, that or the other thing.

Her stuff is very obvious, and I had to kind of go at her, again, [being] completely nonjudgmental. I had to find where the honesty and the truth was going to come from, and knowing that she really had to claw her way back up. I don’t think, for me, it was the reality that it wasn’t going to be as easy as she thought it was.

So the awareness of becoming so, like, keen to knowing you’ve hurt people to a depth that you didn’t even know, made it such a more emotional journey than I thought. But always knowing that there was a light at the end of the tunnel was how I was able to know that in two hours I was going to be able to prove to these people that I had changed, I had learned, I had grown, and I was here. I was in it to win it now.

We don’t get those chances in life. We have no idea what tomorrow brings. So in a movie like this, that I think helps too, to heal the character and heal the path.

What was intriguing for you to work with a guy like Taylor Lautner — who could certainly coast on the audience that he already has, could coast on the superficial look or the people’s image of him — and to see him digging deep in a movie like this, seeing him broaden his range and his skill and come at it to work?

I definitely think it was, again, one of the reasons why I wanted to do it because I was excited for him. Because I always find that a lot of these actors who have been put into these franchises at such a young age, without even knowing what it was going to do to them, or how it was going to catapult them into a specific area, and that he was so excited about this being nothing like he had ever done.

I was so excited for him, and I wanted to be a part of it. I wanted to see it because I knew that if he could do it, he was going to do it big, because he was so committed and so into it, and all of us were. It’s a small film. It’s a small cast. Everybody has a story to tell and every character is so deep and so rich. So I knew that everybody that was signed on to the movie was kind of here to commit to these characters.

You didn’t have a choice, and as dark and as messed up as some of them are, we had to all go in knowing that in the end there’s going to be hope. But it was super exciting to do a lot of those scenes with him too because he and I were so in it, and all I wanted was I wanted to give him everything. I wanted to give him every emotion so that we could do it together, and it was fun. It was fun and so emotionally draining every day.

You’ve almost gotten Taylor’s experience in reverse. You’ve built a body of work: “Entourage,” I’m sure, got you recognized on the street and got you good tables in restaurants —

Barely!

Then this “UnREAL” comes along, and all of a sudden people are invested in you and they want to talk to you about that character and know about your personal life. So what was that like to have a new degree of fame enter the picture after you were a solid, professional working actor?

It’s funny because I don’t really even necessarily think that I have any more or less than I’ve had. It’s just, yeah, more people care what I have to say, which has been weird. I take all of it as a compliment. I feel so grateful that I’ve been around for so long, and yet some people can say, “Where did you come from? I’ve never seen you before.”

And I always say “Thank you.” Because you always have this fear of … it’s weird: right before I did “House of Cards,” I had this whole thing in my career where I thought everyone was done with me. They were like over me — like, “We’re over her, we’ve seen her in too many things, we’re done.” I was like, “That’s it. I had my time, my moment is over. And then I did “House of Cards” and it was like a whole different resurgence of sorts of characters in different outlets and all this kind of stuff.

So that’s all I’m ever looking for, is to constantly grow through characters and shine light in dark characters that are really not the ones that people might jump to go, “Oh, I want to do that, I want to be in that blockbuster and look amazing and beautiful.” No, I’m really always for the underdog, because I’ve always felt I was an underdog, and I actually like being an underdog.

So it’s been fun. It’s still shocking for me. If somebody comes up to me and says my whole name, I’m like, “Is that written somewhere? Is my name on a piece of paper and that’s why you know who I am?” Because still, I like being like a chameleon and not it being one thing in particular.

Was there a fear factor when “UnREAL” came around to you?

Of course there was! The big story on the block is how many times I turned it down, because it had to be done right, and it had to be done in a way that was going to be different. It being on Lifetime, and they hadn’t done anything like it before, we had to put all of our faith and all of our trust that they were going to do it the way that it needed to be done to break out into something more than just, like, “Hey, here’s a new show about behind the scenes of reality television.”

What I like more about it, I was afraid that everyone was going to hate Quinn. So, again, I was playing a character that I was just like, “Oh God. Are they going to get me? What do I do?” But obviously I could not be happier. It’s really kind of superseded anything I think any of us had every hoped for or dreamed of happening with the show. Now, this season, we’re diving into another new territory of a female suitor. So I don’t know. It’s always exciting, and challenging, and scary, even the show has its cult status, it’s still scary.

People have said what they wanted to say about Season 2 in comparison to Season 1. That must have been interesting, to go from being a total darling to “Hmm …”

Yeah, but it’s OK. You know why? People cared, and that’s the way I saw it. I was like, “Wow, people really care about this show.” They care when we miss our mark, and that you don’t get very often, and yet people were still watching it, even though they were like, “Hmm, you kind of missed the mark on that, but I’m still going to watch the next episode.” And we all were taking it as a learning curve. I hope that this next season will bring it all back together cohesively.

The table was really reset at the end of Season 2. There are so many different things that you can do. Have you had those creative discussions? Have they given you an awareness of what the overall picture is going to be like?

Not yet. I’ve heard sprinkling of things. We’ll do that probably in the next month or so, and then we’ll see where they’re going to take us, and we’ll see if we agree.

Are you excited to get back to work on it?

I’m excited and I’m scared, but that’s why I love this part, because nothing is anticipated, and nothing is set. They’re loose cannons, all of them, and the show is a loose cannon. The characters are loose cannons. So it’s “What are we going to do?” I don’t know. I know what we’re doing, story point-wise, but how is that going to mix in the whole pot? It’s like a big stew, of sorts.

And it’s one thing when they do put it on the page, and it’s another thing to make it come alive.

Yes, yes. But I have to say, with “Run the Tide,” everything that was on the page was very much what was shot, because that’s why, when I read the script, I was like, “I see this. I know what this is. This is just dark, and emotional, and deep, and we just all have to go there every day.” But that was scary. So it’s not that the content was scary. It was about the emotional journey was scary.

I have to ask you about probably your shortest job of the year, your audition waiting room scene on “Better Things.” A brilliantly funny scene. I’ve heard this story from Pamela Adlon, but tell me about it from your side when they came to you with it, and how you reacted to it, had said yes.

[Laughs] It’s as simple as Pam texted me, and she’s like, “I have this really funny scene that I want to write in my show. I’m curious if you’d be willing to do it with me.” I was like, “What are you talking about?” So I called her and we talked about it, because she’s talked about it for years. We’ve talked about the fact that everybody thinks I’m her and she’s me, and I have gotten to the point where I just say, “Yes,” because I’m just so tired of trying to explain it to people.

So she’s always said, “I swear one day I’m going to do something. I’m going to put both of us in a scene, and I’m going to prove to people we’re not the same person.” So here it was. Here was our moment. I was like, “Yes, what do you want me to do? Where do I go? I’m available, any time, anywhere,” and it’s the greatest thing. I keep saying to her, I was like, you realize you have to have an audition scene in every season, and we should just always look whatever the part is, because it doesn’t end. It doesn’t end today.

She’s the face of a show. I’m the face of a show. People still — I was at the Emmys and somebody came up to me and said, “Your show is so amazing. I love you so much. I can’t believe you’re a mom with three kids.” I was like, “I’m not Pam Adlon.” She said, “Yes, you are.” I said, “No, I’m not, but thank you. I take it as a compliment.” So it’s fun. I love it. I love that kind of stuff.

We’ll get to that scene where you guys beat out Julie Bowen for the part. I think that’s what we need next season.

Yes. That would be great. That would be awesome. But the thing is, it’s real life. It’s kind of like, that’s what I think everyone was so amazed that we were willing to just show that that’s what it is. I’m like, “No, that’s what it is. It happens. It’ll happen tomorrow.” The second that I’m not on “UnREAL,” I’ll be right back there, right back there in those rooms, with the same girls. It’s just, that’s the truth.

What great gig have you gotten as a result? Is there something coming up that we’re going to see you in that has kind of come as a result of the exposure that you got on “UnREAL”?

No, because I’m still doing “UnREAL,” and so my window of opportunity is small. We do such a big press tour on that show as well. So there’s times and moments where I just kind of want to exist in my life and I kind of don’t take anything, or want to take anything.

For me, it’s more going to be about, like, when “UnREAL” is over. I’d like to then, once again, try and find that character that is different from what I’ve just done. I’d love to go to like a straight full-on comedy and just flip everybody’s heads from being dramatic and so strong, and all of that fun stuff. For me, right now the greatest reward has been getting the Emmy nomination and getting the Critics’ Choice Award. Those are the greatest things so far that are coming to me through this show that I never anticipated.

From the Emmy experience — It’s a surreal thing. Any aspect of the awards ceremony process is super-surreal. So give me a stand-out crazy memory from being part of it all.

I have to say, it’s when you are walking, when you’re doing the red carpet that is all the on-camera interviews, and you’re passing people like Henry Winkler and Padma Lakshmi. It’s like this whole crazy mix of so many different people from different parts of the entertainment world, and it’s as if you’ve all known each other and you’re best friends. We’re all here for the same reason.

It becomes this love fest. I never thought … I couldn’t get through the crowds because everybody was like, “I’m so excited for you! This is a long time coming! You deserve it!” And I was like, “Hi, nice to meet you.” It was this overwhelming, for me, sense of love and appreciation that is not necessarily what you are around every day in this business.

So that for me was unbelievably heartwarming and it was probably one of the greatest times because
that’s a long carpet to get down. It was every step was somebody new, or somebody I’ve known in my career for 25 years that’s like, “We’re here! We did it!” That, to me, it was like I could have stood on that carpet for days and just been like, just crying.

December 8, 2016
Margo Martindale on ‘The Hollars,’ Her ‘Americans’ Return, and Conquering Hollywood

For a long time, she was character actress Margo Martindale. And now’s she’s — in the words of Bojack Horseman — esteemed character actress Margo Martindale.

For a couple of decades, Martindale was often the best performer who’s name you didn’t know in a string of films you loved (early on, she could be spotted in just about everything, from “Dexter,” then her Emmy-winning turn as the matriarch of the Bennett crime family on “Justified,” as Florrick campaign manager on “The Good Wife,” and, most recently, another Emmy-garnering stint as deeply embedded KGB handler Claudia on FX’s “The Americans.”

But even as television provides a welcome showcase for the accomplished sexagenarian, movies are still clamoring for her services as well: in “The Hollars” (premiering on Blu-Ray and DVD Dec. 6) actor John Krasinski‘s latest effort as writer/director, Martindale plays the hospitalized matriarch of a charmingly dysfunctional family who struggle to put their interpersonal dramas on hold during her illness.

Martindale joined Moviefone to reflect on achieving fame and gathering acting trophies at this stage in her career, the joys of appearing in a fellow actor’s labor of love, how Claudia will be appearing more than ever before in the next season of “The Americans,” and her memories of an early acting colleague named Christopher Reeve.

Moviefone: This time around, among all the work that you do, to work with somebody like John, who you knew well, and to work with a fellow actor behind the camera on “The Hollars,” tell me what that meant to you.

Margo Martindale: I think it gave it a nice depth to have him directing and acting because of the kind of story it was, and because it’s all so personal. It’s about a family. It was as if we were in a hospital room, and the kids were coming home, and I was sick. It felt extremely real, and it felt like there were no cameras around.

I understand that you look at each piece of material that comes your way, and you give it a lot of thought, and try to come up with a character that you haven’t played before. I’m curious what the qualities were, here, that you saw that you hadn’t played that you were excited to take a swing at.

I don’t think I’ve played anything like this: It’s a loving mother. Maybe I have — I’m sure I’ve played a loving mother sometime, but I don’t know. It was a very different story. I’d never had a brain tumor. The movie, the script, for me, surprised me in the specifics of the script. Just the daily specifics of the things that we talked about and what we did and all of that. I thought it was extremely real. I was drawn to that.

When a project is a labor of love, particularly on John’s part as a filmmaker, how does that change things for you coming into it? When you know that people are truly invested in it, and it’s just not another attempt at entertainment or commercial success, but it’s something that has struck somebody’s chord deep, deep down?

That makes it all the better! It was a very intense 22 days of shooting, and I was there only 14 of those, and I felt like I’d left my family behind. I felt very bad about leaving, because what are they going to do without me? That is what happened. What are they going to do without me? Yeah, everybody cared deeply and wanted everything to be very truthful.

You have, of course, this great history as a character actress, and then in the past several years you’ve gotten an increasing degree of fame. Were you ever worried that that fame might impact your ability to take on the diversity of roles that you’d enjoyed throughout your whole career?

No. I never did. Certainly, number one, fame is nothing I was seeking, I can tell you that. I’m delighted that people actually know my name. It does feel good. So that part of it is a big, huge plus. I don’t think anything will change as far as, I think I’ll still get to disappear in parts.

Everybody has really gotten to know your television work, first from “Justified” and now “The Americans.” Tell me what you love about being able to pop in and really stir the pot on “The Americans,” as you have throughout your appearances on the show.

I like that I have some weight on that show. It’s nice to be remembered, that Claudia comes with a whole world of knowledge, and these last two seasons I’ll be there quite a bit more. So I’m very excited about it.

With a character like Claudia in particular, what do you like about being part of a series where you get to come back and explore new sides and new situations with a character, as opposed to telling a more complete story in a film that’s more closed-ended?

I must say, it’s challenging because I’ve done so little in the last two seasons, that I’ve already done more than I’ve done in the last two seasons, already now. So it’s going to be interesting to see. The first season, of course, I did most of the episodes. So I knew where I was coming from. But this one, I’ll be back trying to see where she has a crack, maybe. It’s a fascinating, fun part to play — and an extremely different part for me.

I was lucky enough to be in that Emmy press room when you won this past season. Tell me what that kind of experience has come to mean to you as it entered your life, because I imagine it’s a surreal thing, it’s a gratifying thing and it’s probably a bit of an overwhelming thing.

All of the above, yes, absolutely! Winning for “Justified” was extraordinarily exciting because that part, the arc was so incredible; “The Americans,” I’m just delighted that “The Americans” get some recognition. If just people have noticed me on there, I’m very happy about that. Yeah, it can be overwhelming, a little bit. Look, I’ve worked all my life and I’ve always believed in myself, and the fact that I’ve got some awards now, it feels pretty good. Pretty good!

How difficult is playing the role of “esteemed character actress Margo Martindale” on “BoJack Horseman”?

[Laughs] That’s really hard. It’s like, “Can you exaggerate myself any more?” Yes, it’s fun. It’s really fun. I think I’ll be doing it again this year. I hope so.

What was the surprise of that experience, either in the doing of it or in the response to it?

I couldn’t believe there was such a huge response to it. I didn’t even know what I was doing. When Will [Arnett] said you’re coming to do this, I said I didn’t want to. He said, “Well, you have to, because it’s you.” I said “What do you mean?” He said, “It’s Margo Martindale, character actress, so you have to do it.”

That made me laugh so much. Then I read the script and I said to Will, “These people seem like animals.” He said, “They are animals, you idiot!” I didn’t know that. But yes, it’s been really fun.

I want to go back to a period in your life where you were really embarking on the road of acting. You got to, very early on, work with Christopher Reeve at the beginning of your career.

Oh my goodness, I did.

I’m curious about that experience. He seemed like such an interesting man, at every point in his life, and I’m wondering what kind of effect he had on you, both as a colleague and as a friend.

I’ll tell you, nobody has ever asked me that. That’s interesting. We did “Threepenny Opera” together. We had a duet. He was Macheath. I was Mrs. Peachum. I remember getting to Harvard that summer and seeing Chris Reeve and Jonathan Frakes and thinking, “Wow, is this going to be a great summer!” Because they were both so gorgeous. So he was an interesting, disciplined, great, great guy. We had a wonderful summer together, and he was a fabulous Macheath, and a great singer.

Then I came to New York. I’d just come from the University of Michigan to Harvard, then I was going to New York. I started taking acting classes by a teacher from the Group Theater, Paul Mann. Paul Mann said in our acting class, “You have to go downtown and see this actor playing this Nazi in a play.” He said, “It’s the most brilliant performance I’ve ever seen.” I went downtown and it was Christopher Reeve. I saw him around the neighborhood quite a bit after that, but we didn’t stay friends. But he was Christopher Reeve and I was Margo Martindale, so there.

Because you have worked with so many people in your actor’s tribe over the years, what do those relationships, whether they’re fleeting, or whether they’re friendships and professional relationships that recurred throughout the years, what do those mean to you, to know that you’ve been part of this big, extended actor family for so long?

I am so grateful to have this career that I have, and to have been part of so many different worlds of theater and movies and television. When you go to these award shows and you see people, people I haven’t seen in years, I go, “I worked with them … I worked with them … I worked with them … I worked with them …” It’s like, “Really? How did that happen to me?” And then I realize I’m 65 years old. That’s how it happened!

December 6, 2016
What’s New on TV, Netflix, Digital, and DVD/Blu-ray This Week: Dec. 5-11

At a loss for what to watch this week? From new TV, we’ve got you covered.

New on DVD and Blu-ray

“Jason Bourne”
You know his name. Now take him home — but don’t make him mad, you see how he gets! — on DVD, Blu-ray, and On Demand this Tuesday, December 6. Matt Damon’s fourth film as Bourne comes with several bonus featurettes, including “Bringing Back Bourne,” with Damon and director Paul Greengrass discussing how they revived the character for the big screen; “Bourne to Fight,” a behind-the-scenes look at the fight sequences; “Bare-Knuckle Boxing,” with Damon talking about his love for boxing and how he prepared for fight sequences; more fight sequence features; and a couple of inside looks at how they filmed the Las Vegas scenes.

“The Secret Life of Pets”
See what Big Apple dogs and cats get up to while you’re at work when this animated blockbuster arrives on Blu-ray, DVD, and On Demand December 6. The home releases has nearly an hour of bonus content, including three mini-movies, a sing-along, and featurettes with the voice actors. The Blu-ray also has a couple of exclusives: the behind-the-scenes “How to Make an Animated Film,” and “Anatomy of a Scene,” with the filmmakers taking viewers through the multi-step process it takes to create a specific scene.

“The Secret Agent”Based on Joseph Conrad’s novel on terror, espionage and betrayal, this acclaimed BBC One and Acorn TV period drama starring Toby Jones makes its DVD debut on December 6.

“Greenleaf” Season 1
Executive produced by Oprah Winfrey, this series about one woman’s (Merle Dandridge) return home to her family — the leaders of a megachurch — was OWN’s biggest launch to date. Season 1 arrives on DVD and Blu-ray December 6. The home release includes two behind-the-scenes featurettes, bloopers, and one-on-one conversations between Oprah Winfrey and executive producer/director Clement Virgo and actors Merle Dandridge, Keith David, Lynn Whitfield, and Regina King.

Watch this exclusive clip from Oprah’s one-on-one conversations:“Knucklehead”
Alfre Woodard co-stars in this drama, out on DVD December 6, following a neighborhood eccentric who is convinced that prescription drugs can cure his mental disability. When his brother (Amari Cheatom) is shot, mentally disabled Langston Bellows (Gbenga Akinnagbe) is left without a protector in Brooklyn’s housing projects. Now under the control of his abusive mother (Alfre Woodard), Langston sets out to find the one doctor he believes can cure him, a celebrity magazine columnist who touts questionable prescription drug cocktails.

New Video on Demand, Rental Streaming, and Digital

“The Magnificent Seven”
Director Antoine Fuqua gathered an all-star cast — including Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke, Vincent D’Onofrio, and Peter Sarsgaard — for this modern retelling of the 1960 Western film, which was itself a retelling of the Japanese masterpiece “Seven Samurai.” In every case, desperate townfolk turn to seven outlaws for protection, leading to a violent showdown. The 2016 film is available on Digital HD December 6, before the Blu-ray and DVD drop December 20. The home release is going to come with massive amounts of bonus material, with several exclusive just to Blu-ray, so keep that in mind for later in the month. Might make a good Christmas present for a certain someone in your life.

“Sully”
Tom Hanks and director Clint Eastwood combined superpowers for this dramatic retelling of Captain Sullenberger’s January 15, 2009 Miracle on the Hudson. The acclaimed film — co-starring Aaron Eckhart, Laura Linney, and Anna Gunn — is available from digital retailers starting December 6, then on disc December 20.

“Contract to Kill”
Steven Seagal stars as John Harmon, a CIA/DEA enforcer investigating Arab terrorists captured in Mexico, in this international action-thriller in theaters and on VOD Friday, December 9. Harmon and his team — including FBI agent Zara (Jemma Dallender) and pilot Sharp (Russell Wong) — fly to Istanbul to uncover a plot from Islamic extremists to use Sonora drug-smuggling routes to bring weapons and leaders to the U.S.

Check out this exclusive clip from the movie:“Storks”
In this animated family film, storks have moved from baby delivery to corporate package delivery, until a baby girl is accidentally produced, and top delivery stork Junior (voiced by Andy Samberg) must race to make their first-ever baby drop before his boss finds out. The movie is available on digital December 6, then Blu-ray and DVD December 20. The home release comes with tons of fun features, including outtakes, commentary, a music video, “Storks: Guide to Your New Baby,” and “The Master: A LEGO Ninjago Short.”

New on Netflix

“Fuller House” Season 2
They’re baaaack! Agaaaain! Season 2 of the Netlix revival brings 13 new episodes, and fans should expect a heavy focus on the holidays — from Halloween costumes, to Danny Tanner giving a Thanksgiving toast, everyone wearing Christmas pajamas, etc. Plus, fans will meet Joey’s family and Kimmy’s brother, and see D.J.’s reunion with her old flame Nelson. Watch it all play out Friday, December 9.

“Captive” Season 1 (Netflix Original)This true-crime documentary series from “The Bourne Identity” producer/director Doug Liman “delves into the terse, dangerous world of hostage negotiation. Victims, negotiators, and kidnappers give an unprecedented look at what it means to be captive.” Watch the eight episodes on Friday, December 9.

“Spectral” (Netflix Original)
Netflix packed this week with a bunch of intriguing originals, including this action/sci-fi film, which is making its global debut December 9. James Badge Dale, Emily Mortimer, and Bruce Greenwood star in the story of a brilliant DARPA scientist who embarks on a deadly mission with a Special Ops team of Delta Force soldiers into a battle-scarred, war-torn city; in that city, mysterious phantom aggressors code-named Spectral have been causing inexplicable civilian deaths. According to Deadline, the film was shot on location in Budapest, Hungary, creating “an authentic, gritty atmosphere firmly planted in reality.”

TV Worth Watching

“Hairspray Live!” (Wednesday on NBC at 8 p.m.)
It’s time to watch Twitter react to another live televised musical! That’s the most entertaining aspect of these live events, to be honest. This adaptation of the 1988 film turned Broadway musical stars Maddie Baillio as Tracy Turnblad and Harvey Fierstein as Edna Turnblad, with an all-star supporting cast of Kristin Chenoweth, Martin Short, Jennifer Hudson, Ariana Grande, and Derek Hough. You can’t stop the beat, so dance along with it on December 7.

“This Is Us” Season 1 (Tuesday on NBC at 9 p.m.)
Keep an extra box of Kleenex handy for the Pearson family’s Christmas episode, which is also the last episode of 2016. (Don’t worry, there’s more coming in 2017.) Here’s NBC’s synopsis for “Last Christmas”: “The Pearsons discover Dr. K alone at the hospital on Christmas Eve after Kate’s afflicted with appendicitis. In the present, Kevin celebrates Hanukkah with Olivia; Kate pursues her big surgery; and someone from William’s past resurfaces.” Fun fact: Actress Helen Hunt directed the fall finale, which will gift you with All The Feels on December 6.

“Mozart in the Jungle” Season 3 (Amazon Original)Gael Garcia Bernal’s Golden Globe and Emmy-winning dramedy returns December 9. Season 3 is about “reinvention,” Amazon teased, “as the orchestral family must find themselves as individuals before they can reunite renewed and stronger. With the symphony under lockout, Rodrigo heads to Venice to find inspiration working with an operatic diva. Meanwhile Hailey (Lola Kirke) unsuccessfully tours Europe and begins to question her career as an oboist.”

“The Walking Dead” Season 7 (Sunday on AMC at 9 p.m.)
TWD has not been at its strongest so far in Season 7, but the AMC series traditionally has standout midseason finales, so cross your fingers and hope for the best from Episode 8, “Hearts Still Beating.” Here’s the synopsis: “Negan’s unwelcome visit to Alexandria continues as other members scavenge for supplies; things quickly spin out of control.” That will be the last episode of 2016, with Season 7B starting in February 2017. The second half of the season is meant to be verrry different from the first, which can only mean actual light is at the end of this dark tunnel.

Want more stuff like this? Like us on Facebook.

December 5, 2016
Taylor Lautner Leans Into ‘Scary’ Challenges With ‘Scream Queens’ and ‘Run the Tide’

The “Twilight” saga may be behind Taylor Lautner, but a new dawn is breaking in his acting career.

Lautner, of course, earned insta-fame through his role as lycanthropic heartthrob Jacob Black over the course of the five-film series, and now he’s focusing on perfecting his chosen craft in as many formats as possible: he’s discovered a facility for comedy that he’s put to work first in the quirky BBC series “Cuckoo” and currently in the second season of Fox’s horror/comedy “Scream Queens”; next he takes on the leading role in the gritty, emotional drama “Run the Tide,” playing the eldest of two young brothers struggling to get by during their mother’s stint in prison for drug charges, and her impending return only threatens to upend the life they’re clinging to.

In a candid conversation with Moviefone, the 24-year-old actor reveals why he’s chosen to pursue creative challenges over celebrity, keeping up with “Scream Queens’” endless curveballs, and living up to his early fanbase’s faith in him over the years.

Moviefone: This is probably the most challenging role, I’m guessing, that you’ve had to take on?

Taylor Lautner: Absolutely. No question.

How did you start prepping? Not just for this role only — it’s clear see that going deeper as an actor, digging deeper and coming up with new approaches to your technique. Tell me where you were, coming into this.

When I read the script, I fell in love with the story, and you could really tell that the writer just put his heart on the paper. It’s based off of his life. I fell in love with Rey’s character, and all of the characters really, but it was intense, and it scared me. I recently have noticed that when I take on something that scares me, and I’m not sure if I can do, that’s when I find the most fulfillment.

I used to like look for projects that I thought were cool, and entertaining, or something I could really, really relate to. There’s a lot about Rey that I can relate to, but there’s just as much that I can’t. So to be able to have to dig deep and find things within yourself that you haven’t even realized yet was scary, it was a lot of fun for me and extremely fulfilling.

Was there a scene or an aspect of Rey that said that to you; a scene or aspect where you went in terrified, like “Can I pull this off?” and then you felt very satisfied with where you got with it?

I think probably the fact that Rey really is, he’s a father figure. He was forced to grow up very quickly, and essentially raise his brother since he was four years old, Oliver. And for me, I didn’t know how quite I was going to do that.

I was able to pull from my relationship with my younger sister. I have a younger sister and we’re almost seven years apart, and we’re extremely close. So I was able to use that, but I think that parental aspect of Rey and that journey with him and his brother was definitely one of the things that worried me most, and I was very happy with it by the end. Me and Nico [Christou], who played Oliver, became very close and we bonded, so that made it easier.

How hard was that big confrontation scene the two of you had?

So brutal! One of the things we did with this movie is we filmed it pretty much in sequential order, which is so rare to be able to do that. I remember when I was first talking with our director Soham [Mehta] about it, he said that he intended on doing that if we could. So it allowed me and Nico to establish our relationship, and we became very close throughout filming.

So I think it was the second to last day that we had to film that scene, and it was just so tough. Me and Nico have so much fun off set, and we’re joking around, and then that day, I remember, we kind of just stayed away from each other, because we knew it was going to be difficult, and we knew we would not be able to go in and out of making fart jokes to that scene.

I remember as soon as they would call cut, we would kind of just like turn away from each other and walk away and not really speak. It was very strange, and kind of heartbreaking for me.

There’s an aspect of your career that has come with a large degree of fame. With this movie, you get to kind of put that aspect aside and do some hard work. Tell me about how those two things fit in your life: where you have to have perspective about what fame brings to you and makes some things easier — and some things harder, I’m sure. And then work, which also might be great one day and really difficult one day. Tell me how that all fits in your life.

Yeah, it is true, this thing called fame — it was thrown to me at such a young age. It hits you like a ton of bricks over the head and you’re not really sure what to do with it. And it’s true there’s a lot of aspects that fame can make your life easier and more enjoyable, but it also can present a lot of challenges.

The biggest thing for me is being able to use your fame, or your popularity, to be able to affect people in a positive way, and that’s kind of one of the reasons I chose to do this movie is the message in it. I feel like a lot of people my age, teens and young 20s, can relate to Rey in the sense that he just wants to run away, and he just wants to start over. Whatever that pain is that’s in his life and his past, he just wants a new, fresh start.

I think a lot of people can relate to that. But they don’t know: are they going to find that light at the end of the tunnel? This story really gives that glimpse of hope.

You’ve got fans that have followed you from the moment they discovered you. What do you hope that they find in performances like these and the future projects that they’re going to follow you to? What are you hoping that they are enjoying out of staying loyal to your “brand” in a sense?

I think it’s exactly that: I do want to do projects that they’re going to enjoy and be entertained by. But I think the biggest thing is being able to play roles and do projects that just affect people in a positive way.

Recently, I’ve been choosing things that allow me to do that. It’s cool just to know that you can affect people like that, get messages across to them and teach life lessons. We’re all learning and growing together.

You mentioned that fear factor being enticing to you now. What was scary about “Scream Queens”?

Because it’s something I’ve never done before. I do a small British show called “Cuckoo,” but besides that, it’s really the first TV I’ve done. So that in itself was foreign to me. Being thrown into a cast that is already a family, and me being the new one was scary for me.

And an all-star cast at that.

Exactly. And to be jumping into a cast like that, just such terrific actors, it was intimidating at first. I was like, “How am I going to fit in? I don’t know.” But I kind of just trusted Ryan Murphy, which is easy to do. It’s turned out well. I’ve had so much fun, personally and creatively, and I’m so glad that I did it.

What did you find out about your own comedic aptitude? Most of the material that you’d done hadn’t been comedy-centric, really. So to figure out how you were funny and the ways you were going to be funny for this show — what was the fun discovery in that?

I have recently done a couple comedy things that I’ve really enjoyed. I had so much fun with it. This specifically, my character Cassidy Cascade is very real. There’s so many big characters in the show, just, like, otherworldly. Cassidy is kind of real. That’s kind of where I had to find the comedy, surrounded by the huge, crazy personalities, finding the comedy in just the actual realness of the show.

And yet he’s dead.

And yet he is dead!

Or so we all — and he — presumes.

Right.

So tell me about figuring out how you were going to come at that.

“Scream Queens” is so insane because it’s true that they don’t tell you what is happening next. You literally are given a script for one episode, and you read it, and you film that, and they don’t tell you where you’re character is going to go, they don’t tell us who the killers are, they don’t tell us anything at all. They keep us in the dark. So it does make it challenging to play some of the things.

Like, I hear that I’m dead. I’m like, “Do I actually think I’m dead? Maybe I’m not really dead. So how do I play it? Am I going to pretend that I am dead?” It allows you to use your imagination, and I think that’s what they kind of want.

But it definitely is challenging, because with a movie script, you see where your character is going to go. You know where he begins and where he ends. It’s quite the opposite with this.

You don’t know necessarily if they’re going to change up anything or if there are characters on the show that you’re going to be working with more so than you have before? You don’t really know anything ahead?

Correct. They don’t tell us anything. As soon as we get the script for the next episode, we all go into our trailers during lunch and read it as fast as possible. One, to see who dies, so we can start saying goodbye to them. And two, yeah, there’s always some sort of jaw-dropping moment in every episode that you don’t see coming. So they keep us on our toes for sure.

It looked like, before the second season premiered, that the cast was hazing you a little bit. They were playfully giving you a hard time in interviews, teasing you — was that also going on while you were shooting?

I don’t think there has been too much hazing. Me and [John] Stamos were pretty much the new guys. So we’re surrounded by a lot of estrogen and a lot of big personalities. Everybody is nice. They welcomed us with open arms. They didn’t make it too rough. They definitely could have made it a lot worse!

“Run the Tide” opens in theaters and On Demand / Digital HD on December 2. “Scream Queens” airs Tuesdays on Fox.

December 1, 2016
Writer-Director Nicholas Meyer Looks Back on ‘Time After Time’ and Forward to ‘Star Trek: Discovery’

Writer-director Nicholas Meyer‘s career is still going strong after more than 40 years in the business, and it’s already proven to have a timeless quality.

Meyer first burst upon the entertainment scene with his bestselling 1974 novel “The Seven-Per-Cent Solution,” featuring Arthur Conan Doyle’s enduring fictional icon Sherlock Holmes encountering the real-life father of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud. Meyer sold the novel to Universal Studios on the condition that he be allowed to write the film’s screenplay.

The film’s subsequent critical and commercial success and his Academy Award nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay allowed him to make a similar bargain on his next film, “Time After Time“: He’d adapt Karl Alexander’s novel — featuring real-life pioneering science-fiction author and futurist H.G. Wells (played against type by Malcolm McDowell) actually traveling through time to the present day in pursuit of legendary serial killer Jack the Ripper (David Warner) — if he could direct it himself. “Time After Time” became one of the most popular films of 1979, later gathering a devoted cult following over the passage of decades that most recently resulted in a new Blu-ray release from Warner Archives.

In the interim, Meyer would become closely associated with another enduring staple of popular culture. He was the writer-director behind “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,” widely considered the best of the “Star Trek” films; he co-wrote “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home,” the warmest, funniest, and most commercially successful of the franchise; and he wrote and directed the final big-screen adventure of the original Enterprise crew, “Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.”

And just to show that — perhaps especially in Hollywood — time has a way of coming around again, Meyer is returning to the Starfleet fold as a writer-producer on the forthcoming streaming series “Star Trek: Discovery” for CBS All Access, even as “Time After Time” is being adapted by Kevin Williamson (“Scream“) into a weekly TV series for ABC; both series premiere in 2017.

Now considered not just a classicist but a maker of classics himself, Meyer joined Moviefone to gaze backward through the years at his debut film, and to look to the 23rd century horizon for his next project.

Moviefone: It was a pleasure to revisit “Time After Time,” as I do frequently. When you think about this film — your first directorial effort — what is the feeling that bubbles up to the surface when you look back on it?

Nicholas Meyer: The first feeling is what enormous fun it was to make a movie, and how easy I thought it was — you learn all the wrong lessons. I had such a wonderful time. I was surrounded by so many very, very able people keeping me from making worse mistakes than I did. I remember plunging into a real depression when the shooting was over because I was having such a great time.

The second thing that I remember, almost concurrently, is all the mistakes I made, all the things I did wrong, all the things I didn’t understand and know how to do. I look at it — it’s obviously a very good movie; people have always loved it from the very beginning, but to me, it’s a good movie despite all my mistakes. I can’t help thinking it would have been an even better movie without them.

One of the things that strikes me is that there were certainly time-travel movies and television shows prior to this, but this movie really takes pleasure in the complications of time travel, things that are a little heady, and that we hadn’t seen that often in these kinds of stories told on screen before you made it. Tell me about approaching that kind of challenge — to make this story make sense to the uninitiated, as far as time travel goes.

I have to preface my remarks by saying that artists are not the best judges of their own work, any more arguably than people are of their own characters. The Scottish poet Robert Burns wrote, “I would that God the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.” It’s tough. It’s tough. So what I’m saying is sort of speculation that it should be treated as just another opinion. Because it is the filmmaker’s doesn’t make it definitive, and definitive is not a word in my opinion that belongs in any discussion of art.

Anyway, having said all that, it seems to me that the virtue of the movie is that, ultimately, it’s less about time travel than it is about … it’s a sort of sociological investigation into societies of over 100 years ago, and now, and what has and what has not changed. In other words, it’s the time travel movie that has meat on the bones.

Which is not to say that Wells’s novel doesn’t have them, because that novel supposes that in the distant future, the human race will have broken down into two subsets, the ineffectual and beautiful Elois, and the dangerous and primitive Morlocks. That may or may not happen. But “Time After Time” deals with more familiar contrasts. The contrasts between 1893 and 1979, and finds some mordant and distasteful irony in the fact that it’s the Ripper who feels at home, and Wells, whose failed predictions of a utopia is lost. I think it’s a movie with some mental meat on the bones.

Throughout your career, you’ve demonstrated an affinity for these iconic figures in the popular consciousness, whether they’re fictional, like Sherlock Holmes or “Star Trek,” or real-life but legendary and mythologized characters like H.G. Wells and Jack the Ripper. Why do you think you have a knack for getting to the meat of those figures, but also putting a fresh twist on them for the audience?

I really don’t know, and again, taking what I say with a grain of salt as just one opinion, it seems to me that the difference between my novel, say “The Seven-Per-Cent Solution,” and the movie “Time after Time,” is that “The Seven-Per-Cent Solution” is a story of contrasting characters, individuals — Freud and Holmes — whereas the movie of “Time After Time” is really concerned, in a way, with archetypes: Wells standing in for civilization and a civilized, progressive, humane, forward-looking man. And The Ripper standing in for mindless, malevolent destruction.

They seem to me, at any rate, in “Time After Time,” to be archetypes in that sense, more than they are individuals. This is just my opinion. As to why I have an affinity for this stuff, I wish I could tell you. I wish I could tell myself, but I don’t know!

You’ve had to stand up for all of your casting choice for leading man, Malcolm McDowell. Tell me why that was important to you, at a time when Hollywood saw him primarily as a villainous type.

I think it’s very interesting. I love actors, and I love acting, and I love watching them become different people. It is true that actors, not only in Hollywood but on the stage, are easily typecast. Eugene O’Neill‘s father was typecast all his life as the Count of Monte Cristo. He was Edmond Dantès. He couldn’t escape it. But I think that is arguably wasting talent and wasting an actor, and it’s sometimes fun to see an actor that you associate as one kind of character, jump into something completely different.

Having seen Malcolm McDowell as Alex the bad boy in “A Clockwork Orange,” and then turning around and see him as Wells, this sort of civilized and gentlemanly guy, it’s charming, it’s a nice contrast. By the same token, we think of Alan Arkin as this comedic sort of person, but you look at him in “Wait Until Dark,” and he could scare the sh*t out of you. He was one scary dude.

It’s exciting to give him a chance, and to give us a chance to see those contrasts. It makes him a more interesting personality to watch while, arguably, it’s certainly true that it’s easier for Hollywood to shorthand these people. Same thing with Fantasy Island,” and whatever, but we forget some of his other roles, and of course as Khan, as the supremely malevolent villain.

On the subject of “Star Trek,” you’re hard at work on your contribution to the upcoming series, “Discovery.” What philosophical approach are you bringing to the material? I know that you became a student of “Star Trek” while you were working on the movies and refining your understanding of it. What did you take away from that time with the franchise that you’re hoping to layer into what’s happening now?

I don’t know that it’s very radical, but I would say that I’m a very Earth-bound person. So “Star Trek” has always worked best for me when it felt most real. So whether it’s the stories or the costumes, and I’m just a cog in the wheel on this particular show — it’s not my show; I’m just working on it, but I’m trying to make things believable, and satisfy myself that they are genuine, as opposed to so fantastic that I kind of lose my bearings and don’t know exactly where I am.

I think the best of science fiction always reflects what’s going on with human beings. I keep trying to keep it, no pun intended, grounded.

You quickly connected the dots between “Star Trek” and C.S. Forrester’s naval hero Horatio Hornblower and found the literary connection that helped you with the material — something that you later discovered “Trek’s” creator Gene Roddenberry also had in mind. Have you found something similar in your new work on “Star Trek,” or are you continuing to mine the Hornblower aspect?

To me, the Hornblower aspect is ground zero for it. To me, once you use that as a template, everything else sort of, and I hate to say stems from, but fits in or grows from that conceit.

Having said that, there are other ramifications, I think. If you look at “Star Trek VI,” that was very much inspired by the headlines of 1989, 1990, the wall coming down, and in particular the coup d’état that took place in the Soviet Union, which, by the way, the movie predicted. We shot it before it happened. When Gorbachev disappeared, we were already in the cutting room. We didn’t know whether that poor man was alive or dead.

But that headline, as I said a little earlier, what happens during the course of life on Earth is a lot to do with what science fiction reflects, or recounts, or allegorizes, if that’s a verb, but it’s always about the human condition, no matter what planet they say they’re on.

You directed a pretty landmark piece of television with “The Day After,” and here we are in this bold new era of TV. What’s got you excited about the possibilities for you in the new models of television that you’re working in with “Star Trek“?

There is no question, as far as I can tell, that most Hollywood movies are not as interesting as the work that’s being done on television. Now, my standard is not the eye candy standard. It’s not about CGI, and motion capture creatures, and fantasy. A little of that goes a long way with me, and I get tired of it. It is much more interesting for me to watch people trying to figure out sh*t, and how to be alive, and solve human problems.

So I’ve done two Philip Roth movies. I did “The Day After.” These are about what one would like to think of as grown-up stuff, and I guess what is generically described as, “Oh, drama — you like drama.” The answer is, “Yeah, I do.” Whether it’s drama, per se, or comedy for that matter. I can only look at the exploding car so many times, and all the escapism that Hollywood movies in particular seem so enthralled with. It seems like the worse trouble planet Earth gets into, the more we make these escapist, costume sci-fi things.

But in a way, I’m much more involved or engaged by movies like “Transparent,” or “The Crown,” or “Orange Is the New Black,” or “Breaking Bad.” For a writer, that’s much more interesting.

Your movies have been loved for decades now, and you’re still hard at work. Tell me about that experience, keeping it fresh and creatively exciting on your side of the equation.

I think you have to be very vigilant, so as not to either believe your own press or lose sight of your own standards, in a way, which is hard. It’s very hard because you can start to coast on things that you know how to do, or think that you do well, or other people think you do well, and you have to fight for a certain level of objectivity, which is not always easy to attain, and I’m not sure that there’s a royal road that leads to attaining it.

But you’re always having to look over your shoulder and say, “Is this first class? Is this really something that you can be comfortable putting your name on?” Or are you just, as they say, “phoning it in,” and plowing furrows that have already been plowed by either you or somebody else? I always say, when I’m teaching a class, I say to these young or younger filmmakers, I say, look, as artists, the only thing you have to offer is yourself. If you’re just going to do it like the next guy, then move over and let the next guy do it, because it’s going to be boring.

I have to be sure that what I’m trying to come up with is something that I really feel and that excites me. The French director Robert Bresson once said, “My job is not to find out what the public wants and give it to them. My job is to make the public want what I want.” And the trick is to figure out: What do you want? What do you want? Not what you think other people will want. What do the fans want? To hell with that. The fans don’t know what they want until they get it. If it was up to the fans, Spock wouldn’t have died.

You’ve always shown such a fondness and respect for classic material. That’s a word that’s been now applied to your own work, and people quote lines that you wrote back to each other. What is that feeling like, at this stage in your career, to know that you’re considered an author of classics, in a sense?

It feels really good. I like it. It feels great! It’s nice. It feels like that the work has meaning, that it was in some way built to last. Who knows what the word “last” means. When Henry Kissinger went to China in 1973, and he got into a conversation, presumably with the help of an interpreter, with Zhou Enlai, and he said to Zhou Enlai, “What do you think of the French Revolution?” And Zhou said, “Too early to tell.”

A lot of times I think that when we talk about things, and we’re very lavish, we’re quick, especially reviewers, to praise things. We say, “Oh, this is a masterpiece.” I once remember getting into a conversation with my father who had introduced me to the play of “Cyrano de Bergerac,” and I said, “Wow, this is a great play.” He said, “Do you think so?” I said, “Yeah, definitely. Great.” He said, “Well, let’s talk in a hundred years, see if you still think so.”

I just hope that in 100 years, if any of us are still here, or our descendants, or we haven’t blown ourselves to smithereens, that somebody would be quoting a line or two of mine, even if they don’t know it was written by me.

Let’s close on the topic of genre. You’ve made two movies, with “Time After Time” and “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home,” that land routinely on people’s all-time great time-travel films. What do you think is so appealing, eternally, to you and to the mass audience about the time travel story?

It’s such an intriguing notion that it’s the only kind of travel that hasn’t happened, apparently. We’ve gone to the moon. We’ve gone to Mars. We haven’t walked around it yet, but we’ve trolled around it. We go under water. We’ve found the Titanic. The only kind of travel we haven’t done is maybe travel that’s either much faster, or travel that takes us into another dimension. There’s something intriguing about that possibility, I think.

Movies, for example, are such an inherently visual medium that the contrasts that two different eras presented with arguably the same characters wandering through totally different worlds. I know that Fox keeps trying to do another kind of travel movie. They want to do a remake of “Fantastic Voyage,” which is another kind of travel — travel inside the body — and I’ll certainly be eager to see that one.

We like being taken by movies to places that we normally can’t go, whether it’s Antarctica, or the place where “Game of Thrones” takes place [Westeros]. Movies can take us places. Taking us through time is maybe the ultimate place where they can take us.

November 30, 2016
Why Bryce Dallas Howard Isn’t Afraid to Go ‘Weird’ & ‘Extreme’

Bryce Dallas Howard‘s star rating just keeps going up.

After an increasingly high-profile movie career that includes standouts like M. Night Shyamalan‘s “The Village” and “Lady in the Water,” “Spider-Man 3,” the “Twilight,” saga and “The Help,” in 2015 Howard appeared in “Jurassic World,” which became the fourth-highest-grossing film of all time and solidified her status as a full-fledged movie star.

This year, the actress demonstrated her continuing appeal, first headlining Disney’s “Pete’s Dragon,” the engaging, critically praised reimagining of its ’70s-era live-action/animation hybrid (the new film debuts on Blu-ray and DVD on Nov. 29), as the kind-hearted small town sheriff confronted with an orphaned child apparently raised in the wilderness alongside a not-so-imaginary friend in the form of a dragon.

Howard then followed it up with a downright bravura performance in the not-too-far-futuristic “Black Mirror” episode “Nosedive,” playing a woman whose increasingly consuming obsession with her own popularity rating on her society’s dominant — and sometimes domineering — social media platform threatens to take it — and her — on a precipitous plunge.

The actress joined Moviefone to reflect on her recent string of successes, consider the evolution of her career, and even look back on what it’s meant to her to see performances by her acting dynasty family — including her father, actor and filmmaker Ron Howard — captured on film and video forever.

Moviefone: You’ve had an unabashed love of the source material, Disney’s 1977 film “Pete’s Dragon,” since you were little. It must have been especially cool to reinvent it so dramatically and have people fall in love with this version.

Bryce Dallas Howard: Yeah. Whenever you do anything where there is a source material like an original film or a novel, or it’s a sequel of something, there’s always that element of pressure. But even more so, when it’s something that meant something to you personally as a child, I don’t know why I keep putting myself in these situations. I’m very lucky too, honestly.

But yeah, what I loved about it when I read the script — and I’m so happy that people have seemed to have similar reactions to this — is that it didn’t step on the toes of the original movie. We’re not doing the same music.

It’s taking the central idea of that first film and keeping that intact, that it’s a story of a boy and his best friend who’s a dragon. And it’s a live-action film with an animated character, and it’s a Disney film. But other than that, there were so many different things, new storylines. I was nervous about that, but I appreciate that as well. So I’m glad that folks seem to appreciate that.

I met you when you were first starting out doing this, and I was first starting out in my field. Now you have this amazing body of work that you’ve been able to build. When we met, you were, I’m sure, an actress that was just excited to have opportunities.

Exactly, yeah!

Now, you’ve got these great collection of films that you’ve made, films that people love and have embraced. Tell me what that aspect of your professional life means to you.

Thank you. It’s really amazing. I think because I’m a third-generation actor, I really knew to not expect success at all. I knew the statistics. I knew how difficult it is. When I was a teenager, my grandparents — my dad’s parents — brought me to Vegas when I was 16 years old, because I could walk the floor, and my grandmother loved to play the nickel slot machine. And she knew I was doing high school plays, I was going to apply to NYU. They knew that I was definitely going to pursue it in some capacity.

And my grandmother said to me, “Do you know what the rate of the average working actor in SAG is, in terms of how many auditions it takes for them to get a job?” The average working actor, which means they’re making a living as an actor. I thought maybe one in 10. It was one in every 64 auditions.

So, going into my career that way, knowing the very real odds, having seen the ups and downs with my family, and also knowing that theirs was actually a success story, I hedged my bets like crazy. I was always working side jobs and saving as much as I could. When I first started working in theater, but in particular when I got my first break in film with M. Night Shyamalan, and that being my first movie, I was like, “Oh my goodness — this is crazy!”

Then getting to continue to work — while also I’ve had times away, during pregnancies and after giving birth, and all of that — and the fact that I’ve been able to continue to work is really a serious privilege, and exciting, and moving to me. It’s incredible. It’s really, really incredible.

Yeah, to get to be in a movie like a Disney film, that I know that my kids enjoy and that they’ll grow up with, and providing those memories for my kids — as well as the same experience that I had growing up on film sets, that they’re able to do that, it’s really something that I don’t think I’ll ever take for granted.

Potentially your work is, like so much of your dad’s work, immortal. It’s with us for generations now.

When it works, when it’s working, it’s a euphoric experience in so many different levels. Because, like you said, there is that thing. That’s not the goal for any of us: immortality. But I know what it means having been a child and being able to watch my dad as a kid in “The Andy Griffith Show.” I know what that meant to me. I know what it means to me getting to see my dad at different ages of his life, and what his work was like, and what he sounded like.

So, for me, all of my family who have worked in creative fields, I have that forever, and that’s something that’s priceless. So to think that that’s something that my kids could, when I’m long gone, that my relatives — even relatives that I don’t meet down the road — could maybe see that, that’s wild and surreal! I actually have never thought about that specifically until you just mentioned that. That my great grandkids and stuff … Oh, I’ve got to stay on my game!

You are most certainly on your game in your episode of “Black Mirror,” “Nosedive.” Let’s talk about the response to that. People are just going nuts for that, and deservedly so.

Thank you. Oh man — that job was amazing. I said yes to that without there even being a script. It was just Joe Wright, “Black Mirror”? “Yes, please!”

It was just one of those really freeing, collaborative, sort of idyllic working experiences. It was great because it was also weird, and we were allowed to be weird — and I gained 30 pounds for it. I felt that the nature of the piece, and the subject matter of the piece, it was an extreme circumstance. Therefore, I felt like I had permission to go to extreme places.

That isn’t always the case. I feel like sometimes with films, you not only want to look smaller, you feel like you need to act smaller, you feel like you need to not step on certain things within the scene. Whereas, that story was this person. It was like bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. And to get to be that was really awesome.

That concept — once I got what was happening in this episode, I realized it’s something that you, as an actress, have lived in — “How big is your following? What do you bring to a movie as far as audience numbers?” But now we’re all doing it with our Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook accounts.

Absolutely.

Tell me about your thoughts on just seeing that culture go from your occupation specifically to include everyone, around the world?

That’s another thing that I only kind of recently realized. I think it was just in talking about “Black Mirror.” When I first started doing social media, which was only not even a year ago, I was like, “What should my line be? Who am I? What kinds of photos do I post?” People are like, “Just be yourself.” I’m like, there’s folks who are going to be seeing this. I need to keep that in mind.

And I think that there’s a certain amount of awareness of self that as someone who has any kind of a public life, you fight it a little bit, you accept it a little bit, you don’t want to be aware of it, but then you are aware of it, and you don’t want to be weird about it. That is something that I think has been very specific to folks in a public life, and that now everyone experiences.

Everybody now is like, there’s that filter for everyone. Or there’s no filter, but there’s consequences, in a way that there wasn’t consequences before. So in a way, in talking about social media, I feel like everyone can relate a little bit to that experience of being like, “Whoops, I said something.” And it’s not just a one-on-one thing now, or just in your work place, or in your family. It’s global. Your words, your images, for everybody, are global.

And, as of right now, even more relevant than ever.

Absolutely. Absolutely. We’re seeing how technology is rapidly affecting our lives. “Black Mirror” in a way, each episode is a cautionary tale. We’re definitely seeing how fast our world is changing and what can result from that.

November 29, 2016