Orlando Bloom- “I HATED being in the movie “Troy” and pretend I am not even in it!”

Paris was a pivotal character in the film. So he apparently didn't properly feel the part he was portraying. I think he did okay in his role, neither bad or great. Definitely nothing to be ashamed of.

His role in Elizabethtown however was subpar. He just wasn't right for the role, but to be fair the story itself just didn't work anyway. Cameron Crowe who wrote the screenplay was partially based on his own life. The screenplay didn't translate well to film.

Did he hate getting paid?

He was so fuckable in Troy.

I hated watching it.

I hate when actors complain.

Poor young Orlando couldn’t stand the intense, overwhelming feelings of sexual confusion wrought by being around the godly Brad Pitt at his physical peak. Imagine you’re closeted and forced to avert your slack-jawed, slobbering gaze whenever he’s shirtless on set.

I just remember Eric Bana's glorious tits.

For you, R7:

Orlando Bloom's beautiful intact cock...

More Orlando...

Bitch at least you didn't have to fuck AnnE

And more Orlando...

Troy has been the only movie I slept through I was really tired that day but that movie did nothing to excite me.

And even more Orlando...

Orland Bloom

Hold on, Orlando...

R3 all three men were. Pitt, Bana and Bloom were gorgeous

WHET Eric Bana? Hector! Hector! Hector!

Orlando saying goodbye...

The interview is interesting I think. Interesting to know that you can be a A-list actor and still have to do roles you hate because you want to earn money. Just like the rest of us who sometimes have to do work we hate because we have to pay the bills. I admire his frankness.

And his cock of course. Thank you for all those lovely pics R9. It looks semi-hard in some of the pics.

I agree with R3 & R17 -- Orlando was at his peak beauty in 'Troy':

He’s extremely lucky to have been in two huge franchises. I can’t even think of anything he’s been in outside of those, other than TROY.

BUT, now and forever, any time his name comes up the first thing I think of is him giving us those images of his beautiful, semi-hard uncut cock.

He was terrible in the role, but he looked good.

The whole point about the character of Paris is that he is supposed to be shallow, vain about his beauty, and lacking in moral character. Some of that goes right back to the original poem by Homer. Bloom may have preferred the meatier roles of Hector or Achilles, but Paris is still a decent part for any actor to have.

Tinymeat

You need your eyes checked, Bodega Cat.

I do @R26

He doesn’t seem to understand the concept of acting. You don’t need to like the character you’re portraying; you should be able to do it all the same.

I rewatched this film a couple of years ago and found it holds up surprisingly well. Great cast; Brad was at peak hotness.

Paris was a pussy, that role clearly didn't require a lot of acting for him.

R28 a film like this always “ages well”. It’s a period piece.

[quote]Pitt, Bana and Bloom were gorgeous

Don't forget Garrett Hedlund as Patroclus.

Me and my friend saw it in the theater and would crack up everytime Pitt would pronounce Patroclus as Patrick-LESS.

R31 I didn’t like him with the very long hair. Instant turn off for me

I loved like him with the very long hair. Instant turn on for me.

Hedlund is very pretty but too feminine with long hair. Instant turn off for me. I like my men to be masculine. He looked like a girl almost in this movie

I bet he kept it long for Achilles. He’d do anything for him.

Bloom was pretty boy soap opera forgettable. Pitt was his usual mini skirted himbo self. O'toole did it to pay for his cemetery plot. Bana was the only thing that made it watchable.

I agree Bloom was never much of an actor, as pretty as he was. He was lucky he did as well as he did.

There is no other Troy

for him to burn

When you post messy distracting seizure-inducing things like that, r38, people have to put you on "ignore." They ruin the whole thread if we have to see them. And they're not even funny.

R37 maybe stop and think… he did as well as he did because he was pretty with a presence. Talent isn’t needed to be a movie star. It’s needed to be an actor.

Laughably bad movie. Walked out of it. Everyone was so bad!

r31 Garrett Hedlund was 100% a casting couch hire.

Garrett was cast because he looks like Brad Pitt

Orlando didn’t like playing a weak, hedonistic girlie man because it cut too close to home

I prefered 'Alexander' that year (2004) Way more colorful and imaginative, but sadly just as hetero-fied.

Alexander was terrible

Alexander needed more gay love. It could’ve made it more raw and redeemable. The same way Alex and Hephaestion should’ve gotten it on, we also should’ve seen Achilles pounding Patroclus. Both directors wimped out and deprived the world of mind blowing sex scenes that would’ve launched a thousand loads.

More gay love means it would flop even harder than it did. The movie was a massive flop, commercially and critically. It was TERRIBLE

R48, yeah, 'Alexander' bombed and Oliver Stone took a lot of flack for it. There was, however, some attempt by Stone to portray the love between Alexander and Hephaestion in some of the scenes, and Gore Vidal praised the film for doing so at the time.

R47, yes, if 'Troy' was made today, hopefully we would see Achilles and Patroclus as lovers, rather than as cousins which was the case in the Wolfgang Petersen version. However, Petersen still gave us a lot of shirtless, beautiful, nearly-naked male flesh as compensation.

A lot of early 2000s movies were crap and this was one of them.

Speaking of Alexander, has anyone seen the re-editted version of it?

yes but Troy was worse, R46.

[QUOTE] More gay love means it would flop even harder than it did. The movie was a massive flop, commercially and critically. It was TERRIBLE

We’re talking about the rewatchability of the film TODAY. If it pops up on Netflix or Hulu, for example. As it stands now, I wouldn’t bother to watch it. But you put a couple scenes in there where Achilles is barebacking a sweaty young Patroclus in his tent on the beach before battle and I’m probably pressing play. That’s why you make groundbreaking films so they can last beyond a few popcorn box office weekends.

r53 Alexander would still flop today because in the 2020s we realize that a story with that much depth is at best a 6-8 part mini-series. Perhaps an entire three season show, if a streaming service wouldn't mind footing the bill. But a 2.5-3 hr movie wouldn't have nearly enough runway to tell Alexander's amazing story.

Heck, it'd be like trying to fit the entire Civil War into one film. Just wouldn't work. Alexander was involved in so many battles, so much politics, so much drama at home and wherever his court/army went that you need more than a film to capture the depth of the man's journey. Same for that horrible new Napoleon movie.

R54 makes a good point. One of the problems with Alexander's story is that there is too much material to fit into one movie. The Richard Burton movie of Alexander the Great in the 1950's also failed.

I assume that's why they are now doing Alexander as a series on Netflix, rather than as another film.

[quote]Garrett was cast because he looks like Brad Pitt

Yeah, they're supposed to be cousins.

They should have been lovers, as was the case in the original Greek stories.

Yes, Achilles and Patroclus were lovers, just like Alexander and Hephaestion.

[quote] The Richard Burton movie of Alexander the Great in the 1950's also failed.

Only William Shatner did justice to Alexander