There’s finally proof Amanda Seyfried nails Elizabeth Holmes’ bizarre voice in The Dropout trailer
The upcoming series about Theranos premieres on Hulu on March 3
Aux News Elizabeth Holmes
When Amanda Seyfried was cast as Elizabeth Holmes in Hulu’s biographical limited series The Dropout, many questioned on social media whether or not the Oscar-nominated actor could nail Holmes’ allegedly faked deep voice.
The answer is finally here: She can.
Don’t be fooled by the first seconds of the trailer, the reveal is gradual. When we first hear Seyfried as Holmes, she speaks at an octave that’s only slightly lower than her own in a voiceover. Then, the camera pans to reveal Seyfried, as the Theranos founder, dressed in her signature Steve Jobs-inspired, all-black outfit.
The trailer low-key trolls those of us who’d been eager to hear the deep voice by then cutting to Holmes as a Stanford student with plans to drop out and start her own company. She shows off the innovative technology that would allow blood tests to be administered with small amounts of blood rapidly.
(Of course, as we know now, Theranos never actually found a way to get the technology it touted having.)
As the trailer shows, Holmes becomes deeply invested in making Theranos successful, attempting to prove naysayers wrong. “I can’t give them one reason to doubt me,” says Seyfried, still as a regular-voiced Holmes.
Things start to go wrong when there’s no working prototype to show investors. But despite not having the promised, game-changing technology that would’ve been a breakthrough in health technology, Holmes becomes too power-hungry to let the dream go.
Her transformation is highlighted in a sequence that shows her practicing her signature low voice while eerily repeating the words, “This is an inspiring step forward” in front of the mirror. There’s also the juxtaposition of Holmes being on the cover of Forbes and Fortune, while her life begins to unravel as it gets tougher to hide Theranos’ alleged scam.
The trailer also gives glimpses at Seyfried’s co-stars, including Stephen Fry, Naveen Andrews, Alan Ruck, Sam Waterston, William H. Macy, Laurie Metcalf, and more.
The Dropout premieres on Hulu on March 3.
189 Comments
It makes too much sense that Connor Roy would be involved in this.
I’ll let you know Connor Roy was interested in technology from a very young age.
Lester was a man. And now he is dead.
She finally pressured him into coming on board. “She’ll keep calling me…she’ll keep calling me…OKAY! OKAY, I’M IN!”
“Call me sir God dammit!” – Elizabeth Holmes
I was a little skeptical of this, mainly because I’ve already read the stories and books and watched the documentaries, but that’s a great damn trailer. Seyfried looks amazing and it’s a really top-notch cast around her (though what’s up with William H. Macy’s forehead). I think I’m in.
I’m in, too, but also am wondering WTF they did to William H. Macy. I don’t care if they’re trying to make him look like a real person (if that’s what they’re doing). That is a bizarro look. The proportions are just not right.
Yeah dude looks like he has a head on top of his head. Who’s he supposed to be in this?
Richard Fuisz, i think. i just googled photos of him & yeah, he does look a bit odd.
Yeah, a BIT, not like a retired Klingon.
…but he doesn’t look like the Great Gazoo. Macy looks bizarre.
He looks like he had Art Garfunkel’s forehead grafted onto him.
Payton Manning saw this trailer and was like
That’s a forty-head
He looks like Pennywise. I can only assume they were trying to hide his normal mane under a bald cap. It’s highly distracting.
does the person he’s playing really look like that?
Happy Seyfried finally is getting the roles she wants. It’s been a hard battle for her to be taken seriously but she’s a force.
and William H. Macy as Peter Sarsgaard in Green Lantern
That was exactly my first thought. How exactly are they integrating Parallax into this narrative?
as Sinestro as the Thinker? WTF is that!
I’d forgotten that at one point someone at DC thought it was a good idea for a movie’s climactic fight to be Ryan Reynolds, looking like a CGI-enhanced Greek god, beating up on a really unhealthy-looking villain in a wheelchair. It was kind of like the scene in LA Confidential where Russell Crowe has to rough up Danny DeVito, except no one had the good sense to feel bad about what they were doing.
Richard Fuisz is a little odd looking, but I think they over-corrected a tad…
This is just all kinds of wrong. Who approved this? Did no one look at this and go, “wait a tick…”?
You meet a guy like that and you’re just all, well, hide the silver, man. Before he bends it.
The trailer does look great. But it also pretty much spells out the story, so now I don’t really feel a need to watch the show.
Also, it’s a series? This could sustain my interest through a trailer. Probably not for a movie. Definitely not for a series.
Depends how much ground they play to cover. If it’s inception to her arrest for fraud, which is what this looks like, that’s about 15 years to work with.
Sure, but I know the story and I’m not really interested in seeing it dramatised, excellent though the performances may be.
Felicity: “I have had to pay a steep price for what I did, William! And even though you aren’t guilty, I think you should have to suffer some shame, too!”William H.: “What do you have in mind, dear?”Felicity: “Lean back, and don’t move. … I’m just gonna start with a little shaving cream on your forehead …”
Too many years playing Frank Gallagher.
(though what’s up with William H. Macy’s forehead).Thank you, yes. Seriously, I was like “Is he playing the Leader in a Hulk movie we don’t know about but also snuck over to film this between takes?”
Forehead? That’s at least a fivehead, probably a sixhead …
“(though what’s up with William H. Macy’s forehead)“
Have you seen who he’s playing? The man’s wikipedia picture is basically his forehead.
Not kidding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fuisz
Yeah, they’re trying to make Macy look like Richard Fuisz.Looks like they left just a bit too much space for Macy’s actual hair under the cap
She’s also nailed Holmes’ “someone else is driving” eyes
It’s saying something when Amanda Seyfried can’t keep her eyes as wide as the real life person she’s portraying. Much more and you’re talking a thyroid condition.
She ain’t crazy. That’s another grift. She knew all she had to do was find the criminal element and latch on to that person and she’d sail by.
The obsession with the voice by various parties commenting on Holmes always struck me as incredibly misogynistic since it’s largely a response to a multitude of studies done that show that men take women with a high voice less seriously in professional settings.
There was this whole thing about “vocal fry” a while back and I think it centered around how women who do podcasts or presentations/talks had a way of speaking that (mainly men) argued was unauthentic.But, to your point, yes…part of the reason women tried to do what Holmes did was because it made them seem more serious. Because they sounded like men.
It’s hard obsessed, though, because her voice is so bonkers. It adds to the whole incredulity of the story. She was so bizarre and weird and yet people threw money at her. I mean, she comes off as a complete nut job and yet everybody seemed to pretend it was normal
she comes off as a complete nut job
So did Steve Jobs, so does Elon Musk. Weird tech sector entrepreneurs are pretty common.
Yeah… and lots of people make fun of Jobs and Musk for their weirdness.
Nope, Holmes is on her own league of nuttiness.
“Nope, Holmes is on her own league of nuttiness.”
Right, there’s never been anyone like her.
But you shouldn’t assume nuttiness with intelligence. Her voice and her eyes should have set off red alarms
Elon Musk comes off as a nut job because he is a nut job.
I don’t know, not really. Steve Jobs may have been crazy in many ways, but he came across as very charismatic, which is why he commanded those annual announcement stage shows in a way the Tim Cook and others do not. Elon Musk was similar, and people on this site used to rally to his defense and consider him a real world Tony Stark until he said one too many stupid things. Elizabeth Homes’ voice and wild eye shtick have not helped her once the doubts started coming in. I don’t think people don’t naturally trust female voices, it is just unexpectedly higher voices. Companies often select female voices for navigation and personal assistant voices exactly because studies show people find them agreeable.
Because she was pretending to be one of “those” nutjobs. AKA Steve Jobs, who himself was insane (seriously just read about the guy, barely functional).Its basically the “no junk, no soul” trope from music applied to tech entrepreneurs. Like if they are a wierdo they must be brilliant, throw money at them.
There is no moment when she’s speaking in real footage that I’m not thinking, “Just speak in your normal voice!”
I agree. Saying that other folks are obsessed with the almost psychotic insistence she has of putting on a fake voice is like saying people were obsessed with Howard Hughes’ longass fingernails and jars of urine. It’s blatant defensive projection.
Was it women with a high voice or just anyone with a high voice? The studies I found on Google just now seem to indicate its the latter.But anyways, I think people are just obsessed with it because people are obsessed with criminals and their idiosyncrasies in general.
If it’s anyone with a higher pitched voice, you have to stop and think for a second about which gender tends to speak in a higher pitch. Then you’ll have your answer.
I guess maybe it depends what you define as a high-pitched voice. Seyfried’s “normal” voice in this trailer does not sound significantly high-pitched to me. Neither does the voices of the vast majority of my female family members, friends, or coworkers that I can think of. Maybe I just have trash hearing. But honestly, it’s not something I would take a second to think about because it’s not something I personally care about.
My point is that, on the whole, women have higher pitched voices than men. And are overall taken less seriously. So the people with the higher pitched voices in the studies that are being taken less seriously are mostly women.
“If it’s anyone with a higher pitched voice, you have to stop and think for a second about which gender tends to speak in a higher pitch.”
Oh, thank goodness SOMEONE decided to bust out the stereotypes.
“Was it women with a high voice or just anyone with a high voice?”I think that is indication that high voices are associated with women, so men that have a less masculine voice are taken less seriously.
Was it women with a high voice or just anyone with a high voice? The studies I found on Google just now seem to indicate its the latter.
It’s a distinction without a difference. “Anyone with a high voice” still harms women disproportionately because women typically have higher voices.
It’d be like if you were asking “is it really discrimination against blacks or just anyone with darker skin than them?”
Not to mention part of the reason men would be more dismissive of higher voices in general
is because higher voices are typically considered a feminine trait. They’re dismissive of a man with a higher voice because it comes off as
less masculine and thus he’s perceived as weaker.
It is fuckin’ weird, regardless of who does it.
Was it women with a high voice or just anyone with a high voice? The studies I found on Google just now seem to indicate its the latter.But anyways, I think people are just obsessed with it because people are obsessed with criminals and their idiosyncrasies in general.
It’s misogynist to treat a woman with less respect because her voice is naturally a certain pitch. It’s not misogynist to point out an example of dishonesty in a person that made a career of being dishonest.
Because people like her and Ivanka Trump just do it so obviously, like they’re speaking with this stupid affectation thinking they’re making themselves sound more serious or something when it’s really the exact opposite. The only people they’re ‘fooling’ are stupid old men who aren’t paying attention to anything above their necks.
It’s like people who use your name all the time in conversation: You KNOW they read somewhere that using a person’s name often in conversation makes you seem more trustworthy and they lean hard into it even though, realistically, using someone’s name like that just makes them come off as super shady.
I have an acquaintance who does the name thing. It just breaks up the flow of conversation.
Does it, Murray Chang? Because, Murray Chang, I’d always heard the opposite. You see, Murray Chang, I’m trying to let you, Murray Chang, know that I’m super interested in you, Murray Chang. Do you see what I’m going for now, Murray Chang?
Failed actress at uni used to do this all the time to me, because she wanted to bludge both durries and answers off me. It worth giving her the odd dart just to watch her go into LA Prospective Actor Networking Mode.
She speaks in a weird obviously fake voice all the time, there aren’t a lot of people who do that. Vintage Bobcat Goldthwait? Also, if you met somebody and they were speaking with an obviously fake voice…would you give that person $100 million dollars? It’s one of the more obvious red flags that make it so completely perplexing that everybody didn’t know this whole shit was fake. Also, if she was doing it to make men take her more seriously, it was also so they would take her seriously and give her money for something she couldn’t do. Going all the way to “incredibly misogynistic” in this context is absolutely unwarranted.
“Also, if you met somebody and they were speaking with an obviously fake voice…would you give that person $100 million dollars?”
Yes. Because most people don’t make business decisions based on 20/20 hindsight and most don’t pretend that an odd voice means ANYTHING about a person aside from the fact they have an odd voice.
Are you saying you wouldn’t give billions of dollars to Bobcat Goldthwait’s biotech venture??
It’s a bit of a stew, but here’s my interpretation:She has a higher pitched voice, normally, which she viewed as a weakness. She dropped her pitch intentionally, and awkwardly, in order to make up for it… which would normally be another case of a woman trying to overcome institutional sexism.The problem is that she did all of this to try to make her entirely make-believe product come across as more legitimate, and to keep her con going as long as she needed it to. So the story is now about how a woman had to adapt to institutional sexism in order to effectively scam people… which makes her a lot less sympathetic.
It overtly makes her seem like she’s portraying a character- which, in fact, she was doing. Are people really not supposed to mention that because she’s a woman? (Also, I see tons of successful women on TV every single day who don’t make me go, “What the hell’s going on with her voice??”)
Not really. She just sounded like a weirdo.
I personally think it’s because it’s so incredibly, borderline comically, fake (at least it was to me). Like you hear a lot about frauds or con artists but rarely do you get a person’s very voice being a lie.
“(at least it was to me).”
Got to love someone who is told that a person employed a fake voice and decides “I knew it all along”, and then says it as if A-N-Y-O-N-E would believe it.
But hey, good job trying to make this about you.
Does it strike you as misanthropic that various parties insist the investors made all their mistakes because they’re men? Is it racist to assume that white people are bad at investing? Incredibly so!
I thought the documentaries did a good job of explaining something about Holmes’s off-key mannerisms stuck out, and made her memorable and fascinating to investors/celebrities. The voice was just part of that. It’s definitely not the sort of voice you hear every day.
I’ve always thought the obsession with it was that she was affecting the voice on purpose.
I can’t believe people trusted Holmes to this day. Everything about her company felt off and I know its not nice to say it but, she just has this blank stare that is so creepy to me. The fact so many threw so much money at her on so little never ceases to baffle me.
Because the people(creepy old dudes) who threw money at her weren’t listening to her voice, looking at her eyes or even thinking critically about whether what she was selling was even possible.Horned up old white guy dipshits, in other words. You know, the kind of people who run things.
“Before we invest serious capital, Ms Holmes, we’d really like to see the goods.”“We can have a prototype ready in two weeks.”“Prototype? Oh, yeah, I guess we’d like to see that too.”
Lots of people have had lots of money thrown at medical technologies that they promised were going to change the world. They weren’t all good looking like she was.What made her story interesting was more that the MEDIA fell in love with her, and then tore her down. Venture capital is less emotional than a Forbes feature writer.
Criminals know that if you’re willing to do anything and you’re also expendable. All those vipers in that nest were using each other. It was mutual. She was much a patsy as the students she used. Last one standing is the winner.
…so what you’re saying it’s the horned-up old white guys’ fault and she’s just an innocent little girl?
I guess if it’s opposite day that’s what I meant, sure.
Sarcasm, mate.
Ahh ok you know how hard it can be to tell sometimes.
No worries.
Good insight.
To be fair, a lot of sociopaths with blank stares are very successful in tech and also in just about every other lucrative field.
She managed to use connections to rope in some highly respected board members who knew nothing about biotech, and leverage those associations into investment dollars. As others have pointed out, there is a group of massively successful healthcare-focused venture capital funds with the expertise to evaluate the science behind an idea, determining if the idea has a shot and merits backing. Not a single one was an investor in Theranos.
She managed to use connections to rope in some highly respected board members who knew nothing about biotech, and leverage those associations into investment dollars.These investors didn’t just lack experience in Biotech. They lacked experience with startups. They didn’t do meaningful diligence on their investments. I think they just saw her as “one of us” and decided to invest on that basis. I suspect that her father’s experience should have been a warning sign, but instead helped make her part of the in-crowd.
Naive investors got fleeced. Film at 11.
I think it just highlights that the investment class doesn’t actually understand the things they invest in, they just throw money at shit and wait for the system to ensure they never actually lose.
Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, wants to get in on the ground floor these days. This feeling is so pervasive in this era that it’s leading to lots and lots of speculation-type investment. NFTs, crypto, massive “normal” retail investing, meme stocks, MLMs, house flipping, etc. etc.
Major league family connections. Her dad was a former Enron VP who knew lots of people through his later government job; these were old GOP administration apparatchiks (including Kissinger) wh0 knew nothing about biotech but signed on to be on the board of directors and to invest their own money because their cronies were doing it too. A hundred other Stanford dropouts with a Steve Jobs cosplay fetish wouldn’t have gotten nearly as far.
This whole series feels like a prequel/origin story for a James Bond supervillain.
If a future Bond villain is based on Holmes, then the results would probably be good.
Now that the Daniel Craig era is finally behind us, I hope they’ll do a nice hard reboot, forget all this damn world-building, and just do a great, stand-alone thriller about Bond versus some villain with plans for world domination, and I SO want the villain to be an Elisabeth Holmes type. It would be a first, to have a female villain facing off against Bond, wouldn’t it? Of course there have been female villainous sidekicks, and even a few duos like in The World is Not Enough, and Die Another Day, but how about a stand alone one?
Technically the main villain in World is not Enough is female, Sophie Marceaus character. But the henchmen gets more screen time and its played as a twist. You know after watching No Time to Die I desperately wanted to live in the universe where Helena Bonham Carter had been the villain. She would have been more fun then Remi Malak.
I always found the twist in ‘Dark Knight Rising’ to be a bit on the nose. Not only was it essentially a rip-off of the World Is Not Enough, they even had to go and cast another hot French brunette in the secret villain role
Oh god it kinda is the same twist, works about as well too.
Whaaaat? Elektra has WAY more screen time than Renard. She doubles as the main Bond girl until Christmas Jones shows up.
Electra King was the head villain in TWINE – Robert Carlyle was simply her henchman. King orchestrated the whole plot: she seduced Carlyle to convince him to blow up the Russian pipeline in order to increase the value of the King pipeline, and thus her own fortunes.
…or hilariously inept. She might scare Bond into thinking she’s about to shoot him into space, despite the fact that they never got their rocket to clear the parking lot.
Yea, Bond has never had a main female villianess. Would be cool.
Mmm, she can put the “Blow” ion Blofeld any time!
There are a few times in this trailer where Seyfried looks like if Anna-Taylor Joy and Emma Stone did the fusion dance.
The sound edit in that trailer is kind of atrocious. I really wanted to hear how she said the word “blood”, and they seemed to have cut that word in half. Weird.
I have zero interest in this (and I’m friends with a character who probably isn’t portrayed in the series by name but was at the company and very close to her) nor the Travis Kalanick series on Apple. I find these types dramatized biopcics do more to legitimize and glamorize unethical and antisocial behavior than function as cautionary tales. Even the title is feeding into a mythology that is proving to have pretty harmful consequences.
No one is dropping out of college to start a company because of Elizabeth Holmes. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg sailed that ship a loooong time ago.
Thanks, I’m aware. I’m not even saying it’s right or wrong on a personal level but this does perpetuate the idea that it’s the path to success. The ambition for far too many high schoolers (at least around the Bay) is to get accepted in order to find a co-founder with whom to drop out of Standford with.
this does perpetuate the idea that it’s the path to successI guess… If you define “facing up to 20 years in federal prison” as a success story.
The fact it has to be phrased that way is a strong argument for waiting until the goddamn story is actually complete before making it into a movie.
Wow, you really opened my eyes to the massive amount of pity I should have for astronomically wealthy kids in the Bay area who get into Stanford just to drop out. Super well-analyzed there – you really pinpointed the terrible harm this TV show will do.
“Thanks, I’m aware. I’m not even saying it’s right or wrong on a personal level but this does perpetuate the idea that it’s the path to success.”You’re gonna have to give a bit more here because I don’t see how it does it at all.
Isn’t this more like cautionary tale? Seems like a Stanford degree is a better-trod path to success.
“Thanks, I’m aware.”
You say that, yet it completely contradicts your first post.
Let me introduce you to NFT Bros…
I prefer crypto as my store of value, where prices can fluctuate 10% in a single trading day.
I have no desire to watch either, especially Kalanick. I’ve already heard and seen enough of these assholes. What great insight am I going to have about Kalanick? That he’s a jerk and capitalism rewards selfish sociopaths? I might be a hypocrite though because I’ve certainly read plenty of articles about them.
Thank you for your commitment to notifying us about your lack of interest. I have logged your apathy in my dream journal. Next question: what did you have for breakfast?
They also gave reasons in aid of stimulating discussion in this comments section.
What’s your excuse.
As I wrote elsewhere, this reminds me of The Social Network. The fictionalisation or
dramatic recreation of real-life privileged people behaving poorly to
get what they want and be rewarded for it, 1) doesn’t seem entertaining
because it’s depressing if there isn’t anyone to root for, so who do you root for in this?, and 2) doesn’t even seem interesting because it’s only based on a true story, and we know the actual full story (i.e. reality) is worse and more complicated. Not to mention the amount of real lives that have been damaged because of it.
I’m more worried about the I Tonya effect where this is going to somehow attempt to excuse what she did.
You don’t feel bad for the blonde woman? Are you American? Are you a Commie? LOL!I know it’s stupid to glorify her actions but Americans in corn fields find this fascinating.
Well…good thing none of them can actually drop-out of Stanford because they don’t make living wages? Weird take, but, OK..
I just don’t want her to make money off of this shit.
Yep, people love these movies for supposedly taking down real life figures, but they actually tend to pave a path to further success for their real life counterparts. The Wolf of Wall Street guy is big on TikTok these days, where he (I shit you not) gives out financial advice under @wolfofwallstreet.
I’m beginning to think that screaming while alone in your parked car is a sign that things aren’t going well.
well it’s not going to stop until they wise up
‘A sign that things aren’t going well’, a normal day at the office: potato potaato.
It’s been working just fine for me.
Well, shit. Is that why I do it?
I would watch this for WH Macy and Laurie Metcalf’s scenes together alone, but Macy should also sue the production for defamation for what they did to his head.If we lived in a sane world, this never would have happened. Every single person would be like “there’s not enough blood and there’s tissue contamination from the finger”…it would be like Ivanka Trump trying to convince people she should run for president, just a non-starter…oh wait she’s definitely going to do that isn’t she, shit
Every biotech investor she approached apparently did say that, or she avoided presenting to them because she knew what the answer would be and didn’t want to poison the market.
Yeah it looks like Metcalf’s character is the Stanford prof who told her she was full of shit.
It’s not as implausible as all that, but the technology already exists. Newborn ICUs can do standard labs with a few drops of blood from a vein or a heel-stick, the results are just more variable than with a larger sample. When I first read about this whole project all I could think was that she was trying to invent technology that already exists to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
is there less contamination or interference from the skin above a vein or a heel than from a fingertip? From what I have seen Theranos had some pretty variable results.
The tests that can be performed with a drop of blood mostly already existed before Holmes had her “idea”. However, because each test uses very different analytical principles, there was never going to be a single machine that couldd run them all.Many tests, though, have problems of sampling errors that can only be overcome by drawing larger volumes of blood. All the research, venture capital, black sweaters and weirdly affected voices can’t change the inherent mathematical limitations.
I’m here for a bearded Stephen Fry (is he Sir Stephen yet? Do they give knighthoods to convicted criminals?) screaming “AND YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE!!!!”
I thought no one would do better at this particular role than Kate McKinnon but I was wrong. she nails the voice because she’s a pretty good actor but she also nails her weird/hot/alien attractiveness (those eyes!) that I think was key to effectively seducing all those old white guys that comprised her board of directors with her bullshit. I hope when/if Holmes watches this, it’s exposing the put-on voice that gets under her skin the most. Looking forward to watching this.
“weird/hot/alien attractiveness”*visible confusionUh… I feel like I missed something. When did people start thinking Holmes was hot?
I believe they alluded to it in the documentary about her (i.e. how could a young blonde woman dupe a bunch of old guys who *should* be smart enough to know better?)…I also think she is attractive in an unconventional way (if you didn’t hear her talk or knew she was a megalomaniacal fraudster). I’m not saying there is a logical basis for her “attractiveness” LOL but I know I’m not the only one who thinks this.
But what if her being a megalomaniacal fraudster makes her hotter?
the groin wants what it wants
She’s conventionally attractive, that’s it. But since she’s blond/blue eyed that gets her a LOOOONG way with the internet hotness ratings.
There must be some sort of charisma she brings to bear when actually in the room with someone. She’s got the building blocks – tall, thin, blonde/blue – but that x-ray stare is definitely offputting.To OP’s point, there’s no question Seyfried is a superior actor to McKinnon so I think this was a good substitution.
Except that both Seyfried and Holm are actually quite short.
“Except that both Seyfried and Holm are actually quite short.”
I’m not sure 5′ 6 1/2″ is “quite short” for a woman.
“but that x-ray stare is definitely offputting.”
And we should all assume that the look she gave during a photoshoot for a magazine is how she looks at people every day, because everyone knows that when getting a picture taken for the cover of a national magazine, everyone just poses as normal.
When God invented The Corn Belt and lonely Heartland types.
When did people start thinking Holmes was hot?Look, I can’t even explain why I do. She’s so obviously “nuttier than a bag of cats fighting over a payday candy bar,” and yet… and yet…(fans self). Damn.
Her intensity just… does something to me, man. It makes no sense.What genetic defect is it that causes the brains of people like me to confuse “obviously crazy” with “crazy attractive”?
lmao, I don’t know but I enjoy your explanation of it.
Thanks! I’m glad my neuroses can entertain.For what it’s worth, I also similarly find the Overly-Attached Girlfriend character/meme to be really attractive. I feel less guilty about that one since it’s just a bit that gal was doing, but I guess it still shows that “Crazy intense” is a type that I gravitate to. (shrugs)
I thought no one would do better at this particular role than Kate McKinnonIf the Joe vs. Carole trailer is any indication, Kate McKinnon’s take would be something like– Kate McKinnon, but in a black turtleneck.
LOL true, and also, seeing her doing that deep put-on voice would probably end up being more unintentionally hilarious than they wanted
it’s exposing the put-on voice that gets under her skin the most
Nah, because women and people of color often have to “put on a voice” in order to get anywhere as it is now. Even when they’re not full of shit.Look up “code-switching.”
it helps that she isn’t doing stupid sketch comedy crazy eyes
She looks a bit like Philomena Cunk, but sounds like Darth Vader.
Diane Morgan is a treasure.
Sign me up for this, looks amazing.
FINALLY we have confirmation about the acting in a film that has yet to be released! Our long national nightmare is FINALLY over!
There’s a long, long history of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs exaggerating the capabilities of their companies, betting that they can get the product working before anyone really notices the lies. The difference with Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes was they were attempting to innovate in the area of healthcare, where actual lives were at stake. The moment she lost her soul is when she decided that the survival of her business was more important than those lives.
There’s a long, long history of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs
exaggerating the capabilities of their companies, betting that they can
get the product working before anyone really notices the lies.Which is why real investors do proper diligence and are aware of the lies before investing. There is a huge difference between what companies say publicly and what they tell sophisticated investors.
So, when she started acting like every other capatalist?
oh I get it now, DROP
I have followed this case for a while just because I’m fascinated by this specific trainwreck. Read the book Bad Blood and listened to the ABC podcast. I wasn’t really wanting to watch thisbut looking at the trailer Amanda Seyfried really nailed the character and some of the casting choices (for example Laurie Metcalf as Phyllis Gardner who’s a Stanford prof who smelled her BS from day 1, and Kurtwood Smith as Theranos legal council and overall shitheel David Boies) are pretty inspired.
Yeah I feel the same way, none of the docs/podcasts about this have been anywhere as good as John Carreyrou’s original reporting (a lot of them pull punches on Holmes and/or Silicon Valley, which Carreyrou emphatically does not do). But this is a top-shelf cast so I’ll give it a shot.
SOMEONE’S getting a foot in their ass.
What is the deal with William H. Macy’s forehead? Could land a plane on that!
Harrison Ford couldn’t.
If only she’d found a way to monetise the fact that her boobs can tell when it’s about to rain.
More fraud. They can tell when it’s *raining*
Nailed it! I saw the HBO doc, but I will totally watch this. If Hulu does half as good a job with this as they did with Dopesick, we’re all in for a treat.
Now that I’ve seen it I’m sold on Amanda Seyfried. An actress who looked more like Elizabeth Holmes would be working with Holmes’ blank slate expression. But Seyfried is able to project so much subtext, not just in her face, that we’re getting a much more engaging view into the character. I might watch it just for her performance (and because I love to hate on VC shysters.)
“An actress who looked more like Elizabeth Holmes”
Is there an actress who looks more like Holmes that Seyfried does?
The best thing about that is that I’d lay even odds that, while Sam Waterson is in this, the Law and Order revival will give us what we REALLY want: Jack McCoy stringing up a Holmes expy on depraved indifference homicide.
Her first mistake was trusting Connor Roy.
Is William H. Macy playing an alien? What’s with that forehead?
“Eat my photons, small-heads!”
Wlliam H Macy in a movie about a college dropout and I’m getting my scandals crossed.
Don’t get yer Crocs in a bunch!
I looked up the cast and realized William H Macy was in this. I had no idea that’s who that was in the trailer….
It’s nice seeing Seyfried come into her own. She was great in Mank and it looks like she’s nailing this.
This cast is a-maz-in-g! Did I catch Michael Irsonside in there?
“Theranos never actually found a way to get the technology it touted having”Theranos never found a way to do something physically impossible. You can’t test blood the way they were talking about. The concentration of a lot of the stuff you’re looking for isn’t high enough in a drop of blood, and a lot of the testing is destructive to the sample. So you can’t go testing a single drop of blood hundreds of times. No amount of tech funding and magic desktop boxes was gonna get over that.
Ugh this is getting so old. Not the movie, mind you — the movie looks fantastic. But how many movies about clinically sociopathic and psychopathic personalities in positions of power do we have to endure before something actually gets done about it? Our businesses and governments are OVERRUN with them, and we do nothing but make movies to passive-aggressively complain about it.
At a glimpse the makeup and wigs just seem off in this thing.
i never got the fascination with critiquing an actor’s looks and voice when they portray a character based on a real-life person. Of all the things to care about in a movie, why focus on their physical appearance? Its not an impersonation contest.
How did anyone not realize that it’s Mira Sorvino’s “businesswoman” voice from Romy & Michelle??
Her voice really isn’t that close. It’s just not low enough.