Filmed over a decade as the lead actor grew from 6 to 16.

Interesting. At first I thought it was a documentary.

Hopefully, if this movie is successful it won't screw up this kid's life. It seems as if for every Jodie Foster who grows up normal in Hollywood there are ten Lindsay Lohans or McCauley Culkins.

One more thing. This personal comment is not safe for work:

What the hell...

(T)Eddy, the kid is almost 20 now, so if he becomes a big star he won't be a "Jodie Foster". That ship has sailed.

Not sure where your spoiler comment is coming from. Something you heard on the Greaseman?

The spoiler is coming from me, but I didn't think that it was necessarily appropriate for the Playroom. It was just my personal opinion.

Welp, Eddie's done gone plumb off the rails this time!

It feels like a gimmick to me. If it's the boy simply playing a role, then I wonder what is to be gained by telling the story this way and not just with different actors.

better than using the hook that we get to watch Ethan Hawke age from his 30's to his 40's.

Indeed.

Hopefully they continue into Manhood (2026)
and Boyhood II (2040).

My reasoning was this. I was thinking of examples of child actors who not only went on to have a good career in Hollywood, but also grew up fine without any major problems. It seems that for every one of those, there are more child actors who have problems. If I just used the example of Ron Howard, who was a television star on The Andy Griffith Show and later Happy Days as an example of a child actor growing up fine, there wouldn't be any problems. But I thought of Jodie Foster, winner of two Academy Awards and one of the smartest actresses in Hollywood. She also happens to be a lesbian.

What occurred to me was that some people are so homophobic, that they would rather have an axe murderer than someone who was gay, even if that person was as wonderful a human being as Jodie Foster or my cousin Maureen Roger. This made me angry, and this is why I wrote what I wrote.

Now that I got this off my chest, I'm glad that this boy who is now a young man is not going to become one of a long list of child actors who get in trouble. Hopefully this will be a good film.

Alright, I watched the trailer ... where does he turn out to be gay? I'm not seeing it.

In the post-credits scene we find out that he grows up to be Bruce Vilanch.

You need a stronger image for this one.

I just read a bit about this film and this is an incredible project, to shoot a film in 39 days, but spread out over 12 years. Kind of amazing but I like the fact that everyone had the vision and commitment to see it through. This is an instance where we're seeing the real deal on aging here, as opposed to aging make up and recasting the kid and I think that's the whole point, neat stuff. Kudos to them.

I do think it's remarkable that they have seen this through in this way. But for me as an audience for it, I just don't see the gain. What is told in this way that couldn't be told in the 'traditional' way? Once you're past the ' huh - it's the same kid! Lookit' notion, what is the difference? Is there a tie in to his real life experiences that makes it more poignant?

(I'm trying to ignore Eddy's non sequiteur in all this)

I only think that it's a gimmick if the movie relies entirely on the aging young actor. From the early reviews it's also a good movie. Linklater has had some great success with "youth" movies (Dazed and Confused). I'm looking forward to this.

The first time that I heard of someone attempting this was David Carradine (Kung Fu), who was supposedly making a film featuring his daughter as she grew up. But that was back in the 70's and 80's and I haven't heard anything more on it since.

And bringing this all together with gimmicks and David Carradine... One of my favorite movies is The Long Riders, which featured four sets of brothers, all playing four sets of brothers in the film. It was a case where the gimmick added a great deal to the enjoyment of the movie.