The Shrine

Count at least one person not conned

http://celebedge.ca/Bang/ContentPosting ... date=False

I dislike his acting and roles as much as the next guy but damn that article was mostly depressing.

Shrinweck wrote:I dislike his acting and roles as much as the next guy but damn that article was mostly depressing.

yeah, I know. Right now, he's being pushed for his roles by Speilberg (every big role he's had has been in a Speilberg flick). He keeps that attitude up and he ain't gonna be around for much longer. At least enjoy the ride, man. Even if you think you ain't talented that don't mean you can't be a superstar. Tons of superstars couldn't act their way out of paper bag

I actually like Shia. He's been stuck with some less-than epic roles, but he's also been in a number of really big name movies. There's been talks of him doing a Cage biopic piece, and he directed one of Cage's music videos.

It'd be great to see him doing other things from what he's doing, but right now he's Spielburg's kid, and he'll do what Spielburg nudges him to do. It's a pretty good position to be in, considering the politics of Hollywood.

At least he's not playing Yorick!

That would be too much of a required acting job for Asston Jr.

Seraphina wrote:At least he's not playing Yorick!

that's wierd to read after he had been obsessively lobbying for it for years now..

I disagree. True, all I've seen him do is "play himself" like so many other actors, but he's good at that. He's better than Aston and McConnaughey; that's for sure. At least he understands the industry and knows that it'll fuck him over if it wants to.

Unlike many of the other Disney kid stars, he's smart, and realizes that the "training" provided from Disney probably wasn't as good as acting school. He's also smart in dropping the Yorick role, as preventing any sort of typecasting is worth it when everybody notices you.

In any case, I hope he learns as he goes. He has the potential to actually be a better actor later on, or veer off into directing.

Watching paint dry is better than watching Matthew McConnaughey.

Shit, being waterboarded WITH paint would be better than watching Matthew McConnahdontknowhowtospellhisfuckingname.

I think Matthew McConaughey is a good actor, but his choice in roles often baffles me.

Kupek wrote:I think Matthew McConaughey is a good actor, but his choice in roles often baffles me.

He ain't tryin' at all. He's just taking the easy road (ie. going by his looks) rather than playing good roles in good flicks like he used to (ie. Contact).

Can't really blame a guy for going for roles that get him more money.

Shrinweck wrote:Can't really blame a guy for going for roles that get him more money.

Short term vs long term. Johnny Depp was a pretty boy back in the day too and he's more popular now than he was back then. It ain't only 'cause he's a good actor (maybe the best), he made very, very good decisions as well. Many of those decisions were small, challenging roles that didn't net him too much coin.

Kupek wrote:I think Matthew McConaughey is a good actor, but his choice in roles often baffles me.

He requires that he is shirtless the majority of the movie... if its not in the script then no dice.

I think the only MM role i liked was A Time to Kill... but i also really loved the book so i may have been influenced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IXCK1EyP4s

You'll love this Zeus.

Eric wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IXCK1EyP4s

You'll love this Zeus.

Funny.

Eric wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IXCK1EyP4s

You'll love this Zeus.

That was freakin' hilarious and pretty much epitomizes why Shia is nothing but Speilberg's pet

Zeus wrote:

Eric wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IXCK1EyP4s

You'll love this Zeus.

That was freakin' hilarious and pretty much epitomizes why Shia is nothing but Speilberg's pet

And how is he any different than, say, Nicolais Cage, who also plays the same character in all of his movies?

has anyone seen the new transformers? metacritic and reviews from pals who have seen it have been entirely unfavourable.

Saw it opening night. There aren't very many good things to say about it. The fights were pretty cool. Optimus Prime kicks butt. That's about it. The story was awful and went nowhere. I couldn't have cared less about any of the characters since there was no character development. And those 2 gangsta Transformers were abysmal. They made me want to smash things worse than Jar Jar Binks.

SineSwiper wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Eric wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IXCK1EyP4s

You'll love this Zeus.

That was freakin' hilarious and pretty much epitomizes why Shia is nothing but Speilberg's pet

And how is he any different than, say, Nicolais Cage, who also plays the same character in all of his movies?

The character from The Rock was the same as the character from Leaving Lost Vegas? The character from Con Air was the same as the character from Raising Arizona?

You're mistaking the current phone-it-in Cage with the previous do-decent-roles Cage. He's proven that at least some point in his career - even if it was 15 years ago - he could act. Same can't be said for Shia

I dunno. Maybe you should switch those.

The character from The Rock was the same as the character from Con Air? The character from Leaving Lost Vegas was the same as the character from Raising Arizona?

Oh, and growing a beard doesn't count as "acting". Is each role slightly different? Maybe. Does it matter? Slightly. Ultimately, Cage is just acting like Cage, just like every other actor does.

To be honest, I'm beginning to think that nobody knows what a good actor is except actors. Actors are hired based on their natural personality. Every actor is typecasted from their first role.

Jack Nicholson is always angry. He is hired in every role because he can do an angry person really well. Robin Williams is always animated and doing voices. He is hired in every role because he can act like he's on speed 24/7 really well. Keanu Reeves is always muted. He is hired in every role because he can do a muted person really well.

Could Jack Nicholson play Neo? Probably not. Could Keanu Reeves play the guy from Dead Poets' Society? Probably not. Could Robin Williams play the General in A Few Good Men? Probably not.

If they could, they would actually BE good actors.

adaptation?

SineSwiper wrote:I dunno. Maybe you should switch those.

The character from The Rock was the same as the character from Con Air? The character from Leaving Lost Vegas was the same as the character from Raising Arizona?

Oh, and growing a beard doesn't count as "acting". Is each role slightly different? Maybe. Does it matter? Slightly. Ultimately, Cage is just acting like Cage, just like every other actor does.

To be honest, I'm beginning to think that nobody knows what a good actor is except actors. Actors are hired based on their natural personality. Every actor is typecasted from their first role.

Jack Nicholson is always angry. He is hired in every role because he can do an angry person really well. Robin Williams is always animated and doing voices. He is hired in every role because he can act like he's on speed 24/7 really well. Keanu Reeves is always muted. He is hired in every role because he can do a muted person really well.

Could Jack Nicholson play Neo? Probably not. Could Keanu Reeves play the guy from Dead Poets' Society? Probably not. Could Robin Williams play the General in A Few Good Men? Probably not.

If they could, they would actually BE good actors.

The only thing I was trying to show with that comparison is that he's had much more variety that his recent films were showing since he's mostly in action movies now. Back when he was an up-and-coming young actor he actually tried. That's not the case now.

And Raising Arizona vs Leaving Lost Vegas? Completely different roles.

There's definitely an argument over what makes an actor "good". I've often argued that a good script can make an actor look FAR better than his/her ability shows (see DiFaggio; he's an extremely limited actor who's excellent at choosing roles). Personally, I use diversity and the quality of the performances across that diversity to measure someone's ability. That's why I'll say Nicholson (look at About Schmidt vs Wolf vs Shining vs Anger Management) or De Niro (Taxi Driver vs Raging Bull vs Awakenings vs Frankenstein vs Goodfellas) or Depp (Benny and Joon vs Blow vs Pirates) are excellent actors. Look at their resumes and the roles they played. They're amazingly diverse and very well done. Then look at DiCaprio or Willis or Reeves. They've all been in some of the best films of the last 20 years. But their roles are all very similar and they act very similar in each film. Just because the movies are excellent don't mean they're good actors and not all performances in bad films are poor.

Damn right all actors are typecast. Even De Niro, who's early resume rivals anyone's, complained about being typecast in the 90s. Why do you think Depp worked so long in smaller films?

Good actors could play good roles in any film. Not the same as the performances you remember but that don't mean they can't play them real good

I think my point is that the difference between a decent actor and a "good" actor isn't much. At least, it's not enough to belittle the "decent" actors, as if they have suuuuch a big gap between their ability and others. If they've made it in Hollywood in the million dollar films, they're good enough for what role they were hired for.

I never found him that great but what few roles he did in awesome movies Cage was perfect for. I get where you're coming from, Sine, but the man is no Shia. At least not yet. He's getting there. But, hell, Harrison Ford is getting there, too. Wait, no, that happened when Firewall came out.

SineSwiper wrote:I think my point is that the difference between a decent actor and a "good" actor isn't much. At least, it's not enough to belittle the "decent" actors, as if they have suuuuch a big gap between their ability and others. If they've made it in Hollywood in the million dollar films, they're good enough for what role they were hired for.

I belittle them for being one-dimensional actors who can only pull off one type of acting job. That doesn't make them "decent" it makes them a plug. Roles are written (or re-written) for that exact type of acting job and they're cast. They're not acting the role that's required they're just performing what they can do and have done before.

It ain't hard bein' yourself.

Zeus wrote:I belittle them for being one-dimensional actors who can only pull off one type of acting job. That doesn't make them "decent" it makes them a plug. Roles are written (or re-written) for that exact type of acting job and they're cast. They're not acting the role that's required they're just performing what they can do and have done before.

It ain't hard bein' yourself.

And as I so illustrated, even good actors are playing themselves with a little bit of extra acting. I think it's unfair to call the other ones "one-dimensional" when the rest of the actors aren't that far off. Is Cage's role in Leaving Las Vegas (or The Rock) that far off from his actual persona?

I think the ones that try to redefine themselves mid-career (see: Bill Murray), are doing more to be something else besides themselves. (Robin Williams tried doing this for a while, but just gave up on it.)

Transformers 2 was...weak. Sure it was fun to watch but I was hoping for more substance, not just two shots of megan fox looking like megan fox.

Imakeholesinu wrote:Transformers 2 was...weak. Sure it was fun to watch but I was hoping for more substance, not just two shots of megan fox looking like megan fox.

The terms "substance" and "Michael Bay" are mutually exclusive

Well, that settles it. Transformers 1 was a fluke. Michael Bay didn't learn anything.

And Shia is banging Megan Fox. Good for him.

SineSwiper wrote:Well, that settles it. Transformers 1 was a fluke. Michael Bay didn't learn anything.

And Shia is banging Megan Fox. Good for him.

The Rock was excellent

He wasn't very good in the Scorpion King. *rimshot*

SineSwiper wrote:He wasn't very good in the Scorpion King. *rimshot*

Did realize that was directed by Bay :-)

Zeus wrote:Did realize that was directed by Bay :-)

I don't know if you're being sarcastic to sarcasm or you actually don't get the joke.