I was there on that fateful day, were you?
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 bagShrinweck wrote:I dislike his acting and roles as much as the next guy but damn that article was mostly depressing.
that's wierd to read after he had been obsessively lobbying for it for years now..Seraphina wrote:At least he's not playing Yorick!
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).Kupek wrote:I think Matthew McConaughey is a good actor, but his choice in roles often baffles me.
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.Shrinweck wrote:Can't really blame a guy for going for roles that get him more money.
Funny.
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?Zeus wrote:That was freakin' hilarious and pretty much epitomizes why Shia is nothing but Speilberg's pet
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?SineSwiper wrote:And how is he any different than, say, Nicolais Cage, who also plays the same character in all of his movies?Zeus wrote:That was freakin' hilarious and pretty much epitomizes why Shia is nothing but Speilberg's pet
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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
The terms "substance" and "Michael Bay" are mutually exclusiveImakeholesinu 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.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic to sarcasm or you actually don't get the joke.Zeus wrote:Did realize that was directed by Bay :-)