|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Dec 25, 2018 22:38:42 GMT
I think Charles Bronson and Harrison Ford started phoning it in after they were type cast in certain roles. Once Bronson was typecast as the tough guy vigilante he didn't try to break out from that, exceptions like Murphy's Law or some later family stuff he did.
Ford really gave up. He just went after the paycheck.
Vincent Price got hammy and some say it was because he felt he was being used by studios to sell movies so he didn't care--however I think it depended on the role. He did a tv special on Edgar Allen Poe which I think is the best acting he ever did.
As for Ms Lawrence, if she did sleep with Weinstein she deserves some kind of award for courage.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 26, 2018 22:09:03 GMT
Haha. You use the Oscars as a guide for what is good or not? Wow, that's sad. The Oscars don't mean chit. I assume you're talking about his performance in Dallas Buyers Club. It was a clear "give me an award" role. It's sad that you could not see that. And his performance as the Joker was a joke. So bad that I actually felt bad and embarrassed for him. Not just the Oscars--there was critical consensus across the board that he was good in the film, which directly contradicts your thesis. And there is no consensus that his Joker was bad. You can't make the case you want unless you can cite a consensus that an actor's talent has actually, objectively deteriorated. On top of that, it is doubly ridiculous when you only cite one performance. You have to cite a trend with multiple examples or the evidence just isn't there. Again, he started getting awards recognition from all directions in the latter part of his career, regardless of how crappy people like and me think his projects were. This directly contradicts your thesis, pure and simple. But there is a hint at where your thesis does contain a grain of truth, as I conceded to Bluerisk: if an actor lets alcohol or other drugs get he best of him/her, or becomes mentally ill, that is definitely a way that their talent could decline--from brain damage. That's literally the only way it can happen, but it can.
|
|
|
Post by Roberto on Dec 27, 2018 21:19:20 GMT
Haha. You use the Oscars as a guide for what is good or not? Wow, that's sad. The Oscars don't mean chit. I assume you're talking about his performance in Dallas Buyers Club. It was a clear "give me an award" role. It's sad that you could not see that. And his performance as the Joker was a joke. So bad that I actually felt bad and embarrassed for him. Not just the Oscars--there was critical consensus across the board that he was good in the film, which directly contradicts your thesis. And there is no consensus that his Joker was bad. You can't make the case you want unless you can cite a consensus that an actor's talent has actually, objectively deteriorated. On top of that, it is doubly ridiculous when you only cite one performance. You have to cite a trend with multiple examples or the evidence just isn't there. Again, he started getting awards recognition from all directions in the latter part of his career, regardless of how crappy people like and me think his projects were. This directly contradicts your thesis, pure and simple. But there is a hint at where your thesis does contain a grain of truth, as I conceded to Bluerisk: if an actor lets alcohol or other drugs get he best of him/her, or becomes mentally ill, that is definitely a way that their talent could decline--from brain damage. That's literally the only way it can happen, but it can.
So basically you think that whatever is popular = good. That is very sad. You need to learn to form your own opinions on things instead of blindly following the mainstream. Because as much as I hate to say it, newsflash: most people are stupid.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 27, 2018 22:40:11 GMT
So basically you think that whatever is popular = good. That is very sad. You need to learn to form your own opinions on things instead of blindly following the mainstream. Because as much as I hate tos ay it, newsflash: most people are stupid. That isn't what I wrote at all. Literally the only way to judge the talent of an actor is to see if there is a consensus among critics and viewers that he or she is good at it. It is in the very nature of that skill set that it only can be said to be working if the actor is having an effect on a large number of people. An actor who is only appreciated by one smart person--an actor whose "brilliance" can only be seen by an elite few with some magical special sight--will never have a career. You just aren't thinking this through.
|
|
senan90
Junior Member
@senan90
Posts: 1,452
Likes: 546
|
Post by senan90 on Dec 28, 2018 18:20:58 GMT
So basically you think that whatever is popular = good. That is very sad. You need to learn to form your own opinions on things instead of blindly following the mainstream. Because as much as I hate to say it, newsflash: most people are stupid. Okay, wise-guy, what's your favourite films? What do you regard as art?
|
|