Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    792
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sheeeit

  1. 1 hour ago, UncleSonny said:

    Ha, well you conveniently cut off the part where I said he is an amazing actor. I was just speaking to his range and how it's not necessary to being great. 

    Think of your top 3 or 5 favorite Denzel performances. No matter what you choose I bet you can describe the character he plays using adjectives like "intense, confidant, charming, determined, hypercompetent...". He kind of does what he does and he's literally the best at it.

    You can't really do the same exercise with someone like Philip Seymour Hoffman. He has way more range than Denzel but that doesn't necessarily make him a better actor, it's just different. Any list of the best actors in the last 30 years would have to include them both.

     

    A better way to look at this is to ask yourself if you have ever seen Denzel in a movie and thought boy his acting was really not up to par for that role. I would say that I have never seen him in some thing where I thought his acting was poor. He has been in some movies that I thought were clunkers but it certainly wasn’t because of his performance. I never cringed when watching him on screen because he just can’t handle what is required of the role.

    Plus, as I have mentioned about many of the other actors we are talking about, Denzel has actually played a lot of different types of roles and played them all very well. Movies ike Fences or Philadelphia or even the Great Debaters showed tremendous range.   You put Stallone or Wahlberg in any of those roles and it would be comical. But you could put Gary Oldman or Cruise or Hanks or any number of great actors in them and they would do a fantastic job. And we know that because all of those other actors have actually been in similar type movies and similar type roles and done well.

    • Like 1
  2. 3 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

    Go fuck yourself.  I get why showing range is evidence of talent.  I don't get why not showing range is a demerit.

    Tom Brady would definitely be a better football player if he could return punts and play defense, but Tom Brady not returning punts does not change his status as one of the greatest football players ever. 

    I will apologize for the snarky comment but based on your latest post it really is clear that you are not understanding the discussion here.  

    Your Tom Brady analogy is silly and actually kind of proves the point that I am making.Brady is one of the all-time great football players because he is arguably the greatest quarterback. We compare what he does to his peers, other quarterbacks, not positions that he doesn’t play.  But as a quarterback he has amazing “range“in that he has a good arm strength great accuracy, great reading defenses, great at preparation, great at inspiring his teammates to work hard, mentally tough etc. He has all of the tools required to be a great quarterback.

    The actors we are talking about here, like Mark Wahlberg or Stallone, Have very specific roles that they can play and they play those roles well. If Stallone had never acted in another movie after Rocky then we might all think he is a very good actor. He was really good in that role. But he did make other movies and in those movies where he had to play a different type of role it was obvious that he wasn’t very good at it. You put Stallone and Wahlberg in movies where there is heavy dialogue and they are quickly out of their depth.
     

    An actors range is really what we use to distinguish them from their peers. The whole point of this topic is that there are huge movie stars that are not great actors just like there are great actors that are not movie stars. There are also movie stars that are great actors. All we are doing is picking apart the movie stars that we actually do not think are very good actors But that we fully admit are movie stars and we enjoy some of the films that they have been in.
     

     

     

  3. 2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

    "I AM MAD AT THAT GUY FOR NOT CARING ABOUT THE LIVES OF PEOPLE HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT DON'T LOOK LIKE HIM!" I scream while not caring about the lives of other people I don't know that don't look like me.

    This whole argument about China with LeBron is the intellectual equivalent of, "You say you care about the environment, yet you use an iphone?? Checkmated with logic!"

    I think you might want to research this a bit more.   

  4. 8 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

    I really don't get this "range" argument.

    I almost think you're giving people credit for overcoming bad casting decisions. 

    There's a reason why you cast Danny Trejo in a movie.  If someone casts Danny Trejo in a musical and he doesn't bomb, that's nice, but that doesn't mean he's a better actor than Tom Cruise because Cruise has never shown "the range" to do musicals. 

    In every facet of life, it's advantageous for society for everyone to exploit his/her own comparative advantage.  You seem to want to throw that out the window?

    Do you also want AC/DC to put out a Tejano album to show that they possess range?

    I think this discussion might be over your head.   

  5. 4 minutes ago, MoJames said:

    Oh don't get me wrong, more power to Adam Sandler, but to decide someone is a bad actor based on the roles they take is a poor metric.

    Agreed.  Guys like Sandler have at least shown that hey do possess range as an actor but they often choose to take lucrative roles that require less effort.  The actors I am talking about are the ones that also have become big stars and made lots of money by taking safe/easy acting roles.   But unlike guys like Cruise and Sandler, these other guys have never shown any ability to act in difficult roles that require larger ranges.  They have tried and the results are bad.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  6. 11 minutes ago, dcbc said:

    That's it.  She and JG are so good in that scene.  It didn't hit me quite so much as it did during my 4th rewatch.  Jaw was on the floor.

    Such an amazing scene.  "I'll pretend like I have a choice".

     

  7. I was recently on a very looooong multi day road trip and listened to a lot of talk radio and a lot of political talk radio.  I really never listened very much previously so I have no idea what these shows were like in the past or anything like that.  I just based my opinion on the few hours or so over a few days that I listened to a lot of it.

    1) Rush- Well he's dead and it appears his show is now guest hosts that are ultra conservative and they constantly play old clips of Rush.  Hardly listenable. D

    2) Hannity- Not very smart.  Relentless repeating.  I actually found some of his guests interesting but he is basically unlistenable. D

    3) Shapiro- I actually enjoyed a lot of his show.  He is certainly smart.  My guess is that he is often mis-quoted or mis-understood because nothing he said was too controversial but you have to listen carefully to what he actually says.  I'd give him a B.

    3) Glenn Beck- Hardly listenable.  I think he must be bipolar or something.  Not nearly as funny/witty as he thinks.  Did have a few guests that were interesting. C-

    4) Mark Levin- Brutally bad.  I honestly think guys like Glenn Beck are at least genuine in their beliefs but I can not believe this guy actually believes what he says.  F

    5) NPR- Pretty good mostly.  They seem to slant liberal but not too much from what I heard.  Hosts are smart and content pretty interesting.  B

    6) Al Sharpton- Had no idea he had a show and now I know why.  He is not very smart or very good at radio.  Unlistenable.  D

    7) Joe Pags- Another I had never heard of.  OK guests but he thinks he is very funny/witty and he is not.  C-

    😎 POTUS- Decent.  I liked Dan Abrams and Julie Mason.  Chris Cuomo is unlistenable.  B-

    9) Urban View- Pretty much unlistenable.  Not very smart.  Wildly hypocritical.  Someone named Joe Madison seemed to be on when we were driving a lot.  He was shockingly hypocritical and bad.  D

    10) Progress-  It actually had potential but just kept coming back to stupid, tired retread gotchas. C-

    I am sure there are many I missed.  I have decided that political talk radio is designed for stupid/idealogues on both sides of the aisle.  I am truly surprised they make any money.  Very, very few of them are smart.  Edit- I suppose they make money because it seems like 20 minutes out of every hour is commercials.  

  8. On 4/20/2021 at 2:06 PM, mdmost said:

    I think I spotted Nottingham Forest as their opponent in a match. Being in the Championship will be a fun bit as some think it's more competitive and has better action than the EPL. 

    Do you know how we know you are a soccer dork?  Kidding.  Great show and can not wait.

  9. 19 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

    He crushed the Jessie's Girl scene.

    I noticed I messed up my post.  Was going to say that all of those other folks in Boogie Nights are better actors and it showed when they were in scenes together but he is arguably the biggest "star" of all of them.

    • Like 1
  10. 4 hours ago, PilotsError said:

    I'm not saying Stallone is Tom Hanks, but he showed his acting chops in Copland.  Maybe his most underrated movie.

    He just usually chooses the action role.

    This is also close to what I am using as a barometer of acting ability.  Stallone can be good in very, very simple roles with limited dialogue and limited range.  So when he is in those roles he does well.  But watch him in roles where he actually tries to act and he sucks.  Really sucks.  he is a bona fide movie star for certain but not a great actor by any stretch.

  11. 23 hours ago, South Austin said:

    Dollar for dollar he's one of the worst actors ever.

    Robert Redford is also bad.  Flatline personality with no range.  Fight me.

    Redford is a perfect example.  he is not a terrible actor and he has been in tons of great films.  But he just cant quite get there to the level of the greats.  

  12. On 4/20/2021 at 3:18 PM, Dbeasy said:

    A lot of the stars are stars because they have a presence on screen, not necessarily great acting skills. I put Wahlberg in that category. 

    I get this and somewhat agree.  He has been in some big productions and he does have a certain charisma and screen presence in those movies.  But those movies are designed to highlight his presence and minimize his acting range.  Like the Italian Job. I think it is a really fun movie but out of all of the actors in that movie, he is the worst.  Ed Norton, Sutherland, Charlize.  They dominated him from an acting standpoint.

    I think of Entourage and when he does a cameo.  He seems just like an athlete or similar that they stick in there who do not know anything about acting.  His acting is similar.

  13. On 4/20/2021 at 2:27 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

    Tom Cruise. He's a great movie star, but not a great actor. 

    He hasn't attempted a serious role since Collateral which in many ways is a an action flick. 

    At least Sandler is going for it in Uncut Gems. Cruise would rather make another Mission Impossible than an indie film. 

    What pisses me off about Wahlberg is that he plays a tough guy in every single movie. He hasn't played a vulnerable character since Boogie Nights. Even in The Fighter, he's not chasing any demons, but his messed up family is and he's just kind of there. I wouldn't suggest his co-star in another movie with Christian Bale or any actor of similar chops. 

    Cruise is an interesting one.  I actually think he is a very solid to great actor.  Obviously a number of his roles are cheesy and campy and he does cheesy and campy really well, but he also has some great roles where he is very good and he holds his own with some of the all time greats.  Color of Money was excellent and he showed great range and went toe to toe with Paul Newman.  Days of Thunder was as cheesy and campy as you get but he acted one on one in many scenes with Robert Duval and held his won easily.  It is hard to think of a movie he wasnt pretty good in.  Unlike Walhberg where he just flat out sucks in certain roles.

  14. On 4/20/2021 at 2:20 PM, Beau Vine said:

    Wahlberg was great in Boogie Nights.

    To me, this is a perfect example of what I see in Walhberg.  He was OK in Boogie Nights primarily because his role had little or no range and he could just be this mousy, soft spoken do gooder type role that he is good in.  But watch it critically when he is on screen with other great actors (and Boogie Nights had a shitload of great actors).  Seymour Hoffman, Julienne Moore, Ed Macy, John Reilly, Don Cheadle- I would consider all of them to be much better actors than Wahlberg but he is a bigger "movie star".  If you watch him in movies like Ted, The Gambler, Planet of the Apes, Italian Job, Daddys Home etc. his acting is pitiful.  Some of those movies were good and some were bad but his personal performance in them was almost cartoonish.  I think part of it is that he just isnt that intelligent.  

    But like I said, he is a bona fide movie star and I enjoy some of his movies.  He just is not a great actor.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  15. On 4/20/2021 at 2:19 PM, sidis said:

    wahlberg is a good one but this one depends a lot on the threshold for "stars."  i would submit cage, segal, sandler, stallone, and plenty of others.

    the a-list actress with the least amount of range based on my observations is kristen stewart.

    Did not expect this many replies.  To make it more objective (which is really hard- thats what she said) I look at actors specific performance based on the role they are cast.  Every actor has made a bad movie but that doesn't mean their acting was bad in it.  I also like to watch 2 actors together and it becomes apparent when one is better than the other.

    Agreed on Cage and Stallone and Segal just isnt what I would call a great "movie star".

    Sandler is a bit of an outlier.  It takes real acting chops to make it on SNL.  Plus he writes so many of his own movies and is clearly playing to a base.  He was pretty solid in Hidden Gems and he never gets over shadowed by other actors.

  16. Was having this discussion with a group the other night. We were talking about truly big time, bankable actors (even some Oscar nominees/winners) that are really just not very good at acting.  Of course, acting can be quite subjective.

    My contributions:

    Mark Wahlberg- He is basically rangeless.  In The Fighter, it is almost comical how much better of an actor Christian Bale and Amy Adams are compared to him. Also, he received a lot of critical Acclaim for his role in The Departed.  I watched it agin recently, admittedly I was high so the good was really good and the bad was really bad, but his scenes were almost comically bad. His range is so small it is amazing he is as successful as he is.  And seems like a genuinely good guy. 
     

    Scarlett Johansson- She is certainly a bona fide movie star and incredibly attractive.  But, like above, her range is very limited.  I do think she is getting better.   
     

     

  17. 3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Bless your heart.

    Thanks?

    Im curious though.  Do you think if we keep 2500-4000 troops in Afghanistan long-term that the “no casualties“ will continue?

  18. 20 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

    That's not what we're talking about.  We're talking about 2021.  In Afghanistan.  

    In 2021 Afghanistan, we're keeping 4,000 troops in country--without a fatality--in order to keep a foothold in a strategic area and preventing a Taliban takeover.  I think that's a good ROI.

    If you want to talk about history, we can talk history.  But I'm talking about the present and the future.  History can inform our decisionmaking.  But it's a poor substitute for analysis of current conditions.

    A good argument can be made for staying but the cost you speak of, specifically no casualties, is temporary.  The former admin made a deal with the Taliban to be out by May and, in return, the Taliban agreed to basically stand down.  
     

    But they , the Taliban, have already said they will go back to being the terrorists that they are if the May deadline is extended.  When Americans start dying again the cost/benefit isn’t going to mean much.   

  19. 2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    The Texags crowd would be much more ambivalent about the outcome if Floyd had been white.  Yes, they'd still be generally "pro cop," but they wouldn't have their passions raised to this level.  This picture appeals to the visceral, base instincts of the worst of America -- white cop, face of law and order, of what...you know.....REAL American society looks like, versus black thug, on drugs, criminal history.  It hits all the notes, and gets them worked up into a frenzy.  We know this about people -- tell them a story of the exact same conduct, but give the character a "black sounding" name vs. a "white sounding" name, and the description of the "black" character are more harsh, judgmental, etc.  Studies have literally been done on that sort of thing.

    Sure, the legal defense of Chauvin would be the same no matter what, because in court, you play the facts you've got.  But the passions of jurors....they can and do involve race, because the passions of some Americans on anything involve race.

    Oh, and I'm not suggesting that a racist/shitty juror on the jury sways the other members of the jury.  I'm suggesting that he holds out, resulting in a mistrial.  To the extent I suggested acquittal based on such a juror (I may have, didn't re-read all my posts), I'm actually suggesting a mistrial.

    I suppose it is possible.  I think an analysis of actual trials (not TV/movies) would show that the lone hold out thing is very rare (not simply hung juries but specifically lone hold outs).  It is a bit higher when considering multiple charges but still a very small number.  And even rarer are instances where a lone hold out caused a mistrial that 11 other jurors decided differently where the next trial did not result in a conviction or a plea that involved significant jail time.  It happens and that is just a part of our system.  But I do not believe that the racists you decry actually change justice.  They might delay it, but there are no where near enough to actually change anything.  

    Appreciate the debate.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  20. 23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Counterpoint: I'm not telling you what I believe or not.  I'm not putting any real spin on the belief I cited.

    1 -- Go read Texags.  And while they are just socially aware enough not to type the N-word out, read their collective posts, and there is zero mystery.  Race isn't the only factor in the psychotic tapestry they weave, but it's a big fucking thread.

    2 -- realize that people like that also live in Minnesota and were certainly in the jury pool.

    So, yes, potential jurors absolutely would acquit based on the kind of reasoning I pointed to.  They are flat-out saying so.

    Why is it so hard to believe that we have a material number of really shitty racist people in our society?  I know that we'd rather that not be the case, but that doesn't make it any less true.

    I will politely pass on Texags and take your word for it.  To your overall point, we just disagree on the size and scope and influence.  I certainly believe there are racists in society.  It is human nature.  There are racists among every type of humans in every society.

    I am just going to believe that the scale of racist that you like to describe is very small.  I think the chances that a true racist could make it into the jury pool and be selected for this trial and pass through jury selection without detection and then have enough sway over the other jurors to get them to decide in a manner that they would not have otherwise is so small that it is not worth talking about.  I think the legal defense of Chauvin would be exactly the same if the only difference were that Floyd was white.  I do not believe (and really do not believe you do either) that people on the jury would vote in anyway diffferent than they will if Floyd was white or Chauvin was black.

    I think the dialog on sites like Texags would be identical if Floyd was white.  I think they are massively more pro police than anti black in their arguments and rhetoric.  Do you really believe that if the exact same circumstances existed but Floyd was white that a site like texags would be calling for Chauvin to be guilty?  I do not.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  21. 1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

    Oh, if you're saying that the jury could bite on something that as a matter of law is irrelevant, I absolutely agree.  That's actually why I think there's a fair chance of acquittal -- the "scary big black guy with a criminal record who didn't obey all orders" angle.  It works.  See Texags.

    That is exactly what I am saying but not in the overtly racist way in which you are saying it.  I do not think the race angle you embraced will have much of anything to do with the outcome.  In fact your whole ridiculous statement "scary big black guy with a criminal record who didn't obey all orders" is worthless.  I don't think anyone on that jury would acquit based on anything related to your statement.  However, if a medical expert tells them that the amount of drugs found in the defendants system was capable of causing him to have difficulty breathing and was large enough to cause his death then I think any person would have to at least consider that.  And, as I pointed out, they would only consider it relevant if the other factors I outlined were also present.

    I don't think it will happen and I think the guy deservedly goes down.  I am just suggesting a scenario that could end in his acquittal.

×
×
  • Create New...