Guest #26 August 25, 2006 Ron Perlman has been soldiering on in show biz for over 25 years, and only got a starring role in 2004, in "Hellboy"."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #27 August 25, 2006 QuoteAs we know, Hollywood has always put so much emphasis on looks. I've often wondered if there are really great actors out there who never get a chance at a roll because they're just not attractive. Are we really getting the chance to see the best acting on the screen or just the best acting of the good-looking people? Chris Well, one could argue that actors such as Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, Robert de Niro, Tom Hanks et al are not your typical GQ material cover material. They may be hansome, charismatic, etc... But they are no Di Caprio or Cruise as far as "typical" good looks are concerned. We just grow to love them through the characters they play, because of how they come across. As much as I like to denigrate actors, the huge majority work hard to get where they are. The myth of the kid with the good looks being cast for a blockbuster movie while minding his/her own business on a sidewalk is the exception rather than the rule. More often than not, the looks are more important to the studios marketing department than it is to the producers. All know that bad acting will kill a good script. Good acting may save an average script. Add directing, lighting, and editing to the equation, and the look becomes more often than not irrelevant. Except for the PR department. Makes for beautiful smileys in the press. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #28 August 25, 2006 QuoteAs we know, Hollywood has always put so much emphasis on looks. I've often wondered if there are really great actors out there who never get a chance at a roll because they're just not attractive. Are we really getting the chance to see the best acting on the screen or just the best acting of the good-looking people? Chris The funny looking ones are called "character actors". I expect they get the occasional roll in the hay too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #29 August 25, 2006 QuoteThe funny looking ones are called "character actors". I expect they get the occasional roll in the hay too. My Dad is a character....and a character actor, as well. He worked very, very hard to get where he is, and it took something like 50 years before he got a role in a sitcom for which he is recognized everywhere he goes. He is not a "handsome" man; more along the lines of Jack Nicholson rather than Newman (his contemporaries). However, he is a damned fine actor. Dunno about his rolls in the hay; there are some things a daughter just doesn't need (or want) to know. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #30 August 25, 2006 QuoteThe funny looking ones are called "character actors". I expect they get the occasional roll in the hay too. Touche. Maybe my theory applies more to females in Hollywood. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #31 August 29, 2006 >IF his next film makes loads at the box-office, you can bet they'll >welcome him back with open arms, regardless of his behaviour. Didn't even take that long. From CNN Money: ------------------ First and Goal, headed by the owner of the National Football League team, will provide development and overhead financing for (Tom Cruise's) firm, Cruise/Wagner Productions for two years, with an option to renew after that, the companies said. ------------------ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #32 August 29, 2006 Lets spin this for a second. This discussion seems to be assuming that Cruise was a victim or at least a passive player in the termination of the contract. I bet there was a lot more behind the scenes that we know about. Cruise may have appeared to become a bit less controlled lately and so many assume that he's "gone crazy." But I think that he may have always thought a little outside of the box and with changing his consultants is just showing it a bit more. Actors and public personalities have to project a certain image at all times to remain "popular." Tom's jumping on the couch - he must be crazy. Jennifer's being indecisive with Vaughn - she must be reason that her and Brad broke up. Ohh and this other actress left the house without her makeup - she must be depressed or on drugs or ..... It must get very annoying trying to act perfect every day. Maybe he decided "Fuck that." But does that mean that he's any more or less intellegent or in control of his future. Maybe he just decided it wasn't worth the battle to him to continue with Paramount. k. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #33 August 29, 2006 QuoteLets spin this for a second. This discussion seems to be assuming that Cruise was a victim or at least a passive player in the termination of the contract. I bet there was a lot more behind the scenes that we know about. Cruise may have appeared to become a bit less controlled lately and so many assume that he's "gone crazy." But I think that he may have always thought a little outside of the box and with changing his consultants is just showing it a bit more. Actors and public personalities have to project a certain image at all times to remain "popular." Tom's jumping on the couch - he must be crazy. Jennifer's being indecisive with Vaughn - she must be reason that her and Brad broke up. Ohh and this other actress left the house without her makeup - she must be depressed or on drugs or ..... It must get very annoying trying to act perfect every day. Maybe he decided "Fuck that." But does that mean that he's any more or less intellegent or in control of his future. Maybe he just decided it wasn't worth the battle to him to continue with Paramount. k. I don't think Cruise has "gone crazy." I think he has been crazy for QUITE some time. The Matt Lauer interview just cinched it for me. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #34 August 29, 2006 QuoteThis discussion seems to be assuming that Cruise was a victim or at least a passive player in the termination of the contract. I most certainly don't see him as the victim; I see the whole situation as a powerplay that overextended Cruise's hand. I see it as a studio deciding that a stable member is more liability than cash cow. And I see it as the culmination of quite a few years of bizarre, unacceptable behavior. The combination of all of that was the end of the road for him at Paramount. I don't think he's a victim, unless you mean he's a victim of his own ego, his own eccentricities, and his own behavior. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
