Fans of Interracial Romance discussion
Movies & TV
>
Recyclable Actors and Actresses. (Where's The New Batch?)
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
That's how lesser known actors get their break. That's how Bradl..."
I've liked Chris Noth for a long time. I don't like Mr. Big, but I don't mind looking at him. :)
I like that TV allows some very talented actors to work. It's kind of sad when an actor gets related to Lifetime Movie work (career-wise, because I think they are kind of looked down on), but there's a place for those kinds of movies, and probably they get watched as often as movies released at the cinema. I wish that the tv networks still did the miniseries epics like they did in the 80s. Those were very cool, with lots of actors.
Danielle wrote: "Some actors I love because I think that they disappear as a person into a role. They live the life of that character (but personally, I think this is dangerous because it does affect their lives. I think that the method actors have to be especially careful about this because it's hard to turn off)"Me too. I like when the actor as you know him / her to be in real life is no where to be seen. That's great acting in my opinion, because an actor's job is to bring alive the character they're trying to portray. I remember watching the mild, soft-spoken Forrest Whitaker totally transform IN THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND and it was pure genius. My husband and I were like WOW. That is an Oscar nod right there and sure enough he got it and won it, and he bloody well deserved it. Brilliant piece of acting. I was thoroughly impressed.
As for the method ... when I briefly went to acting and film school before changing my major some 20 odd years ago most of my teachers didn't like the method for very much the same reason you stated. Many NY acting coaches still don't like the method, and if you want to learn the method the Lee Strasberg Institute is pretty much the only place in NYC that teaches it in depth, as far as I know. Other schools will borrow components of the method, but will have other techniques as their specialty.
The moods and feelings of the character are not easy to shake once you've gotten in very deep and there are people who fall into a depression or take a very long time to come back to themselves. The method certainly is not for everyone, but I'm a proponent of it. It's not that it's necessarily a better technique than others, to me its just the technique that is most likely to get the actor to possess the role. To BE the character, rather than just playing him/her. Anyway, there are many many actors who hate the method and they're still darn good & successful actors. Marlon Brando who started out as a method actor and then abandoned it when he was introduced to Stella Adler who taught him her system. Using her technique he's won critical acclaim the world over.
So what it boils down to is a matter of personal preference really. Everyone will use what works for them. What gets them in the zone. If I had pursued my film career, I know for sure The Method would have been my chosen technique.
Danielle wrote: "It's dangerous to like an actor for who you think they are in real life. Just wait until they fall off the pedestal. But I admit, there are some actors I like because they are/seem like good people or have given something to the world. I like Angelina for that reason, because I like what she's doing for the children in the world."
True. When the news broke that Tiger Woods cheated on his wife, I was indifferent. 1) I'm not a fan, 2) I don't particularly care for his wife (having lived in Scandinavia there's just something about the women there that bugs me and most of all I believe she married him for his money anyway ...) and 3) I really don't get the big deal. So the guy cheated on his wife ... like what, over 50% of all men? Cheating on one's spouse -- esp when you're a zazillionaire high profiled celebrity golfer worth billions -- is not exactly newsworthy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not on his side here. Not condoning his behaviour, and even though I may have my issues with Scandinavians, not saying his wife deserved to get cheated on. Nothing saying he shouldn't be called on his behaviour either. I'm just saying people put these celebrities on pedestal waiting for the moment they topple off so they can snicker and pass judgments.
There are ball players, actors, politicans etc that I like, and the reason why I like them is because they have traits and or values I admire. If they fall out of grace by doing something I think is inappropriate I'm not going to turn on them unless its something really really bad like committing murder or abusing a child. Just because a person made a mistake -- albeit a very dumb one -- doesn't make them a bad person. I don't think Tiger Woods is suddenly a bad father or this inhumane person becausee he cheated. Maybe bad husband material, but not necessarily a horrible person.
Most guys cheat, we all know that whether we want to accept it or not. I don't understand why everyone gets their panties in a twist when these people are found out. I don't believe in this nonsense about deceiving public trust. Did they steal from you, did they take away your house, your kids or something important to you aside from your own grand delusions about them? These people are human beings. Not because they're in public office or because they live in the public are they exempt from human fallacy. I hate the hypocrisy the media perpetuates when these things come to light.
Angelina's work for underprivileged children is admirable, but I don't particularly care for her as a person because she appears to be very arrogant and rude to those who're not of her ilk. He's a good actor, but I dislike Robert De Niro for the same reason. De Niro lives in Tribeca, where I often have lunch with my clients. I've seen him many times and the way he treats people sucks. I don't know if he's mellowing in his old age, but that's what I know about him from the times I've seen him interact with people live. I've never seen or met Angelina (nor do I want to), but I've seen some interviews with her and read about her activities with the UN. She donates a lot of her money to good causes and I guess that should be enough, but for me it isn't. It's nice to be important, but its also important to be nice.
By the way, I hope this doesn't come across like I'm attacking your like of her. Not at all. I'm just saying why she doesn't work for me.
As for studio films vs indy films I agree. I used to prefer indy films because they were more artistic rather than commercially viable. Many of them still are, especially lot of the foreign ones, but these days the studios are dipping into the indy market because they've seen there's money to be made there. So now its all about the entertainment factor for me too. The film has to get the right reaction from me based on its genre. If its comedy, it has to make me laugh, if its horror I have to be scared, if its drama it has to move me and or make me think, if its a thriller, it has to thrill me; and I have to care about the characters even if I don't like the actors. If the film manages to satisfy me in that, then it has been a successful film for me. If I end up being totally impressed, and the movie wins an Oscar all the better. But if it doesn't, I'm satisfied as long as my time wasn't wasted.
Mod
You don't offend me at all in what you're saying about Angelina Jolie. We are all entitled to our opinions. I agree that being nice to others is important. I haven't seen her arrogance, but you might have seen more interviews with her or interactions with her and others.
It's a shame the De Niro can be a jerk in real life. That saddens me. I stopped reading interviews with actors, because I tended to dislike them more after reading them. I am trying to keep things separate with actors. I don't really want to know them as real people. I may not like what I find out. And it's really not my business how they live, as long as they aren't hurting others. And I tend to want to think the best of people, so it's a let down when you find out what a jerk some people are in real life.
Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "Tina wrote: "I'd love to see Karl Urban in more movies. When LOTR came out, everybody was all about Legolas or Aragorn. Not me, I was all about Eomer. Hmm. He was the only reason I sat through ..."Was Karl Urban in Pathfinder?
Mod
It's sad that Tiger is being dogged on magazines, etc. and the fornicator (a woman he committed adultery with) is getting paid to be on a magazine.
Why should a fornicator get paid? Both parties are wrong for their action.
Mod
Pathfinder is the viking movie. I could not remember the name of it. Thanks, Sharon.
Eugenia wrote: "The women who told the story got paid because a lot of people love drama and those magazines know it. One of the bad things about being put on a pedestal as a star is that folks love to see you fal..."Too true, unfortunately. I noticed that the last time at the grocery store checkout. I saw all the magazine/tabloid covers and wondered how these people "supposedly" know so much of what is going on in these celebrities lives. They treat these folks personal business like a soap opera to sell their trash. I stopped buying a lot of the magazines a long time ago when they started going that route.
Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "Sharon wrote: "Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "Tina wrote: "I'd love to see Karl Urban in more movies. When LOTR came out, everybody was all about Legolas or Aragorn. Not me, I was all about..."You're welcome Danielle
I remember because I saw it on a few weeks ago.
If you are a screenwriter/director and you're trying to get a producer to put some money behind your movie idea, you have to get some A-list actors in there. Many screenwriters write roles typically for a particular actor or that actor is working with a particular screenwriter or has written or is directoring a movie idea which is why you get a lot of actresses and actors playing the same types of roles over and over. They either like it or the studio feels that's what works for them. If they're bringing in the money, they can make that call.Usually new faces are found when an audiences' response to a new face. If you look at a lot of famous folks, they started out in some pretty low budget movies before people began to take note of her.
It's all politics in Hollywood.
Mod
Chaeya wrote: "If you are a screenwriter/director and you're trying to get a producer to put some money behind your movie idea, you have to get some A-list actors in there. Many screenwriters write roles typical..."I so agree with you on this, but I'm not sure it's politics (perhaps a little, around Oscar time). However, being in the business of making money for my clients I'd say Hollywood is a stark representation of the capitalistic dream. Literally, in this business money talks and bullsh!t walks. If you get it right, even ONCE, you have the potential of being set for life. No wonder so many people flock to Hollywood each year.
Therefore, when it comes to actors, it's all about who brings in the money. Paramount Pictures have been a key account for my company for the last several years. One of our most lucrative too. I've mainly worked on maximizing their position in international markets (as a distributor) rather than the domestic market because that's my specialty, but I've had the opportunity to sit in on a few of the meetings having to deal with the strategic direction of the industry, of which they have a large share. Its all about who can pull in the crowd at the box office.
They will use ANYBODY and ANYTHING (as in special effects) who/that will be able to do this, regardless of how little critical acclaim they garner. That's what make lame actors like Jennifer Aniston so popular and directors like Michael Bay so filthy rich. Usually, back when Hollywood was in its heyday it was all about the artistic validity of the film. Not saying making money wasn't a focus, but if the film made money and was largely panned by critics (professionals and laymen alike) that would have immensely rocked the boat.
Nowadays it's all about the ka-ching, the commerical viability. Who can go beyond the 100 mil threshold and critical acclaim be damned. As a result, new actors have to ride on the coat tails of the more established actors until they become more established in their own right -- provided they can continue to be attached to viable projects (that is to say, projects which make it up and beyond post production). Unfortunately for many up and comers this is their biggest uphill battle.
Because Hollywood is such a largely fragmented market for actors you won't know which projects are viable until you've already signed onto it -- only to later find out its going no where. Thus you've wasted time on a production that does nothing for your career. In other industries even if you've held the most insignificant post, you can argue in some way why it helps you to be suitable for a current job that you may be applying for. Not so in Hollywood. You may be able to write on your CV that you've worked with so and so (IF so and so has any level of influence in the business), but if s/he is a nobody like you or someone who is not respected, forget it. Casting directors want to see work that actually got you exposed, not work that got you on the cutting room floor. Or worse, work that didn't even get you to the cutting room. They want to know they can make some money off of you.
Only actors fresh out of drama school are given some leniency in this regard, and then again only so. People who've been active for some time, but have no solid credentials? You might as well start packing your bags.
Alexis Gilmore who starred in Matt McConguay(sp)'s SURFER, DUDE is one such example of an up and coming actor who was hurt by their association with a very poorly (commercially) received film. Anyone would've thought this movie would've been a smash hit among the 18-35, particularly male, demographic (thereby giving Gilmore a type of exposure that is likely to keep her star raising), but the film fell seriously flat. Not only was it panned by the critics, with a 5-6 million budget it only netted a woeful 50 odd thousand dollars. I mean, it was just sad. Now some directors may very well scoff at casting her in their film because she was attached to such a dismally underperformed film. And this is so unfair because it is not like she was the one cast to CARRY the film. Matthew MaConaughy was the pull who didn't pull. Last time I checked she's been attached to some less than well-received TV projects -- which are fine, at least she's working (which is ultimately the goal of any realistic actor) but they are not movies, which seriously boosts an actors career.
I haven't really investigated why this happened to Surfer Dude. It may very well have been because of inept "in-house" strategic decisions rather than people not wanting to see the film, but it goes to show how vulnerable a newbie actor is to a number of variables that are far out of their control.
In the business world (and a variety of less competitive industries) if you see that one area is not working for you, you can switch to another business unit that might be more productive. At the beginning of my career I started out in marketing, liked it but didn't feel challenged enough. I then switched to finance, found out that I hated the working with numbers, the horrid hours (I mean my kids were young at the time, I can't be working for 10, 15 hrs a day) and the general cutthroat nature of the unit. Then I switched to international management, the unit I'm in now, and I found my home.
Unfortunately actors don't have this luxury. Many times when they try to diversify their craft (directing, photography, costume, editing etc) their work is panned. So they either become an "out-of-work" actor (which is highly stigmatised, at least here in NYC) or they continue to take chances until the (big) break comes or they lose heart and quit the business.
I'm so glad the birth of my now 22 yr son derailed my intentions to get into showbiz. I love the art of movie making and story telling through motion pictures, but it's a vastly thankless job which requires a lot from you without any rewards in return. Not to mention you'd probably be living hand-to-mouth the vast majority of the time. The key in this business is perseverence. If you want it bad enough and stay focused, you probably won't get famous but you'll probably get to work regularly. The problem is human beings are not wired to be focused on one thing for their entire life. Actors will want to marry and start a family too, they'll want to travel and see the world, they'd want to pursue other interests parallel to their main profession -- but doing all of these things takes time away from nurturing your fledgling career. So in the end these things become a luxury only for those who've already made it, the rich and famous. I may be making a lot less money than an actor who has managed to break out, but I'm pretty content just consulting for the suits, thank the good Lord (if he indeed exists!). I lead a comfortable life, I have my privacy and my anonymity(sp?), I can pay my bills and still afford a few luxuries and most of all my kids are provided for. What more could I ask for?
Arch, you mentioned earlier that you had JOY RIDE. You should check it out sometime. I think you'd like it if you're into the whole mystery/thriller type of flicks. And Paul Walker is sure to provide sufficient eye candy.
Mod
I like Paul Walker and I like mystery/thriller movies. I think the movie is a horror movie. I might not watch it, because I am not into horror movies.
As I said its a mystery/thriller, not a horror. If you're okay with mystery/thillers, you're okay with this.
Mod
Davina, I'll check it out.
I've check the details about the movie and it's stated that it's a horror movie. But, I might still check it out. It's time for the movie to come out of the package.
Parris looks like Paul Walker. I'm about to write about my baby, Parris right now.
It's true Davina and there are a lot of "Hollywood politics" associated with decisions, even dumb decisions, bad timing and if you're a big named actor or actress, you have a better chance of recovering from a flop whereas a new actor will have to work thrice as hard to pull him or herself out of the mud of lame B list movies which many wind up released straight to DVD. The public mostly never see these movies unless they are pretty adventurous at Blockbuster or they find it on cable. I've found some great movies on cable, even with big named actors but because of stupid stuff the film was never released to the big screen or wound up straight to video where it made more money than flopping at the box office.Take the Dark Knight. Katie Holmes is not a great actress. She has the personality of a flea and I found myself pretty much ignoring her. The studio's decision to replace her with Maggie Gyllenhaal was an incredible move for the better. People tried to say she wasn't overly beautiful and kinda plump, but she brought Rachael Dawes character to life. She was convincing in the role, a good actress and I found myself emotionally responding to her when I can't even recount anything Katie Holmes even did in the first Batman. That's how much of an impact she had on me.
I love IMDb because you can really get in touch with how an audience took to a film. I like a lot of B-List movies, many which become big cults and big moneymakers on the DVD market. So just because a film flops or piffs out quietly into the night, often the DVD is kicking butt, especially Internationally. And many actors are working their tails off. They may not be all over ET, or can command outrageous sums of money, but they're working. Johnny Depp worked B-List movies for years because of the freedom he was given to work the role the way he wanted. The POTC happened and he was catapulted to major fame. But he's still been pretty much the same old Johnny. I had several friends make it into all three of the movies and they got to hang out with him. He's just a regular guy.
My old man got a callback for 3, but didn't get picked, so I'm waiting on 4 and I'm making him go and audition again. Woo Hoo!
Mod
I am having fun writing about Parris.
Poor advertising. This was no way a horror movie. The Grudge is a horror movie. Paranormal Activity is a horror movie. The Others is a horror movie. All you have in JOY RIDE is some dude tormenting a couple of kids with prank calls and what not. If that's your classification of a horror, ok, but that's a mystery/thriller to me. Just my few cents.Hey, my ex-con hero is also a Paul Walker type.
Mod
A lot of movie may be label as something else and still can be a horror movie. I usually can tell when a movie is a horror movie, just by seeing a little of the movie or even a clip. I was flipping the channel the other night and I've seen what appear to be a horror movie and it was, when I have clicked on the button to find out what the movie was about. The movie was labeled as a comedy, horror.
As for your ex-con, will we get to read about him on here or is your story a private story or even a story you are writing to get published.
I don't always write my characters to look like certain people. But, Paul Walker came to me, when I was thinking about Parris and Parris became a Paul Walker look alike.
Mod
Chocolate is a big fan of Paul Walker and Parris. Parris knows that she likes Paul Walker.
Mod
In the chapter I am working on now. Chapter Sixteen. Parris told Chocolate to guess, who he just ran into and she said Paul Walker and Parris said, "Who?"
He was playing with her. He knows who Paul Walker is.
Chaeya wrote: "It's true Davina and there are a lot of "Hollywood politics" associated with decisions, even dumb decisions, bad timing and if you're a big named actor or actress, you have a better chance of recov..."Too true about the "politics" in the context you described, particularly if you're a minority actor. I'm good friends with an actor named Rick Yune (he dated my sister's best friend for several years). He's been in a few fairly high profile films like The Cider House Rules and one or two others I can't recall now (I think he was also in one the earlier FF films but don't hold me to do. I don't really follow his career). He's got some pretty big names in his network, many of whom are willing to cast him in non-stereotypical bi-roles, but what ends up happening? Studio heads will boot him off a project because they want a more "mainstream" (read: white) actor in such a prominent secondary role. Or they chuck him off to the stereotypical roles that these idiots believe asians are supposed to play. Bunch a dicks.
Yeah, the DVD market keep a lot of actors in minimal work. I say minimal because while it keeps your craft honed, and a little money in your pocket, you're still barely living above the level of a pauper. Probably not everyone, of course, but most. More than likely you have to supplement your income with extra jobs in other fields. If actors want to maximise their potential they have to get into movies that do even marginally well at the box office (for eg Taraji P. Henson in Hustle & Flow or Tobin Bell in the Saw franchise). This way they're likely to get more opportunities like my friend Rick -- though because of his race (He's Asian, of Korean descent) he faces double sets of obstacles. The most important thing he has going for him now is that he knows a lot of people who are well-positioned in the industry. Where he might fail today because of a racist studio head and or producer (or for whatever else reason), he might be successful tomorrow with a different crew.
He may still be doing straight to DVD productions, but his name is out there among the right people, those who can actually see a project to fruition(sp?). When these big screenwriters, actors, producers etc have projects in pre-production they'll have it in the back of their minds or they'll take his calls when he rings. This is a golden position for a up and comer to be in, even though nothing comes of it in the short run. The long run prospects are what's important.
As for Batman, I didn't mind Katie Holmes in it although I'm not a fan. I thought she had better sexual chemistry with Christian, but is generally a poor actress, true. Maggie Gyllenhaal is definitely the more superior actress of the two. Did you see her in Secretary? She did an amazing job.
You know who is becoming a big fav of mine? Vera Farmiga. That woman puts such passion in her roles. I love her. Her latest film is with one of Tinsel Town's toppest dogs, George Clooney. It's just amazing how her star just catapulted. She's also a perfect example of an up-n-comer who was able to maximise on good contacts. Apparently she got her first big exposure in the Jude Law film Breaking & Entering. She then prepared a show reel and got someone from the BE film to get it to Martin Socorese and he cast her in ... can't remember the name of the movie but it starred Leo DiCaprio and Matt Damon. Think he may have even won the Oscar for it? Can't remember. Anyway, after that, there was no where but up. I mean she's starring with Clooney now, one the biggest names in Showbiz ... this not so attractive (by Hollywood standards) actress who is still relatively unknown to the domestic and international markets. I'm just impressed by her ingenuity.
Hey, best of luck to your old man. Let us know how things go! :)
Mod
I thought Secretary was a very good movie.
-- I heard that. I have work my way up to watching that one.