Quote:
Originally Posted by Disease
If you look back at my origanal post urge, I said he is the worst actor who keeps getting big parts, I can think of a number of horror actors who deserved more of a chance than he got...
|
oops i did miss that ..
i still think he's a decent actor though ... hardly the worst.
kevin kostner is worse than him..
i'm suprised people didnt jump on the keanu reeves or ben aflect bandwagons as usual.
i never consider an actor bad if they are limited and stay withing their scope until they develope - which isnt hard to do since the hollywood execs dont like to gamble their money and choose to run with the tried and tested formula. this is why typecasting flourishes.
when i watch a movie and see the actors performing exactly what the role demands of them .. i think they are doing their job.
some stretch themselves and prove to be above average or great.
i believe to be a truely bad actor - you are either dealing with a bad director (and editor) or you have something quite rare and special .. someone who simply cant act but somehow seems to keep getting parts ..
that's extremely rare .. a bad director is far more common.
the example i always use is Hell Comes to Frogtown VS They Live.
Hell Comes to Frogtown is a joke .. Roddy was bad .. BAD in that.
They Live - 1 year later ... and he was great.
One director understood Roddys strengths and weaknesses and knew how to use one to his best advantage - and limit exposure to the other.
the other director didnt have a clue ...
its like being any good leader/coach/manager ... understand the capabilities and limitations of your people and you can build a winning team of players that will compliment each other.