- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Actors who play themselves in every role
Posted on 4/27/15 at 10:02 am to frankreynolds
Posted on 4/27/15 at 10:02 am to frankreynolds
quote:
The Rock
Have to disagree here. Have you seen Be Cool, Pain and Gain. Not to mention his Disney movies. Yeah they weren't great acting but completely different from say his fast and furious, Scorpion King, G.I. Joe roles.
He may not be the best actor but he isn't scared to stretch his range and try new things.
1
Posted on 4/27/15 at 10:04 am to Chef Leppard
nic cage
k. reeves
they blow so hard
k. reeves
they blow so hard
Posted on 4/27/15 at 10:05 am to Alan Garner
quote:
no sean william scott yet?
Would agree here until I saw Goon.
Posted on 4/27/15 at 10:07 am to mindbreaker
quote:One of the best sports movies of all time. I never would've guessed by looking at the teaser poster and the title.
Goon
This post was edited on 4/27/15 at 10:10 am
Posted on 4/27/15 at 10:25 am to Obsidian
quote:
Tom cruise
Jason statham
Denzel
Will smith
Sean Connery
Vince Vaughn
Mark wall erg
Will ferrel is annoying
Adam sander
Tom hanks
Brad Pitt ?
This list is fricking terrible. Will Smith, Mark Wahlberg, Tom Hanks, and Brad Pitt have zero business being on this list. I can even make arguments that Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell have shown diversity when needed/wanted. And if I can make an argument for them, I can damn sure make an argument for Tom Cruise, Sean Connery, and, yes, Vince Vaughn.
Posted on 4/27/15 at 10:28 am to LoveThatMoney
Also, we covered this topic a few months ago.
Posted on 4/27/15 at 10:58 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
This list is fricking terrible. Will Smith, Mark Wahlberg, Tom Hanks, and Brad Pitt have zero business being on this list. I can even make arguments that Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell have shown diversity when needed/wanted. And if I can make an argument for them, I can damn sure make an argument for Tom Cruise, Sean Connery, and, yes, Vince Vaughn.
The problem is we haven't really defined what "diversity" means. I mean, I can see both the lists point and your point.
To me, it's someone that consistently displays the ability to move outside of their comfort zone, still build real emotions, but do it without the crutch of relying on their normal persona. I mean, it's a tough concept to describe, but that's where I would start.
It isn't about different roles (hero or villain), it isn't about different accents, different costumes, different movies, it's about the ability to build a real character through emotion, mannerisms, and communicate something completely different by BEING something different.
When it comes down to that, very, very ew actors actually do it well. And yes, I'm gunning for the top of the heap description. There's a difference between being in a bunch of different movies with characters who "seem" differet, and ACTUALLY being different. IMO.
Just because Vince Vaughn did that drama one time and that animated film another does not mean he's diverse., imo.
I follow a 80/20 rule on this: 10% of actors are truly great and diverse, 80% of actors do what they do well enough to get along and some are EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL at it. 10% suck.
This post was edited on 4/27/15 at 11:00 am
Posted on 4/27/15 at 11:06 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Just because Vince Vaughn did that drama one time and that animated film another does not mean he's diverse., imo.
O fair. Completely. But he doesn't "play himself in every role." Clay Pigeons and Psycho prove that.
Unless we are saying that "to play one's self" is to inject an ounce of one's own personality into the role, in which case there aren't any actors who do not play themselves in every role. Even the vaunted and lauded Daniel Day-Lewis injects bits of himself into his roles. It's just a dumb topic if it comes down to that.
That's not to say that Vaughn is on the same level as DDL and it's not to say that Vaughn doesn't mail in his roles sometimes by playing himself, but he isn't always the guy from Wedding Crashers/Old School either.
This topic, and the other one that's a spin off of it, has been hashed and rehashed on this board a number of times and each time there is no real understanding as to what the OP wants to say or what anyone thereafter is trying to say.
It is laughable to me that a guy with the range of Tom Hanks is considered to play himself in every role based on some silly notion that an actor has to become completely transformed into the character in order to "have range." In other words, the only actor with range is DDL, and even his range is limited because you do catch little nuances in his characters that are clearly him. It's just a dumb argument to me.
Posted on 4/27/15 at 11:17 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
It is laughable to me that a guy with the range of Tom Hanks is considered to play himself in every role based on some silly notion that an actor has to become completely transformed into the character in order to "have range." In other words, the only actor with range is DDL, and even his range is limited because you do catch little nuances in his characters that are clearly him. It's just a dumb argument to me.
Well, usually some try to at least advance the concept that there are two types of actors really. "Actors," and "Stars/Personalities." And I think there's a wide difference between the two.
One set gets character/emotion from their ability to be something different, the others form the comfort of who they are. Both are successful and both can be considered great, it just depends where that skill comes from.
My rant against Hanks is never about whether or not he's great, he's certainly great at what he does, but he isn't an "Actor," he' a "Star," what's great about Tom Hanks is his ability to get so much from such a small center. It's always Hanks and that's why he was so successful in the 80s/90s. Watching Hanks is like watching someone familiar every single time.
DDL, while you're correct in that he might inject a little of himself in every role, is certainly more about getting as far away from that as he can. And that's also, exciting to see.
Where I feel like I know who the real Hanks might be, it's always there under every character, I couldn't tell you what the real DDL is like. I have know idea other than probably tons of intensity. But I could be way off. That's the effect it brings, and whether or not it's necessary, it shapes how we view what we watch.
I'm a categorical person by nature, that's why I always get involved in this conversation. Putting the two in the same category is just misleading, regardless of them being great in their own respect.
Posted on 4/27/15 at 11:37 am to blueboy
quote:
To be honest, most "movie stars" fall into this category
yeah, even a guy like Samuel L Jackson who started out more versatile (Jungle Fever) has to turn in a Fast and Furious performance every time if he wants a big movie paycheck (by which I mean something predictable that the audiences enjoy and are comfortable with because they have seen it before)
Posted on 4/27/15 at 11:44 am to Freauxzen
For the longest time, a though I've had about most big stars is that they have a play a dual role for each part they portray. They have to play the character for which they are cast, and they have to incorporate into their portrayal the aspects of their own "personality" that people have come to expect.
Think of some of the big stars that get impersonated, or think of how a famous person gets portrayed on a show like SNL in which the comedian has to adopt the mannerisms of the famous person. Nearly every big star has a set of distinctive mannerisms that are easily recognizable.
A star can't just act and become a star. The actor has to have or adopt a set of mannerisms or "schtick" that is recognizable, "beauty moles" in the actor's "personality." The actor has to "stand out" from the crowd. Any fool can act, what makes the star stand out from the other fools is a set of distinctive mannerisms that sets them apart from the crowd.
However, an actor can't have the lisp of Bogart; that's been done. The actor can't have the mannerisms of Cagney; that's been done. In fact, the actor can't act like any former actor when performing a role. Nevertheless, the actor has to have some "thing(s)" that people can identify, that people can recognize as that actor.
In short, the big stars have to do an impersonation of themselves and take on the role of the character they are performing. It's not easy to play dual roles.
Anyway, that's a thought I've had about some big stars for a long time.
Think of some of the big stars that get impersonated, or think of how a famous person gets portrayed on a show like SNL in which the comedian has to adopt the mannerisms of the famous person. Nearly every big star has a set of distinctive mannerisms that are easily recognizable.
A star can't just act and become a star. The actor has to have or adopt a set of mannerisms or "schtick" that is recognizable, "beauty moles" in the actor's "personality." The actor has to "stand out" from the crowd. Any fool can act, what makes the star stand out from the other fools is a set of distinctive mannerisms that sets them apart from the crowd.
However, an actor can't have the lisp of Bogart; that's been done. The actor can't have the mannerisms of Cagney; that's been done. In fact, the actor can't act like any former actor when performing a role. Nevertheless, the actor has to have some "thing(s)" that people can identify, that people can recognize as that actor.
In short, the big stars have to do an impersonation of themselves and take on the role of the character they are performing. It's not easy to play dual roles.
Anyway, that's a thought I've had about some big stars for a long time.
Posted on 4/27/15 at 12:14 pm to Salviati
quote:
“Always be a first rate version of yourself and not a second rate version of someone else.”
? Judy Garland
Posted on 4/27/15 at 2:14 pm to Arksulli
quote:
Jimmy Stewart and Tom Hanks also get a nod here. No matter what the role they make it seem like themselves.
Have watched any movies with these 2? Hanks 1 year plays a gay lawyer dying of AIDS, then plays a borderline retard the next year. How do you conclude he's "just playing himself"? Posted on 4/27/15 at 2:26 pm to elprez00
He was a pretty great Andy Kaufman in Man on the Moon and he was great in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind as well.
Also a completely different guy in the Number 23 (which would have been much better had they chosen the number 42 instead).
Also a completely different guy in the Number 23 (which would have been much better had they chosen the number 42 instead).
Posted on 4/27/15 at 2:52 pm to Chesticles
quote:
Steve Buscemi
Because Nucky Thompson, Donnie Kerabatsos, Lenny Wosniak, Phil Hickle, Rockhound, Randall Boggs, Norther Winslow, Tony Blundetto, and Marty from Portlandia are all so similar.
Posted on 4/27/15 at 2:57 pm to colorchangintiger
Christopher Walken due to voice alone
Posted on 4/27/15 at 3:46 pm to BoogaBear
Bruce McGill
Jim Caviezel
Paul Giamatti
Jim Caviezel
Paul Giamatti
Posted on 4/27/15 at 3:54 pm to Chef Leppard
quote:I'll always point to Collateral when people say this.
Tom cruise is tom cruise in pretty much everything he's in
Posted on 4/27/15 at 4:08 pm to Chef Leppard
I clicked thread to put Vince Vaughn
Posted on 4/27/15 at 4:16 pm to mindbreaker
Those movies are all very different, but his role in them is kinda always the same. I haven't seen all them, but in every movie I've seen the rock in he's played a smooth, kinda badass guy.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News