Allgemeines > Bücher, Filme, Publikationen

Tom Cruise\'s Weihnachtsgeschenk an die Welt

<< < (5/7) > >>

Jimo:

--- Zitat von: \'Axebreaker\',index.php?page=Thread&postID=17223#post17223 ---All you addressed were the easy ones to form a different opinion.You did not comment on my opening statement.

--- Ende Zitat ---

You mean this one: \"A good actor is someone who can draw you into their story and keep you involved.\" Well it\'s nothing more than an opinion isn\'t it?  If he doesn\'t draw me into a story and keep me involved,  does that make him a bad actor. Of course not. Could be but musn\'t be. Again you are using a fallacy.


--- Zitat ---Almost all Sucessful actors stay in the field that they can make work more or less.

--- Ende Zitat ---

\"Almost\" and \" more or less\" doesn\'t sound very convincing. Actually I think you\'re trying to explain the difference between great actors and actors. A great actor and an actor can not only play in one field. You have just explained the dividing line yourself.


--- Zitat ---I think Denario ... but I don\'t think he could have pulled off Depp\'s role in Pirates of the Car. anywhere near as well,does that make him less of an actor?

--- Ende Zitat ---

Again you\'re using a fallacy. Just because you can\'t imagine him doing so, doesn\'t prove it impossible. Robert De Niro (I guess you mean) could very well act a great Cpt Jack Sparrow (given he being about Depp\'s age to fit the role). That\'s why he\'s a great actor.

The rest of your comments IMHO don\'t bring anything new on what\'s an actor and not.

Axebreaker:

--- Zitat ---You mean this one: \"A good actor is someone who can draw you into their story and keep you involved.\" Well it\'s nothing more than an opinion isn\'t it? If he doesn\'t draw me into a story and keep me involved, does that make him a bad actor. Of course not. Could be but musn\'t be. Again you are using a fallacy.
--- Ende Zitat ---

No it\'s not a fallacy.

If an actor is not able to draw people into his characters that he is portraying then he is not a good actor.Since I was implying people as a whole and not just what you think
 then that is true statement and not a fallacy.If you can\'t act,you will not continue to be hired and people won\'t see your films.There is no fallacy in that.Everyone we have talked about has had a long and successful career.One can only persume they have acted the roles they were given very well or their career\'s would have finished along time ago.


--- Zitat ---\"Almost\" and \" more or less\" doesn\'t sound very convincing. Actually I think you\'re trying to explain the difference between great actors and actors. A great actor and an actor can not only play in one field. You have just explained the dividing line yourself.
--- Ende Zitat ---

I was talking about them all.Not just the ones you don\'t like.They stay in what they are good at.For example Robert Denario young or old would not put on a Superman outfit and try act the part unless it was for a joke,but Christopher Reeve would(with success).Even when Denario does a comedy he portrays a CIA agent or mobster or something like that.They all keep with what works.Sometimes they can act more then one type and pull it off,but not every.All the actors we have discussed have crossed over into different fields from time to time and were successful,but in general they mostly stayed within the field they do best.All of them.

I believe I have explained myself very well in saying some actors are better then others,but that does not make the other ones bad.History has proven that all of the actors we have talked about are good for the simple reason is that people,again key word here people wish to see them again and again and pay to do so.They are all good entertainers(that is what an all actors do by defination) and they are all artists (that is how they interpret the characters).They have been very successful in doing so regardless of how you may feel.That is not a fallacy,their careers speak to that.


--- Zitat ---Again you\'re using a fallacy. Just because you can\'t imagine him doing so, doesn\'t prove it impossible. Robert De Niro (I guess you mean) could very well act a great Cpt Jack Sparrow (given he being about Depp\'s age to fit the role). That\'s why he\'s a great actor
--- Ende Zitat ---
.

I never said it was impossible, I made a reasonable assumption based on the characters that Denario has played.He plays characters with an edge and not goof balls or zany because it does not fit him.Johnny Depp on the other hand is great at playing this type and has made himself a little corner in Hollywood in doing it.So,what I said is a reasonable statement based on their acting history.I could see Denario for example as a ruthless cunning captain or one that has gone insane and your not sure if he will help you or kill you.Denario is a master of this type but not a zany,whoops I guess I somehow made it work.It\'s true that this is an opinion,but a reasonable one to arrive at.

All actors are entertainers and good ones have a long history and the bad ones simply do not.

I think a fair comment at the beginning of your theme should have been I don\'t think Tom Cruise is the right choice for this role as it does not suit him very well and I don\'t think he would be very convincing.In addition I don\'t like his style of acting.All of that would of been opinion and would not have gone against any reasonable or logical assesment of Mr. Cruise.
That I think would have been fine.But,you went on to say he was a bad actor and there is where I believe you went wrong,because history does not support that statement.People do not pay over and over again to see a bad actor.They do not feel sorry for Tom Cruise and pay to see his films because of charity.They pay because they like to see him act.I personally am not a big fan of Tom Cruise,but nor am arrogent enough to say one of the highest grossing actor\'s in history is a bad actor.I think he\'s ok,but that\'s just my opinion,but the weight of history is against me and this I understand and therefore I except fact over opinion.


--- Zitat ---The rest of your comments IMHO don\'t bring anything new on what\'s an actor and not.
--- Ende Zitat ---

To use another way of getting my point across is to use another example.I am fan of the Dutch Masters and their style of painting and I not a fan of cubism or modern art as some wish to call it.I personally hate Picasso\'s cubism paintings,but would it be fair or even accurate for me to say he\'s a terrible painter.I think facts would say otherwise in that his following is far to large and numerous and his works have continued to be viewed and sold over many years.That is how we measure success(longevity).In other words the facts would say otherwise and my response should be, I do not enjoy Picasso\'s work and have no interest to own or view any of his cubism paintings.That is a fair statement and implys nothing other then an opinion and not a statement against the weight of his success or capability.This would be true of Tom Cruise or any of the actors you mentioned so far.Does this help to drive my point home futher or am I still not getting through.

Another thing,before you bring it up which I\'m sure you would have is the use of fact.There is the absolut fact that cannot be argued for example 1 +1 =2.Then the other is theoritcal fact or weight of opinion that makes something a fact.For example the overwhelming amount people would say that Jack Nicholson is a great actor and that it would be fair to say it\'s a  fact,but of course it\'s not a scientific absolut.I of course am using the theortical fact in this dicsussion for most cases,therefore no need to bring it up.

Jimo:

--- Zitat von: \'Axebreaker\',index.php?page=Thread&postID=17255#post17255 ---\"No it\'s not a fallacy\"

--- Ende Zitat ---

The one you used is one (or two) of the most often used. It qualifies as a  post hoc ergo propter hoc, e.g. false cause or questionable cause fallacy. Concluding that oneself feels drawn in etc. by someone \"acting\" is proof of his quality or ability of \"acting ... is a fallacy. It also qualifies as a confusing cause and effect fallacy.

All in all your last reply shows IMHO, as I implied with my last posting, that this exchange isn\'t getting us anywhere. IMHO it show something very clearly. We both have a very different set of standards on judging what is acting, good acting and great acting. It seems to me that I judge on the performance of the actor himself, his ability to act differing characters etc. types, his ability to act, not acting more or less the same role time and again etc. What strikes me in your standard, going by what you write, is the fact that you mention over and over again, kind of like beating a dead horse, is the appeal to popularity. In other words: If it\'s a box-office hit, if people vote with their feet, e.g. go and watch the film ergo the main actor must be an (good) actor. But that again is a fallacy, the appeal to popularity fallacy. Accepting a claim as being true simply because a majority of  people are favorably inclined towards is ... a fallacy. Man quickly falls into a trap if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim. In other words it\'s fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for such claims.


--- Zitat ---For example Robert Denario ...

--- Ende Zitat ---

Makes me wonder (for a third time) who you are talking about. Twice I\'ve suggested that you probabyl have Robert De Niro on your mind. But again you mention Robert Denario. Makes me wonder.


--- Zitat ---... History has proven that all of the actors we have talked about are good for the simple reason is that people,again key word here people wish to see them again and again and pay to do so.

--- Ende Zitat ---

There it is again. Your appeal to the popularity fallacy.


--- Zitat ---I think a fair comment at the beginning of your theme should have been I don\'t think Tom Cruise is the right choice ... That I think would have been fine.But,you went on to say he was a bad actor and there is where I believe you went wrong,because history does not support that statement.People do not pay over and over again to see a bad actor.

--- Ende Zitat ---

And again you use the appeal to popularity fallacy and even top it with what you believe I should (!!!) have said. Amazing. That qualifies as a creating a straw man fallacy. But in the end you\'re even going to top that (see below). Anyway, I couldn\'t say that because it would constitute a lie because it\'s not what I believe. BTW nowhere did I write that Cruise is a bad actor. I made it very clear (more than once!) that he doesn\'t qualify for me as an actor per se.  


--- Zitat ---... I personally am not a big fan of Tom Cruise,

--- Ende Zitat ---

I wonder why? Doesn\'t his acting appeal to you?


--- Zitat ---but nor am arrogent enough to say one of the highest grossing actor\'s in history is a bad actor.

--- Ende Zitat ---

There it is again, the appeal to popularity fallacy. BTW I wouldn\'t be that arrogant either (see above).


--- Zitat ---I think he\'s ok,but that\'s just my opinion,but the weight of history is against me and this I understand and therefore I except fact over opinion.

--- Ende Zitat ---

He\'s OK? That\'s a major difference then between us two it seems to me. I don\'t spend my money on \"actors\" or films that are OK. But ... btw ... again you use the appeal to popularity fallacy. It\'s so striking because you use it all the time. BTW it reminds of a saying one of my teachers once used to explain this fallacy. It has since then stuck, I guess because it\'s so desriptive: \"Sit on shit because trillions of flies can\'t be wrong.\"


--- Zitat ---... Does this help to drive my point home futher or am I still not getting through.

--- Ende Zitat ---

No it doesn\'t because again you\'re using the appeal to popularity fallacy.


--- Zitat ---One thing,before you bring it up which I\'m sure you would have is the use of fact. ...

--- Ende Zitat ---

As above I think this fallacy of yours can\'t be topped anymore. Sheer amazing on your behalf. You build up what you\'re \"sure\" (!!!) of I\'m going (!!!) to say/use. Maybe the worst straw man fallacy I\'ve ever seen used on me. What you\'re doing simply ignores my actual position and substitutes it with an exaggerated and distorted (as seen above) version of what you suppose (!!!) I would say. Actually this is also a tried method of manipulation. I don\'t know if your doing this on purpose. It\'s a fallacious reasoning as it attacks a distorted and/or supposed version of an implied  position, but it doesn\'t constitute an attack on the position itself. Rather a tried attack on the person. Rather clever, if undetected. Not a sound foundation for me  to have a profitable discussion (at least not on this subject). We are both wasting our time.

Axebreaker:
@Jimo

 :sleeping:

Tellus:

--- Zitat von: \'Jimo\',index.php?page=Thread&postID=17300#post17300 --- We are both wasting our time.
--- Ende Zitat ---
Absolutly,but you\'re both very entertaining ;)

Navigation

[0] Themen-Index

[#] Nächste Seite

[*] Vorherige Sete