Drucken

[Axebreaker]

@Jimo

A good actor is someone who can draw you into their story and keep you involved.That is the prime defination of an actor end point.You can say everything perfect and still lack the charisma to draw people in.You need that ability and not everyone has it.The people you made fun of like Cruise,Schwarzenegger ,Stallone have it in spades.Ask how many people who know who Kenneth Branagh is.I think personally he over acted in Henry the V(hammed it up).Do you think Henry really talked and acted like that.Not very believable.I think Mel Gibson would of been better for that role.
The people your making fun of with sorry to say a typical hollywood critic elitist/snobbish attitude are one and all good at doing that(drawing people in).Schwarzenegger perhaps has one of the most famous lines in hollywood history with\"I\'ll be back\".Let\'s take Johnny Depp for example(who I like alot)and give him the same line,it would would be a joke and he could never pull off the Terminator as close to or as good as Schwarzenegger even with a perfect american accent!Could you imagine anyone else being Rocky other then Stallone(who wrote it by the way),and oh yeah lets not forget it won best picture.
Tom Cruise was outstanding at portraying a hot shot pilot in Top gun and not every actor could have pulled that off as well as he did.
Tom Cruise has made some very smart choices over the years in taking roles that he can pull off with conviction and his success proves that.Who cares if he says der Fuher wrong if his overall impression works.Schwarzenegger made so many errors with english, by your ommission everyone should never have gone to anymore of his movies.But let\'s face it,he made you believe he was Conan, the Terminator,and was very funny in kindergarten cop and Total Recall was a blast.He was believable in what he did.
A bad actor is an actor that cannot keep you in your seat or make his character interesting enough for you to care.There are alot of those,but the ones you make fun of are not in that group.
There are good actors those listed above are and there are a few great actors and they are listed below.
When I think of great actors that can both act in complex ways and have the vital charisma needed,then my favorites are(modern day) Denario,Crowe,Daniel-Day-Lewis,Washington,Nicholson,Pacino,Robert Downy-Jr and these I believe to be a true genius in their trade.

[Jimo]

... You need that ability and not everyone has it.

Just my point.

The people you made fun of like Cruise,Schwarzenegger ,Stallone have it in spades.

I don\'t know where I made fun of them. I made a statement that they are entertainers and aren\'t actors.

Ask how many people who know who Kenneth Branagh is.

That\'s actually a so-called fallacy out of ignorance. Just because many (if that\'s the case at all) people don\'t know for example who two of the best Shakespearian actors of all time were/are (Laurence Olivier and Branagh) only proves their ignorance. Simply because they might not expose themselves to real acting. IMHO people that \"know\" what real acting is, would usually know folks like Branagh. It\'s no a coincidence that he was a member of the  Royal Shakespeare Company.

I think Col. Tim Collins puts it well when he \"says in the Radio Times that, when he was serving with the SAS, they had a video of Kenneth Branagh\'s \"Henry V\" and little else to amuse themselves. \"We played it again and again.\" Well, thank God it wasn\'t \"Rambo\". A decade later, Shakespeare had so invaded, colonised and coloured Collins\' subconscious that, when called upon to say a few words to the troops on the eve of invading Iraq, he spoke in the plain, unvarnished voice of Henry V at Agincourt. With some biblical additions of his own. It was \"Cry God for Harry, England and the St James version!\" (The Guardian, 20 March 2008, by Nancy Banks-Smith).

think personally he over acted in Henry the V(hammed it up).Do you think Henry really talked and acted like that.Not very believable.I think Mel Gibson would of been better for that role.

I hope you\'re judging his acting on Henry V not only on the \"We few\" clip. One has to see the whole film. This then shows his masterful performance because he shows the different facets of Henry. A thing Cruise isn\'t able to do. Again you\'re appealling to a fallacy of ignorance. \"Do you believe ...\" It\'s not important what we believe how Henry spoke. What he said is important. From what we can tell and from getting as near as possible (through for example Shakespeare\'s Henry V text) how can firmly state that it\'s very possible that Henry spoke  in this manner. But even that isn\'t important because it would be/is actually be a fallacy of false cause or a non sequitur. The acting is to be judged, not if someone could have said soemthing etc.

The people your making fun of with sorry to say a typical hollywood critic elitist/snobbish attitude are one and all good at doing that(drawing people in).

I think you\'re getting a bit heated. On the \"making fun of\" aspect see above. I take the \"typical hollywood critic elitis/snobbish attitude\" as a compliment and badge. Never been apppraised as such but that\'s OK.

... most famous lines in hollywood history with\"I\'ll be back\".

I think what shows by now is that were talking about two totally different things. i\'m talking about the ability to act, you IMHO about something else. Whatever it may be.

.. Could you imagine anyone else being Rocky other then Stallone

Yes.

... lets not forget it won best picture.

Which again doesn\'t prove that Stallone could/act. Here we have a fallacy of causation versus correlation, which assumes that correlation implies causation). Ayway as you state youself: best picture, not best actor.

... Who cares if he says der Fuher wrong if his overall impression works.

Well I do care and all people I know(are cineasts) care too, simply because this is one way to determine if someone is a good actor.

Schwarzenegger made so many errors with english, by your ommission everyone should never have gone to anymore of his movies.

No. Your using a logical fallacy. Schwarzenegger\'s role let\'s him speak with whatever accent he actually wants. He\'s depicting (and very fitting!) the bit daft, akward, clumsy chap. Fits. Cruise is playing a German noble, Stauffenberg. Doesn\'t fit.

... When I think of great actors that can both act in complex ways and have the vital charisma needed,then my favorites are(modern day) Denario,Crowe,Daniel-Day-Lewis,Washington,Nicholson,Pacino,Robert Downy-Jr and these I believe to be a true genius ...

I can fully support that statement (if the first is to be Robert De Niro). Interestingly only men ...    Maybe we can agree to disagree. Cruise would be for you a \"good actor\", the others blokes \"great actors.\" For me the above mentioned are indeed great actors too, because they can act which Cruise can\'t (well, I haven\'t seen it yet). And Cruise can \"act\" in a certain sense. But then that would be a question of definition. Watching his \"act\" at the Scientology award ceremony, party, whatever (which can be watched on YouTube) again shows him in his IMHO only, typical \"role.\" His spectrum of acting isso narrow ...it\'s not the hallmark of a great actor, IMHO not even a good actor. It makes one wonder if he really believes the crap he said during that infamous speech.

[Axebreaker]

@Jimo

All you addressed were the easy ones to form a different opinion.You did not comment on my opening statement.

Almost all Sucessful actors stay in the field that they can make work more or less.Your using a very narrow lens to draw your opinions and not looking at the overall picture.For example  Branag- Shakespeare(who I like,but still think he over did it in Henry)Denario-Cop/Gangster,Lewis-serious,Depp-quirky,Schwarzenegger ,Stallone -action,Cruise-action,suspense etc.They are all smart enough to stay with what works for them.Their acting allows them to be believable in the roles they choose.Not all of them could do what the other does and pull it off well or as convincing.For example because Schwarzenegger can\'t do  Shakespeare,does not make him a bad actor,rather what makes a good actor is one who can act the roles he takes.Sometimes they make a mistake and don\'t act the character given them very well,but that dosen\'t make them a bad actor,because all of the actors we have talked about have over 90 % of the time acted the role they were given very well indeed,or we would not even be talking about them now.I think Denario is perhaps one the greatest actors we have ever had,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?I think not.They all have acted for the most part the roles given them to an outstanding level,and thats why people pay to see their films just because their name is on it.

One more thing overall I\'m not a big fan Tom Cruises movies although some I do like.Stallone\'s Rambo movies I did not like at all and I only really liked the first 2 Rocky\'s,and you should see Copland where he did a very good job in a \"serious\" role.Everything said,it takes nothing away from what I said in the first two paragraph\'s.Oh yeah,of course I saw the complete Henry the V(I own it),I wouldn\'t comment on his acting if I didn\'t watch it.He\'s done alot better in other roles.

As far as Cruises new movie goes,I don\'t know if it\'s good are not,but I won\'t let any prejudice get in the way from seeing it first.His movies normally do very well,so I have to give it the benefit of the doubt.

[Doc Phobos]

Oh dear! I MUST see the film. I just read somewhere that Stephen Fry will also appear in the film! Now, that is also a reason to go, even if it is just for a few minutes.

[Murphy]

Hm...

... ein Hollywood-Blockbuster über den 20. Juli... Nein, danke!

... Tom Cruise als von Stauffenberg... NEIN, DANKE!!! (Ich würde nicht per se sagen, dass er ein schlechter Schauspieler ist, aber diese Konstellation ist einfach nicht mein Fall. )

[Jimo]

All you addressed were the easy ones to form a different opinion.You did not comment on my opening statement.

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.

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

\"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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

\"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.

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.

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

.

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.

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

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]

\"No it\'s not a fallacy\"

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.

For example Robert Denario ...

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.

... 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.

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

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.

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.  

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

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

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

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

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.

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.\"

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

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

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

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]

We are both wasting our time.

Absolutly,but you\'re both very entertaining

[Axebreaker]

@Tellus

Absolutly,but you\'re both very entertaining  

Glad I could be of service.

[Driscoles]

Hallo,

ich habe heute den Operation Walküre Film angeschaut und fand ihn sehr gut. Tom Cruise hat sich wacker geschlagen. Wie weiter oben im Thread schonmal geschrieben, war ich mir nicht so sicher den Film anzuschauen und hatte auch wenige bis keine Erwartungen. Wir haben bei uns im Kino Lehrervorführungen für lau und da bin ich dann hin und wurde mit einem ambitionierten Film belohnt. Die Besetzung fand ich gelungen, die bekannte Handlung wurde spannend erzählt und hielt sich an die historischen Fakten ( to whom it may concern : Eddie Izzard und Kenneth Branach hatten nur kleinere Rollen). Ich kann den Film empfehlen. Vier von fünf Sternen !

Grüße
Björn

[Axebreaker]

@Driscoles

I\'m not surprised you liked the film.I\'m sure Tom did ok,but the main reason I\'m not surprised you liked the film is the director is outstanding.I recommed you rent the DVD \"The Usual Suspects\"another film by the same director.It\'s one of my favorite films of all time and the ending will blow you away! :thumbsup:

[Poliorketes]

The usual suspects / Die üblichen Verdächtigen hat wirklich eines der intelligentesten Drehbücher überhaupt. Und Kevin Spacey ist die Wucht in Tüten.

[Axebreaker]

@Poliorketes

Thank you for the quick interpretation,I appreciate it.All the actors did a fine job,but your right Kevin Spacey was truely fantastic!