|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 23, 2024 5:40:32 GMT
Again, another agenda driven self oriented take. It's your opinion? Ok? You think Hackman is better regarded than Hoffman. Someone else would say different. Only thing you can say is Hoffman kinda stunk after 88 while Hackman continued to do some great stuff, but I dont think that alone can drive your agenda fully home as well as you're intending it to. Well said......also don't get testy with him - because we know how this ends........with him crying to a moderator and shit The Hoffman-Hackman debate is a good one because it isn't like Hoffman was great on film for "only" 10 or 12 years like George C. Scott or Russell Crowe imo - who were great but maybe surpassed because 10-12 years is not THAT long in the case of their rivals (imo)......... but 21 years.....like you can just take that 21 years if you advocate Hofman..........or not if you don't .............but Hoffman-Hackman are close because for a good chunk of those 21 years Hoffman was probably ahead of him to most people ..........where Hackman surpassed him - IF he surpassed him...........is hard for me to quite get when it maybe happened......... maybe the retirement also helped him a bit like it does sometimes?........
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 23, 2024 5:45:39 GMT
No it ends with me blocking him. I'd block you as well, but then your pesky r***sm might go unchecked, and we couldn't have that now
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Apr 23, 2024 8:10:47 GMT
Again, another agenda driven self oriented take. It's your opinion? Ok? You think Hackman is better regarded than Hoffman. Someone else would say different. Only thing you can say is Hoffman kinda stunk after 88 while Hackman continued to do some great stuff, but I dont think that alone can drive your agenda fully home as well as you're intending it to. Well said......also don't get testy with him - because we know how this ends........with him crying to a moderator and shit The Hoffman-Hackman debate is a good one because it isn't like Hoffman was great on film for "only" 10 or 12 years like George C. Scott or Russell Crowe imo - who were great but maybe surpassed because 10-12 years is not THAT long in the case of their rivals (imo)......... but 21 years.....like you can just take that 21 years if you advocate Hofman..........or not if you don't .............but Hoffman-Hackman are close because for a good chunk of those 21 years Hoffman was probably ahead of him to most people ..........where Hackman surpassed him - IF he surpassed him...........is hard for me to quite get when it maybe happened......... maybe the retirement also helped him a bit like it does sometimes?........ There is absolutely no question Hoffman was ahead of Hackman for the majority of those 22 years. No way Hackman got the kinda cred Hoffman did. Hoffman was in more movies. One of those guys who crossed into the common world (Kramer vs Kramer, Rain Man, Tootsie) and into the method acting universe as well (Marathon Man, Midnight Cowboy, Lenny). Even Straight Time a pretty under the radar movie is still a centerpiece of talent and significance. Look at what Michael Mann became after that. Also, when did Hackman get cred for common stuff like Hoffman did? Nobody talks about his work in Hoosiers for example. And Crimson Tide I've never heard anyone have any strong opinions for him in that. Superman movies feel fucking dated as hell. Who praises him in Young Frankenstein? Wilder and Kahn are the ones people sing about. Didn't think he was that good in Bonnie and Clyde either. Didn't drive the movie. I get he might "like" Hackman more. And that's fine. But to say Hackman is above Hoffman in regard is just fucking stupid. Ok, sure I'm all for difference of opinion and if you think Hackman is better regarded than Hoffman.....Go for it. But forcing some stupid bullshit on here is just annoying. How about some revisionist history here. Hoffman is definitely above Hackman for the majority of those 22 years. After '88, yeh I got Hackman didn't fade away as badly. But still, seriously now.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 23, 2024 11:25:26 GMT
Well said......also don't get testy with him - because we know how this ends........with him crying to a moderator and shit The Hoffman-Hackman debate is a good one because it isn't like Hoffman was great on film for "only" 10 or 12 years like George C. Scott or Russell Crowe imo - who were great but maybe surpassed because 10-12 years is not THAT long in the case of their rivals (imo)......... but 21 years.....like you can just take that 21 years if you advocate Hofman..........or not if you don't .............but Hoffman-Hackman are close because for a good chunk of those 21 years Hoffman was probably ahead of him to most people ..........where Hackman surpassed him - IF he surpassed him...........is hard for me to quite get when it maybe happened......... maybe the retirement also helped him a bit like it does sometimes?........ Even Straight Time a pretty under the radar movie is still a centerpiece of talent and significance. I think Straight Time is his 2nd best performance actually - it's a role DePac probably "should" have played but Hoffman playing it adds another angle they maybe could not have..........I thnk I've written about on hee or the IMDB days - my 2 favorite male performances of 1978 are Hoffman in Straight Time and Keitel in Fingers............one is about a criminal who can't really see himself as anything else...........the other one is about a criminal who fools himself into thinking he is something else
|
|