|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Jan 22, 2024 4:40:32 GMT
Imagine prime Shat playing Hamlet though..... "To. Be or. Not to. Be. That. Is the. Question.”
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,738
Likes: 4,851
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Jan 22, 2024 4:43:13 GMT
Members of the general public who care about theatre work (usually citizens in the upper class) aren't hopping on websites like ranker.com. His high ranking on there is like 95% because of X-Men and Star Trek, nothing else. People here really don't get it. Or understand the mindset of genre fandoms. They crave respect, and they know which actors give their franchises credibility and why. Yes, the voting for him is likely mostly powered by the fanbase he's accrued through X-Men and Star Trek. That's a given and I already said that's why he has his following. But why do we not see these fans expending this kind of energy into pushing say incredibly popular franchise stars/characters like Brent Spiner, Levar Burton or William Frakes, Kate Mulgrew, Anson Mount or James Marsden or George Takei or Leonard Nimoy or Rebecca Romjin or Famke Janssen onto top random 10 Greatest Actor/Actress Lists? It doesn't happen. None of them have Stewart's " GREAT ACTOR" credentials (which stem almost entirely from his stage work and reputation). Genre fandoms are not stupid. They back the right horse. And the horse has to come with the credentials and the credibility in the first place. Hence, Stewart. Because they know those other guys and gals, no matter how popular they or their characters are within their franchises, are not credible options for those kind of "10 greatest ever" lists. So it'd look ridiculous to push them on there. These fandoms all know Stewart has that Grande Thespian Reputation as one of the great living Shakespearean theatre actors, so they'll put all their chips on voting for him as a credible option, and having him in these lists adds prestige to their comic book/sci-fi franchise. One thing feeds the other. If Stewart wasn't Sir Patrick Stewart, Genius Shakepeare Stage Actor ( same for Mckellen as well) , his genre fans would no more pretend that he has any place on these lists than they would for Leonard Nimoy or the Mystique who was way better and more loved by X-Men fans than Jennifer Lawrence. So yeah, it's still the stage rep at play. It's inextricably linked to how those fandoms rate and percieve him, and then vote for him. Most of them might not even be theatre/stage fans per se. But probably 95% of them are fans of his theatre/Shakepeare reputation, because it gives their geek franchise gravitas An aspect of the first X-Men I remember fans were clamoring for was seeing Stewart and McKellan go head to head as Professor X and Magneto. Their stage careers and reputations probably enhancing the excitement of them acting together with these famous comic book characters.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jan 22, 2024 4:43:37 GMT
Imagine prime Shat playing Hamlet though..... "To. Be or. Not to. Be. That. Is the. Question.” Plus we'd get to watch him break out the Shat Fu and manically jump around and not do any actual sword fighting in the duel at the end like in TOS fights.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jan 22, 2024 4:59:32 GMT
Yeah, I think they do pick up on it. Let me give you another example Do you know who the most respected actor by Star Trek fandom is? It's not William Shatner or Leonard Nimoy or any of the OG's. It's not Chris Pine or Karl Urban or any the current movie cast. It's Sir Patrick Stewart by far. What makes him stand out as an actor, above all the hundreds of actors, many hugely popular along with their characters who played in the Trek shows and movies over 7 decades? It's not because he also did X-Men movies. All those millions of Star Trek loving nerds are fully aware that Stewart is one of the greatest living Shakespearean stage actors, and are grateful for him becoming a key part of the franchise, because he added a weight, prestige and legitimacy and gravitas to the sci-fi franchise because of that Shakespearean stage pedigree. You hear Trek nerds talk about this all the time. It's one of the reasons why he's the only Trek actor and Captain to get his own individual spin-off show, Picard.Being one of the greatest living Shakespearean stage actors is integral to Stewart's legacy, respect level and profile, much of the general public know it and it factors into why he's so highly regarded and has a knighthood, not just because he played Picard and Professor X. Most actors best known for genre TV and film work do not have Stewart's respect level with the public. Stewart has that respect level because of Shakespearean stage pedigree. It's certainly not a footnote in his legacy. I think in the case of Stewart the work actually does matter. If he'd phoned it in for a paycheck the performance wouldn't be appreciated the way it was regardless of his stage background, he was giving 100% on TNG and has said he's as proud of his work there as any of his stage work. So it's the combination of having the talent and doing the work. No one thinks Shatner's a great actor because he's not a great actor, not because he hasn't done Shakespeare on stage. Imagine prime Shat playing Hamlet though..... I'd argue that Shatner is an actor whose achievements deserve more respect than they get. His performance as Captain Kirk is iconic for good reason. It stands up to anything Stewart did as Picard imho, and if he didn't deliver as Kirk, that franchise doesn't become this entity that is worth billions of dollars today. And Stewart never gets the gig that changes his life and career. Shatner is a 7 time- primetime Emmy nominee and 2 time winner ( won twice for Boston Legal, and recieved nominations for 3rd Rock From The Sun and The Practice). A record like that deserves respect for any actor.Shat actually has done Shakespeare on stage. That's how he started out in Canada. He was Christopher Plummer's understudy as Henry V, and took over the role when he got ill. So yeah, prime Shat actually could play Hamlet on stage ...his career just took a completely different direction so much so that people forget he started as a classically trained stage actor and are more likely to remember his cheesy music albums from the 70's...the kind of thing about him that was easy to mock .
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jan 22, 2024 5:52:53 GMT
I think in the case of Stewart the work actually does matter. If he'd phoned it in for a paycheck the performance wouldn't be appreciated the way it was regardless of his stage background, he was giving 100% on TNG and has said he's as proud of his work there as any of his stage work. So it's the combination of having the talent and doing the work. No one thinks Shatner's a great actor because he's not a great actor, not because he hasn't done Shakespeare on stage. Imagine prime Shat playing Hamlet though..... I'd argue that Shatner is an actor whose achievements deserve more respect than they get. His performance as Captain Kirk is iconic for good reason. It stands up to anything Stewart did as Picard imho, and if he didn't deliver as Kirk, that franchise doesn't become this entity that is worth billions of dollars today. And Stewart never gets the gig that changes his life and career. Shatner is a 7 time- primetime Emmy nominee and 2 time winner ( won twice for Boston Legal, and recieved nominations for 3rd Rock From The Sun and The Practice). A record like that deserves respect for any actor.Shat actually has done Shakespeare on stage. That's how he started out in Canada. He was Christopher Plummer's understudy as Henry V, and took over the role when he got ill. So yeah, prime Shat actually could play Hamlet on stage ...his career just took a completely different direction so much so that people forget he started as a classically trained stage actor and are more likely to remember his cheesy music albums from the 70's...the kind of thing about him that was easy to mock . I mean I like Shat, I'm just having some fun with him. He has enormous star quality and just the "it" factor which is why he worked so well as Captain Kirk and what he rode to success in all his later TV work. I still wouldn't call him a "great actor" though. I knew he was on stage but didn't know he did Henry V. I heard about him doing classic Greek stuff like Oedipus Rex which is similarly hard to imagine. I definitely don't think his Kirk as as good of an acting performance as Stewart as Picard either. Stuff like Picard getting tortured in Chain of Command and the mine meld scene with Sarek would be Oscar worthy acting had they been in movies. His not even getting an Emmy nomination during the show's run is just genre snobbery.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Feb 13, 2024 2:25:26 GMT
Crowe in 97:
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 13, 2024 15:22:20 GMT
I like how when I started this thread - THREE MAR Posters said it probably didn't deserve it's own thread (didn't it though? ).......and since then we have a similar Nolan / Murphy thread and now this one is coming up on 5 pages....... Classic MAR hypocrisy - top THAT Gold Derby
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 13, 2024 15:36:56 GMT
Well, it didn't deserve it's own thread neccesarily, but we made the most of it and turned a lemon into lemonade. The fact that I diverted the conversation to the merits of stage acting (which had nothing to do with the original thread subject matter) , and stayed on to keep people engaged in that conversation, kept the thread going for 2 or 3 pages more than it would have gone otherwise. You are free to say thank you, anytime you like, for keeping your thread going
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 13, 2024 15:38:18 GMT
You are free to say thank you, anytime you like Yes, indeed, good point........... Fuck you........
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Feb 14, 2024 21:28:22 GMT
An excerpt from Ed Zwick's new book, Hits, Flops, and Other Illusions: My Fortysomething Years in Hollywood:
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Feb 14, 2024 22:30:47 GMT
An excerpt from Ed Zwick's new book, Hits, Flops, and Other Illusions: My Fortysomething Years in Hollywood: That's Leopardo (and his greatness) in a nutshell. Dude should be included in the "story by" credits or something with how much he works on the scripts with his filmmakers.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 14, 2024 22:36:43 GMT
An excerpt from Ed Zwick's new book, Hits, Flops, and Other Illusions: My Fortysomething Years in Hollywood: That's Leopardo (and his greatness) in a nutshell. Dude should be included in the "story by" credits or something with how much he works on the scripts with his filmmakers. I find it funny that Edward Norton got semi-blacklisted at one point for doing this kind of thing, yet it's seen as a positive point for Leo. Guess Leo steps right to the line with filmmakers in terms of his "suggestions", while Norton crossed the line for some.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Feb 14, 2024 22:42:42 GMT
That's Leopardo (and his greatness) in a nutshell. Dude should be included in the "story by" credits or something with how much he works on the scripts with his filmmakers. I find it funny that Edward Norton got semi-blacklisted at one point for doing this kind of thing, yet it's seen as a positive point for Leo. Guess Leo steps right to the line with filmmakers in terms of his "suggestions", while Norton crossed the line for some. If I remember correctly, Norton's thing was a little different: he was actively trying to take over directing some of the movies he was in, preventing the filmmakers from doing their thing, whereas Leo's ideas are coming in during the development stage. I've never heard of DiCaprio messing with his directors on the day or anything like that. While Norton was apparently eager to do their job for them... even if nobody was asking him to.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Feb 14, 2024 22:58:49 GMT
It's a good book. Lots of positive stuff about Cruise, Denzel, and Leo from what I've read so far. The Julia Roberts portion is pretty wild (concerning her on the early iteration of Shakespeare in Love).
|
|
|
Post by DaleCooper on Feb 14, 2024 23:03:10 GMT
One of those situations where he's not going to say antyhing else, but at the same time it's probably going to be true by the time he retires (if it isn't already, depending on how broad you go with 'one of the').
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 14, 2024 23:14:31 GMT
I always tell that story that Ed Norton was on the Today Show and they called him " one of America's finest actors" and the first thing I thought was total message boards shit: Finest now? Finest ever? Finest Liiving? How big is the list anyway .... top 5? Top 20? Top 50? It's nice but it's also gloriously vague........I can pretty much guarantee though that unless DiCap's acting metrics stop he'll always be in the convo........even if his acting metrics stop dead - he still is a ahead of guys that are acclamed who are like everybody except the 70s class........it's all opinion but he has facts on his side too for those wantng to argue it.....
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Feb 14, 2024 23:45:08 GMT
Another tidbit:
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Feb 20, 2024 6:24:32 GMT
I always tell that story that Ed Norton was on the Today Show and they called him " one of America's finest actors" and the first thing I thought was total message boards shit: Finest now? Finest ever? Finest Liiving? How big is the list anyway .... top 5? Top 20? Top 50? It's nice but it's also gloriously vague........I can pretty much guarantee though that unless DiCap's acting metrics stop he'll always be in the convo........even if his acting metrics stop dead - he still is a ahead of guys that are acclamed who are like everybody except the 70s class........it's all opinion but he has facts on his side too for those wantng to argue it..... I think he should be compared to Phoenix, PSH and Washington - guys who are in the same era as he. In this argument, you can reason he's Top 5. Because who else can you really put in the conversation? Not reasonable to compare him to the 50s or 70s pack. You know what we say about comparing Unitas to Montana or Montana to Brady. I do think DiCaprio underdelivers more than Bogart, Brando, DDL, DePac, and Nicholson tho. What I mean is.... each of those have been in about 8-10 classics. They've all been the best male performance of the year (according to movie guys) 3 or more times. DiCaprio only has that 1 for The Wolf of Wall Street. Bogart probably wins best overall performance for Casablanca, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, and In a Lonely Place. Brando wins for A Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront, and Last Tango in Paris. DDL wins for Gangs of New York, My Left Foot, and There Will Be Blood. DeNiro for Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and maybe The King of Comedy? Pacino wins for The Godfather: Part II, Dog Day Afternoon, and maybe Scarface? (deadlocks with DeNiro) Nicholson just runs right into Pacino, otherwise he probably has more than 3 too. DiCaprio, with lesser competition...... isn't always good in the classics he's been in. What did he do in Inception? Gangs of New York... yawn. Titanic.... bad. Even The Departed, the only other male performance remembered the entire year is probably Ulrich Muhe in The Lives of Other (and he's probably still probably #2 to Muhe anyways) - so it's not like he was competing against Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger or Johnny Depp as those guys didn't do anything that year. This is why I don't think DiCaprio competes with those other GOATS is my argument.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Feb 20, 2024 12:28:55 GMT
In my opinion he has at least three or four GOAT-level performances which are the best of that specific year in his resume.
What's Eating Gilbert Grape The Aviator The Wolf of Wall Street Once Upon A Time in Hollywood
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Feb 21, 2024 4:32:48 GMT
In my opinion he has at least three or four GOAT-level performances which are the best of that specific year in his resume. What's Eating Gilbert Grape The Aviator The Wolf of Wall Street Once Upon A Time in Hollywood LMAO He wouldnt even be in my Top 10 for '93 or '04. For '19..... ehhh lame year so I dont care.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Feb 21, 2024 13:25:30 GMT
DDL being in more classics than DiCaprio is a joke. He has a definitional "struggle" filmography.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Feb 21, 2024 22:21:31 GMT
DDL being in more classics than DiCaprio is a joke. He has a definitional "struggle" filmography. DDL has been better than DiCaprio in most of his classics is the difference. DDL has top tier performances like The Crucible and Gangs of New York. Great performances like The Last of the Mohicans and My Left Foot. Overrated ones like There Will Be Blood, but DiCaprio is overrated in OUTIH and The Departed. That's also not to mention Leo was a joke before The Aviator. DDL was never a joke at any point. DiCaprio has one top tier performances..... The Wolf of Wall Street, and a classic comedy performance with Catch Me If You Can. DiCaprio just isn't an elite actor like a DDL or Oldman. He's more like Ryan Gosling and Denzel Washington, a good actor.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Feb 21, 2024 22:33:56 GMT
Yeah, I disagree with virtually everything you've written.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 21, 2024 22:51:30 GMT
DDL being in more classics than DiCaprio is a joke. He has a definitional "struggle" filmography. DDL has been better than DiCaprio in most of his classics is the difference. It s impossible to talk DDL's BP nominees TWBB, Phantom Thread, Lincoln, GONY, In The Name of The Father, My Left Foot without mentioning his name first among the cast every time.........but you could not mention DiCap first several times in some of his : Titanic (Winslet), The Departed, KotFM, Don't Look Up Not really sure how this can be argued - I'm a fan of both guys - but this is pretty clear
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Feb 21, 2024 23:36:56 GMT
DDL has been better than DiCaprio in most of his classics is the difference. It s impossible to talk DDL's BP nominees TWBB, Phantom Thread, Lincoln, GONY, In The Name of The Father, My Left Foot without mentioning his name first among the cast every time.........but you could not mention DiCap first several times in some of his : Titanic (Winslet), The Departed, KotFM, Don't Look Up Not really sure how this can be argued - I'm a fan of both guys - but this is pretty clear Pete Postlethwaite in In the Name of the Father is preferred by some to DDL (I thought both were excellent). DiCaprio would probably win a poll for The Departed in a landslide (as Damon has been habitually underrated for it). DiCaprio was all anybody talked about regarding Titanic when it came out. Most of the acting ink for DLU was for him. Plenty of people highlighted Tommy Lee Jones in Lincoln over DDL. And I'd personally argue DDL has a single film characterizable as a classic (TWBB, despite my antipathy for it). My Left Foot is an embarrassing technical exercise worthy of Bradley Cooper at his most shameless. In the Name of the Father is a strong movie, but if that's a classic, so is The Hurricane, and Denzel's better in The Hurricane than DDL in that. GoNY is an amazing performance, DDL's best by far, but not a classic movie or close to one. Lincoln is a bore, not even a top 25 Spielberg film; it just has this patina of importance because of the subject matter. Amistad is a grander, more memorable movie ultimately. Phantom Thread is a minor domestic drama with zero broad cultural reverberations, hardly a classic.
|
|