|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 17, 2019 13:32:50 GMT
I thought of this with Egerton being compared (already nonethless) to Malek and then I noticed some trends on this board - ie Kidman/Blanchett, Phoenix/DiCaprio, and of course the best/worst/most boring imo of all of these Pacino/DeNiro.
Some of these are iffy at best and serve the "lesser" performer too much because of the comparison, for example Kidman to me is a lesser actress than Blanchett (I know some disagree, that's fine, that's not the point here, at all) - though she's aces of course too - but sometimes the intent seems to me to "link" one great actor to another in a false equivalency. It can have multiple effects - Jack Nicholson and Gene Hackman say don't get the benefits or the drawbacks of how Pacino/DeNiro are linked in that shorthand.
It makes sense - ie you compare the biggest of generations maybe and things like box-office, Oscar nods etc. But it is sometimes a laziness in thinking - ie Egerton may win an Oscar I guess because people will say "something" like "I thought he was better than Malek and Malek actually won!"
Sometimes this is minor or the performers are so great they transcend such comparisons (Huppert/Adjani)..........or it's only for a specific time period Streep/Lange........Streep/Close. So who are some you're sick of hearing compared and who's some you think should actually be compared more even since the comparison not only only makes sense, but it is interesting to do so?
Some others you always hear too : Brando/Clift (but rarely including Dean), Oldman/DDL (but rarely including Fiennes), Washington/Hanks......what are some good comparisons and the ones that left you scratching your heads..........
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on May 17, 2019 13:44:07 GMT
I've honestly never understood the comparison game, as pretty much all actors leave so little impression on me. Directors I could maybe understand, but actors simply serve what they're given. I never respond to your threads even though I really want to, because I have nothing to add to them.
This post is no exception.
|
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on May 17, 2019 15:20:12 GMT
Pacino and DeNiro obviously. But that's not so much as that's a bad comparison as much as people attempting to lump together actors and directors who primarily deal in modern crime/gangster films. I've seen people lump Tarantino and Nolan together and then always using that idiotic "film bro" nonsense as a basis to make a point. And then they throw Scorsese into that. Why not Coppola then. Or Mann. Let's add more, shall we?
Just fucking lol these people. Worst idiots on the internet. Anyone who makes that type of argument can't expect to be taken seriously. I've even heard labels as badly made-up as "boyish." What the hell is boyish anyways? What's constitutes as boyish?
|
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on May 17, 2019 18:02:41 GMT
We all think of Newman and Redford as a quintessential Hollywood duo, but often forget that they only did TWO films together during their entire careers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2019 19:05:45 GMT
I mean, Pine, Evans, Hemsworth and Pratt...
|
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on May 17, 2019 20:47:00 GMT
Oh honey, myself and Blannie. I'd have two Oscars and seven nominations by now if she hadn't stolen all my roles...
|
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on May 19, 2019 5:43:33 GMT
Saying every classy, likable brunette that comes around is "the next Audrey Hepburn". I know it's sad, but we just don't have movie stars like that anymore so it ain't going to happen. Agree on Brando and Clift. It's the most superficial comparison and when you think about it they wouldn't have even been good in each other's roles (more Clift in Brando's, but Brando in soft romantic parts like A Place in the Sun wouldn't have been a good look for him either) We all think of Newman and Redford as a quintessential Hollywood duo, but often forget that they only did TWO films together during their entire careers. That's really a testament to their chemistry and how memorable those movies were than anything else. I think people do that a lot with people who were in big movies together. A lot of casual classic movie fans probably think Bogart and Bergman were in a ton of movies together for instance (even though that was never going to happen because they couldn't stand each other IRL) |
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on May 19, 2019 6:24:53 GMT
We all think of Newman and Redford as a quintessential Hollywood duo, but often forget that they only did TWO films together during their entire careers. That's really a testament to their chemistry and how memorable those movies were than anything else. I think people do that a lot with people who were in big movies together. A lot of casual classic movie fans probably think Bogart and Bergman were in a ton of movies together for instance (even though that was never going to happen because they couldn't stand each other IRL) Oh, I'm not trying to degrade their amazing work together... I'm just pointing out that a lot of people tend to couple them together as something like Laurel and Hardy when in reality they only actually did two films in 4 years out of their DECADES long careers. Granted, they had a lifelong friendship (which is always awesome in a business like this), but it was two films over 40 years. Crazy. |
|
