|
Post by stoptheclocks on Jan 12, 2023 3:27:57 GMT -5
Some of these don't really feel fair, some of it is typecasting (McDowell), some of it is needing the money due to debt (Cage) or some are just outright not going to likely get work elsewhere (Caradine). So I can't really blame any of them. In Cage's case, he did say he's going to be more selective now that he's out of debt, and he has made some pretty good movies in the last few years. My answer has to go to Christopher Walken though. For a guy who was once considered one of the best actors of his generation, he has not only leaned into his eccentricities, he's basically allowed his legacy to become just that, and starred in many many bad movies along the way. I remember reading something where he basically said he'll take any gig as long as his schedule allows for it, but that doesn't mean he should lower himself to trite like Balls of Fury. There is no dignity in that. Actually, as I was writing this...I changed my answer. It's Eugene Levy. The guy has basically accepted any and every opportunity to appear in some of the worst garbage that has been produced over the last 25 years. If they're making a cheap sleazy dime store B movie with the American Pie label slapped on it, he'll come by to collect a paycheck to play Jim's Dad. It's the definition of digging around at the bottom of a septic tank with your bare hands to find a nickel.It's really not though. It's just turning up, doing a job and moving on with your life. There is the exact same level of dignity in it as there is starring in any other type of movie. Eugene Levy and Christopher Walken are both incredibly loved, successful actors. Who really cares if they've been in bad films nobody watched?
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Jan 12, 2023 3:53:25 GMT -5
Walken does what he does seemingly because he enjoys doing it, not because he has poor judgement or can't get better roles. He's like Daniel Radcliffe, he's madea bunch of money and he's spending his time doing projects he enjoys without the expectation they'll be blockbusters or critical darlings, and more power to them and actors like them.
|
|
|
Post by YAKMAN is ICHIBAN on Jan 12, 2023 10:29:38 GMT -5
I wandered out to the living room today to find Mr. Max quietly watching a later Steven Seagal movie. Before I changed the channel, I saw someone that made me think. Just how many budget scifi/horror movies and other assorted random crap has Lance Henriksen been in over the years?He was a highlight in Detroit: Become Human! As was Clancy Brown, even moreso They both did a ton to elevate that game.
|
|
|
Post by YAKMAN is ICHIBAN on Jan 12, 2023 10:30:14 GMT -5
Walken does what he does seemingly because he enjoys doing it, not because he has poor judgement or can't get better roles. He's like Daniel Radcliffe, he's madea bunch of money and he's spending his time doing projects he enjoys without the expectation they'll be blockbusters or critical darlings, and more power to them and actors like them. He was fantastic in Severance. I really can't wait to see his take on Emperor Shaddam IV in Dune part 2.
|
|
tirtefaa
Unicron
If you wanna know the truth, you gotta dig up Johnny Booth.
Posts: 2,811
|
Post by tirtefaa on Jan 12, 2023 14:08:00 GMT -5
It's really not though. It's just turning up, doing a job and moving on with your life. There is the exact same level of dignity in it as there is starring in any other type of movie. Eugene Levy and Christopher Walken are both incredibly loved, successful actors. Who really cares if they've been in bad films nobody watched? Not to objectify actors as products, but in a way, we do judge people based on their level of work, especially when we are asked to purchase that person's work. There's a reason they use stars to market a movie, and if a star is in too many bad movies, then the audience is less likely going to be interested in seeing that movie. It's not as prevalent as it used to be, mostly because the market has become smaller and smaller as far as big hits go, but there was a time when I might see Christopher Walken on a movie poster and be interested in seeing that movie. But now? Why should I waste my time, especially when the duds outweigh the hits? I mean yes, no actor owes me a guaranteed good movie, just like I don't owe them the purchase of a ticket...but wouldn't having some level of standard be good? Yes, everyone's opinion of "good" is different, but quality control is obvious when you're churning out direct to Red Box simple films for years. It's more obvious they're there to collect a paycheck in return to use their name on the movie poster, as opposed to take on the challenge of acting in a role.
|
|
salz4life
Grimlock
Prichard is a guy who gets that his job is to service his boss.
Posts: 13,947
|
Post by salz4life on Jan 12, 2023 14:10:33 GMT -5
Danny Trejo seems to be similar. He'll show up for anything if he's got the time. I'm still waiting for Machete Goes to Space!
|
|
|
Post by stoptheclocks on Jan 13, 2023 1:11:07 GMT -5
It's really not though. It's just turning up, doing a job and moving on with your life. There is the exact same level of dignity in it as there is starring in any other type of movie. Eugene Levy and Christopher Walken are both incredibly loved, successful actors. Who really cares if they've been in bad films nobody watched? Not to objectify actors as products, but in a way, we do judge people based on their level of work, especially when we are asked to purchase that person's work. There's a reason they use stars to market a movie, and if a star is in too many bad movies, then the audience is less likely going to be interested in seeing that movie. It's not as prevalent as it used to be, mostly because the market has become smaller and smaller as far as big hits go, but there was a time when I might see Christopher Walken on a movie poster and be interested in seeing that movie. But now? Why should I waste my time, especially when the duds outweigh the hits? I mean yes, no actor owes me a guaranteed good movie, just like I don't owe them the purchase of a ticket...but wouldn't having some level of standard be good? Yes, everyone's opinion of "good" is different, but quality control is obvious when you're churning out direct to Red Box simple films for years. It's more obvious they're there to collect a paycheck in return to use their name on the movie poster, as opposed to take on the challenge of acting in a role. That's all fine... but why should he care about any of that? His business is himself - showing up and getting paid for a job - it doesn't affect him either way whether you buy a ticket.
|
|
tirtefaa
Unicron
If you wanna know the truth, you gotta dig up Johnny Booth.
Posts: 2,811
|
Post by tirtefaa on Jan 13, 2023 1:41:21 GMT -5
That's all fine... but why should he care about any of that? His business is himself - showing up and getting paid for a job - it doesn't affect him either way whether you buy a ticket. While it's not as prevalent anymore, there was a time when actors needed to be conscientious about what roles they agreed to. Actors were typically seen as the appeal to go see a movie. The reason we're a fan of an actor is because of their talents, typically resulting in a good movie. When you decide not to be picky with your roles, or you star in too many bad movies, usually you would end up with less opportunities for roles since the studio doesn't want to run the risk of not getting a return on their investment. Now like I mentioned, it isn't as prevalent anymore since there's a ton of cheap indie studios who churn out some of the most bland garbage imaginable, but that also means that you're less likely to get a quality role if you're constantly just doing any and every available role. No one is saying that an actor can't do whatever they want, but looking at someone like John Travolta, do you want to be stuck doing films like The Fanatic?
|
|