Peppard wrote...
I didn't suggest experience was totally irrelevant, instead, I suggested actors could get enough experience in a broader range of film and TV genres than JUST Sci-Fi.
So did I. I note the similar genres of fantasy and adventure.
And by "enough experience" I mean with, the kinds of things that make sci fi genre different than say, a quiet family drama or a romantic comedy movie. You sidestepped acknowledging that point, yet you extended your list of "experience" genres to include Fantasy, Sci Fi and High Adventure, rather than just Sci Fi.
I wasn't aware I was supposed to supply a definition of Sci-Fi. I also thought that there were obvious similarities between sci-fi (particularly that of the space opera subgenre) and the genres of fantasy and high adventure, allowing an actor with experience in films of those types to fit in with the tone of an ME film. I also note that success within those previous experiences is important. Not the success of the film perhaps but at least in the quality of the performance delivered.
Yet this makes a contradiction for your earlier post, where you say you'd pass on Brody or McKellan for lack of "Sci Fi Experience"--even though, Mckellan has tons of experience with 3 LOTRO movies, 2 Xmen ones under his belt, and Brody did King Kong (all of which would fit in the expanded genre list of yours). Then you mention that Reeves' experience as NEO acually wasn't at all a help in him portraying Constantine. So I don't know what you meant originally, but it appears you changed it to focus on something I agree is important: the ability to ACT despite a fantastic setting, lots of special effect stuff, green screen and other things that might inhibit some performers.
Urrrm, if you read that comment carefully I wrote I WOULDN'T CAST HIM AS SHEPARD. That was about how genre experience is important but how it is important the actor resemble the character's race, age or appearance to some extent. My opinion has always been that its about a balance between the two with experience having greater importance. And remember, this is just my opinion, it is not gospel.
Now how important is experience with the movie making procedures versus natural acting ability? Before being cast as Spiderman, I don't think Maguire had done a big special effects heavy movie (nor was he in the physical shape for a superhero)--but I think he got there well enough for 2 good movies (we'll just ignore that 3rd one).
I'd have to say I really didn't care for him in any of them. Throw your tomatoes but I didn't. He bored the living daylights out of me.Peter Parker was a fun guy in the comics, Toby made him awkward and high-pitched beyond belief.
I agree it would be silly to cast Portman just because she's played bald before, but it is also silly to cast her just because she's done Sci-fi , Fantasy and Action/Adventure movies and has "experience" in the genre.
With terrible quality. Did anyone LIKE Queen Amidala? QUALITY has to come out of the experience.
Conversely, I also think it would be silly to avoid casting someone who could pull off a character's personality just because they don't have Sci Fi experience. But don't be too quick to think you know what personality range someone can do. If you had told me someone was casting Mariah Carey, the Diva of Divas, as a totally normal and unglam social worker, I would have said "no way". But well, she pulled that off.
No, I perfectly agree with you. Many people wrongfully poo-pooed Ledger for instance when he came up for the role of the Joker. People can and do defy expectations and pull a performance out of nowhere.
The bottom line for me is that when I think of "perfect" actors or actresses for roles, I do think of their appearance a little, but mostly about whether I think the person can act or always plays the exact same character (like say, the charming hero or heroine in a rom/com).
Yes but sometimes great actors are left floundering like a fish in productions. Look at John Malkovich and Ben Kingsley. Its obvious they can play villains but shoved into fantasy they squirm and can't make the material sing. They look bored.
I thought Pegg was fine, at least, I wouldn't have singled him out versus all the others as blinking like a sorely miscast oddball. Then again, I'd never seen him in another role before so I didn't have the "role bleed" problem with him.
It wasn't role bleed for me so much. I wasn't thinking, "oh look its Shaun!" or "hey Bisley!". I just kept thinking, "whats up with Scotty? Is he high?" Doohan had a former of military past and though he played Scotty with a dry humour in his voice there was also an idea of precision and pride there that just didn't shine through with Pegg's over-the-top Glaswegian yelling. Was he funny? Yes. Was he Scotty? No.
By the way, I think we're freaking out the norms
Modifié par Images, 30 mai 2010 - 09:50 .
Retour en haut
