I had originally thought that you were referring to "ugly" people, at that was what I was referencing.
My point was this: Seth Rogan is considered funny, but if he wasn't, would you want to see him in movies?
As far as what you guys said, I will agree for the most part now that we are on the same page. "Ordinary" is fine for movies, especially the horror genre, although it is rather funny that horror films profile the "pretty" people as being complete dicks and deserving a terrible death, which they are sure to get.
As far as The Thing goes, I do not have a problem with classics in general... some of my favorite movies are major classics, just generally not horrors. You'd be fighting a wall trying to persuade me of the redeeming qualities of the classic horror films because I really don't care for the horror genre to begin with. My problem with The Thing and most horror films is not the cgi, but a number of other factors which include pace, development, and an overall story line that involves some sort of actual plot.
I thought the the above title, Town Creek (Blood Creek), was a decent movie, not because of it's cool deaths, because there wasn't much of that. It had a fairly good story line with a back story that tied it together. A recent movie was Pandorum; I really didn't think I'd care for it, but I ended up liking it. It really wasn't scary, not too much death, I was actually surprised it was in the horror genre, but it had a pretty good style to the movie with an evolving storyline and a good twist. Even movies like Final Destination... I loved the first one. Not much of a storyline, but it sort of had the ultimate killer and it wasn't completely predictable like most movies in the genre.
I guess all in all, it is just my opinion, so I apologize for trying to produce it as fact. I'm pretty critical of movies in general, but I'm able tobe lenient on a lot of them. However, horror films I'm pretty harsh on. So most of them, The Thing included, bare no sort of redeeming qualities in my eyes, even newer movies like Paintball (lame) or Paranormal Activity (Crap!)
Accept it as a friendly debate because I'm not arguing and I understand that many people like the movies that I put down, so I'm not the overriding judge and I know that.
reply
share
14 years ago
[deleted]
Pixel_Lich
14 years ago
In this case I have to disagree somewhat. True that actors are the puppets putting on the play, while the majority of the work goes on behind the camera. However, if all the talent was in the writing, for example, then the writers would be performing it. I only hold this position in regards to movies as there is a huge difference between film and music. I can appreciate when a singer or musician is talented, but it's tarnished when they can't write their own material at all. With movies it ends up being more a combination of everyone involved. When a really good actor gets a script, regardless of whether its a good script or not, they make the film worth watching. The other end of the spectrum would be imagining someone like Tom Cruise (whom I do not see as a good actor) or Nicholas Cage in Gone with the Wind or Casablanca. No matter how good the script it would lose its effectiveness with a bad actor performing. There have been cases of horrible movies shinning because of good performances from actors. Astro Zombies (yes, I love B movies) is horrible, but both Tura Satana and John Carradine (even as sad as he looked) did well enough to make it worth remembering.
I personally think the key is less filling in casting slots with what the target demographic is looking for than with finding a good actor/actress that can carry any given roll. Like I mentioned I don't mind seeing pretty [vapid] faces getting butchered on-screen, but it gets boring after a while. I'd rather watch a movie with good chemistry between writing, production, and acting.
And I have never judged a movie by review, synopsis, or especially trailer. I can not believe how many movies have looked awesome on the trailer only to turn me off in full viewing.
reply
share
14 years ago
[deleted]
Pixel_Lich
14 years ago
First I have to say my initial response to this was ... Huh?
How did you manage to get from my post that I praise actors like some sycophant or that I'm housebound? I actually have no favorite actors. There have been movies that I enjoyed the acting in, and the occasional bad movie that I liked a particular performance (your mention of The Omen remake and Liev Schreiber is a good example,) but I have never seen a movie because of an actor. I go to movies that have a cool concept or are a genre I like. I like seeing films by specific directors and writers. The only times I've seen movies with 'flash-bang' trailers that sucked was usually being dragged to a movie by family or friends that I didn't want to see in the first place.
What I thought, and I may be mistaken, I had tried to state in my previous post was that the performance is also important to a film experience. No matter how beautiful the cinematography, perfectly timed the direction and editing, or how good the special effects are a horrible performance of the written material will hurt the material. On the other hand I've seen movies with minimal production value that were carried by a strong story and a good performance of that story.
I never said that any actor can save a crappy movie I said an actor turning out a good performance in a crappy movie can at least make it memorable. Simply lumping me with an easily lead consumer base because I hold a view different than yours is like looking down your nose at someone and not noticing the drippy booger hanging off the end of it. None of the movies I truly like are mainstream, I loathe how trailers are used in modern film (usually the best parts of a movie in short) and, as mentioned again, I don't see movies for an actor. I have avoided movies because of actors (the horrendous House of Wax w/Paris Hilton comes to mind and ended up being a forced $1 Redbox rental) and I hate movies with a ton of hype. Which I've already stated.
Case in point: Despite being directed by Schumacher, I saw Blood Creek because the story intrigued me and appeared different from the typical crap coming out. I also seem to be one of the few people who does not care for Dominic Purcell and could've cared less he was in this. But what do I know? I'm a housebound consumer/lemming because someone on the internet told me so.
reply
share