if we took "Hollywood stars" out of great film and replaced them with brilliant unknown actors a whole world of meaning, depth & emotion and might be available to the viewers.
It is as if we are cut off from a suspension of disbelief as viewers as we sit there distracted by these celebrity icon's faces.
I was watching a so so film called "Billion Dollar Baby" and at no time could my attention escape from the fact that I was looking at this interesting old face belonging to Hollywood royalty "Clint Eastwood" or Mrs. Vulnerable Honest Emotion "Hillary Swank"
If we took them out of the mix - It seems to me that a whole new dimension of the story might emerge, which is trapped by the presence of these icons.
Besides the titillation of star gazing, are Hollywood icons holding back the show? (And I am NOT saying they are not talented gifted actors that make a contribution ). I am thinking that something precious is lost by their celebrity presense.
Agree or disagree
2007-02-25 07:04:11 · 12 answers · asked by lowroad 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
I hope you dont mind me answering this!! There are no good questions so I thought Id see what you have.
Anyways I would definetly love to see some fresh faces in the movies. I get confused when these so called wonderful actors play so many different roles I get confused and I think they do too.
At the very least I wish producers/directors would do a better job of making better fits as to what parts people should play. Its like they only stick the most popular or whatever (but then again thats what sells modern movies these days...the actors not the actuall plot...if any)
My favorite movie all time is Shawshank Redemption. Tim Robbins played the lead and I dont think I can picture anyone else doing it as he did the part wonderfully. Yet I have yet to see Tim Robbins do a good job in another movie. Point being just because he is an actor doesnt mean he fits all parts.
Robin Williams is another....great actor....but him being in that movie One Hour Photo most likely ruined the movie.
I could go on and on about actors doing parts they dont even fit in. In movies like that I would much rather see a new actor.
2007-02-26 01:54:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agree. Look at that Jennifer Hudson that was an American Idol runner up. That shows you there is talent out there and alot of these "unknowns" would work for alot less money than the "A" list actors and actresses wanting 25 million per film.
But I did think that Hillary Swank did a good job doing that movie. The first time that I ever saw her was on Beverly Hills 90210 as Brandon's girlfriend! LoL!
2007-02-26 01:34:48 · answer #2 · answered by K-E-G 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have always felt if you got rid of 98% of the actors and actresses and replaced them with people randomly picked off the street nobody would notice. Very few people are good actors or actresses. The above mentioned are a few of the excepted. I honestly believe you could take anyone and I mean anyone, spend a week training them and make them a sit com icon or a movie star. No talent required. Singing and acting in plays is completely different but I truly believe anybody could be made famous on TV or in the movies. There are possibly 5-10 people of both sexes that are standouts- the rest are just armatures in my opinion.
2007-02-25 07:10:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
That movie sucked. Eastwood is a burnt-out senile actor who wants to make himself believe he can direct and Hilary Swank is a transvestite, everyone knows that. Point is, Hollywood movies are only what their actors make them. Did you like The 13th Child? I bet you didn't even hear about it. It was an interesting subject, The Jersey Devil, but the unknown actors killed it, and if there is something Hollywood is all about, is money. They don't care about talent, they care that the face they're putting in that dvd cover is going to make some gullible Joe buy it, or even better, watch it in the theatre. Another thing, considering your journalism drop-out lingo, it's surprisingly amusing that you missed the actual name of the movie, its the Million Dollar Baby. Oh, yeah, to answer your question, I disagree.
2007-02-25 07:27:09 · answer #4 · answered by guicho79 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That could also be why people who don't criticize movies for a living are blinded to the fact that any and all movies starring Lindsay Lohan, Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton, any of the Jacka-ss guys, and the Wayans brothers have been REALLY, REALLY BAD.
2007-02-25 10:00:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Disagree. If you have a truly gifted actor, then they are able to portray a character without the viewer being side-tracked by their stardom.
2007-02-26 03:28:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh, I agree, but none of these movies would be funded
if people didn't go see them - and the big studios count
on star power to generate an audience.
2007-02-25 07:06:56 · answer #7 · answered by Elana 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
50/50
2007-02-25 07:07:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I will vote for that picture a thounsand times.
2007-02-25 07:06:41 · answer #9 · answered by romaniascott 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
sure, maximum of them are I agree. and those "pop corn" (universal corny) endings ought to pass. no longer actually everyone receives their satisfied ending for all time. i comprehend we decide it yet from time to time we ought to look ahead to it. :)
2016-12-04 22:39:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋