The Difference Between Acting and Adam Sandler

Recommended Videos

Squeaksx

New member
Jun 19, 2008
502
0
0
Acting has been twisted, devolved, and mangled into the form you see today in theaters. There are rare occasions of great acting, presented by actors with a true understanding of the emotional, physical, and logical traits presented in every performance. Then you get hacks, hacks who wouldn't know how to develop a character if they were given a character creation screen for each of their performances. I might strike a harsh note with some, but I don't think half of the modern actors that grace the screen are true actors, they're performers, comedians, theatrical individuals. I'd safely claim that half of the actors who have been within a movie release within the last year are not competent actors.

Lets start with a singular subject, Adam Sandler. Why do I say Adam Sandler isn't an actor? He never, ever, ever, ever does anything beside behave as himself (sometimes slightly exaggerated) being directed by a script, not acting. Case and point: Happy Gilmore, Big Daddy, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, Anger Management, and Billy Madison are all the same character! If you took out the story, plot, and lines from all of the movies and were simply left with Adam's performance there would be no discernible difference between the characters. They are all relatively short tempered, childish, somewhat clever, outgoing, and flirty, but not in an disrespectful manner (romantic interests only), and a tad awkward. The only time he's changed his character type is for Waterboy, and Little Nicky, and even those two characters are more or less the same. Sure he has more subdued, roles in movies like 50 First Dates and Click, but those simply seem like him being him in a normal setting.

Lets pick some opposition from a true actor, Robert Di Niro. This man is a true actor, he develops a character for each particular role, making the character complete with their own nuances: speaking manner, behavioral ticks, and reactions to external stimuli. They feel, look, and behave like complete people, yet each and every one of them is distinctly different from one another. Case and point (again): Leonard Love (Awakenings) and Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver). We'll start with Leonard: A child from the mid 1900's who turns catatonic before eventually be "awoken" by Malcolm Sayer (Robin Williams) in 1969. Both of the noted actors play parts that seem severely different from how they behave in real life, from Robin William's usual eccentrically outgoing and comedic behavior being toned down to a quiet, conservative, and almost reclusive person. Niro's character is childish, curious, chip, and more than a bit naive, obviously different from the behavior of Niro in real life. Even more important is that both of these characters are complete and believable, that's because, despite them being characters different from the person portraying them, they still pull upon the actor's rich emotional and intellectual repertoire, adding truth instead of cliche. Adam's character in both the The Waterboy and Little Nicky seem stilted, unbelievable, and hard to swallow.

In the past this issue was relatively minor, there were actors like Sandler, but they were not nearly as prominent as they are now. It seems that eye-candy and memorable mechanisms (Sandler is eternally guilty for this), take priority over actual acting.

I will clarify one point, just because I chose a comedic actor for the negative aspect doesn't mean I do not think that comedy can't also contain full and interesting characters. There are actors: Jerry Lewis, Tim Curry, and Robin Williams who can all play the bombastic comedic role that Adam strives for while still supplying a complete, identifiable, and entertaining character. It isn't impossible, but people like Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider, Owen Wilson, and Bernie Mac cannot pull it off without simply devolving acting into a stand up act, complete with repeated mechanisms, mannerisms, and trademarks.

I implore you to comment.
 

Cherry Cola

Your daddy, your Rock'n'Rolla
Jun 26, 2009
11,940
0
0
You're basically stating the obvious right now.

There will always be people who can't act for shit, and there will always be people who watch their movies anyway.

And what's this about saying that acting has been "twisted" and "mangled"? Point me towards a time period where there wasn't any bad film actors.
 

Squeaksx

New member
Jun 19, 2008
502
0
0
ciortas1 said:
Hubilub said:
You're basically stating the obvious right now.

There will always be people who can't act for shit, and there will always be people who watch their movies anyway.

And what's this about saying that acting has been "twisted" and "mangled"? Point me towards a time period where there wasn't any bad film actors.
I second that. Furthermore, have you even seen some of the older movies? Acting in those doesn't even remotely represent reality. So unless the "true" acting is covered with cheese, it's gone a great deal nowadays.
It's not simply representing reality, but formulating complete characters, if that is at least attempted it can be forgiven if it doesn't hold strictly to reality.
 

Cherry Cola

Your daddy, your Rock'n'Rolla
Jun 26, 2009
11,940
0
0
Squeaksx said:
ciortas1 said:
Hubilub said:
You're basically stating the obvious right now.

There will always be people who can't act for shit, and there will always be people who watch their movies anyway.

And what's this about saying that acting has been "twisted" and "mangled"? Point me towards a time period where there wasn't any bad film actors.
I second that. Furthermore, have you even seen some of the older movies? Acting in those doesn't even remotely represent reality. So unless the "true" acting is covered with cheese, it's gone a great deal nowadays.
It's not simply representing reality, but formulating complete characters, if that is at least attempted it can be forgiven if it doesn't hold strictly to reality.
And how do you know many of the awful actors today don't attempt it? They may be so horrible so it can't even be noticed, but at least they would be trying as well.
 

Space Spoons

New member
Aug 21, 2008
3,335
0
0
I'm not totally convinced that Adam Sandler doesn't have the chops to do more challenging work. Case in point: Punch Drunk Love and The Wedding Singer. He's probably just happier doing bit characters, which is true of a lot of comedians.

But yeah, there's always going to be actors who can play characters and actors who just play themselves. Will Ferrel, Michael Cera, Steve Carell, George Clooney... It's just what they do. Take comfort in the knowledge that for every actor who doesn't put much effort into their role, there's another who gives it everything they've got.
 

Squeaksx

New member
Jun 19, 2008
502
0
0
Space Spoons said:
I'm not totally convinced that Adam Sandler doesn't have the chops to do more challenging work. Case in point: Punch Drunk Love and The Wedding Singer. He's probably just happier doing bit characters, which is true of a lot of comedians.

But yeah, there's always going to be actors who can play characters and actors who just play themselves. Will Ferrel, Michael Cera, Steve Carell, George Clooney... It's just what they do. Take comfort in the knowledge that for every actor who doesn't put much effort into their role, there's another who gives it everything they've got.
Well with Adam Sandler, I'm going by the majority of his work, sure he has more complete roles, but if the majority of his roles are the same as the one's I've described then that's what he's going to be remembered for.

Hubilub said:
You're basically stating the obvious right now.

There will always be people who can't act for shit, and there will always be people who watch their movies anyway.

And what's this about saying that acting has been "twisted" and "mangled"? Point me towards a time period where there wasn't any bad film actors.
Yes, but from what I have seen, bad actors haven't had lead roles in big box office smashes that already suffer from poor directing and writing.
 

Revolutionary

Pub Club Am Broken
May 30, 2009
1,833
0
41
That's like saying whats the difference between black and blue
<img src=http://blog.taragana.com/e/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/adam-sandler.jpg>
Seriously...look at his face.
 

Squeaksx

New member
Jun 19, 2008
502
0
0
Revolutionary47 said:
That's like saying whats the difference between black and blue
<img src=http://blog.taragana.com/e/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/adam-sandler.jpg>
Seriously...look at his face.
I'm looking, what's your point?
 

Cherry Cola

Your daddy, your Rock'n'Rolla
Jun 26, 2009
11,940
0
0
Squeaksx said:
Space Spoons said:
I'm not totally convinced that Adam Sandler doesn't have the chops to do more challenging work. Case in point: Punch Drunk Love and The Wedding Singer. He's probably just happier doing bit characters, which is true of a lot of comedians.

But yeah, there's always going to be actors who can play characters and actors who just play themselves. Will Ferrel, Michael Cera, Steve Carell, George Clooney... It's just what they do. Take comfort in the knowledge that for every actor who doesn't put much effort into their role, there's another who gives it everything they've got.
Well with Adam Sandler, I'm going by the majority of his work, sure he has more complete roles, but if the majority of his roles are the same as the one's I've described then that's what he's going to be remembered for.

Hubilub said:
You're basically stating the obvious right now.

There will always be people who can't act for shit, and there will always be people who watch their movies anyway.

And what's this about saying that acting has been "twisted" and "mangled"? Point me towards a time period where there wasn't any bad film actors.
Yes, but from what I have seen, bad actors haven't had lead roles in big box office smashes that already suffer from poor directing and writing.
And of course, Arnold Swarschenegger has always been a terrific actor that simply rocked the 80s with his oscar-worthy performances.
 

Squeaksx

New member
Jun 19, 2008
502
0
0
Hubilub said:
Squeaksx said:
Space Spoons said:
I'm not totally convinced that Adam Sandler doesn't have the chops to do more challenging work. Case in point: Punch Drunk Love and The Wedding Singer. He's probably just happier doing bit characters, which is true of a lot of comedians.

But yeah, there's always going to be actors who can play characters and actors who just play themselves. Will Ferrel, Michael Cera, Steve Carell, George Clooney... It's just what they do. Take comfort in the knowledge that for every actor who doesn't put much effort into their role, there's another who gives it everything they've got.
Well with Adam Sandler, I'm going by the majority of his work, sure he has more complete roles, but if the majority of his roles are the same as the one's I've described then that's what he's going to be remembered for.

Hubilub said:
You're basically stating the obvious right now.

There will always be people who can't act for shit, and there will always be people who watch their movies anyway.

And what's this about saying that acting has been "twisted" and "mangled"? Point me towards a time period where there wasn't any bad film actors.
Yes, but from what I have seen, bad actors haven't had lead roles in big box office smashes that already suffer from poor directing and writing.
And of course, Arnold Swarschenegger has always been a terrific actor that simply rocked the 80s with his oscar-worthy performances.
No, see, I mean actors from the 40's, 50's, and 60's.
 

Fightgarr

Concept Artist
Dec 3, 2008
2,913
0
0
Oh wow! You've discovered typecasting! Good for you. But don't worry, it's not like one would be perfectly capable of enjoying that "actor's" films regardless. No, you're right, we should entirely ignore pulp fiction because no one could possibly enjoy anything with the sole goal of mindless entertainment.
 

Squeaksx

New member
Jun 19, 2008
502
0
0
Fightgarr said:
Oh wow! You've discovered typecasting! Good for you. But don't worry, it's not like one would be perfectly capable of enjoying that "actor's" films regardless. No, you're right, we should entirely ignore pulp fiction because no one could possibly enjoy anything with the sole goal of mindless entertainment.
Wait, your completely ignoring what I said, your not even reading past the first paragraph are you? I'm simply speaking of creating complete characters for your movies. Pulp Fiction seems to be doing quite well in the department since all the characters seem quite complete and differentiate from the lead actor's various other roles. They actually made characters for the film, not simply read off a script while trying to portray emotions.
 

Cherry Cola

Your daddy, your Rock'n'Rolla
Jun 26, 2009
11,940
0
0
Squeaksx said:
Hubilub said:
Squeaksx said:
Space Spoons said:
I'm not totally convinced that Adam Sandler doesn't have the chops to do more challenging work. Case in point: Punch Drunk Love and The Wedding Singer. He's probably just happier doing bit characters, which is true of a lot of comedians.

But yeah, there's always going to be actors who can play characters and actors who just play themselves. Will Ferrel, Michael Cera, Steve Carell, George Clooney... It's just what they do. Take comfort in the knowledge that for every actor who doesn't put much effort into their role, there's another who gives it everything they've got.
Well with Adam Sandler, I'm going by the majority of his work, sure he has more complete roles, but if the majority of his roles are the same as the one's I've described then that's what he's going to be remembered for.

Hubilub said:
You're basically stating the obvious right now.

There will always be people who can't act for shit, and there will always be people who watch their movies anyway.

And what's this about saying that acting has been "twisted" and "mangled"? Point me towards a time period where there wasn't any bad film actors.
Yes, but from what I have seen, bad actors haven't had lead roles in big box office smashes that already suffer from poor directing and writing.
And of course, Arnold Swarschenegger has always been a terrific actor that simply rocked the 80s with his oscar-worthy performances.
No, see, I mean actors from the 40's, 50's, and 60's.
If you can prove that there was not one single moderately successful film in those years that had a bad actor as lead role, I'll be happy to take your side.
 

manaman

New member
Sep 2, 2007
3,218
0
0
The problem is for the most part non existant. If the movie character is supposed to be impish, childish, immature, stupid, colorful, lazy, or what have you, and they cast an actor thats rage pretty much starts and ends there then I see no problems.
 

Cherry Cola

Your daddy, your Rock'n'Rolla
Jun 26, 2009
11,940
0
0
Squeaksx said:
Fightgarr said:
Oh wow! You've discovered typecasting! Good for you. But don't worry, it's not like one would be perfectly capable of enjoying that "actor's" films regardless. No, you're right, we should entirely ignore pulp fiction because no one could possibly enjoy anything with the sole goal of mindless entertainment.
Wait, your completely ignoring what I said, your not even reading past the first paragraph are you? I'm simply speaking of creating complete characters for your movies. Pulp Fiction seems to be doing quite well in the department since all the characters seem quite complete, please use your brain to ponder my post before blindly flaming it.
No you're not, you're talking about actors and why you don't like the fact that some of them aren't good at their job.
 

Squeaksx

New member
Jun 19, 2008
502
0
0
Hubilub said:
Squeaksx said:
Hubilub said:
Squeaksx said:
Space Spoons said:
I'm not totally convinced that Adam Sandler doesn't have the chops to do more challenging work. Case in point: Punch Drunk Love and The Wedding Singer. He's probably just happier doing bit characters, which is true of a lot of comedians.

But yeah, there's always going to be actors who can play characters and actors who just play themselves. Will Ferrel, Michael Cera, Steve Carell, George Clooney... It's just what they do. Take comfort in the knowledge that for every actor who doesn't put much effort into their role, there's another who gives it everything they've got.
Well with Adam Sandler, I'm going by the majority of his work, sure he has more complete roles, but if the majority of his roles are the same as the one's I've described then that's what he's going to be remembered for.

Hubilub said:
You're basically stating the obvious right now.

There will always be people who can't act for shit, and there will always be people who watch their movies anyway.

And what's this about saying that acting has been "twisted" and "mangled"? Point me towards a time period where there wasn't any bad film actors.
Yes, but from what I have seen, bad actors haven't had lead roles in big box office smashes that already suffer from poor directing and writing.
And of course, Arnold Swarschenegger has always been a terrific actor that simply rocked the 80s with his oscar-worthy performances.
No, see, I mean actors from the 40's, 50's, and 60's.
If you can prove that there was not one single moderately successful film in those years that had a bad actor as lead role, I'll be happy to take your side.
I never said there weren't any moderately successful, I mean world wide fame while still be atrocious. Also, I have nothing against an actor who is bad at the craft as long as they at least attempt to create a complete character, even if they fail. I would much rather prefer that than a good actor who never changes his character, because at least with the prior I can appreciate the effort. Also; I'm not saying that these actors don't provide entertaining performances, it's just that they don't do the art of acting justice because they don't even try to formulate different, complete, and interest characters.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
I don't think Adam Sandler belongs in the 'hack category' as you name it. Yeah he often plays rather one-dimensional, stand-up comedy roles, but why I don't know because he can act, I knew that after watching Punch Drunk Love. He plays an incredibly interesting character in that film, far from one-dimensional, and he actually does it really well.

Yet he insist on making films like The Zohan and while they manage to entertain me a bit (I'm easily entertained, plus I like things just 'for the lulz'), they're pretty low-quality and very low-brow. And I do agree that he will probably get remembered for that, and not for his truly good roles. That'd be a shame if you ask me.