The Difference Between Acting and Adam Sandler

[Pegghead]

BREAKING NEWS! Compared to most adam Sandler is less of a seasoned thespian who draws the audience in and more of a blue-collar comedian who seeks to entertain a general audience in films that are quirky but still alright.

 

[Squeaksx]

Now all you are doing is back trailing. At first it was "Adam Sandler can't act!" now it is "Adam Sandler has enormous potential but isn't in enough good movies!"

Dude, what are you saying? You keep going around in circles.

I saw an interview on the movie Reign Over Me and Sandler was saying that the role upset him somewhat as he is a father to young girls and really felt the character (which was brilliantly depicted on screen) and he then went on to imply that whilst he was proud of the role, he didn't really enjoy it.

Whilst he didn't outright say it, I took out of the interview that Sandler doesn't like playing serious roles. He can act them brilliantly, but he doesn't like it. He may be a person who gets too upset and stressed when playing serious roles. That's probably the reason why he stars in broad comedy. He enjoys it for God's sake, and huge amounts of people enjoy watching it.

For the sake of an analogy to make my point clearer, I'm sure there are many talented musicians who would produce amazing music of another genre. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that my favourite music genre is Indie Rock, and I come across a Metal band who are capable of playing fantastic Indie rock, but choose not to because they don't enjoy it. Would it be fair of me to start slagging them off and moaning about them because they don't provide the kind of music I want them to provide? No! Of course it wouldn't be, and that is exactly what you are doing here.

For one, what's a forum if not a -forum- to discuss ideas and attempt to change other people's opinions? I admit that reading the replies have caused me to soften my opinion on the man, somewhat, but I'm still staying strong on my belief that his repertoire of work does not reveal him to be an actor who can provide a good number of interesting, complete, and alternative roles. He's upset because he felt the character's pain? That's one of the key parts of acting 101! To feel the emotions of your character through objectives, reasoning, and actions. However, I never said that he couldn't attempt a different role within he genre of comedy. If we go by even the most restrictive list of comedic archetypes, there are two types, big fish and little fish. The big fish is fed by the little fish, who provides the big fish with fuel to be even funnier and more outrageous. Leo (little fish) to Max (big fish), Tom and Jerry (if we're allowed to name cartoon characters), frequently switch between those roles from short to short, Ty Webb (little fish) to Al Czervik (big fish) (Caddy Shack), the big fish is bombastic, loud, and slapstick while the little fish is quiet, intellectual, clever, and receptive. I wouldn't mind seeing Adam Sandler trying to develop a character around the little fish role. See, still comedy, still light-hearted (so no emotional trauma for Sandler), and yet it provides a chance for him to shine as a multi-faceted comedic talent.

To respond to your analogy as well, look at Ozzy Osbourne. You could almost consider him the David Bowie of metal, considering how often he completely reconstructed his style while still staying within the genre of metal. You listen to Black Sabbath and that is extensively different from Ozzy with Rhodes in the 80's, which is quite different from current Ozzy. Do you see my point? You can still stay within your genre of preference and enjoying, yet branch out to try new things. Genres are constrictive streams or puddles, they are gigantic seas within an ocean that have numerous reefs, deeps, and shores to traverse and explore.

 

[ChocoFace]

actually the difference between acting and Adam Sandler is that one is a verb while the other is an actor(a noun).

OT because some people take everything too seriously: Adam Sandler can act well if he wants to, but in my opinion there's a way better feel to him if he's in a comedy than, say, a drama.

 

[Bat Vader]

Now all you are doing is back trailing. At first it was "Adam Sandler can't act!" now it is "Adam Sandler has enormous potential but isn't in enough good movies!"

Dude, what are you saying? You keep going around in circles.

I saw an interview on the movie Reign Over Me and Sandler was saying that the role upset him somewhat as he is a father to young girls and really felt the character (which was brilliantly depicted on screen) and he then went on to imply that whilst he was proud of the role, he didn't really enjoy it.

Whilst he didn't outright say it, I took out of the interview that Sandler doesn't like playing serious roles. He can act them brilliantly, but he doesn't like it. He may be a person who gets too upset and stressed when playing serious roles. That's probably the reason why he stars in broad comedy. He enjoys it for God's sake, and huge amounts of people enjoy watching it.

For the sake of an analogy to make my point clearer, I'm sure there are many talented musicians who would produce amazing music of another genre. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that my favourite music genre is Indie Rock, and I come across a Metal band who are capable of playing fantastic Indie rock, but choose not to because they don't enjoy it. Would it be fair of me to start slagging them off and moaning about them because they don't provide the kind of music I want them to provide? No! Of course it wouldn't be, and that is exactly what you are doing here.

It may not be fair but it is your right to voice an opinion on what you think. Personally, if Adam Sandler likes doing comedy films than I am alright with that. It is his right to choose what he wants to do.

I must admit that I agree 100% with your post.

 

[Squeaksx]

Now all you are doing is back trailing. At first it was "Adam Sandler can't act!" now it is "Adam Sandler has enormous potential but isn't in enough good movies!"

Dude, what are you saying? You keep going around in circles.

I saw an interview on the movie Reign Over Me and Sandler was saying that the role upset him somewhat as he is a father to young girls and really felt the character (which was brilliantly depicted on screen) and he then went on to imply that whilst he was proud of the role, he didn't really enjoy it.

Whilst he didn't outright say it, I took out of the interview that Sandler doesn't like playing serious roles. He can act them brilliantly, but he doesn't like it. He may be a person who gets too upset and stressed when playing serious roles. That's probably the reason why he stars in broad comedy. He enjoys it for God's sake, and huge amounts of people enjoy watching it.

For the sake of an analogy to make my point clearer, I'm sure there are many talented musicians who would produce amazing music of another genre. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that my favourite music genre is Indie Rock, and I come across a Metal band who are capable of playing fantastic Indie rock, but choose not to because they don't enjoy it. Would it be fair of me to start slagging them off and moaning about them because they don't provide the kind of music I want them to provide? No! Of course it wouldn't be, and that is exactly what you are doing here.

Ding ding ding!

We have a winner.

OP, sure you don't like Adam Sandler as an actor. Sure, you might now think that he can act in brilliant roles and hate him for not doing so. But who are you? Why should he care what one person thinks of him? If you really dislike his "single character" so much, then don't watch his movies. It is really that simple of a concept.

I read your post, and the entire thread. I still am not sure what you're getting at here.

Seriously though, read what I quoted.

Now do it again.

I'm placing my opinion on a forum, the pure purpose of a forum is for one to express their opinion for the sake of debate and discussion. I could care less if he reads this or if it even changes his perspective, I'm utilizing a forum for its defined purpose. Maybe it comes across as bizarre for some, but here I'll even provide a definition from the Webster dictionary website if you don't believe me. Forum: a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas.

 

[Gxas]

Now all you are doing is back trailing. At first it was "Adam Sandler can't act!" now it is "Adam Sandler has enormous potential but isn't in enough good movies!"

Dude, what are you saying? You keep going around in circles.

I saw an interview on the movie Reign Over Me and Sandler was saying that the role upset him somewhat as he is a father to young girls and really felt the character (which was brilliantly depicted on screen) and he then went on to imply that whilst he was proud of the role, he didn't really enjoy it.

Whilst he didn't outright say it, I took out of the interview that Sandler doesn't like playing serious roles. He can act them brilliantly, but he doesn't like it. He may be a person who gets too upset and stressed when playing serious roles. That's probably the reason why he stars in broad comedy. He enjoys it for God's sake, and huge amounts of people enjoy watching it.

For the sake of an analogy to make my point clearer, I'm sure there are many talented musicians who would produce amazing music of another genre. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that my favourite music genre is Indie Rock, and I come across a Metal band who are capable of playing fantastic Indie rock, but choose not to because they don't enjoy it. Would it be fair of me to start slagging them off and moaning about them because they don't provide the kind of music I want them to provide? No! Of course it wouldn't be, and that is exactly what you are doing here.

For one, what's a forum if not a -forum- to discuss ideas and attempt to change other people's opinions? I admit that reading the replies have caused me to soften my opinion on the man, somewhat, but I'm still staying strong on my belief that his repertoire of work does not reveal him to be an actor who can provide a good number of interesting, complete, and alternative roles. He's upset because he felt the character's pain? That's one of the key parts of acting 101! To feel the emotions of your character through objectives, reasoning, and actions. However, I never said that he couldn't attempt a different role within he genre of comedy. If we go by even the most restrictive list of comedic archetypes, there are two types, big fish and little fish. The big fish is fed by the little fish, who provides the big fish with fuel to be even funnier and more outrageous. Leo (little fish) to Max (big fish), Tom and Jerry (if we're allowed to name cartoon characters), frequently switch between those roles from short to short, Ty Webb (little fish) to Al Czervik (big fish) (Caddy Shack), the big fish is bombastic, loud, and slapstick while the little fish is quiet, intellectual, clever, and receptive. I wouldn't mind seeing Adam Sandler trying to develop a character around the little fish role. See, still comedy, still light-hearted (so no emotional trauma for Sandler), and yet it provides a chance for him to shine as a multi-faceted comedic talent.

But why should he?

Give a good, solid reason as to why he should do this.

I'm sorry, but a job is taken to make money. As the saying goes, "Love your work and you'll never work a day in your life." Obviously, as we have seen, Sandler hates roles different from the character you hate. So why would he do work to act in one of these other roles? What would be his motivation? I highly doubt he is attempting to be remembered for all time as one of the greatest actors of our generation. He is making money doing what he loves.

Why is this not good enough for you?

(This could also lead into the argument of why companies milk game franchises. The reason is to make money. It is the goal of a business to make money, as it is the goal of an actor to make money. Both are jobs.)

 

[Squeaksx]

Now all you are doing is back trailing. At first it was "Adam Sandler can't act!" now it is "Adam Sandler has enormous potential but isn't in enough good movies!"

Dude, what are you saying? You keep going around in circles.

I saw an interview on the movie Reign Over Me and Sandler was saying that the role upset him somewhat as he is a father to young girls and really felt the character (which was brilliantly depicted on screen) and he then went on to imply that whilst he was proud of the role, he didn't really enjoy it.

Whilst he didn't outright say it, I took out of the interview that Sandler doesn't like playing serious roles. He can act them brilliantly, but he doesn't like it. He may be a person who gets too upset and stressed when playing serious roles. That's probably the reason why he stars in broad comedy. He enjoys it for God's sake, and huge amounts of people enjoy watching it.

For the sake of an analogy to make my point clearer, I'm sure there are many talented musicians who would produce amazing music of another genre. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that my favourite music genre is Indie Rock, and I come across a Metal band who are capable of playing fantastic Indie rock, but choose not to because they don't enjoy it. Would it be fair of me to start slagging them off and moaning about them because they don't provide the kind of music I want them to provide? No! Of course it wouldn't be, and that is exactly what you are doing here.

It may not be fair but it is your right to voice an opinion on what you think. Personally, if Adam Sandler likes doing comedy films than I am alright with that. It is his right to choose what he wants to do.

I must admit that I agree 100% with your post.

Read one of my more current posts, I explained that he could create several different character types, all diverse from the next, while still remaining within his genre of choice, comedy.

 

[Indecipherable]

Adam Sandler is a comedian first and actor second, and the roles he plays he does well because they are appropriate to him. Incidentally, his role in Funny People was fantastic and a great deal different to his others.

 

[Squeaksx]

Now all you are doing is back trailing. At first it was "Adam Sandler can't act!" now it is "Adam Sandler has enormous potential but isn't in enough good movies!"

Dude, what are you saying? You keep going around in circles.

I saw an interview on the movie Reign Over Me and Sandler was saying that the role upset him somewhat as he is a father to young girls and really felt the character (which was brilliantly depicted on screen) and he then went on to imply that whilst he was proud of the role, he didn't really enjoy it.

Whilst he didn't outright say it, I took out of the interview that Sandler doesn't like playing serious roles. He can act them brilliantly, but he doesn't like it. He may be a person who gets too upset and stressed when playing serious roles. That's probably the reason why he stars in broad comedy. He enjoys it for God's sake, and huge amounts of people enjoy watching it.

For the sake of an analogy to make my point clearer, I'm sure there are many talented musicians who would produce amazing music of another genre. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that my favourite music genre is Indie Rock, and I come across a Metal band who are capable of playing fantastic Indie rock, but choose not to because they don't enjoy it. Would it be fair of me to start slagging them off and moaning about them because they don't provide the kind of music I want them to provide? No! Of course it wouldn't be, and that is exactly what you are doing here.

For one, what's a forum if not a -forum- to discuss ideas and attempt to change other people's opinions? I admit that reading the replies have caused me to soften my opinion on the man, somewhat, but I'm still staying strong on my belief that his repertoire of work does not reveal him to be an actor who can provide a good number of interesting, complete, and alternative roles. He's upset because he felt the character's pain? That's one of the key parts of acting 101! To feel the emotions of your character through objectives, reasoning, and actions. However, I never said that he couldn't attempt a different role within he genre of comedy. If we go by even the most restrictive list of comedic archetypes, there are two types, big fish and little fish. The big fish is fed by the little fish, who provides the big fish with fuel to be even funnier and more outrageous. Leo (little fish) to Max (big fish), Tom and Jerry (if we're allowed to name cartoon characters), frequently switch between those roles from short to short, Ty Webb (little fish) to Al Czervik (big fish) (Caddy Shack), the big fish is bombastic, loud, and slapstick while the little fish is quiet, intellectual, clever, and receptive. I wouldn't mind seeing Adam Sandler trying to develop a character around the little fish role. See, still comedy, still light-hearted (so no emotional trauma for Sandler), and yet it provides a chance for him to shine as a multi-faceted comedic talent.

But why should he?

Give a good, solid reason as to why he should do this.

I'm sorry, but a job is taken to make money. As the saying goes, "Love your work and you'll never work a day in your life." Obviously, as we have seen, Sandler hates roles different from the character you hate. So why would he do work to act in one of these other roles? What would be his motivation? I highly doubt he is attempting to be remembered for all time as one of the greatest actors of our generation. He is making money doing what he loves.

Why is this not good enough for you?

(This could also lead into the argument of why companies milk game franchises. The reason is to make money. It is the goal of a business to make money, as it is the goal of an actor to make money. Both are jobs.)

I guess you can consider me to be a Yahtzee-ian (oh that hurt to type). You know, the whole defending games as art side of an argument; I'm doing the same except I'm defending films, not video games. I will also use one of his points, what's the point? What is the point of playing a role if it is simply the same role over and over and over again? If directors and script-writers can be slammed for recycling old material then I believe an actor is fair game too. As I said and have defended, it is ultimately the actor who decides his role, which such freedom comes the risk of being called out if they do not utilize it to be creative.

On another note, there is more than one type of character within a comedy! One contemporary book even went as far as to state there are 8 distinct archetypes within comedy. Adam Sandler has only tapped into one, maybe dribbled into two, his entire career. Everyone seems to think that just because he's acting in a comedy film he can't branch out, it's a completely false perspective.

 

[Eri]

I implore you to comment.

cite your source: http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/community/blog/19089

Wow dude. You actually went off for no reason, typed this into google, and found his same post..only to come back telling him to cite his own post? /facepalm

 

[Klepa]

I find it curious that you picked Robert De Niro to compare with. That guy's done a hundred flicks where he's basicly just himself, or a version of his character in Taxi.

Spoiler: Robert De Niro doing what he does best

Of course, he can act, and has done some very different roles, such as this:
Which I'm surprised you didn't mention.

 

[Squeaksx]

I find it curious that you picked Robert De Niro to compare with. That guy's done a hundred flicks where he's basicly just himself, or a version of his character in Taxi.

Spoiler: Robert De Niro doing what he does best

Of course, he can act, and has done some very different roles, such as this:
Which I'm surprised you didn't mention.

I wanted to keep both conflicting paragraphs relatively equal in size, I didn't want to provide a few dozen words for Sandler and then fill an entire page with Di Niro's roles.

 

[Gxas]

Now all you are doing is back trailing. At first it was "Adam Sandler can't act!" now it is "Adam Sandler has enormous potential but isn't in enough good movies!"

Dude, what are you saying? You keep going around in circles.

I saw an interview on the movie Reign Over Me and Sandler was saying that the role upset him somewhat as he is a father to young girls and really felt the character (which was brilliantly depicted on screen) and he then went on to imply that whilst he was proud of the role, he didn't really enjoy it.

Whilst he didn't outright say it, I took out of the interview that Sandler doesn't like playing serious roles. He can act them brilliantly, but he doesn't like it. He may be a person who gets too upset and stressed when playing serious roles. That's probably the reason why he stars in broad comedy. He enjoys it for God's sake, and huge amounts of people enjoy watching it.

For the sake of an analogy to make my point clearer, I'm sure there are many talented musicians who would produce amazing music of another genre. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that my favourite music genre is Indie Rock, and I come across a Metal band who are capable of playing fantastic Indie rock, but choose not to because they don't enjoy it. Would it be fair of me to start slagging them off and moaning about them because they don't provide the kind of music I want them to provide? No! Of course it wouldn't be, and that is exactly what you are doing here.

For one, what's a forum if not a -forum- to discuss ideas and attempt to change other people's opinions? I admit that reading the replies have caused me to soften my opinion on the man, somewhat, but I'm still staying strong on my belief that his repertoire of work does not reveal him to be an actor who can provide a good number of interesting, complete, and alternative roles. He's upset because he felt the character's pain? That's one of the key parts of acting 101! To feel the emotions of your character through objectives, reasoning, and actions. However, I never said that he couldn't attempt a different role within he genre of comedy. If we go by even the most restrictive list of comedic archetypes, there are two types, big fish and little fish. The big fish is fed by the little fish, who provides the big fish with fuel to be even funnier and more outrageous. Leo (little fish) to Max (big fish), Tom and Jerry (if we're allowed to name cartoon characters), frequently switch between those roles from short to short, Ty Webb (little fish) to Al Czervik (big fish) (Caddy Shack), the big fish is bombastic, loud, and slapstick while the little fish is quiet, intellectual, clever, and receptive. I wouldn't mind seeing Adam Sandler trying to develop a character around the little fish role. See, still comedy, still light-hearted (so no emotional trauma for Sandler), and yet it provides a chance for him to shine as a multi-faceted comedic talent.

But why should he?

Give a good, solid reason as to why he should do this.

I'm sorry, but a job is taken to make money. As the saying goes, "Love your work and you'll never work a day in your life." Obviously, as we have seen, Sandler hates roles different from the character you hate. So why would he do work to act in one of these other roles? What would be his motivation? I highly doubt he is attempting to be remembered for all time as one of the greatest actors of our generation. He is making money doing what he loves.

Why is this not good enough for you?

(This could also lead into the argument of why companies milk game franchises. The reason is to make money. It is the goal of a business to make money, as it is the goal of an actor to make money. Both are jobs.)

I guess you can consider me to be a Yahtzee-ian (oh that hurt to type). You know, the whole defending games as art side of an argument; I'm doing the same except I'm defending films, not video games. I will also use one of his points, what's the point? What is the point of playing a role if it is simply the same role over and over and over again? If directors and script-writers can be slammed for recycling old material then I believe an actor is fair game too. As I said and have defend, it is ultimately the actor who decides his role, which such freedom comes the risk of being called out if they do not utilize it to be creative.

Doesn't all art have a pile of shit associated with it? Why should movies be an exception?

Isn't art subjective?

 

[Squeaksx]

I implore you to comment.

cite your source: http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/community/blog/19089

Wow dude. You actually went off for no reason, typed this into google, and found his same post..only to come back telling him to cite his own post? /facepalm

I can forgive him, I use my pseudonym on this site and my actual name on the other.

 

[Squeaksx]

Now all you are doing is back trailing. At first it was "Adam Sandler can't act!" now it is "Adam Sandler has enormous potential but isn't in enough good movies!"

Dude, what are you saying? You keep going around in circles.

I saw an interview on the movie Reign Over Me and Sandler was saying that the role upset him somewhat as he is a father to young girls and really felt the character (which was brilliantly depicted on screen) and he then went on to imply that whilst he was proud of the role, he didn't really enjoy it.

Whilst he didn't outright say it, I took out of the interview that Sandler doesn't like playing serious roles. He can act them brilliantly, but he doesn't like it. He may be a person who gets too upset and stressed when playing serious roles. That's probably the reason why he stars in broad comedy. He enjoys it for God's sake, and huge amounts of people enjoy watching it.

For the sake of an analogy to make my point clearer, I'm sure there are many talented musicians who would produce amazing music of another genre. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that my favourite music genre is Indie Rock, and I come across a Metal band who are capable of playing fantastic Indie rock, but choose not to because they don't enjoy it. Would it be fair of me to start slagging them off and moaning about them because they don't provide the kind of music I want them to provide? No! Of course it wouldn't be, and that is exactly what you are doing here.

For one, what's a forum if not a -forum- to discuss ideas and attempt to change other people's opinions? I admit that reading the replies have caused me to soften my opinion on the man, somewhat, but I'm still staying strong on my belief that his repertoire of work does not reveal him to be an actor who can provide a good number of interesting, complete, and alternative roles. He's upset because he felt the character's pain? That's one of the key parts of acting 101! To feel the emotions of your character through objectives, reasoning, and actions. However, I never said that he couldn't attempt a different role within he genre of comedy. If we go by even the most restrictive list of comedic archetypes, there are two types, big fish and little fish. The big fish is fed by the little fish, who provides the big fish with fuel to be even funnier and more outrageous. Leo (little fish) to Max (big fish), Tom and Jerry (if we're allowed to name cartoon characters), frequently switch between those roles from short to short, Ty Webb (little fish) to Al Czervik (big fish) (Caddy Shack), the big fish is bombastic, loud, and slapstick while the little fish is quiet, intellectual, clever, and receptive. I wouldn't mind seeing Adam Sandler trying to develop a character around the little fish role. See, still comedy, still light-hearted (so no emotional trauma for Sandler), and yet it provides a chance for him to shine as a multi-faceted comedic talent.

But why should he?

Give a good, solid reason as to why he should do this.

I'm sorry, but a job is taken to make money. As the saying goes, "Love your work and you'll never work a day in your life." Obviously, as we have seen, Sandler hates roles different from the character you hate. So why would he do work to act in one of these other roles? What would be his motivation? I highly doubt he is attempting to be remembered for all time as one of the greatest actors of our generation. He is making money doing what he loves.

Why is this not good enough for you?

(This could also lead into the argument of why companies milk game franchises. The reason is to make money. It is the goal of a business to make money, as it is the goal of an actor to make money. Both are jobs.)

I guess you can consider me to be a Yahtzee-ian (oh that hurt to type). You know, the whole defending games as art side of an argument; I'm doing the same except I'm defending films, not video games. I will also use one of his points, what's the point? What is the point of playing a role if it is simply the same role over and over and over again? If directors and script-writers can be slammed for recycling old material then I believe an actor is fair game too. As I said and have defend, it is ultimately the actor who decides his role, which such freedom comes the risk of being called out if they do not utilize it to be creative.

Doesn't all art have a pile of shit associated with it? Why should movies be an exception?

Isn't art subjective?

Yes it is, that also means I am free to voice my dismay when I find something that bothers me within a medium. I am also free to concur with something I find agreeable within a medium. Subjectivity goes both ways my friend. You can't say that I'm not allowed to voice my opinion and personal belief simply because it is controversial to common belief, can you? Well actually, yes, you can, but you can't do anything about it besides voicing your opinion, which is also what I've done. You might convince me to shut up or agree with you, but you can't force my hand and I cannot force yours.

 

[Gxas]

Now all you are doing is back trailing. At first it was "Adam Sandler can't act!" now it is "Adam Sandler has enormous potential but isn't in enough good movies!"

Dude, what are you saying? You keep going around in circles.

I saw an interview on the movie Reign Over Me and Sandler was saying that the role upset him somewhat as he is a father to young girls and really felt the character (which was brilliantly depicted on screen) and he then went on to imply that whilst he was proud of the role, he didn't really enjoy it.

Whilst he didn't outright say it, I took out of the interview that Sandler doesn't like playing serious roles. He can act them brilliantly, but he doesn't like it. He may be a person who gets too upset and stressed when playing serious roles. That's probably the reason why he stars in broad comedy. He enjoys it for God's sake, and huge amounts of people enjoy watching it.

For the sake of an analogy to make my point clearer, I'm sure there are many talented musicians who would produce amazing music of another genre. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that my favourite music genre is Indie Rock, and I come across a Metal band who are capable of playing fantastic Indie rock, but choose not to because they don't enjoy it. Would it be fair of me to start slagging them off and moaning about them because they don't provide the kind of music I want them to provide? No! Of course it wouldn't be, and that is exactly what you are doing here.

For one, what's a forum if not a -forum- to discuss ideas and attempt to change other people's opinions? I admit that reading the replies have caused me to soften my opinion on the man, somewhat, but I'm still staying strong on my belief that his repertoire of work does not reveal him to be an actor who can provide a good number of interesting, complete, and alternative roles. He's upset because he felt the character's pain? That's one of the key parts of acting 101! To feel the emotions of your character through objectives, reasoning, and actions. However, I never said that he couldn't attempt a different role within he genre of comedy. If we go by even the most restrictive list of comedic archetypes, there are two types, big fish and little fish. The big fish is fed by the little fish, who provides the big fish with fuel to be even funnier and more outrageous. Leo (little fish) to Max (big fish), Tom and Jerry (if we're allowed to name cartoon characters), frequently switch between those roles from short to short, Ty Webb (little fish) to Al Czervik (big fish) (Caddy Shack), the big fish is bombastic, loud, and slapstick while the little fish is quiet, intellectual, clever, and receptive. I wouldn't mind seeing Adam Sandler trying to develop a character around the little fish role. See, still comedy, still light-hearted (so no emotional trauma for Sandler), and yet it provides a chance for him to shine as a multi-faceted comedic talent.

But why should he?

Give a good, solid reason as to why he should do this.

I'm sorry, but a job is taken to make money. As the saying goes, "Love your work and you'll never work a day in your life." Obviously, as we have seen, Sandler hates roles different from the character you hate. So why would he do work to act in one of these other roles? What would be his motivation? I highly doubt he is attempting to be remembered for all time as one of the greatest actors of our generation. He is making money doing what he loves.

Why is this not good enough for you?

(This could also lead into the argument of why companies milk game franchises. The reason is to make money. It is the goal of a business to make money, as it is the goal of an actor to make money. Both are jobs.)

I guess you can consider me to be a Yahtzee-ian (oh that hurt to type). You know, the whole defending games as art side of an argument; I'm doing the same except I'm defending films, not video games. I will also use one of his points, what's the point? What is the point of playing a role if it is simply the same role over and over and over again? If directors and script-writers can be slammed for recycling old material then I believe an actor is fair game too. As I said and have defend, it is ultimately the actor who decides his role, which such freedom comes the risk of being called out if they do not utilize it to be creative.

Doesn't all art have a pile of shit associated with it? Why should movies be an exception?

Isn't art subjective?

Yes it is, that also means I am free to voice my dismay when I find something that bothers me within a medium. I am also free to concur with something I find agreeable within a medium. Subjectivity goes both ways my friend.

Have I argued that? All I've done so far is ask for a solid reason why he should change his acting style. I don't believe I've gotten an answer yet, but I will go back and recheck now. 6AM is not a good time for memory.

 

[Squeaksx]

Now all you are doing is back trailing. At first it was "Adam Sandler can't act!" now it is "Adam Sandler has enormous potential but isn't in enough good movies!"

Dude, what are you saying? You keep going around in circles.

I saw an interview on the movie Reign Over Me and Sandler was saying that the role upset him somewhat as he is a father to young girls and really felt the character (which was brilliantly depicted on screen) and he then went on to imply that whilst he was proud of the role, he didn't really enjoy it.

Whilst he didn't outright say it, I took out of the interview that Sandler doesn't like playing serious roles. He can act them brilliantly, but he doesn't like it. He may be a person who gets too upset and stressed when playing serious roles. That's probably the reason why he stars in broad comedy. He enjoys it for God's sake, and huge amounts of people enjoy watching it.

For the sake of an analogy to make my point clearer, I'm sure there are many talented musicians who would produce amazing music of another genre. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that my favourite music genre is Indie Rock, and I come across a Metal band who are capable of playing fantastic Indie rock, but choose not to because they don't enjoy it. Would it be fair of me to start slagging them off and moaning about them because they don't provide the kind of music I want them to provide? No! Of course it wouldn't be, and that is exactly what you are doing here.

For one, what's a forum if not a -forum- to discuss ideas and attempt to change other people's opinions? I admit that reading the replies have caused me to soften my opinion on the man, somewhat, but I'm still staying strong on my belief that his repertoire of work does not reveal him to be an actor who can provide a good number of interesting, complete, and alternative roles. He's upset because he felt the character's pain? That's one of the key parts of acting 101! To feel the emotions of your character through objectives, reasoning, and actions. However, I never said that he couldn't attempt a different role within he genre of comedy. If we go by even the most restrictive list of comedic archetypes, there are two types, big fish and little fish. The big fish is fed by the little fish, who provides the big fish with fuel to be even funnier and more outrageous. Leo (little fish) to Max (big fish), Tom and Jerry (if we're allowed to name cartoon characters), frequently switch between those roles from short to short, Ty Webb (little fish) to Al Czervik (big fish) (Caddy Shack), the big fish is bombastic, loud, and slapstick while the little fish is quiet, intellectual, clever, and receptive. I wouldn't mind seeing Adam Sandler trying to develop a character around the little fish role. See, still comedy, still light-hearted (so no emotional trauma for Sandler), and yet it provides a chance for him to shine as a multi-faceted comedic talent.

But why should he?

Give a good, solid reason as to why he should do this.

I'm sorry, but a job is taken to make money. As the saying goes, "Love your work and you'll never work a day in your life." Obviously, as we have seen, Sandler hates roles different from the character you hate. So why would he do work to act in one of these other roles? What would be his motivation? I highly doubt he is attempting to be remembered for all time as one of the greatest actors of our generation. He is making money doing what he loves.

Why is this not good enough for you?

(This could also lead into the argument of why companies milk game franchises. The reason is to make money. It is the goal of a business to make money, as it is the goal of an actor to make money. Both are jobs.)

I guess you can consider me to be a Yahtzee-ian (oh that hurt to type). You know, the whole defending games as art side of an argument; I'm doing the same except I'm defending films, not video games. I will also use one of his points, what's the point? What is the point of playing a role if it is simply the same role over and over and over again? If directors and script-writers can be slammed for recycling old material then I believe an actor is fair game too. As I said and have defend, it is ultimately the actor who decides his role, which such freedom comes the risk of being called out if they do not utilize it to be creative.

Doesn't all art have a pile of shit associated with it? Why should movies be an exception?

Isn't art subjective?

Yes it is, that also means I am free to voice my dismay when I find something that bothers me within a medium. I am also free to concur with something I find agreeable within a medium. Subjectivity goes both ways my friend.

Have I argued that? All I've done so far is ask for a solid reason why he should change his acting style. I don't believe I've gotten an answer yet, but I will go back and recheck now. 6AM is not a good time for memory.

An answer to what, your belief that art is subjective, a medium where quality is based on the principles, personal tastes, and beliefs of each individual? Yes, I perfectly agree, and with that agreement I state that in accordance to those three things, I find that I dislike the decisions Adam Sandler has made as an actor, nay, as an entertainer.

 

[Gxas]

Now all you are doing is back trailing. At first it was "Adam Sandler can't act!" now it is "Adam Sandler has enormous potential but isn't in enough good movies!"

Dude, what are you saying? You keep going around in circles.

I saw an interview on the movie Reign Over Me and Sandler was saying that the role upset him somewhat as he is a father to young girls and really felt the character (which was brilliantly depicted on screen) and he then went on to imply that whilst he was proud of the role, he didn't really enjoy it.

Whilst he didn't outright say it, I took out of the interview that Sandler doesn't like playing serious roles. He can act them brilliantly, but he doesn't like it. He may be a person who gets too upset and stressed when playing serious roles. That's probably the reason why he stars in broad comedy. He enjoys it for God's sake, and huge amounts of people enjoy watching it.

For the sake of an analogy to make my point clearer, I'm sure there are many talented musicians who would produce amazing music of another genre. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that my favourite music genre is Indie Rock, and I come across a Metal band who are capable of playing fantastic Indie rock, but choose not to because they don't enjoy it. Would it be fair of me to start slagging them off and moaning about them because they don't provide the kind of music I want them to provide? No! Of course it wouldn't be, and that is exactly what you are doing here.

For one, what's a forum if not a -forum- to discuss ideas and attempt to change other people's opinions? I admit that reading the replies have caused me to soften my opinion on the man, somewhat, but I'm still staying strong on my belief that his repertoire of work does not reveal him to be an actor who can provide a good number of interesting, complete, and alternative roles. He's upset because he felt the character's pain? That's one of the key parts of acting 101! To feel the emotions of your character through objectives, reasoning, and actions. However, I never said that he couldn't attempt a different role within he genre of comedy. If we go by even the most restrictive list of comedic archetypes, there are two types, big fish and little fish. The big fish is fed by the little fish, who provides the big fish with fuel to be even funnier and more outrageous. Leo (little fish) to Max (big fish), Tom and Jerry (if we're allowed to name cartoon characters), frequently switch between those roles from short to short, Ty Webb (little fish) to Al Czervik (big fish) (Caddy Shack), the big fish is bombastic, loud, and slapstick while the little fish is quiet, intellectual, clever, and receptive. I wouldn't mind seeing Adam Sandler trying to develop a character around the little fish role. See, still comedy, still light-hearted (so no emotional trauma for Sandler), and yet it provides a chance for him to shine as a multi-faceted comedic talent.

But why should he?

Give a good, solid reason as to why he should do this.

I'm sorry, but a job is taken to make money. As the saying goes, "Love your work and you'll never work a day in your life." Obviously, as we have seen, Sandler hates roles different from the character you hate. So why would he do work to act in one of these other roles? What would be his motivation? I highly doubt he is attempting to be remembered for all time as one of the greatest actors of our generation. He is making money doing what he loves.

Why is this not good enough for you?

(This could also lead into the argument of why companies milk game franchises. The reason is to make money. It is the goal of a business to make money, as it is the goal of an actor to make money. Both are jobs.)

I guess you can consider me to be a Yahtzee-ian (oh that hurt to type). You know, the whole defending games as art side of an argument; I'm doing the same except I'm defending films, not video games. I will also use one of his points, what's the point? What is the point of playing a role if it is simply the same role over and over and over again? If directors and script-writers can be slammed for recycling old material then I believe an actor is fair game too. As I said and have defend, it is ultimately the actor who decides his role, which such freedom comes the risk of being called out if they do not utilize it to be creative.

Doesn't all art have a pile of shit associated with it? Why should movies be an exception?

Isn't art subjective?

Yes it is, that also means I am free to voice my dismay when I find something that bothers me within a medium. I am also free to concur with something I find agreeable within a medium. Subjectivity goes both ways my friend.

Have I argued that? All I've done so far is ask for a solid reason why he should change his acting style. I don't believe I've gotten an answer yet, but I will go back and recheck now. 6AM is not a good time for memory.

An answer to what, your belief that art is subjective, a medium where quality is based on the principles, personal tastes, and beliefs of each individual? Yes, I perfectly agree, and with that agreement I state that in accordance to those three things, I find that I dislike the decisions Adam Sandler has made as an actor.

a solid reason why he should change his acting style

"Because I don't like it" is not a solid reason, subjective or not.

 

[kawaiiamethist]

I dislike Adam Sandler's films, but what he does is not uncommon at all, in fact it's almost mandatory. I study digital media, which naturally includes film, and just today it came up again that when big name actors are signed on to a project, the film makers are making a promise to the audience of what they can expect. This is why Jim Carrey has a hard time when he does drama, because he is not fulfilling a promise to the audience, who associate him with farcical comedy.

 

[Bat Vader]

Now all you are doing is back trailing. At first it was "Adam Sandler can't act!" now it is "Adam Sandler has enormous potential but isn't in enough good movies!"

Dude, what are you saying? You keep going around in circles.

I saw an interview on the movie Reign Over Me and Sandler was saying that the role upset him somewhat as he is a father to young girls and really felt the character (which was brilliantly depicted on screen) and he then went on to imply that whilst he was proud of the role, he didn't really enjoy it.

Whilst he didn't outright say it, I took out of the interview that Sandler doesn't like playing serious roles. He can act them brilliantly, but he doesn't like it. He may be a person who gets too upset and stressed when playing serious roles. That's probably the reason why he stars in broad comedy. He enjoys it for God's sake, and huge amounts of people enjoy watching it.

For the sake of an analogy to make my point clearer, I'm sure there are many talented musicians who would produce amazing music of another genre. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that my favourite music genre is Indie Rock, and I come across a Metal band who are capable of playing fantastic Indie rock, but choose not to because they don't enjoy it. Would it be fair of me to start slagging them off and moaning about them because they don't provide the kind of music I want them to provide? No! Of course it wouldn't be, and that is exactly what you are doing here.

For one, what's a forum if not a -forum- to discuss ideas and attempt to change other people's opinions? I admit that reading the replies have caused me to soften my opinion on the man, somewhat, but I'm still staying strong on my belief that his repertoire of work does not reveal him to be an actor who can provide a good number of interesting, complete, and alternative roles. He's upset because he felt the character's pain? That's one of the key parts of acting 101! To feel the emotions of your character through objectives, reasoning, and actions. However, I never said that he couldn't attempt a different role within he genre of comedy. If we go by even the most restrictive list of comedic archetypes, there are two types, big fish and little fish. The big fish is fed by the little fish, who provides the big fish with fuel to be even funnier and more outrageous. Leo (little fish) to Max (big fish), Tom and Jerry (if we're allowed to name cartoon characters), frequently switch between those roles from short to short, Ty Webb (little fish) to Al Czervik (big fish) (Caddy Shack), the big fish is bombastic, loud, and slapstick while the little fish is quiet, intellectual, clever, and receptive. I wouldn't mind seeing Adam Sandler trying to develop a character around the little fish role. See, still comedy, still light-hearted (so no emotional trauma for Sandler), and yet it provides a chance for him to shine as a multi-faceted comedic talent.

But why should he?

Give a good, solid reason as to why he should do this.

I'm sorry, but a job is taken to make money. As the saying goes, "Love your work and you'll never work a day in your life." Obviously, as we have seen, Sandler hates roles different from the character you hate. So why would he do work to act in one of these other roles? What would be his motivation? I highly doubt he is attempting to be remembered for all time as one of the greatest actors of our generation. He is making money doing what he loves.

Why is this not good enough for you?

(This could also lead into the argument of why companies milk game franchises. The reason is to make money. It is the goal of a business to make money, as it is the goal of an actor to make money. Both are jobs.)

I guess you can consider me to be a Yahtzee-ian (oh that hurt to type). You know, the whole defending games as art side of an argument; I'm doing the same except I'm defending films, not video games. I will also use one of his points, what's the point? What is the point of playing a role if it is simply the same role over and over and over again? If directors and script-writers can be slammed for recycling old material then I believe an actor is fair game too. As I said and have defended, it is ultimately the actor who decides his role, which such freedom comes the risk of being called out if they do not utilize it to be creative.

On another note, there is more than one type of character within a comedy! One contemporary book even went as far as to state there are 8 distinct archetypes within comedy. Adam Sandler has only tapped into one, maybe dribbled into two, his entire career. Everyone seems to think that just because he's acting in a comedy film he can't branch out, it's a completely false perspective.

The point is he most likely enjoys playing the same character over and over again. If I got paid a lot of money to play the same character over and over again it would be mostly because I liked it and also the paycheck.

Yes, Adam Sandler is an excellent actor and if he wanted to branch out and play other characters than he has every right to. If he doesn't want to than he doesn't want to.

Your opinion is that he should branch out and try to play different characters. My opinion is that he doesn't need to unless he wants to.