The Difference Between Acting and Adam Sandler

[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.

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.

Mhm, and I have the right to say that if he follows that path then he is ,more or less, an embarrassment to the art of acting because he does not utilize his talent and instead reverts to mechanisms and cliche to get a chuckle instead of inspired creativity and honest effort. To be fair I would say that he's more of an embarrassment than a bad actor because at least a bad actor can make the excuse that he or she simply lacks the skill and talent, but someone with such talent like Adam Sandler should be put under harsher scrutiny because of his talent and obvious ability.

 

[Srdjan]

Shorter is what is mutual, and answer is NOTHING

 

[Squeaksx]

Shorter is what is mutual, and answer is NOTHING

...What? Can someone add a bit of clarification to this? I have no idea what I just read. I'm not being a jerk, I honestly can't understand this statement.

 

[Gxas]

Shorter is what is mutual, and answer is NOTHING

...What? Can someone add a bit of clarification to this? I have no idea what I just read. I'm not being a jerk, I honestly can't understand this statement.

He was making a poor attempt at a joke because you're comparing Adam Sandler and acting.

Sort of like:

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

But much less obvious and still terrible and adding nothing at all to the topic. Bumping post counts is fun, no?

 

[Magnalian]

I am immediately reminded of a horrible little movie called Adam Sandler's Eight Crazy Nights. Dear god, that movie was a shitfest, both literally and figuratively.

 

[The Thief]

I doubt a brilliant actor could play the role of Adam Sandler correctly. It's not that he's a good actor, or even a bad actor, but that he brings a certain style to the stage that would be hard for others to emulate. It's the reason he and many actors like him with distinctive acting styles are typecast into certain roles. Playing multiple roles well may be the sign of a great actor, but a jack of all trades is almost always a master of none.

 

[Squeaksx]

Shorter is what is mutual, and answer is NOTHING

...What? Can someone add a bit of clarification to this? I have no idea what I just read. I'm not being a jerk, I honestly can't understand this statement.

He was making a poor attempt at a joke because you're comparing Adam Sandler and acting.

Sort of like:

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

But much less obvious and still terrible and adding nothing at all to the topic. Bumping post counts is fun, no?

Quite, quite. Now, before I go on, let me make this perfectly clear. I am not mad that people disagreed with me, on the contrary. I was certain people would disagree with my article when I posted it. Now, I wasn't dishonest, the article was my true opinion, but I was more than willing to step in front of the firing line because this is what I wanted to see more of: heated, intellectual debate. To be frank, even an idiot can agree, but it takes someone of sufficient intelligence to formulate a strong disagreement, a convincing disagreement.

 

[little.09]

Maybe sandler is smart and is thinking hmmmmmmmmmmmm what brings home the bacon? oh i know what people want maybe i should do that

EDIT: POOR GRAMMAR

 

[Gxas]

Shorter is what is mutual, and answer is NOTHING

...What? Can someone add a bit of clarification to this? I have no idea what I just read. I'm not being a jerk, I honestly can't understand this statement.

He was making a poor attempt at a joke because you're comparing Adam Sandler and acting.

Sort of like:

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

But much less obvious and still terrible and adding nothing at all to the topic. Bumping post counts is fun, no?

Quite, quite. Now, before I go on, let me make this perfectly clear. I am not mad that people disagreed with me, on the contrary. I was certain people would disagree with my article when I posted it. Now, I wasn't dishonest, the article was my true opinion, but I was more than willing to step in front of the firing line because this is what I wanted to see more of: heated, intellectual debate. To be frank, even an idiot can agree, but it takes someone of sufficient intelligence to formulate a strong disagreement, a convincing disagreement.

It's 6:44 in the morning and I'm running on absolutely zero sleep. Why can't more people be like me and argue intellectually when they're awake?

 

[pirateninj4]

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.

Ahh, but they could sing and dance and that certainly entertains me ha ha.

 

[Squeaksx]

Shorter is what is mutual, and answer is NOTHING

...What? Can someone add a bit of clarification to this? I have no idea what I just read. I'm not being a jerk, I honestly can't understand this statement.

He was making a poor attempt at a joke because you're comparing Adam Sandler and acting.

Sort of like:

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

But much less obvious and still terrible and adding nothing at all to the topic. Bumping post counts is fun, no?

Quite, quite. Now, before I go on, let me make this perfectly clear. I am not mad that people disagreed with me, on the contrary. I was certain people would disagree with my article when I posted it. Now, I wasn't dishonest, the article was my true opinion, but I was more than willing to step in front of the firing line because this is what I wanted to see more of: heated, intellectual debate. To be frank, even an idiot can agree, but it takes someone of sufficient intelligence to formulate a strong disagreement, a convincing disagreement.

It's 6:44 in the morning and I'm running on absolutely zero sleep. Why can't more people be like me and argue intellectually when they're awake?

Psh, sleep is for the weak! I would also like to state that, for the record, Five Hour Energy drinks do in fact work. I know this from recent personal experience.

 

[TomBizz]

Why do I say Adam Sandler isn't an actor? He never, ever, ever, ever does anything beside behave as himself

You mentioned this a few times in your post, I assume you know him then?

Seriously, unless you are his close friend in disguise how can you make this statement, you don't know how he acts in real life, you just know his typecasted role. If he carries on this role, he gets paid (alot), people get entertained. Why bother taking the risk of trying a low cost production film as you stated.

Theres always going to be a large audience for the simple laughs films like his bring. I assure you, folks like you who complain for seemingly no reason (what have you got to gain here?) are in the minority.

 

[Squeaksx]

Why do I say Adam Sandler isn't an actor? He never, ever, ever, ever does anything beside behave as himself

You mentioned this a few times in your post, I assume you know him then?

Seriously, unless you are his close friend in disguise how can you make this statement, you don't know how he acts in real life, you just know his typecasted role. If he carries on this role, he gets paid (alot), people get entertained. Why bother taking the risk of trying a low cost production film as you stated.

Theres always going to be a large audience for the simple laughs films like his bring. I assure you, folks like you who complain for seemingly no reason (what have you got to gain here?) are in the minority.

How can I tell? Because he's not a recluse, he goes out, he goes to parties, he's interviewed by various talk show hosts. I know how he behaves, or at least how he behaves in public and I'm generating my opinion based on that.

 

[TomBizz]

Why do I say Adam Sandler isn't an actor? He never, ever, ever, ever does anything beside behave as himself

You mentioned this a few times in your post, I assume you know him then?

Seriously, unless you are his close friend in disguise how can you make this statement, you don't know how he acts in real life, you just know his typecasted role. If he carries on this role, he gets paid (alot), people get entertained. Why bother taking the risk of trying a low cost production film as you stated.

Theres always going to be a large audience for the simple laughs films like his bring. I assure you, folks like you who complain for seemingly no reason (what have you got to gain here?) are in the minority.

How can I tell? Because he's not a recluse, he goes out, he goes to parties, he's interviewed by various talk show hosts. I know how he behaves, or at least how he behaves in public.

Exactly, you know how he acts when a camera is around....

 

[Squeaksx]

Why do I say Adam Sandler isn't an actor? He never, ever, ever, ever does anything beside behave as himself

You mentioned this a few times in your post, I assume you know him then?

Seriously, unless you are his close friend in disguise how can you make this statement, you don't know how he acts in real life, you just know his typecasted role. If he carries on this role, he gets paid (alot), people get entertained. Why bother taking the risk of trying a low cost production film as you stated.

Theres always going to be a large audience for the simple laughs films like his bring. I assure you, folks like you who complain for seemingly no reason (what have you got to gain here?) are in the minority.

How can I tell? Because he's not a recluse, he goes out, he goes to parties, he's interviewed by various talk show hosts. I know how he behaves, or at least how he behaves in public.

Exactly, you know how he acts when a camera is around....

Oh, -indeed-, I'm sure he puts on an elaborate facade when he is, in fact, a scholar and master of the arts. Someone to rival Albert Einstein or Wolfgang Amadeus in terms of jarring dedication, inspiration, effort, and skill to his craft. He just puts on the facade of a blue-collar everyman to fool us mortals into thinking him different of who he really is. His true self might rival that of Allister Crowley even!? He could be the next Bill Gates even! Oh how much of a fool am I to believe that how he behaves in public is remotely similar to his true personality.

 

[Gxas]

Why do I say Adam Sandler isn't an actor? He never, ever, ever, ever does anything beside behave as himself

You mentioned this a few times in your post, I assume you know him then?

Seriously, unless you are his close friend in disguise how can you make this statement, you don't know how he acts in real life, you just know his typecasted role. If he carries on this role, he gets paid (alot), people get entertained. Why bother taking the risk of trying a low cost production film as you stated.

Theres always going to be a large audience for the simple laughs films like his bring. I assure you, folks like you who complain for seemingly no reason (what have you got to gain here?) are in the minority.

How can I tell? Because he's not a recluse, he goes out, he goes to parties, he's interviewed by various talk show hosts. I know how he behaves, or at least how he behaves in public.

Exactly, you know how he acts when a camera is around....

Oh, -indeed-, I'm sure he puts on an elaborate facade when he is, in fact, a scholar and master of the arts. Someone to rival Albert Einstein or Wolfgang Amadeus in terms of jarring dedication, inspiration, effort, and skill to his craft. He just puts on the facade of a blue-collar everyman to fool us mortals into thinking him different of who he really is. His true self might rival that of Allister Crowley even!? He could be the next Bill Gates even! Oh how much of a fool am I to believe that how he behaves in public is remotely similar to his true personality.

I would like to offer the example of "Larry the Cable Guy". Though I do agree with you on this debate.

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

Adam Sandler can be funny, but only if he wants too. Most of the time he just runs around like a jackass

 

[Squeaksx]

Why do I say Adam Sandler isn't an actor? He never, ever, ever, ever does anything beside behave as himself

You mentioned this a few times in your post, I assume you know him then?

Seriously, unless you are his close friend in disguise how can you make this statement, you don't know how he acts in real life, you just know his typecasted role. If he carries on this role, he gets paid (alot), people get entertained. Why bother taking the risk of trying a low cost production film as you stated.

Theres always going to be a large audience for the simple laughs films like his bring. I assure you, folks like you who complain for seemingly no reason (what have you got to gain here?) are in the minority.

How can I tell? Because he's not a recluse, he goes out, he goes to parties, he's interviewed by various talk show hosts. I know how he behaves, or at least how he behaves in public.

Exactly, you know how he acts when a camera is around....

Oh, -indeed-, I'm sure he puts on an elaborate facade when he is, in fact, a scholar and master of the arts. Someone to rival Albert Einstein or Wolfgang Amadeus in terms of jarring dedication, inspiration, effort, and skill to his craft. He just puts on the facade of a blue-collar everyman to fool us mortals into thinking him different of who he really is. His true self might rival that of Allister Crowley even!? He could be the next Bill Gates even! Oh how much of a fool am I to believe that how he behaves in public is remotely similar to his true personality.

I would like to offer the example of "Larry the Cable Guy". Though I do agree with you on this debate.

That's true, but I try not to think of him when I don't have to. Why he's on the same boat as comedy legends like Jeff Foxworthy and Ron White is beyond me.

 

[Squeaksx]

Adam Sandler can be funny, but only if he wants too. Most of the time he just runs around like a jackass

Your simple response is amplified in impact due to the fact that you have a Konata avatar! What? I can't be a fanboy of something?

 

[TomBizz]

Why do I say Adam Sandler isn't an actor? He never, ever, ever, ever does anything beside behave as himself

You mentioned this a few times in your post, I assume you know him then?

Seriously, unless you are his close friend in disguise how can you make this statement, you don't know how he acts in real life, you just know his typecasted role. If he carries on this role, he gets paid (alot), people get entertained. Why bother taking the risk of trying a low cost production film as you stated.

Theres always going to be a large audience for the simple laughs films like his bring. I assure you, folks like you who complain for seemingly no reason (what have you got to gain here?) are in the minority.

How can I tell? Because he's not a recluse, he goes out, he goes to parties, he's interviewed by various talk show hosts. I know how he behaves, or at least how he behaves in public.

Exactly, you know how he acts when a camera is around....

Oh, -indeed-, I'm sure he puts on an elaborate facade when he is, in fact, a scholar and master of the arts. Someone to rival Albert Einstein or Wolfgang Amadeus in terms of jarring dedication, inspiration, effort, and skill to his craft. He just puts on the facade of a blue-collar everyman to fool us mortals into thinking him different of who he really is. His true self might rival that of Allister Crowley even!? He could be the next Bill Gates even! Oh how much of a fool am I to believe that how he behaves in public is remotely similar to his true personality.

Calm down, its the lowest form of wit you know.
All I'm saying is the face he puts on around a camera isn't necessarily how he would act around friends and family. If you sincerely believe what you see of celebrities on the red carpet/in interviews or even when they're caught 'off guard' at parties is a true representation of their personalities, then you're a lot more naive than I first thought.