The Difference Between Acting and Adam Sandler

[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?

so is being a hater, apparently.

Being a hater is completely justified if you are hating against those who simply wish to add to the collective idiocy of society. People included in that list are those who accuse others of being haters for making perfectly valid points.

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

I don't agree with your statement, I don't watch comedy films for acting quality.

 

[Mozza444]

If your going to say this about Adam Sandler, than you may aswell say the same about Will Smith.

Sure he can be:
An alien fighting dude
A superhero
Fighting against robots

But he never acts differently its just him.

And both of these "actors" do it well, very well.

 

[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?

so is being a hater, apparently.

Put it however you want.

 

[otterhead]

For the record I kind of hate Adam Sandler and Ben Stiller.

But from what you have said Sandler seems worse. And yes, Little Nicky and Waterboy do sit very uncomfortably.

Interesting threat here. For me a movie is good because it is though provoking (Let the Right One In) or full of action and hot people (Star Trek) or well acted (Leon).

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

And of course, Arnold Swarschenegger has always been a terrific actor that simply rocked the 80s with his oscar-worthy performances.

Don't know if you're being sarcastic now (not really because of what you write, but because people tend to joke a lot about Arnold's acting abilities), but I just want to state for the record that Arnold Schwarzenegger is actually a pretty good actor.

I mean, just look at the variety of different roles he's portrayed during his filmcareer. It can't be easy to go from fantasy barbarian to cyborg assassin to green beret and then to playing a professor who actually undergoes an impregnation and becomes a pregnant man.

If anything it's usually the scripts and the roles themselves that sort of drags down Arnolds performance. But you've gotta give the man some serious credit for being able to tackle such a wide spectrum of different roles.

 

[oppp7]

He could probably act if he needed to. All of those examples of bad acting he's done were all the same character (you said so yourself), so does being typecasted and never changing what you play mean you can't act?

 

[derelict]

walloftext

I guess you left 50 First Dates out of that since it'd kind of topple your argument.

Most of the time, actors are picked because of their personalities or mannerisms fitting the role they are to play very well, so indeed, you won't see Sandler in too many action movies or the like. Just because they can't emulate any type of person doesn't mean they aren't suited for acting. All they need to do is fit the role they're given.

 

[Cherry Cola]

And of course, Arnold Swarschenegger has always been a terrific actor that simply rocked the 80s with his oscar-worthy performances.

Don't know if you're being sarcastic now (not really because of what you write, but because people tend to joke a lot about Arnold's acting abilities), but I just want to state for the record that Arnold Schwarzenegger is actually a pretty good actor.

I mean, just look at the variety of different roles he's portrayed during his filmcareer. It can't be easy to go from fantasy barbarian to cyborg assassin to green beret and then to playing a professor who actually undergoes an impregnation and becomes a pregnant man.

If anything it's usually the scripts and the roles themselves that sort of drags down Arnolds performance. But you've gotta give the man some serious credit for being able to tackle such a wide spectrum of different roles.

Well I would make the argument that in most films Arnold is famous for doing (Conan, Total Recall, Terminator, Commando, The Running Man) he plays very similar characters. Sure, in Total Recall he shows a bit more emotion than in the other examples, but it still boils down to Arnold saying one-liners and killing shit with rarely more than his 2 famous expressions:

Spoiler: Serious Arnold

and

Spoiler: Surprised Arnold

Not that there's anything wrong with that, he makes awesome films. It's just that acting wasn't really his strong side during his prime.

 

[maninahat]

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.

Pretty much this.
Whilst we are at it, what the hell did the Marx brothers or Laurel and Hardy ever do besides act like the Marx brothers or Laurel and Hardy? Did that ever detract from their shows or damage their reputation? Many stories don't actually need fully fleshed out characters. In comedy movies especially, characters basically serve as vehicles for lots of funny jokes and scenes - you do not necessarily watch a comedy for the acting talent (though there are many comedies with very talented acting in them).

Ronnie Barker was fond of the term "comic-actor" over commedian. He felt that the latter suggested a comedic persona was unable to do anything other than be funny.

I don't see any merit in comparing two significantly different approaches to acting and film making. I don't think replacing Adam Sandler with a much more talented stage actor will improve Adam Sandler's films at all.

 

[Davrel]

I implore you to comment.

Oh, well I must then! Couldn't agree with you more. There are very few talented actors and a huge number of useless ones.

 

[Iron Criterion]

Adam Sandler is simply a poorman's Jim Carrey, who might I add is an absolute genius.

 

[DMal88]

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.

He means pulp fiction the genre, not the Tarantino film.

 

[maninahat]

If your going to say this about Adam Sandler, than you may aswell say the same about Will Smith.

Sure he can be:
An alien fighting dude
A superhero
Fighting against robots

But he never acts differently its just him.

And both of these "actors" do it well, very well.

Actually Will Smith has shown a lot more versatility in recent years. I don't like many of his movies, but things like The Persuit of Happyness [sic] showcase a more dramatic, emotional side to his acting. Will Smith is often noted for showing that black actors need not be relegated to type-cast roles (see Eddie Murphy and Chris Tucker). Him and Sidney Poitier are interesting to compare. Poitier is a brilliant actor, but he was stuck doing essentially the same "magical-negro" characters in many of his movies. Meanwhile Smith, the clearly inferior actor of the two, manages to break away from his stock, wisecracking, smart arsed, action roles.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Well I would make the argument that in most films Arnold is famous for doing (Conan, Total Recall, Terminator, Commando, The Running Man) he plays very similar characters. Sure, in Total Recall he shows a bit more emotion than in the other examples, but it still boils down to Arnold saying one-liners and killing shit with rarely more than his 2 famous expressions:

Spoiler: Serious Arnold

and

Spoiler: Surprised Arnold

Not that there's anything wrong with that, he makes awesome films. It's just that acting wasn't really his strong side during his prime.

Well in Arnolds defense I'd like to ascribe this mostly to typecasting, along with the fact that Arnold seems to have loads of fun playing the type of characters he's most famous for.

My impression if the guy seems that he doesn't really play the stereotype action characters to strengthen some type of "tough guy" persona (like actors like Vin Diesel does), but that he's a confident and pretty charismatic person off screen who does these types of characters partly because he's intrigued by them (the same way most men are intrigued by action films and the characters within them) and partly because he's having a blast portraying them.

But if you think about it, he's shown to be very capable of different types of characters, regardless of the fact that many of them tend to do the same thing (major shootouts and causing things to explode). I mean just think of it, here we have a guy who didn't shirk from crying on screen due to pregnancy hormones in the movie Junior, and he's previously portrayed an intimidating and emotionless cyborg assassin in The Terminator, to playing a typical "family dad" in "Jingle all the way" to playing a tattered, broken and alcoholic ex-cop in "End of Days".

I mean just consider the gross differences between The Terminator (from the first film that is) to the pregnant Professor in Junior. I think that shows that he used to be quite a capable actor. Maybe not a "super-actor" but he's better than a lot of actors (especially better than Adam Sandler for instance).

It's a shame he had to be so heavily typecasted during his prime. It would have been interesting to see how he handled roles in moves that weren't action/sci-fi or comedy.

 

[Cherry Cola]

snip

Well then I can simply blame the criticism the OP is giving Adam Sandler on typecasting as well, since Sandler has also proven that he can at the very least act like something else other than what he's famous for.

Oh well, let's just settle this with that Arnold is awesome, typecasting or not.

[sub]Although I do think he's a douche after watching Bigger. Stronger. Faster.*[/sub]

 

[kronoset]

Don't just stop at movie acting--in America, our televised news is pretty much a spectacle for entertainment purposes. How would you explain Michael Jackson/Pamela Anderson/Tiger Woods getting multiple weeks worth of "NEWS" coverage. It's the culture we live in (read Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death"). discover a way to do something about it, but simply focusing on theatrical actors/entertainers isn't going to cut it.

 

[kronoset]

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.

This. My family watches movies from the early periods of movies. Adam Sandler is probably a better actor than most people in these movies. All eras of film have good actors and bad actors. Adam Sandler is just a bad modern actor.

Sorry to get a bit off track, but your profile pic confuses me--a lot. Help me understand before my brain begins to hemorrhage.

 

[lapan]

See, I would use De Niro as a good actor who works WITHIN his own particular character mold. Unlike a Jude Law or Tom Cruise, you don't see a wide range of characters from De Niro. Instead, they're all pretty much a variation on Sam Rothstien and Jimmy the Gent. Sometimes the character are a little different from one another, but in almost all cases he plays a world-weary gentleman with a vicious true nature and remarkable ability to lie to the faces of everyone else.

Jude Law has been a roguish pilot, psycho assassin, confused security officer, detective's assistant... I'm just saying that all De Niro's roles seem to involve him being on the wrong side of the law in some sort of money-appropriating capacity.

I provided an example of a very well-known role in which Robert Di Niro played a character completely opposite of the one you just provided. Leonard Love is a trusting, innocent, and naive boy inside a man who eventually gets overwhelmed with the stress and pain that overcomes him as he slowly falls back into his catatonic state. He lashes out because he is in a panic, not because he's naturally vicious or violent, but because he's reacting like a wounded creature at this point. Even a bunny will bite you if it is hurt and fearful.

Reign Over Me makes this thread loose it's credibility. Sandler was fantastic in that, and made me cry in a scene. It's his only credible movie. Oh, and he was ok in punch drunk love.

No it doesn't, I stated in a later reply that an actor should be judged on the sum of his work, not one or two exceptions.

Aren't you contraticting yourself here?
Both actors are heavily typecasted, but were also succesfull with other kinds of roles. Yet you critize Sandler for it, while you call De Niro "a true actor".