The Difference Between Acting and Adam Sandler

[Squeaksx]

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.

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.

This goes to what I personally call documented I.Q. and applied I.Q., basically translate that into acting. Even if an actor CAN do it, if he doesn't do it for the majority of his work then it doesn't count. I thought up the term documented I.Q. and applied I.Q. to explain a concept my father introduced me to. It doesn't matter how intelligent one is, if they haven't applied it to enough of their work then they are not better than the average individual who puts all of their effort and intelligence into everything they do.

 

[Cody211282]

I honestly done care because I think the movies are funny. If a movie entertains me then it's done it's job because it's just entertainment, nothing more nothing less

 

[Squeaksx]

I honestly done care because I think the movies are funny. If a movie entertains me then it's done it's job because it's just entertainment, nothing more nothing less

No, movies aren't just entertainment, they are a medium for actors, directors, producers, to do the pull upon the emotions (happiness, sadness, depression) and intellect of the audience. Films are simply theater productions with one show and bigger budgets, or at least they should be. Saying a movie is just entertainment is like saying a book or a painting is just a bunch of words or paint, they are obviously not. If I simply wanted entertainment I'd save my money and search up a stand-up act on Youtube.

 

[Revolutionary]

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?

LOOK at his face........then think can that man act?
Short answer NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

[Squeaksx]

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?

LOOK at his face........then think can that man act?
Short answer NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I still don't see your point, mind trying to translate your thoughts into words us normal folk can understand?

 

[Cherry Cola]

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.

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 characters.

By saying that you don't have anything against bad actors who try, you've made all your arguments pretty weak. Do you have any proof that Adam Sandler doesn't attempt to act? Have you heard him say "Oh I don't act, I simply read of the script and get paid!"

You know who's really to blame? The directors. The directors who see the fame Adam Sandler gets from playing the same role and decide to make a movie tailored for him. The directors that outright tell Sandler to act like he's always done, just because it has proven to be marketable.

Stop blaming the actors.

 

[Squeaksx]

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.

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 characters.

By saying that you don't have anything against bad actors who try, you've made all your arguments pretty weak. Do you have any proof that Adam Sandler doesn't attempt to act? Have you heard him say "Oh I don't act, I simply read of the script and get paid!"

You know who's really to blame? The directors. The directors who see the fame Adam Sandler gets from playing the same role and decide to make a movie tailored for him. The directors that outright tell Sandler to act like he's always done, just because it has proven to be marketable.

Stop blaming the actors.

The actor ultimately decides which role and which movie he acts in. Adam Sandler, I can safely assume, has the financial security to be picky with his roles. I don't see why, if he really wanted to, he couldn't try acting outside of the typecast. Sure, he'd probably have to find a smaller production that would be willing to take the risk, but on the plus side they also wouldn't typecast him if he chose to play a role different from what he's known for.

And yes, I do have proof, I don't see him attempting any other role. Even if an actor comes short of portraying a role well, you can at least note him for taking the chance of stepping outside of his comfort zone. If an actor is intelligent, he will take this as a single that he has to strengthen his technique before trying again. That is the explanation as to why many actors seem to vanish for a good number of years before emerging again. Some go back into theater productions because it allows them to work on their craft without the strains of forceful directors.

 

[Cody211282]

I honestly done care because I think the movies are funny. If a movie entertains me then it's done it's job because it's just entertainment, nothing more nothing less

No, movies aren't just entertainment, they are a medium for actors, directors, producers, to do the pull upon the emotions and intellect of the audience. Saying a movie is just entertainment is like saying a book or a painting is just a bunch of words or paint, they are obviously not. If I simply wanted entertainment I'd save my money and search up a stand-up act on Youtube.

Yes but youtube sucks, I pay money for entertainment. If I want something to make me think I pay attention to politics(I so wish I still had c-span), read philosophy on government or study up oh whatever topic I want. People who work in Hollywood have this weird idea that they mean something other then a modern day court jester or bard, they are here to tell stories and that's it. If they could actually go out and go out and do something productive they should be doing that instead.

 

[Revolutionary]

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?

LOOK at his face........then think can that man act?
Short answer NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I still don't see your point, mind trying to translate your thoughts into words us normal folk can understand?

Ok then....*AHEM* HE.....CANNOT ......ACT......HIS...........FACE.............SUGGESTS...............HE.......................CANT.......ACT (comprende')

 

[Distazo]

I honestly done care because I think the movies are funny. If a movie entertains me then it's done it's job because it's just entertainment, nothing more nothing less

No, movies aren't just entertainment, they are a forum for actors, directors, producers, ect. That's like saying a book or a painting is simply entertainment, it shouldn't be.

While they shouldn't be it has evolved in our culture where they are. The reason people make movies (the majority obviously, not the few artistic actors out there) is to make money. While it pains me to say this (I agree with you above statment about Sandler) Adam Sandler's burps of character make a good deal of money and at this point that all the majority of the movie business is about.

Right or wrong, good or bad, that's how it is.

 

[Squeaksx]

I honestly done care because I think the movies are funny. If a movie entertains me then it's done it's job because it's just entertainment, nothing more nothing less

No, movies aren't just entertainment, they are a forum for actors, directors, producers, ect. That's like saying a book or a painting is simply entertainment, it shouldn't be.

While they shouldn't be it has evolved in our culture where they are. The reason people make movies (the majority obviously, not the few artistic actors out there) is to make money. While it pains me to say this (I agree with you above statment about Sandler) Adam Sandler's burps of character make a good deal of money and at this point that all the majority of the movie business is about.

Right or wrong, good or bad, that's how it is.

I honestly done care because I think the movies are funny. If a movie entertains me then it's done it's job because it's just entertainment, nothing more nothing less

No, movies aren't just entertainment, they are a forum for actors, directors, producers, ect. That's like saying a book or a painting is simply entertainment, it shouldn't be.

While they shouldn't be it has evolved in our culture where they are. The reason people make movies (the majority obviously, not the few artistic actors out there) is to make money. While it pains me to say this (I agree with you above statment about Sandler) Adam Sandler's burps of character make a good deal of money and at this point that all the majority of the movie business is about.

Right or wrong, good or bad, that's how it is.

The public speaks with their money, the purpose of this topic isn't to present a thought that isn't already in the minds of many, but to put it on the foreground so that the few who haven't considered it might begin to contemplate what a great actor really is. I'm willing to defend and explain my article all night if it changes the thought process of one person, one person who will opt out of seeing the big box office smash and instead take a look at a smaller, yet infinitely better, film. They even might take an interest in the theater, which would be even greater.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

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.

And don't even get me started on Pesci. He's brilliant and hilarious, but the man literally has one role he ever plays in any movie.

 

[Squeaksx]

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.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

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.

Oh man, there are some Charlie Chan movies (1940s-50s) out there... I get chills just thinking about them. I think one of the movies gave me cancer in my eyes.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

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 feeble minded, 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.

But aside from that role and taxi driver (I would contend he didn't settle into his rut until after he became famous) are there any others? More recent films, maybe?

I find a lot of famous actors did their best work before everyone knew their names. And not just because I like to seem edgy, some actors have a tendency to "go with what works" and play it safe.

 

[Squeaksx]

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.

Oh man, there are some Charlie Chan movies (1940s-50s) out there... I get chills just thinking about them. I think one of the movies gave me cancer in my eyes.

Perhaps, but what I am worried about is this. I, and I'm sure quite a few others, have never heard of Charlie Chan or Earl Derr Biggers, but there is a really good chance that people seventy years from now will still remember truly horrific characters and actors over the truly great. People will remember Adam Sandler over (an actor who I think has a good chance at an Oscar within his lifetime), Hugh Jackman.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I would argue Adam Sandler was acting as a character... it's just the same character over and over again, which he "perfected" by actually being the character (aka playing himself).

Not that I approve of that style of "acting", but it's what he does, when I think about it.
He obviously can act, but he chooses to stick with his well-established comedic-self and take no risks.
A lot of people will pay to see Adam Sandler being Adam Sandler and I might be guilty of this, as Happy Gilmore is one of my favorite movies.

That said, Adam being himself is starting to wear thing nowadays, with the exception of movies practically written for "him".
The annoying comes when he keeps playing the character despite the situation, I do suppose.

 

[Squeaksx]

I would argue Adam Sandler was acting as a character... it's just the same character over and over again, which he "perfected" by actually being the character (aka playing himself).

Not that I approve of that style of "acting", but it's what he does, when I think about it.
He obviously can act, but he chooses to stick with his well-established comedic-self and take no risks.
A lot of people will pay to see Adam Sandler being Adam Sandler and I might be guilty of this, as Happy Gilmore is one of my favorite movies.

That said, Adam being himself is starting to wear thing nowadays, with the exception of movies practically written for "him".
The annoying comes when he keeps playing the character despite the situation, I do suppose.

Again, I'm not saying they aren't a good way to pass the time, but a film has the capability of being so much more. Films are the medium of choice for much of modern society (with video games coming a near second), and many people will have their lives at least partially shaped by the films they watch. I think that the least a film could do is present new ideas, evoke a wide range of emotions, call a person to action, or even bring old ideas up in a new light. Here's a key point, there's a difference between a laugh that emits from the mouth and a laugh that emits from the heart and mind, one is feeble and does nothing more than put us in a good mood temporarily; the other adds a new perspective to our lives and possibly changes our own, if only to a small degree.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

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.

Oh man, there are some Charlie Chan movies (1940s-50s) out there... I get chills just thinking about them. I think one of the movies gave me cancer in my eyes.

Perhaps, but what I am worried about is this. I, and I'm sure quite a few others, have never heard of Charlie Chan or Earl Derr Biggers, but there is a really good chance that people seventy years from now will still remember truly horrific characters and actors over the truly great. People will remember Adam Sandler over (an actor who I think has a good chance at an Oscar within his lifetime), Hugh Jackman.

Thing is, with matters of taste like this there's not much that can be done about that. I might think Tom Cruise was brilliant in Collateral, but the fact of the matter is many people would rather watch Adam Sandler play Adam Sandler in the latest movie by Adam Sandler, or Johnny Depp playing Johnny Depp while Tim Burton rapes another childhood fairy tale through film.

Personally I can't remember any film Jackman has been particularly amazing in, but then I was never crazy over the LotR movies. Just wasn't my thing-I'm more of a David Fincher/Scorcese guy anyway. So if we were going by my own biased opinion of who are the good actors, you'd be seeing Fincher win a lot of awards and Ethan Hawke would be a household name.