The Difference Between Acting and Adam Sandler

[SuperGordon]

Let's run with Adam Sandler for a moment.

You say he "never, ever, ever, ever does anything beside behave as himself," and then when people show that he does, you say it doesn't count.

Apparently, he "cannot pull it off without simply devolving acting into a stand up act, complete with repeated mechanisms, mannerisms, and trademarks," but then when people show that he can, you say it doesn't count.

You implore people to comment about what, exactly? You aren't really putting anything out there for discussion. If someone posts anything contrary to what you said, you put your hands over your ears and close your eyes.

Is there really a point to this thread beyond pseudo-intellectual elitism?

 

[Bat Vader]

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.

Just judging someone on the sum of works they have done and ignoring everything else they have done is what makes an uninformed decision. Yes, Adam Sandler has made many comedic films but just judging him on his comedic films alone and ignoring everything else he has done is silly.

If I was making a drama and I wanted Adam Sandler in my film I would look at all the drama films he has done, I would not just judge him on his comedic films alone.

 

[Squeaksx]

Let's run with Adam Sandler for a moment.

You say he "never, ever, ever, ever does anything beside behave as himself," and then when people show that he does, you say it doesn't count.

Apparently, he "cannot pull it off without simply devolving acting into a stand up act, complete with repeated mechanisms, mannerisms, and trademarks," but then when people show that he can, you say it doesn't count.

You implore people to comment about what, exactly? You aren't really putting anything out there for discussion. If someone posts anything contrary to what you said, you put your hands over your ears and close your eyes.

Is there really a point to this thread beyond pseudo-intellectual elitism?

No, I did change my opinion about him, I did admit that he has the capabilities of being a great actor, but that I am now further enraged by the fact that he can be one, but decides to stick with the money and security.

Though there is also the strong possibility that those films were the extent of his creative energy. Acting with such effort and creative involvement requires a mental capacity that must be built or is at risk of faltering and burning out the actor. I'm not saying that Adam Sandler can't do the role again, but if those roles are too hard for him then he should work on his technique so that he may have more creative energy to spend instead of retreating to his comfort zone.

 

[mechanixis]

This is, I am prepared to say, the dumbest thread I've ever seen top the Hot Thread list.

I'm glad you've provided your powerful and important insight to this post, I am forever grateful.

Alright, alright, you got me, it was a dick move. I'll expand my response.

Yes, there are lots of one-note actors in Hollywood today. The excessive consistency of Adam Sandler characters makes me cringe too.

But you're attacking the nebulous concept of "acting" as being to blame, as if it's this metaphysical entity that's in decline. My guess would be two reasons, 1) film is a larger industry today than it used to be, and 2) innovation is financially risky.

The one-note actors are so numerous because for one thing the pool of actors is simply larger, and for another because once an actor is established as being good at something, the filmmaking industry's first goal is making that lightning strike twice. Especially with something as intangible and delicate as comedy.

Again, I will state that it's the actor who ultimately decides what role he takes. Famous actors are provided with enough financial security to search out smaller productions for the sake of creative flexibility. Now I can forgive a smaller, less famous actor for sticking to a typecast while trying to make a living, but once an actor has a net worth of over two or so million he has no excuse for sticking to that typecast and not trying to express his creative range (if he has it), by portraying other roles.

Frankly, I don't see any reason Adam Sandler or anyone else owes it to society to be a good actor. Whatever he's doing, it's validated by millions of box office dollars, so if anything it's the tastes of modern society that's suspect.

I'm fascinated by this idea that artists are...obligated to contribute their talents? I don't know where you got that. I believe artistic ability is something owned by the artist to be expressed at their discretion. I mean, if people don't own their own abilities, where does it end?

 

[Squeaksx]

This is, I am prepared to say, the dumbest thread I've ever seen top the Hot Thread list.

I'm glad you've provided your powerful and important insight to this post, I am forever grateful.

Alright, alright, you got me, it was a dick move. I'll expand my response.

Yes, there are lots of one-note actors in Hollywood today. The excessive consistency of Adam Sandler characters makes me cringe too.

But you're attacking the nebulous concept of "acting" as being to blame, as if it's this metaphysical entity that's in decline. My guess would be two reasons, 1) film is a larger industry today than it used to be, and 2) innovation is financially risky.

The one-note actors are so numerous because for one thing the pool of actors is simply larger, and for another because once an actor is established as being good at something, the filmmaking industry's first goal is making that lightning strike twice. Especially with something as intangible and delicate as comedy.

Again, I will state that it's the actor who ultimately decides what role he takes. Famous actors are provided with enough financial security to search out smaller productions for the sake of creative flexibility. Now I can forgive a smaller, less famous actor for sticking to a typecast while trying to make a living, but once an actor has a net worth of over two or so million he has no excuse for sticking to that typecast and not trying to express his creative range (if he has it), by portraying other roles.

Frankly, I don't see any reason Adam Sandler or anyone else owes it to society to be a good actor. Whatever he's doing, it's validated by millions of box office dollars, so if anything it's the tastes of modern society that's suspect.

I'm fascinated by this idea that artists are...obligated to contribute their talents? I don't know where you got that. I believe artistic ability is something owned by the artist to be expressed at their discretion. I mean, if people don't own their own abilities, where does it end?

...

(I want to say 'Communism, that's where!' but that seems so hilariously Godwin's Law-esque.)

I never meant to imply that we should grab him by the neck and force him to do his duty to the artistic community (now that does sound a bit authoritarian), but I simply don't understand why someone wouldn't want to show off their obvious talents and simply fall back into the comfort zone of typecast. Sure you get to see your net worth rise in leaps and bounds, and I'm sure the fame is nice, but those two things just don't personally appeal to me. After a certain point, it almost seems like they're just filling up their Scrooge McDuck style vaults of cash to go swimming in at night. Now if your someone like Bill Gates (to jump mediums), who seems to be doing his best to reach a rate where his net worth stays stable by chucking everything he has at charities, then that's different.

 

[Bat Vader]

Let's run with Adam Sandler for a moment.

You say he "never, ever, ever, ever does anything beside behave as himself," and then when people show that he does, you say it doesn't count.

Apparently, he "cannot pull it off without simply devolving acting into a stand up act, complete with repeated mechanisms, mannerisms, and trademarks," but then when people show that he can, you say it doesn't count.

You implore people to comment about what, exactly? You aren't really putting anything out there for discussion. If someone posts anything contrary to what you said, you put your hands over your ears and close your eyes.

Is there really a point to this thread beyond pseudo-intellectual elitism?

No, I did change my opinion about him, I did admit that he has the capabilities of being a great actor, but that I am now further enraged by the fact that he can be one, but decides to stick with the money and security.

You are outraged because he is acting in films he wants to star in and not act in movies you want him to star in?

If he wants to stick with starring in comedy films that is his right. Yeah, he can act when he wants to but that doesn't mean he owes something to society just because he can act well in certain films.

 

[mechanixis]

This is, I am prepared to say, the dumbest thread I've ever seen top the Hot Thread list.

I'm glad you've provided your powerful and important insight to this post, I am forever grateful.

Alright, alright, you got me, it was a dick move. I'll expand my response.

Yes, there are lots of one-note actors in Hollywood today. The excessive consistency of Adam Sandler characters makes me cringe too.

But you're attacking the nebulous concept of "acting" as being to blame, as if it's this metaphysical entity that's in decline. My guess would be two reasons, 1) film is a larger industry today than it used to be, and 2) innovation is financially risky.

The one-note actors are so numerous because for one thing the pool of actors is simply larger, and for another because once an actor is established as being good at something, the filmmaking industry's first goal is making that lightning strike twice. Especially with something as intangible and delicate as comedy.

Again, I will state that it's the actor who ultimately decides what role he takes. Famous actors are provided with enough financial security to search out smaller productions for the sake of creative flexibility. Now I can forgive a smaller, less famous actor for sticking to a typecast while trying to make a living, but once an actor has a net worth of over two or so million he has no excuse for sticking to that typecast and not trying to express his creative range (if he has it), by portraying other roles.

Frankly, I don't see any reason Adam Sandler or anyone else owes it to society to be a good actor. Whatever he's doing, it's validated by millions of box office dollars, so if anything it's the tastes of modern society that's suspect.

I'm fascinated by this idea that artists are...obligated to contribute their talents? I don't know where you got that. I believe artistic ability is something owned by the artist to be expressed at their discretion. I mean, if people don't own their own abilities, where does it end?

...

(I want to say 'Communism, that's where!' but that seems so hilariously Godwin's Law-esque.)

I never stated that he OWES it to society, true, he can stick to his comfort zone, but he has such greater potential. If one has the potential for greatness then why should they stay in mediocrity? This is a concept I personally don't understand too well, because self- improvement always makes me happy.

So in summary,

Adam Sandler could be a good actor if he wanted to be,

therefore you think he's kinda a dick.

You know, that perfectly fair and all, except you went and made your essay into a forum topic. People on the Escapist hate any flowery text thought they didn't produce themselves. That's why almost every thread on here opens with a question.

 

[Squeaksx]

(Post Deleted)

 

[Squeaksx]

This is, I am prepared to say, the dumbest thread I've ever seen top the Hot Thread list.

I'm glad you've provided your powerful and important insight to this post, I am forever grateful.

Alright, alright, you got me, it was a dick move. I'll expand my response.

Yes, there are lots of one-note actors in Hollywood today. The excessive consistency of Adam Sandler characters makes me cringe too.

But you're attacking the nebulous concept of "acting" as being to blame, as if it's this metaphysical entity that's in decline. My guess would be two reasons, 1) film is a larger industry today than it used to be, and 2) innovation is financially risky.

The one-note actors are so numerous because for one thing the pool of actors is simply larger, and for another because once an actor is established as being good at something, the filmmaking industry's first goal is making that lightning strike twice. Especially with something as intangible and delicate as comedy.

Again, I will state that it's the actor who ultimately decides what role he takes. Famous actors are provided with enough financial security to search out smaller productions for the sake of creative flexibility. Now I can forgive a smaller, less famous actor for sticking to a typecast while trying to make a living, but once an actor has a net worth of over two or so million he has no excuse for sticking to that typecast and not trying to express his creative range (if he has it), by portraying other roles.

Frankly, I don't see any reason Adam Sandler or anyone else owes it to society to be a good actor. Whatever he's doing, it's validated by millions of box office dollars, so if anything it's the tastes of modern society that's suspect.

I'm fascinated by this idea that artists are...obligated to contribute their talents? I don't know where you got that. I believe artistic ability is something owned by the artist to be expressed at their discretion. I mean, if people don't own their own abilities, where does it end?

...

(I want to say 'Communism, that's where!' but that seems so hilariously Godwin's Law-esque.)

I never stated that he OWES it to society, true, he can stick to his comfort zone, but he has such greater potential. If one has the potential for greatness then why should they stay in mediocrity? This is a concept I personally don't understand too well, because self- improvement always makes me happy.

So in summary,

Adam Sandler could be a good actor if he wanted to be,

therefore you think he's kinda a dick.

You know, that perfectly fair and all, except you went and made your essay into a forum topic. People on the Escapist hate any flowery text thought they didn't produce themselves. That's why almost every thread on here opens with a question.

Let's run with Adam Sandler for a moment.

You say he "never, ever, ever, ever does anything beside behave as himself," and then when people show that he does, you say it doesn't count.

Apparently, he "cannot pull it off without simply devolving acting into a stand up act, complete with repeated mechanisms, mannerisms, and trademarks," but then when people show that he can, you say it doesn't count.

You implore people to comment about what, exactly? You aren't really putting anything out there for discussion. If someone posts anything contrary to what you said, you put your hands over your ears and close your eyes.

Is there really a point to this thread beyond pseudo-intellectual elitism?

No, I did change my opinion about him, I did admit that he has the capabilities of being a great actor, but that I am now further enraged by the fact that he can be one, but decides to stick with the money and security.

You are outraged because he is acting in films he wants to star in and not act in movies you want him to star in?

If he wants to stick with starring in comedy films that is his right. Yeah, he can act when he wants to but that doesn't mean he owes something to society just because he can act well in certain films.

Why are people so convinced that I said he owes it to society? Also, I never stated that I wanted him to stick with a certain character type, I simply said he should try one apart from his typecast, I wouldn't care what he did as long as he put effort into it and it was different.

So in summary,

Adam Sandler could be a good actor if he wanted to be,

therefore you think he's kinda a dick.

You know, that perfectly fair and all, except you went and made your essay into a forum topic. People on the Escapist hate any flowery text thought they didn't produce themselves. That's why almost every thread on here opens with a question.

Well if I wasn't prepared for controversy I would have made the title a bit more politically correct. Also, I'm tired of people being overtly delicate with their opinions, a more direct approach adds refreshing diversity yes? To be fair, I usually do behave in a more humble fashion when I post here, but I thought I'd try chances at a something outside of my comfort zone, eh?

 

[mechanixis]

This is, I am prepared to say, the dumbest thread I've ever seen top the Hot Thread list.

I'm glad you've provided your powerful and important insight to this post, I am forever grateful.

Alright, alright, you got me, it was a dick move. I'll expand my response.

Yes, there are lots of one-note actors in Hollywood today. The excessive consistency of Adam Sandler characters makes me cringe too.

But you're attacking the nebulous concept of "acting" as being to blame, as if it's this metaphysical entity that's in decline. My guess would be two reasons, 1) film is a larger industry today than it used to be, and 2) innovation is financially risky.

The one-note actors are so numerous because for one thing the pool of actors is simply larger, and for another because once an actor is established as being good at something, the filmmaking industry's first goal is making that lightning strike twice. Especially with something as intangible and delicate as comedy.

Again, I will state that it's the actor who ultimately decides what role he takes. Famous actors are provided with enough financial security to search out smaller productions for the sake of creative flexibility. Now I can forgive a smaller, less famous actor for sticking to a typecast while trying to make a living, but once an actor has a net worth of over two or so million he has no excuse for sticking to that typecast and not trying to express his creative range (if he has it), by portraying other roles.

Frankly, I don't see any reason Adam Sandler or anyone else owes it to society to be a good actor. Whatever he's doing, it's validated by millions of box office dollars, so if anything it's the tastes of modern society that's suspect.

I'm fascinated by this idea that artists are...obligated to contribute their talents? I don't know where you got that. I believe artistic ability is something owned by the artist to be expressed at their discretion. I mean, if people don't own their own abilities, where does it end?

...

(I want to say 'Communism, that's where!' but that seems so hilariously Godwin's Law-esque.)

I never stated that he OWES it to society, true, he can stick to his comfort zone, but he has such greater potential. If one has the potential for greatness then why should they stay in mediocrity? This is a concept I personally don't understand too well, because self- improvement always makes me happy.

So in summary,

Adam Sandler could be a good actor if he wanted to be,

therefore you think he's kinda a dick.

You know, that perfectly fair and all, except you went and made your essay into a forum topic. People on the Escapist hate any flowery text thought they didn't produce themselves. That's why almost every thread on here opens with a question.

Let's run with Adam Sandler for a moment.

You say he "never, ever, ever, ever does anything beside behave as himself," and then when people show that he does, you say it doesn't count.

Apparently, he "cannot pull it off without simply devolving acting into a stand up act, complete with repeated mechanisms, mannerisms, and trademarks," but then when people show that he can, you say it doesn't count.

You implore people to comment about what, exactly? You aren't really putting anything out there for discussion. If someone posts anything contrary to what you said, you put your hands over your ears and close your eyes.

Is there really a point to this thread beyond pseudo-intellectual elitism?

No, I did change my opinion about him, I did admit that he has the capabilities of being a great actor, but that I am now further enraged by the fact that he can be one, but decides to stick with the money and security.

You are outraged because he is acting in films he wants to star in and not act in movies you want him to star in?

If he wants to stick with starring in comedy films that is his right. Yeah, he can act when he wants to but that doesn't mean he owes something to society just because he can act well in certain films.

Why are people so convinced that I said he owes it to society? Also, I never stated that I wanted him to stick with a certain character type, I simply said he should try one apart from his typecast, I wouldn't care what he did as long as he put effort into it and it was different.

So in summary,

Adam Sandler could be a good actor if he wanted to be,

therefore you think he's kinda a dick.

You know, that perfectly fair and all, except you went and made your essay into a forum topic. People on the Escapist hate any flowery text thought they didn't produce themselves. That's why almost every thread on here opens with a question.

Well if I wasn't prepared for controversy I would have made the title a bit more politically correct.

I wouldn't call it a controversy so much as 'these people view anyone who does not ask for their opinion as a disease to be isolated and destroyed.'

The Escapist: It's Ridiculous Here.

 

[Bat Vader]

I simply don't understand why someone wouldn't want to show off their obvious talents and simply fall back into the comfort zone of typecast. Sure you get to see your net worth rise in leaps and bounds, and I'm sure the fame is nice, but those two things just don't personally appeal to me.

Just because they don't personally appeal to you doesn't mean they don't appeal to someone else.

You really don't have to understand why he does stay typecast. If he wants to it is his right, you may not like it but you can't change his mind either.

 

[Squeaksx]

This is, I am prepared to say, the dumbest thread I've ever seen top the Hot Thread list.

I'm glad you've provided your powerful and important insight to this post, I am forever grateful.

Alright, alright, you got me, it was a dick move. I'll expand my response.

Yes, there are lots of one-note actors in Hollywood today. The excessive consistency of Adam Sandler characters makes me cringe too.

But you're attacking the nebulous concept of "acting" as being to blame, as if it's this metaphysical entity that's in decline. My guess would be two reasons, 1) film is a larger industry today than it used to be, and 2) innovation is financially risky.

The one-note actors are so numerous because for one thing the pool of actors is simply larger, and for another because once an actor is established as being good at something, the filmmaking industry's first goal is making that lightning strike twice. Especially with something as intangible and delicate as comedy.

Again, I will state that it's the actor who ultimately decides what role he takes. Famous actors are provided with enough financial security to search out smaller productions for the sake of creative flexibility. Now I can forgive a smaller, less famous actor for sticking to a typecast while trying to make a living, but once an actor has a net worth of over two or so million he has no excuse for sticking to that typecast and not trying to express his creative range (if he has it), by portraying other roles.

Frankly, I don't see any reason Adam Sandler or anyone else owes it to society to be a good actor. Whatever he's doing, it's validated by millions of box office dollars, so if anything it's the tastes of modern society that's suspect.

I'm fascinated by this idea that artists are...obligated to contribute their talents? I don't know where you got that. I believe artistic ability is something owned by the artist to be expressed at their discretion. I mean, if people don't own their own abilities, where does it end?

...

(I want to say 'Communism, that's where!' but that seems so hilariously Godwin's Law-esque.)

I never stated that he OWES it to society, true, he can stick to his comfort zone, but he has such greater potential. If one has the potential for greatness then why should they stay in mediocrity? This is a concept I personally don't understand too well, because self- improvement always makes me happy.

So in summary,

Adam Sandler could be a good actor if he wanted to be,

therefore you think he's kinda a dick.

You know, that perfectly fair and all, except you went and made your essay into a forum topic. People on the Escapist hate any flowery text thought they didn't produce themselves. That's why almost every thread on here opens with a question.

Let's run with Adam Sandler for a moment.

You say he "never, ever, ever, ever does anything beside behave as himself," and then when people show that he does, you say it doesn't count.

Apparently, he "cannot pull it off without simply devolving acting into a stand up act, complete with repeated mechanisms, mannerisms, and trademarks," but then when people show that he can, you say it doesn't count.

You implore people to comment about what, exactly? You aren't really putting anything out there for discussion. If someone posts anything contrary to what you said, you put your hands over your ears and close your eyes.

Is there really a point to this thread beyond pseudo-intellectual elitism?

No, I did change my opinion about him, I did admit that he has the capabilities of being a great actor, but that I am now further enraged by the fact that he can be one, but decides to stick with the money and security.

You are outraged because he is acting in films he wants to star in and not act in movies you want him to star in?

If he wants to stick with starring in comedy films that is his right. Yeah, he can act when he wants to but that doesn't mean he owes something to society just because he can act well in certain films.

Why are people so convinced that I said he owes it to society? Also, I never stated that I wanted him to stick with a certain character type, I simply said he should try one apart from his typecast, I wouldn't care what he did as long as he put effort into it and it was different.

So in summary,

Adam Sandler could be a good actor if he wanted to be,

therefore you think he's kinda a dick.

You know, that perfectly fair and all, except you went and made your essay into a forum topic. People on the Escapist hate any flowery text thought they didn't produce themselves. That's why almost every thread on here opens with a question.

Well if I wasn't prepared for controversy I would have made the title a bit more politically correct.

I wouldn't call it a controversy so much as 'these people view anyone who does not ask for their opinion as a disease to be isolated and destroyed.'

If I didn't want to see and respond to other people's opinions I would have posted this in a place that doesn't allow responses. It wouldn't make sense for me to put this here AND implore people to comment if I wasn't open to the concept of people possibly causing me to change my mind, which is still possible.

I simply don't understand why someone wouldn't want to show off their obvious talents and simply fall back into the comfort zone of typecast. Sure you get to see your net worth rise in leaps and bounds, and I'm sure the fame is nice, but those two things just don't personally appeal to me.

Just because they don't personally appeal to you doesn't mean they don't appeal to someone else.

You really don't have to understand why he does stay typecast. If he wants to it is his right, you may not like it but you can't change his mind either.

True, but I also have the right to voice my objective to his acting if I so please. There's nothing that says I have to keep my mouth shut and simply accept it.

 

[Squeaksx]

Eh, Click kinda showed that Sandler is at least willing to try a different role but to be fair even in that he was still mostly the same. However for me the gold standard of lacking acting talent will always be Jack Black.
Go see any of his movies. You wont see a character. You will see Jack Black. Jack Black trying to raise money, Jack Black as a teacher, Jack Black sent back in time.
You know exactly how the fucking movie is going to go before you even see it.
What boggles the mind is that people actually seem to like the fat lump of crap and him being put in Brutal Legend as the epitome of rock is just a clear insult and a slap in the face of all the great legends.

To be fair, Brutal Legend's protagonist was probably his most complete character to date, which doesn't say much for him in terms of overall talent. He's a great entertainer, do not get me wrong, I personally love Tenacious D and am willing to forgive The Pick of Destiny (somewhat), because it almost seems like a flight of fancy re-imagined biography of the band itself, a sort of docudrama (like Pumping Iron), placed under copious amounts of acid. It's almost like an extensively dumber (and tamer), version of Hunter S. Thompson's opus "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", mixing fact with copious amounts of drug induced fiction, with little to no distinction between the two. Gonzodrama perhaps?

 

[Bat Vader]

Why are people so convinced that I said he owes it to society? Also, I never stated that I wanted him to stick with a certain character type, I simply said he should try one apart from his typecast, I wouldn't care what he did as long as he put effort into it and it was different.

If he wants to stay typecast though he is allowed to do so. If I made a lot of money for doing one thing I really wouldn't care to change the way I act just to try something new.

Why does it matter if he puts effort into a film or not? As long a people enjoy it that is what matters.

 

[Squeaksx]

Why are people so convinced that I said he owes it to society? Also, I never stated that I wanted him to stick with a certain character type, I simply said he should try one apart from his typecast, I wouldn't care what he did as long as he put effort into it and it was different.

If he wants to stay typecast though he is allowed to do so. If I made a lot of money for doing one thing I really wouldn't care to change the way I act just to try something new.

Why does it matter if he puts effort into a film or not? As long a people enjoy it that is what matters.

There's the thing, I don't enjoy it, and I'm using this forum to articulate why; furthermore, if the term "people" is meant to represent the entire population then you are wrong in that statement, because if it was true then my article wouldn't exist. I do not enjoy his obvious lack of effort and it's also obvious that a number of people here also do not enjoy it. To be fair, I'm actually defending him by saying he has the ability to be known as a better actor than he is, instead of simply writing him off as a talentless, one-note hack.

 

[Kortney]

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.

 

[Bat Vader]

Why are people so convinced that I said he owes it to society? Also, I never stated that I wanted him to stick with a certain character type, I simply said he should try one apart from his typecast, I wouldn't care what he did as long as he put effort into it and it was different.

If he wants to stay typecast though he is allowed to do so. If I made a lot of money for doing one thing I really wouldn't care to change the way I act just to try something new.

Why does it matter if he puts effort into a film or not? As long a people enjoy it that is what matters.

Why would the entire population enjoy an Adam Sandler film?

I am saying as long as people (Not the entire population) enjoy a film than that is what matters.

My opinion is that Adam Sandler is fine with what he does. It does not matter me if he wants to stay typecast or not. More power to him if he wants to branch out and do different things.

Your opinion isn't my opinion though so while I may disagree with it I do respect it.

Also, we are not going to change each others minds about this so it is better to agree to disagree.

 

[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.

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.