Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When it comes to Nic Cage, I’d argue his Oscar entitles him to enjoy daft roles for some money.

I mean, he’s an Oscar Winner. Top of his game. No accolade higher.

Sure, you could chase more. That’s a valid option.

But for some (and I’m of this mindset), once you’ve hit the pinnacle, why not simply do stuff you enjoy? He clearly enjoys hamming it up, and let’s face it he’s pretty decent as a Deliberate Ham.

Honestly, unless you're specifically chasing an Oscar, I'd say to do that anyway.

Acting is a crappy job. Doing it for parts that you don't enjoy would suck. Have fun with it, I say.

While i loved the ace ventura's, dumb and dumbers, and such i think, that like the rock, jim carey is criminally underrated as an actor. His actual dramas are engrossing and his new tv show is amazing. Poor guy got pigeon holed hard in a time when they didnt really let you branch out.

And even in those dumb comedies he does some great character work. Ace Ventura, for example, incorporates loads of animalistic movements and behaviours which, apart from being there to be funny, also give you insight into his character. His strut is obviously based on a bird, for example, with the constant bobbing of the head as he walks. That combined with his outrageous dress sense perfectly conveys the need for the character to show off, to display themself and attract attention like a bird displaying its plumage.

Jim Carrey also hitched his wagon to the crackpot anti-vaxx brigade train for a while ... which would have also hampered his career (for damn good reasons).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
When it comes to Nic Cage, I’d argue his Oscar entitles him to enjoy daft roles for some money.

I mean, he’s an Oscar Winner. Top of his game. No accolade higher.

Sure, you could chase more. That’s a valid option.

But for some (and I’m of this mindset), once you’ve hit the pinnacle, why not simply do stuff you enjoy? He clearly enjoys hamming it up, and let’s face it he’s pretty decent as a Deliberate Ham.

That is what Danial Radcliffe did
"Hmm, i could make tons as a top billing actor after my Harry Potter role, which net me more than enough money to live on.......OR I CAN PLAY A FARTING CORPSE THAT JETSKIES THROUGH THE POWER OF FLATULANCE"

I’m not fond of Will Ferrel lead movies. They just don’t do it for me. Same with Jim Carrey’s “Ace Ventura” type roles. I don’t like Adam Sandler’s “Happy Gilmore” roles.

That said, I liked WF in stranger than fiction, where he was less over the top, and I like JC’s serious roles in general. I like AS’s less over the top roles too. I enjoyed “Grown Ups” and it had several actors I generally don’t like normally... but did in those movies.

I can’t think of specific directors I avoid.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
When it comes to Nic Cage, I’d argue his Oscar entitles him to enjoy daft roles for some money.

I mean, he’s an Oscar Winner. Top of his game. No accolade higher.

Sure, you could chase more. That’s a valid option.

But for some (and I’m of this mindset), once you’ve hit the pinnacle, why not simply do stuff you enjoy? He clearly enjoys hamming it up, and let’s face it he’s pretty decent as a Deliberate Ham.

That is what Danial Radcliffe did
"Hmm, i could make tons as a top billing actor after my Harry Potter role, which net me more than enough money to live on.......OR I CAN PLAY A FARTING CORPSE THAT JETSKIES THROUGH THE POWER OF FLATULANCE"

Well indeed! In terms of Harry Potter, I’m genuinely impressed the child actors didn’t turn out to be, y’know.....child actors in any way shape or form.

Over the series they all showed improvement, without breaking character. And none of them have turned into drug addled wretches, or had to divorce their parents to stop them spending their hard earned money.

Say what you may about the quality of the films (I love them), but the cast and crew most certainly looked after their young charges well.

Daniel Radcliffe has more than earned his right to arse around in bloody awful avantgard arse scapes all he likes!

Exactly I love what all 3 of the main actors did, it was more than amazing how they somehow became decent people despite spending their life in the hollywood system.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Say what you may about the quality of the films (I love them), but the cast and crew most certainly looked after their young charges well.

On a side note to these films, while I haven't watched really any of them, one particular facet I've seen mentioned by the child-actors and adults alike was that, during filming, they had the student crew doing their actual fething homework at this table, in costume, and basically had the cameras rolling for reactions and whatnot. . . Just another layer of "realism" where people were genuinely doing something on screen that really sold the scene for everyone.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
When it comes to Nic Cage, I’d argue his Oscar entitles him to enjoy daft roles for some money.

I mean, he’s an Oscar Winner. Top of his game. No accolade higher.

Sure, you could chase more. That’s a valid option.

But for some (and I’m of this mindset), once you’ve hit the pinnacle, why not simply do stuff you enjoy? He clearly enjoys hamming it up, and let’s face it he’s pretty decent as a Deliberate Ham.

That is what Danial Radcliffe did
"Hmm, i could make tons as a top billing actor after my Harry Potter role, which net me more than enough money to live on.......OR I CAN PLAY A FARTING CORPSE THAT JETSKIES THROUGH THE POWER OF FLATULANCE"

Ok, I've got to watch that one.

the_scotsman wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:
The Shawshank Redemption.

I would also toss in The Green Mile in the same sentence if we speak drama alongside A Beautiful Mind.

If we jump categorys, i think only thouse who dislike the action category would be the persons who dont like Die Hard 1, Lethal Weapon 1 and my alltime personal favorite action movie as of this date; Mad Max: Fury Road.

Same could be said about the sci-fi movies; Matrix 1, 5th element, Clouse encounter of 3rd kind and ET.

The Gladiator is allso a move that moust likely is only disliked by humans who dont like the roman era or Russel Crowe, same can be said about Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.

I know several folks who dislike Mad Max Fury Road because "god damn feminism invading my action moviez!"

Same crowd that bitches and moans endlessly about the new star wars, new marvel movies, new sisters of battle, etc, etc.

prolly cuz the movies that now features a female main role, are retakes on older movies that was written around all main roles beeing male actors.
I dont mind watching an action movie where the main actor(s) is female aslong as the whole movie script is DESIGNED for it. (something i have yet to see)

in the case of fury road, i dont see the main actors beeing male or female, it is the world and the cars that are the main actors.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

I dont mind watching an action movie where the main actor(s) is female aslong as the whole movie script is DESIGNED for it. (something i have yet to see)
.

How would that work, then? Lots of references to flowers and babies and perfume and stuff? They print the script on pink paper, maybe?

Hey, do you remember that part in Aliens where Ripley complains about being a bit bloated, and wishes she was back home raising babies and cooking for her man? Yeah, now that was an action role written for a woman, by jingo!

 insaniak wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

I dont mind watching an action movie where the main actor(s) is female aslong as the whole movie script is DESIGNED for it. (something i have yet to see)
.

How would that work, then? Lots of references to flowers and babies and perfume and stuff? They print the script on pink paper, maybe?

Hey, do you remember that part in Aliens where Ripley complains about being a bit bloated, and wishes she was back home raising babies and cooking for her man? Yeah, now that was an action role written for a woman, by jingo!

That’s not my take on what he said. I think he meant, with Alien(s) being a perfect example, a script that starts out BEING about a female lead. Badass like Ripley or otherwise. He doesn’t agree with a movie that’s been about a man/men that suddenly gender-flips “just cuz”. The newest abomination that is Ghostbusters is a perfect example of that. Ironically, a movie I won’t watch because MM is in it and the previews are just awful. I think THAT’S what he’s saying.


text removed.
Reds8n

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Princess Bride

Interesting fact (well.. not really) that I found out about this film the other day, was that the score was composed by Mark Knopfler (of Dire Straits fame). Will have to watch it again now..

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

I dont mind watching an action movie where the main actor(s) is female aslong as the whole movie script is DESIGNED for it. (something i have yet to see)
.

How would that work, then? Lots of references to flowers and babies and perfume and stuff? They print the script on pink paper, maybe?

Hey, do you remember that part in Aliens where Ripley complains about being a bit bloated, and wishes she was back home raising babies and cooking for her man? Yeah, now that was an action role written for a woman, by jingo!

That’s not my take on what he said. I think he meant, with Alien(s) being a perfect example, a script that starts out BEING about a female lead.

I think insaniak expresses surprise that somebody has apparently not seen Alien(s)...or any other of dozens of action movies designed for female leads (granted, many of them suck but still).

I agree that any story which attempts to build on novelty value "oh look, it's a different gender!" is probably not any good. For example, idea of making a female James Bond is completely trite. Coming up with original character who is a female spy in glamorous settings, yeah no reason why that couldn't work.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
He doesn’t agree with a movie that’s been about a man/men that suddenly gender-flips “just cuz”. The newest abomination that is Ghostbusters is a perfect example of that. Ironically, a movie I won’t watch because MM is in it and the previews are just awful. I think THAT’S what he’s saying.

Ghostbusters is not about men. It is about a group of scientists investigating the paranormal who set up a business to catch ghosts.

The sex and gender of the scientists is completely immaterial to the story being told.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
He doesn’t agree with a movie that’s been about a man/men that suddenly gender-flips “just cuz”. The newest abomination that is Ghostbusters is a perfect example of that. Ironically, a movie I won’t watch because MM is in it and the previews are just awful. I think THAT’S what he’s saying.

Ghostbusters is not about men. It is about a group of scientists investigating the paranormal who set up a business to catch ghosts.

The sex and gender of the scientists is completely immaterial to the story being told.

Last I checked, Ghostbusters was 4 guys named Egon, Peter, Ray and Winston who had a paranormal group (Winston came in later) created a way to trap ghosts and made a living from it. They had a female secretary. Then this new movie was made, and changed all 5 characters’ gender roles. It was the very definition of gender swapping in a movie. I wouldn’t go pay to see a male Pocahontas or an Asian Pocahontas movie either! Oooo, or how about a Mexican Mulan movie starring a chihuahua! Also not gonna happen!
White washing, reverse white washing, and gender swapping “just cuz” is the dumbest thing done in modern cinema. It’s insulting to the source material. Make new movies starring the people you want to play the roles. Don’t ruin years of lore just cuz you’re “edgy”.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
He doesn’t agree with a movie that’s been about a man/men that suddenly gender-flips “just cuz”. The newest abomination that is Ghostbusters is a perfect example of that. Ironically, a movie I won’t watch because MM is in it and the previews are just awful. I think THAT’S what he’s saying.

Ghostbusters is not about men. It is about a group of scientists investigating the paranormal who set up a business to catch ghosts.

The sex and gender of the scientists is completely immaterial to the story being told.

Last I checked, Ghostbusters was 4 guys named Egon, Peter, Ray and Winston who had a paranormal group (Winston came in later) created a way to trap ghosts and made a living from it. They had a female secretary. Then this new movie was made, and changed all 5 characters’ gender roles. It was the very definition of gender swapping in a movie. I wouldn’t go pay to see a male Pocahontas or an Asian Pocahontas movie either! Oooo, or how about a Mexican Mulan movie starring a chihuahua! Also not gonna happen!
White washing, reverse whitewashing, and gender-swapping “just cuz” is the dumbest thing done in modern cinema. It’s insulting to the source material. Make new movies starring the people you want to play the roles. Don’t ruin years of lore just cuz you’re “edgy”.

You can not ruin anything that came out of production as far from a good movie, to begin with, had said movie series been made by competent people and with a solid script and such I would be inclined to agree with you. But the latest installment in the series did no real harm to it, besides stepping on a few toes and making fans wail in despair online.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
He doesn’t agree with a movie that’s been about a man/men that suddenly gender-flips “just cuz”. The newest abomination that is Ghostbusters is a perfect example of that. Ironically, a movie I won’t watch because MM is in it and the previews are just awful. I think THAT’S what he’s saying.

Ghostbusters is not about men. It is about a group of scientists investigating the paranormal who set up a business to catch ghosts.

The sex and gender of the scientists is completely immaterial to the story being told.

Last I checked, Ghostbusters was 4 guys named Egon, Peter, Ray and Winston who had a paranormal group (Winston came in later) created a way to trap ghosts and made a living from it. They had a female secretary. Then this new movie was made, and changed all 5 characters’ gender roles.

Just because they were played by men doesn't mean that them being male was important to the story, or even a defining feature of their character. What in Ghostbusters requires them to be men? What jokes? What story elements? The story in Ghostbusters is not about men, it is about the ghostbusters and that original story would play the exact same way if those ghostbusters were all women or a mix of men and women.

The only joke I can recall in the entire of the first Ghostbusters film which relies on the sex of a character is the "dickless" joke at the expense of Walter Peck.

Why do women need to be justified and the role needs to be "designed" for a woman when the same is not true of men?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I think he meant, with Alien(s) being a perfect example, a script that starts out BEING about a female lead.

Also, Ripley was originally written as a man. Ripley's sex and gender in the first Alien film are incidental, it is never brought up in the text of the film. It is with the later films (probably strongest in Aliens) where it is actually somewhat relevant to the story (and even in Aliens it could still work with a man, you just flip it from a mother/daughter to a father/daughter dynamic)

Then why was it necessary to replace the already existing characters with their opposite gender? Same argument can be made against the change.
Do you know many people would get pissed off if Alien got a reboot and Ripley was turned into a man? 99% of the fans of the original would. Myself included. Gender swapping for the reason of “just cuz” is the dumbest reason there is.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Then why was it necessary to replace the already existing characters with their opposite gender? Same argument can be made against the change.

Because the people making the film thought that these four women would be good in the roles. Which is the same reason that we ended up with the four male ghostbusters in the first film. And why we ended up with a female Ripley.

To be fair we ended up with 4 male actors in ghostvusters because they were all essentially buddies that pushed hard for friends film to get done. There was a pretty cool special on it

 Hulksmash wrote:
To be fair we ended up with 4 male actors in ghostvusters because they were all essentially buddies that pushed hard for friends film to get done. There was a pretty cool special on it

Was that The Movies That Made Us on Netflix? If so, agreed, it was a great look at behind the scenes.

 Hulksmash wrote:
To be fair we ended up with 4 male actors in ghostvusters because they were all essentially buddies that pushed hard for friends film to get done. There was a pretty cool special on it

And in addition, Ramis was a fan. There were already comic books, cartoons, and action figures that made up the lore. They were for Egan, Ray, Peter and Winston. There was a ton of background for these characters as “the Ghostbusters“. This new movie got made because the director wanted to “do something different“. And the movie was panned by most, and will never see a sequel because of how trashy it was. We got Ripley because Sigourney Weaver is bad ass.

ATCM: Most people do not want to see characters they love rebooted into different identities. They want to see something new. If you want to support this kind of garbage, that is entirely your right. But just like I recognize that Sharknado is absolute garbage and still enjoy it, you should recognize that stuff like this is complete garbage and that’s an opinion held by the general public. The ratings prove that.

The female Ghostbusters movie does not suck because it is a movie about females. It sucks because it is a movie based on established lore with established characters that were completely thrown out just to have a female cast. As stated before, rebooting Alien in order to have a bad ass male role take the place of Ripley would be a terrible thing as well. Having a white guy play Black Panther would be a terrible decision, and should never happen. These are examples of awful things that should never take place in the movies. These old characters exist because someone came up with the idea and made them awesome. Replacing them to be “different” is trashing that original person’s view. And anyone supporting it should be ashamed of themselves.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Then why was it necessary to replace the already existing characters with their opposite gender?

Well, because the actors were older to replay as the character, so they had to change the characters!

 timetowaste85 wrote:
As stated before, rebooting Alien in order to have a bad ass male role take the place of Ripley would be a terrible thing as well.

Imma stop you right here, rebooting Alien is a terrible idea, period. Movie is already here and still work.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Then why was it necessary to replace the already existing characters with their opposite gender?

Well, because the actors were older to replay as the character, so they had to change the characters!

 timetowaste85 wrote:
As stated before, rebooting Alien in order to have a bad ass male role take the place of Ripley would be a terrible thing as well.

Imma stop you right here, rebooting Alien is a terrible idea, period. Movie is already here and still work.

Just like Alien, it didn’t need to be remade (and I agree with you). My point was that Ghostbusters got a remake JUST to say they were being different by casting females. And it flopped because established lore was thrown into the garbage for that “edgy” new thing. Again, reviews have shown how the general public feels about that. And it ain’t positive.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Ghostbusters is not about men. It is about a group of scientists investigating the paranormal who set up a business to catch ghosts.

The sex and gender of the scientists is completely immaterial to the story being told.

It might've been immaterial in 1983. And it might've been immaterial if it wasn't used as a selling point in 2016.*

Otherwise, yeah. The sex and gender of the scientists didn't have much to do with the mishandling and mediocre performance of the reboot.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Because the people making the film thought that these four women would be good in the roles.

Notice how, before the movie's release, they had a whole lotta people involved with the film on talk shows, sniggering at all the basement-dwellers who were complaining about the film? Dan Aykroyd was one.
Afterwards, he was on TV stating that Paul 'these women are hilarious' Feig would not be back on the Sony lot anytime soon.

* Honestly, just sit back and watch Mr. Plinkett's review. Language warning. They pretty much had to use that as a selling point.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Just like Alien, it didn’t need to be remade (and I agree with you).

Honestly, I don't really get why people make remakes. Sometime it works, sometime it even is a MASSIVE success (thinking Scarface here), but most of time it feels... unnecessary.
The worst is remake of pretty recent movies just to have US people instead of foreign actors and directors, those remakes are the worst, most creatively bankrupt things hollywood has to offer to the world.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Just like Alien, it didn’t need to be remade (and I agree with you).

Honestly, I don't really get why people make remakes. Sometime it works, sometime it even is a MASSIVE success (thinking Scarface here), but most of time it feels... unnecessary.
The worst is remake of pretty recent movies just to have US people instead of foreign actors and directors, those remakes are the worst, most creatively bankrupt things hollywood has to offer to the world.

Agreed. Those and “white washing” like ScarJo as Major in GitS was an awful decision. That falls in line with my comments like “a white guy playing Black Panther”. You just DONT!