[kSmica]

If a person does so then they shouldn't expect people to think much of their opinion since it's obviously conflated and flawed.



Yes but I don't expect that kind of thought pattern from anyone older than a pubescent teen, hence why I asked him about his age.



I know this wasn't directed towards me but I do get the point.

Yes, you sometimes have your mind wander towards a preconceived idea about an actor, probably from a previous role or actions in real life.

But I don't expect a grown adult to include that in the final summation of a film.





I'm not ?

I'm just wanted to put a few points forward.

You're talking rubbish. The best television and films are the ones where you feel a connection with the character. It's only natural that you will lose that connection if your sub-conscious tells you that it is entirely impossible.

[rorsvierwelia]

Can we get back to series to recommend, already having fun with some suggestions.

[Gozmand]

You're talking rubbish. The best television and films are the ones where you feel a connection with the character. It's only natural that you will lose that connection if your sub-conscious tells you that it is entirely impossible.

Come on, Moosey, I don't feel disconnected to Jack Bauer in 24 because he's been jailed for drunk driving irl.

And yes, DuranXL, I would love to see Adam Sandler perform 007. He's done crap movies, but does that mean he'd automatically suck at doing something else? Maybe we'd be in for a surprise...

One should always be critical but remain open minded.

[jhfsdhf]

You're talking rubbish. The best television and films are the ones where you feel a connection with the character. It's only natural that you will lose that connection if your sub-conscious tells you that it is entirely impossible.

Exactly

Come on, Moosey, I don't feel disconnected to Jack Bauer in 24 because he's been jailed for drunk driving irl.

And yes, DuranXL, I would love to see Adam Sandler perform 007. He's done crap movies, but does that mean he'd automatically suck at doing something else? Maybe we'd be in for a surprise...

One should always be critical but remain open minded.

Like I said: regardless of whether he would do an awesome job (acting wise), it would still be weird and less convincing.

[Vodonaeva]

Come on, Moosey, I don't feel disconnected to Jack Bauer in 24 because he's been jailed for drunk driving irl.

I'm not claiming it to be an exact science

[cargo_brad]

Why are you bringing up the gay stuff? It's not about him being gay - it's about being the total opposite of the role he's trying to perform. It's not the best example, and it's not like it totally affects his performance for me.

I didn't bring up "the gay stuff", I mentioned the large amount of straight actors that play gay roles because it's the same exact example that you made. In the same way that a gay actor playing a straight guy confuses you, the same should happen when it's a straight actor playing a gay man. The film Philadelphia must have been quite a let down for you.

But if you think having a preconception about an actor is childish: answer my question about Adam Sandler. Would you be able to watch him play 007 without a preconception? I think not. Preconception will affect the way you see a performance.

That's not only an extreme example which will never happen but also a "what if" argument.

Besides, I don't think Adam Sandler would fit any role except as a stand in for a turd.

"It's time to shoot the turd scene guys, Ok, call Sandler from his trailer"

Also props on using the most one dimensional actor in the history of film in your example.

You're talking rubbish. The best television and films are the ones where you feel a connection with the character. It's only natural that you will lose that connection if your sub-conscious tells you that it is entirely impossible.

Don't try to discount my whole post just by saying that I'm talking rubbish.

Like I said before, it might be natural for a person to conflate the role of the actor with real life, but that should only be a mild observation rather than a fact which will influence your whole opinion of the film.

I only expect that from kids.

If people do that then they're doing it wrong and while they have a right to their opinion, it's not worth anything.

By that summation, watching Lee Tergesen playing a veritable idiot with a brain callus on Weird Science for years as kid should have precluded anyone from appreciating his incredible dramatic role as an inmate in the show OZ.

And there it is right there, my recommendation for this thread.

The tv show OZ which ran on HBO in the early 2000's.

Potent show with real characters.

[kHy87gPC]

As usual for FM, people are reading far, far, far, far, far too much into a throwaway comment by another user. Why can't people just accept that others have different opinions without turning it into a 300 page argument about nothing?

[laperuzdfhami]

As usual for FM, people are reading far, far, far, far, far too much into a throwaway comment by another user. Why can't people just accept that others have different opinions without turning it into a 300 page argument about nothing?

It might be a throwaway comment but it's also something which clouds anyone's opinion of a film or tv show.

How can you expect the discussion to go ahead if people make such ridiculous observations like "my immature brain fails to make the distinction between real life and acting, I have to be held by the hand and expect the actor to mirror the characters in his real life"

[peakyesno]

How can you expect the discussion to go ahead if people make such ridiculous observations like "my immature brain fails to make the distinction between real life and acting, I have to be held by the hand and expect the actor to mirror the characters in his real life"

What's ridiculous is you thinking that you have the only valid set of emotions in the world. He's not doing anything wrong, so why are you giving him such a hard time for it. He feels like this, end of. Get the **** over it.

[NumDusthouh]

What's ridiculous is you thinking that you have the only valid set of emotions in the world. He's not doing anything wrong, so why are you giving him such a hard time for it. He feels like this, end of. Get the **** over it.

I didn't say that I have the only valid set of emotions.

I think it's moronic to have the notion that an actor can only play certain roles to appease your comfort of knowing that he reflects the role in his life as well.

Anyone with that idea shouldn't be discussing film or tv.

I didn't say he can't have that opinion. He can do whatever he likes.

[VioletttaJosetta]

Yay just found out i got a credit for Game of Thrones!

Rubbish attempt at diffusing an argument...

[jgztw2es]

Uh..yes that was before house

--- Post Update ---

I didn't bring up "the gay stuff", I mentioned the large amount of straight actors that play gay roles because it's the same exact example that you made. In the same way that a gay actor playing a straight guy confuses you, the same should happen when it's a straight actor playing a gay man. The film Philadelphia must have been quite a let down for you.

Well yes, if there would be a movie in which charlie sheen is gay, it will indeed hurt it's believability

That's not only an extreme example which will never happen but also a "what if" argument.

Besides, I don't think Adam Sandler would fit any role except as a stand in for a turd.

"It's time to shoot the turd scene guys, Ok, call Sandler from his trailer"

Also props on using the most one dimensional actor in the history of film in your example.

Well of course it's an extreme example. One uses extreme examples to prove a point.... Because apparently if the example isn't extreme enough you don't understand it.
And once again, yes adam sandler might not be a good actor, but that's not the point. I said that even if he did manage to do an excellent job, it would still be less convincing

[Lotyqnag]

Uh..yes that was before house

Yes, but do you see House or Hugh Laurie?

[Abnorttrano]

Yes, but do you see House or Hugh Laurie?

I don't see your point. He's way younger there.

Actually house/hugh laurie would be a better example than adam sandler because hugh laurie is actually a good actor.
Imagine he would be the main character in a new hospital drama series as Dr. Cooperson. No way that's gonna work out nice...

[Michaelnewerb]

Imagine he would be the main character in a new hospital drama series as Dr. Cooperson. No way that's gonna work out nice...

First of all, no one is going cast Hugh Laurie in another hospital show and if they do, it will be a completely different series.

What you're saying is that James Gandolfini can never play any other role because your mind is going to keep telling you that he was Tony Soprano.

He might fit in that role better but that has no detrimental effect on his future roles.

If you are not able to distinguish between one tv show and another, it's your problem.

[Intory]

First of all, no one is going cast Hugh Laurie in another hospital show and if they do, it will be a completely different series.

What you're saying is that James Gandolfini can never play any other role because your mind is going to keep telling you that he was Tony Soprano.

He might fit in that role better but that has no detrimental effect on his future roles.

If you are not able to distinguish between one tv show and another, it's your problem.

Indeed, no one is going to cast hugh laurie in another hospital show because it's a stupid idea since everyone has a preconception about him >> him being Dr. House. Thanks for helping me make my point.
And yes, I was actually going to bring up Tony Soprano as another good example. He is Tony soprano like Hugh Laurie is House. So thanks again for helping me make my point.

And like I said 10x now in this topic (sigh) I can distinguish between different TV shows i just feel that the when an actor that is known specifically for a certain character plays another character, he is less convincing.
Just like I think barney is (slightly) less convincing now that I know he's in fact the opposite of a womanizer

[Patabeamn]

I recommend Adventure Time. Though I don't think you can buy it on DVD or anything yet

[Sopsneork]

Indeed, no one is going to cast hugh laurie in another hospital show because it's a stupid idea since everyone has a preconception about him >> him being Dr. House. Thanks for helping me make my point.

Yes, producers do that because people are idiots in general. Still has no effect on how good the show is
or on how good or bad the actor is in that role.

And like I said 10x now in this topic (sigh) I can distinguish between different TV shows i just feel that the when an actor that is known specifically for a certain character plays another character, he is less convincing.
Just like I think barney is (slightly) less convincing now that I know he's in fact the opposite of a womanizer

That is just plain stupid.

You can see it like that if you want to but do you really expect your opinion to be taken seriously when talking about film and tv ? if it's affected that easily by such ridiculous notions ?

So what you're basically saying is that your opinion of a film or tv show is always dependant on the previous roles of the main character.

If one of the main characters happens to be played by actor who is known especially for a certain role or lives a life which is different from the role he plays, then it will always make everything less convincing for you.

Right ?

Well, you can think like that all you want but a film or show should always be watched with a neutral outlook.

[Zpxbawtz]

Yes, producers do that because people are idiots in general. Still has no effect on how good the show is
or on how good or bad the actor is in that role.



That is just plain stupid.

You can see it like that if you want to but do you really expect your opinion to be taken seriously when talking about film and tv ? if it's affected that easily by such ridiculous notions ?

So what you're basically saying is that your opinion of a film or tv show is always dependant on the previous roles of the main character.

If one of the main characters happens to be played by actor who is known especially for a certain role or lives a life which is different from the role he plays, then it will always make everything less convincing for you.

Right ?

Well, you can think like that all you want but a film or show should always be watched with a neutral outlook.

11th time now: no, my opinion is not dependent on previous roles of the main character, but it CAN affect it.

But i'm gonna stop repeating everything now as you don't seem to be able to read properly.