more and more average actors have come into the scene lately... most of who we all know have just made the breakthrew not on there acting skills but purly on the looks!! what happend to the days when it dint matter what you looked like your acting skill came formost!? plus with the addition to special affects is it that important to be that good at acting anymore???? this leads me to my question has the standard of acting gone down in the last 50 year?
To answer your question, when Hilary Duff and Lindsay Lohan are leading the way in 2005 and in 1990 Jodie Foster and Jamie Lee Curtis were, then forget the decline of acting in the past 50 years....Try the past 15!
p.s. I can't believe the Movie Reviews forum is gone. If anything it should have been the Movie Stars and Celebrities forum!
__________________
Last edited by botankus on Jan 18th, 2005 at 06:54 PM
It's not so much that the standards of actors have been lowered, as it is movie goers in general. Hollywood is always looking for the next big thing, of course, and they'll introduce everyone they can as the next great hope. There's no saving Hollywood, because what worked then just doesn't work now. If that weren't true, Clint Howard would be the next James Bond.
Besides, "average" is subjective. The best actors today are lurking mostly in independent features. Natalie Portman. Peter Sarsgaard. Mark Ruffalo. Laura Linney. Peter Dinklage. They're all getting the breaks, finally, which is indeed a glimmer of hope for fans of MOVIE movies, and not the "mindless entertainment" Hollywood contingent.
But when looking at the predominatnt number of actors that are being succesful, you can only wonder shere rising talent will come from, natalie portman is guna hit the spot on hollywood, closer will make her hot property, but the likes of Orlando Bloom for example will only get work through their looks, if you look at the hollywood superstars, they are all pusinh mid 40, sometime they are going to have to risk playing unknown actors for lead parts, take braveheart for example, instead of playing and american actor to play a scottish role who is gettin on a bit, why not play a younger potential terrific acotr that will make an impact on movies.
Because putting an up and coming actor in a major role is too much of a gamble, production and marketing wise. I still think the future is in indie actors.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 18th, 2005 06:44 PM
