Originally posted by Robtard
An okay actor; had a few good roles.Though it does upset me slightly when I think about a decent actor like this dying; yet shit actors like Kristen Stewart go on.
Thing is, Kristen Stewart is young and healthy. I mean, you could hope that she pulls an Amy Winehouse, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._Apparently she has quite a few roles she was praised for to her name.
Ehhhhh... I used to think that, but then she was shit in that Snow White film too. In order for the hate to be unjustified an actor should have at least one good role to their name.
Granted, they all happen to be in movies I don't care about seeing (Needs more splosions ****az), but still.
Originally posted by BackFire
You're right.The quality of acting in a film rarely has anything to do with whether it's good or not. Just like writing and directing.
Well, I don't think your point can be made using those items.
Up to a point, an actor has little to do with the acting. It's the directing. I don't really understand the "Best Actor" award at the Academy Awards. It really should be "Best Actor-Director" combo and the award should go to the director and actor, not just the actor.
Sure, an actor can be just atrocious and no amount of directing will help, but that's rarely the case.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
How about Adventureland or The Runaways? Think she was good in those?
She was her usual cardboard crapfest in Adventureland, though that was a decent film overall. She ruined The Runaways with her bad and cardboard like acting.
She's not done a single decent roll in all the movies I've seen her in.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I don't think your point can be made using those items.Up to a point, an actor has little to do with the acting. It's the directing. I don't really understand the "Best Actor" award at the Academy Awards. It really should be "Best Actor-Director" combo and the award should go to the director and actor, not just the actor.
Sure, an actor can be just atrocious and no amount of directing will help, but that's rarely the case.
LoL, no. Actor's have a lot to do with the acting. Take Gary Oldman, that guy does the best with what he's given generally all the time and it's generally good.. Even in silly action nonsense films like The Fifth Element, his acting and character portrayal was good.
Um, dudes? This thread isn't about Kristen Stewart. You can find her thread
here
AHEM.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I don't think your point can be made using those items.Up to a point, an actor has little to do with the acting. It's the directing. I don't really understand the "Best Actor" award at the Academy Awards. It really should be "Best Actor-Director" combo and the award should go to the director and actor, not just the actor.
Sure, an actor can be just atrocious and no amount of directing will help, but that's rarely the case.
Yes, but until that point an actor has a lot to do with the acting.
Originally posted by siriuswriterSomething tells me MCD doesn't mind too much if we derail his thread. : D
Um, dudes? This thread isn't about Kristen Stewart. You can find her thread
hereAHEM.