Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Your comparison to Gal playing WW to King Kong is a bit too "abstract" for me to comprehend where you're coming from...So now you're comparing her to the black & white version where Kong was a stop motion puppet?
Argument: You need a good actor to play a good character.
Counter-argument: Immortal character came with no actor originally attached to them.
I think my point and my goal was clear from the get to go.
Originally posted by Bentley
Argument: You need a good actor to play a good character.Counter-argument: Immortal character came with no actor originally attached to them.
I think my point and my goal was clear from the get to go.
Ok now I'm thinking we're discussing 2 different things.
Who or what is Immortal?
...Is King Kong the giant ape/gorilla you're referring too?
Or another character with the same name, I'm not familiar with?
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Ok now I'm thinking we're discussing 2 different things.Who or what is Immortal?
...Is King Kong the giant ape/gorilla you're referring too?
Or another character with the same name, I'm not familiar with?
To be honest we are probably discussing two different things.
A character is a plot based device that is written and cohesive to a number of scenes. While pertinent to the quality of the character a Superior actor isn't the end-all be-all way to judge and to build one, its place on the film is the first and foremost element from which we can judge a good character. This, specially, in non-dramatic films that are focused in mounting storytelling devices.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Lol okaaay.Why didn't you say that in the 1st place?
Because the token statement "you need a good actor to have a good character" is being used, in context, as an uncalled way to attack the possibilities of a movie because of some absurd truth value that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
I attack the validity of the argument to show that its founded in bias and ill-faith towards the film.
My original statement was "you can't have a good character without a good actor to portray it."
Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal Lecter.
Leo DiCap playing Frank Abignale (You Can't Catch Me)
Daniel Day-Lewis playing Lincoln
Are you saying they could've used lesser known (& cheaper) actors & still these movies/ characters would've still been famous & popular?
The point is, you can have decent characters without needing award winning performances, which is enough of a general truth to stand by itself. As I implied in a previous post, the need for a better performance is enhanced in dramatic movies.
As per the topic, Wonder Woman is already famous and popular, so the demand for the actor works in a very different level than fictions establishing new mythos such as Rocky or Kong.
WW is only famous & popular due to Lynda Carter's portrayal.
That was 37 years ago.
The general public has little or no idea what her persona will be in this grittier, more realistic version of superheroes.
Gal doesn't need an Oscar worthy performance, she just needs to sell the idea & being convincing enough that she is WW.
Is she a good actor?
Personally I don't know.
I just know Warner & DC have hired her for the role in confidence that she truly is the actor for the part.
In the context I think the acting ability of Gal's is going to be less in the crux of the discussion (unless she truly is awful, but I can't see that happening considering the great casting on actors so far), than the in-universe portrayal and the overall setting in which the character is presented. This is also why I try to put emphasis on "characters serving the plot" instead of "actors serving the character", to me the former is going to have much more weight in how WW will be received.
I'm less thrilled about the overall style of this movie than to any of the actors playing on it. But I truly hope this won't bomb so we get more Superman/WW movies in the near future.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Gal doesn't need an Oscar worthy performance, she just needs to sell the idea & being convincing enough that she is WW.
The problem with that is, what IS Wonder Woman? If all the GA knows about her is Lynda Carter's performance, then there's not exactly anything set in stone as far as she goes. For all the audience knows, she's literally what the get on screen, good or bad.
========
Got my tickets. Midnight showing Thursday night/Friday morning. Better not ****ing suck.
Originally posted by -Pr-
The problem with that is, what IS Wonder Woman? If all the GA knows about her is Lynda Carter's performance, then there's not exactly anything set in stone as far as she goes. For all the audience knows, she's literally what the get on screen, good or bad.========
We went from Adam West to Keaton setting the standard.
Reeves' Big Blue BoyScout to Cavil's collateral damage.
Eartha to Pfeiffer.
Gal's performance, good or bad will set the on-screen standard for any future actors that may take over the role.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
We went from Adam West to Keaton setting the standard.
Reeves' Big Blue BoyScout to Cavil's collateral damage.
Eartha to Pfeiffer.Gal's performance, good or bad will set the on-screen standard for any future actors that may take over the role.
Agreed. Now, if only the GA had the same high standards as comic readers...