DC Cinematic Universe ( The James Gunn era)

[Morpheus 02]

What a bizarre question. Why does it matter if athletes challenge themselves? Would you have fun watching sports if the games were easy to play? The fact that it's a challenge, that the people we're watching are striving to achieve something difficult rather than just coasting through something easy, is the very thing that makes it worth watching.

Actors who challenge themselves to give richer, more interesting performances are more fun to watch than actors who just phone it in. The actor having fun and the audience having fun are two different things. The audience's fun is generally the result of the creators' hard work. It's the result of them working long hours, losing sleep, training and rehearsing hard, doing takes dozens of times to get them just right, and generally running themselves ragged for months so that we can have two hours of entertainment. It's their profession, not their hobby. The satisfaction comes from striving to do their best, not just from playing around.

What a bizarre response, from someone who daily interacs with fans. and has written novels on genres he is a fan of, (but also never been an actor).

Yeah, SOMETIMES it is the hard work you mention....but sometimes it's just fun. It varies from the type of work...where surgery will be more of the "hardwork", whereas something like music can BE more baout the 'fun" of it...since many audience members will vibe with that (as opposed to a phony act ). Have you ever been to a live concert? Sometimes, even if there are "mistakes" or the voice sounds a little scratchy....but it people feel the fun, it can work better than all the "hard work" of what others would say is a "manufactured" performance that, while much more "technically" correct , doesn't feel as fun.

Many of us watching Skeleton Crew feel like Jude Law is having a lot of fun (both form the acting, as well as BTS interviews), and we vibe with that. Is it his "best" work? No? Does he care? I doubt it? But it works for this particular piece.

And i think we will feel the vibe of Momoa having fun, like he did in Aquaman 2. And for the rest of us, it will probably work (at least that aspect in the movie).
Again, while "technically" true that the actor having fun, and the auience having fun are separate... several times it is PRECISELY because the actors are having fun that people get excited. THAT is part of the Marvel success that DC hadn't been able to replicate for its movies, and contributed to its "lack" (heavy airquotes) of success

 

[Thestral]

What a bizarre question. Why does it matter if athletes challenge themselves? Would you have fun watching sports if the games were easy to play? The fact that it's a challenge, that the people we're watching are striving to achieve something difficult rather than just coasting through something easy, is the very thing that makes it worth watching.

Actors who challenge themselves to give richer, more interesting performances are more fun to watch than actors who just phone it in. The actor having fun and the audience having fun are two different things. The audience's fun is generally the result of the creators' hard work. It's the result of them working long hours, losing sleep, training and rehearsing hard, doing takes dozens of times to get them just right, and generally running themselves ragged for months so that we can have two hours of entertainment. It's their profession, not their hobby. The satisfaction comes from striving to do their best, not just from playing around.

Odd comparison. If I'm watching Joe Burrow, I want to see him fling the hell out of the ball downfield, not line up and try to block on the O-line. The challenge is in seeing him be a master at his craft.

Every now and then a flea-flicker can be a lot of fun and really spice up the game, and I love when the Lions do crazy things like have Amon-Ra St. Brown throw a touchdown pass to Jared Goff occasionally, but 90% of the time I want them to play to their strengths.

It's good when actors mix it up and try out new roles to stretch their legs and experience new things, of course. But all the physical endurance challenges and many, many retakes can be part of the fun too of inhabiting a character even if it isn't that different from other roles.

 

[Tosk]

Actors who challenge themselves to give richer, more interesting performances are more fun to watch than actors who just phone it in.

I'm inferring a false binary at play. Those aren't the only two modes available.

 

[Christopher]

I'm inferring a false binary at play. Those aren't the only two modes available.

Not a binary, just preferring one end of the spectrum to the other. In my experience, Jason Momoa is better sometimes than others, so my concern is that given an easy and unchallenging role, he might not bring his A game.

Although really, my reaction here is more to the character than the actor. I hate Lobo, so it's not a role I want to see Momoa play, or anyone else, for that matter. It's conceivable that an actor might bring something fresh and interesting to the role that might make it less distasteful to me, but it seems likely that Momoa would play Lobo just the way he's usually written and played, which I dislike.

 

[Tosk]

Not a binary, just preferring one end of the spectrum to the other.

I like pizza more than dog food.

 

[JD]

What a bizarre question. Why does it matter if athletes challenge themselves? Would you have fun watching sports if the games were easy to play? The fact that it's a challenge, that the people we're watching are striving to achieve something difficult rather than just coasting through something easy, is the very thing that makes it worth watching.

Actors who challenge themselves to give richer, more interesting performances are more fun to watch than actors who just phone it in. The actor having fun and the audience having fun are two different things. The audience's fun is generally the result of the creators' hard work. It's the result of them working long hours, losing sleep, training and rehearsing hard, doing takes dozens of times to get them just right, and generally running themselves ragged for months so that we can have two hours of entertainment. It's their profession, not their hobby. The satisfaction comes from striving to do their best, not just from playing around.

I still don't understand why that matters to me as the audience member, all I care about is that I enjoy the performance, and I don't see where it matters if they're challenging themselves or just having fun as long as it's a good performance.

 

[Mudd]

I still don't understand why that matters to me as the audience member, all I care about is that I enjoy the performance, and I don't see where it matters if they're challenging themselves or just having fun as long as it's a good performance.

You're the one who's right, here.

 

[Christopher]

I still don't understand why that matters to me as the audience member, all I care about is that I enjoy the performance, and I don't see where it matters if they're challenging themselves or just having fun as long as it's a good performance.

Why do you not see the correlation? A performance is more likely to be good if the actor is challenging himself to do better. How is that not obvious?

 

[Morpheus 02]

Why do you not see the correlation? A performance is more likely to be good if the actor is challenging himself to do better. How is that not obvious?

Because we have seen plenty of ENJOYABLE performances from people who are in their "comfort zone"... it's something that worked for them in the past. And if the actor still loves doing it in that way, and it fits the rest of the film, it works for much of the audience.

And someone who WANTS to do a role , even if it is what they have done before is NOT phoning it in. It is in fact just opposite of "phoning it in". How do you not see that?

 

[StarTrek1701]

Because we have seen plenty of ENJOYABLE performances from people who are in their "comfort zone"... it's something that worked for them in the past. And if the actor still loves doing it in that way, and it fits the rest of the film, it works for much of the audience.

And someone who WANTS to do a role , even if it is what they have done before is NOT phoning it in. It is in fact just opposite of "phoning it in". How do you not see that?

Alex Guinness was excellent as Obi-Wan, but yeah, after getting to know how he viewed Star Wars it just doesn't feel the same.
But we know Ewan Mcgregor was having genuine fun in the role and that clearly shines in his favor.

 

[kirk55555]

BTW, I had a belated realization: You haven't actually read Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow, have you? I mean, you asked recently about how Comet was portrayed in the book, which you'd know if you had read it. So I'm guessing this is yet another instance of you adopting an extravagantly hostile position toward something based on no real knowledge at all, just whatever context-free stuff you've heard about it, combined with your own idiosyncratic prejudices. Amirite?

I tried to read it. I got a few pages into the TPB (I checked it out through, I'd never pay money for anything Tom King wrote on general principle) and hated every second of it. I hated the art, the writing, and the story. Its been a bit since I tried it so I can't give you specifics, I read a few pages, glanced over the rest of it, read the last few pages and realized it was just another case of "Tom King writes a garbage story with his OCs and pretends its a DC story because no one would buy his garbage wqithout him stealing popular characters", and returned it. I obviously didn't end up catching comet in the bits I looked at.

Even ignoring all that I know that Tom King is an incompetent jerk who disrespects other writers work constantly, because only his story matters to him and screw everyone else, he should never be allowed to write main continuity stuff. I didn't have to read the book all the way to get that. Literally everything King has ever done is terrible, even if I hadn't seen a panel of his Supergirl story I'd still know it was bad, having tried to read it and have read some plot stuff online just shows what kind of bad it is.

Also, you seem to worship the guy, so you don't really have room to talk about prejudices. I hate Tom King because everything I've seen and read of his, partially or completely, has been absolute garbage. I don't need to read every panel of everything he does to judge it.

 

[The Realist]

Uh-huh. That's what I thought. Perfectly on-brand.

 

[theenglish]

Alex Guinness was excellent as Obi-Wan, but yeah, after getting to know how he viewed Star Wars it just doesn't feel the same.
But we know Ewan Mcgregor was having genuine fun in the role and that clearly shines in his favor.

Two different generations. Gunness was an aging actor with an esteemed career playing significant dramatic roles. The he does Star Wars and it was like all his previous work had been forgotten for what he considered to be a fluff movie.

McGregor grew up on Star Wars so it was a dream come true to join the franchise. What's more he was at the height of his career and has been known for playing other roles. He's not "only" Obi Wan to people. I love the story about how he likes to swipe his hand in front of automatic doors as he walks up to them.

 

[kirk55555]

Uh-huh. That's what I thought. Perfectly on-brand.

You weren't having a real discussion, which I expected because for some people any criticism is sacrilege so you just ignore and be condescending whenever someone disagrees with you. If you think I need to eat every ounce of shit to decide it tastes bad, thats a you problem, not a me problem I bet you love Heroes in Crisis and Batman: The Gift, too.

 

[StarTrek1701]

So is Batman already cast in the DCU or nah?

 

[Nerys Myk]

So is Batman already cast in the DCU or nah?

Nah

 

[Tosk]

Alex

Alec

 

[Mage]

What a load of nonsense.

Plenty of actors have done parts because they thought they were fun, not challenging. They literally state so in interviews. Hell, some even outright state that the only reason they took a specific part was the money.

 

[StarTrek1701]

What a load of nonsense.

Plenty of actors have done parts because they thought they were fun, not challenging. They literally state so in interviews. Hell, some even outright state that the only reason they took a specific part was the money.

Jim Carrey's recent comments come to mind. He enjoys playing the Sonic villain, and he outright said he needs the cash too

 

[theenglish]

Hmmm, it's not like Robert Downey took the role of Tony Stark because it was challenging for him--but he did a lot with it because he's a great actor and he brought his A-game.