Discussion in 'Doctor Who' started by StCoop, Sep 13, 2012.
We've had Sir Patrick Moore, so of course having Brian Cox is the next logical step.
I had no idea either.
So what exactly is a ''gimmicky cameo'' then? Considering the examples you gave above, aren't they all actors playing a role, no matter how small or trivial it is?
Not sure if you've confused who said what, I was arguing Bill Nighy, Christian Slater, and Winona Rider are all actors, it's their job, it's what they do, so, no they aren't Gimmicky. Hiring non-actors to play themselves or Pop stars for cameos (IE: Britney Spears on How I Met Your Mother) or the other examples that were listed as gimmicky
Of course, they've already had the other Brian Cox, as a voice over for The End of Time.
Gotta catch them all.
They love their Cox.
No, I'm not confused. You basically said that if an actor is getting a role, its because they're an actor. "It's their job." And then you proceeded to list all kinds of silly reasons that apply to anyone who'd be interested in such a thing, including being a Doctor Who fan as enough of a reason to be on the show.
So what if they're playing themselves or someone else? So what if this is their first job as an actor? They're in front of the camera, reading lines, playing a role, and being directed. Or, what, "actors" can only be actors if that's all they do, and if they make money through any other means they're "gimmicky?" I guess that means Bones showing up at the end of TNG's premiere wasn't a gimmicky cameo because he was an actor playing a role? How about Steve Martin in The Jerk or Eddie Murphy in 48 Hours? They were comedians not "actors," so why weren't they gimmicky?
Sorry, but it's all nonsense. Actual cameos themselves are what are gimmicky, whether the actor is playing themself, a famous character of theirs, or someone else entirely.
Of course, you have to then decide what counts as a cameo and what counts as a guest appearance.
The reasons I gave such as "being a Doctor Who Fan", were explanations of why they would take such a small role.
Steve Martin and Eddie Murphy were the stars, starting their Acting careers, that's entirely different then a "one Off" cameo.
And no, I didn't say, if an actor is getting a role, its because they're an actor. What I said was if an Actor is a career actor, it's what their job is, it's not a stunt to offer them a job, even if it is a small role.
The difference is that in 20 years or whatever, people watching Vincent and the Doctor will either know that Bill Nighy is/ was a well-known actor or will just see him as one of the cast. His acting will stand the test of time.
Whereas when they see, for example, Alan Sugar playing Alan Sugar, they'll go 'Who's Alan Sugar and what's the in-joke here meant to be?'
His cameo is a 'contemporary' cameo for modern viewers, which will be completely lost on many or most future viewers.
That's exactly what I said when Sir Patrick Moore appeared in "The Eleventh Hour."
Clearly some gimmicky cameos are aimed at audiences on specific sides of the Atlantic.
So when Alfred Hitchcock appeared in his films, that wasn't a cameo just because we still remember who he was decades later?
First, that's not what you said, but I won't bother with that anymore. Regardless, your statement does mean that Bones showing up at the end of Encounter at Farpoint wasn't a ''gimmicky cameo'' since DeForest Kelly is a professional actor. Or Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis in The Expendables. What about Edward Norton in The Invention of Lying? Paul Glaser and David Soul in the Starsky and Hutch remake? I can go on and on.
But according to your statements, I must be mistaking because those couldn't possibly have been cameo appearances since they all feature professional actors who were offered a role.
Why are you mixing "Cameo" with "Gimmicky Cameo"? No one is disputing that Cameo is a small part and they're offered and accepted all the time, it's the "Gimmicky" part we are disputing
And no, Bones wasn't a Gimmicky Cameo, it was a legitimate "Passing of the Torch" Moment
^^ A cameo is by definition a gimmick, since its strength relies on the audience being aware of the actor's importance over the role's importance and it by definition undermines verisimilitude for the sake of "winking" at the audience.
I'd have to say that John Cleeese's cameo in City of Death was a hell of a lot gimmicky than anything the new series has done. Mainly because there really was no point to his appearance other than, "Hey look who it is!"
I didn't say that they weren't cameos. But I'm saying that there's a difference between cameos from well-known actors playing fictional roles and non-actors turning up to play fictional versions of themselves.
The Hitch thing is a separate category again. The director in his own movie, in non-speaking roles (often just recognised by his silhouette) which became a motif of his movies.
They're all types of cameo but all I'm saying is that I personally would view the Alan Sugar type ones as more of a gimmicky and silly type than the Bill Nighy type. Bill Nighy's character served the story and would have worked regardless of who played the role. The famous people playing themselves have clearly been chosen so that viewers will go 'Oh, there's Famous Person as Famous Person!'
I don't mind gimmicks. Gimmicks are cool.
Separate names with a comma.