Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Most chameleonic actor/actress


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

Way too many actors today aren't really actors, they're personas.

I mean seriously, is what Jack Nicholson does really "acting"? In every film, he's essentially just himself with a different name and situation. Ditto for Bruce Willis, Tom Cruise, Dennis Quaid, Matthew McConnaughey and others.

Who are the real "actors" out there? The guys who actually come off as different guys when they play different roles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good choices, though I find Pitt and Depp a tad overrated.

Should have included a second question in the original: Who is the most overrated of the bunch and/or the one with the least range? I'd probably nominate the afforementioned Jack Nicholson, but I'm sure there are others.

On the main point, I'd argue for Philip Seymour Hoffman as the most underrated of the bunch. He's played a pretty broad variety of characters. Hard to believe the roles in things like Twister, MI3, Boogie Nights, Red Dragon, Capote and Doubt are all the same guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Depp's talent is overrated, I think it just happens that his movie selections have made him look like the same character, not that he isn't capable. And honestly I think Pitt is underrated.

I think DD Lewis is overrated. Now bear with me, I think he is one of if not the best actor out there but I don't find to be leaps and bounds the best.

Clooney is overrated. Zac Efron is a scrub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think these 2 are 2 that don't play characters anymore. They used to. Not anymore though.

Meh yea it's sort of true. More with Pacino than Deniro though. As far as Nicholson goes he's used to be diverse and I still think he is today. But for these 3 guys they don't have to prove themselves anymore, they don't have to show how diverse they are, they have the luxury of making movies for fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sorta related.  I just looked up a stat:  Success rates for NFL draft's second rounders.  I was surprised that it is 49%.  The success rate for first rounders is 58%.   Here success does not mean those that did not bust, it means that roughly half of the players selected in the second round become full-time starters at some point in their careers.  Busts do that too.  However, considering the fact that a first round talent is worth up to 1800 points (first overall pick) more than the first pick of the second round and as low as 350 points (last pick in first round) higher than the last pick in round 2, it seems there could be cases in which it would be to your advantage to trade out of round 1 and draft two or three second rounders for the value.  Of course, the elite players are likely to be gone, and some positions overwhelmingly suck after round 1 (traditionally, like QB or LT, for example), but if you need to find starters at positions like DT, G, LB, S, C, TE, RB, etc, there could be a time when you trade back for more starters.  I was surprised that the margin between rounds 1 and 2 was only 9%.    While I realize that some of you sofa scholars are thinking, "Well duh?  Trading back gives you more players." as you wipe the Cheetos off your shirt.  Not the point.  The point is you have to consider the draft,the needs (and the number of them), and you need to scout the second and third rounds like you do the first, the cap, and the long-term impact.  If you can find 2 players with a 49% chance of becoming a starter, are you better off than drafting one player who has a 58% chance in the long term? So if I traded away my first rounder for two second rounders (a trade most teams would make) regularly, when I got 10 second rounders (by trading 5 first rounders), 5 would be starters.  If I did not trade and kept my 5 first rounders, 3 would be starters.  Furthermore, their rookie contracts would be much cheaper than the 5 first rounders. 
    • These are the three deep throw attempts that Will Levis made in week 12. His first one is a beauty; Levis and Westbrook-Ikhine gets the safety to bite on a deep dig only to go over the top for the score. His second throw is another beauty: a crosser to Calvin Ridley reminiscent of Bryce to XL (though Ridley has noticeably more separation on his route). His third and final deep shot was an incompletion from his own endzone on 3rd & 14 with pressure coming down on him (to me, this seems like a solid throw).   Film Room Playlist NFL Pro-02.mp4 Film Room Playlist NFL Pro-01.mp4 Film Room Playlist NFL Pro.mp4 Film Room Playlist NFL Pro-01.mp4 Levis took half of the deep shots that Young did. The differences are: Ridley had much better separation than XL, which is why his deep crosser turned into a 63yd play since he was able to scamper for another 15+ after the catch. Westbrook-Ikhine holds on to his TD pass. Bryce had to throw one away to preserve time for a field goal. Bryce had two more throws that were incomplete due to the WR Are we really holding the three WR errors and clock management decision against Bryce in order to say that Will was better throwing deep in week 12? That's not passing the eye test nor is it confirmed by the data.
×
×
  • Create New...