MAX's Mind - Constantine

Re: Constantine: Neo Goes to Hell

[ QUOTE ]
Madin said:

[ QUOTE ]
Mcoleman2 said:

However, bankability is the most important measure of any aspect of filmaking.

[/ QUOTE ]

You what?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I know what he means. Not filmaking per se but the marketing and selling to producers. You need to guarantee return on investment or the film likely won't get made.

That said, I loved your response.

GE

 

Re: Constantine: Neo Goes to Hell

Fixed.

[ QUOTE ]
Mcoleman2 said:

However, bankability is the most important measure of any aspect of blockbuster filmaking.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nicely cleared up, cheers Godeater!, sorry for misunderstanding you Mcoleman2.
To think there was a time when 'bankable' stars generally had onscreen charisma.

 

Re: Constantine: Neo Goes to Hell

[ QUOTE ]
Madin said:

Fixed.

[ QUOTE ]
Mcoleman2 said:

However, bankability is the most important measure of any aspect of blockbuster filmaking.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem with the misunderstanding, that is not what I said, however. I said...

"However, bankability is the most important measure of any aspect of filmaking."

To more accurately clarify what I meant you should insert the word "professional" instead of "blockbuster." GodEater understands it correctly, but I want to communicate that it holds true for anyone who is not making films as a hobby or simply financing a movie as a way to communicate their own personal message.

As I see it there are 3 categories of people who watch films.

1. Artisans - <0.5% of viewers - People who watch participate in some aspect of filmmaking/acting and look at it with a critical eye.

2. Die Hard Fans - <0.5% of viewers - Are very dedicated fans of the film as a genre or as a plot line. I'm critical of Star Wars movies etc. These fans are over analytical of their favorite films but will put up with crappy films because they are so dedicated.

3. Fair-weather fans - = Approx. 99% of viewers - Don't really care about the film and only go to movies that are widely considered "must watch" films. They aren't very analytical of films, don't really know how to evaluate talent, but are happy so long as the films make them "feel good" whatever their definition of good is.

I think artisans look pay much more attention to acting skill than do the average person. They may look at a guy like Keanu Reeves and think to themselves "he's terrible." He may actually be terrible if you look at acting as a craft. However if he has a niche or a certain charisma that lets him fit into certain roles and appeal to the mass public that is important. I argue it is more important than real theatrical talent because 99% of the people don't look that far beneath the surface.

I realize there is some correlation between the talent and charisma. But, every so often there comes someone who has relatively little theatrical talent but loads of on-screen charisma when playing a certain type of person. IMO John Wayne was like that. My point, that Keanu Reeves is bankable, and your point, that Keanu Reeves is not a good actor, are not mutually exclusive so long as by "good actor" you mean someone with artistic acting talent.

 

Re: Constantine: Neo Goes to Hell

[ QUOTE ]
Mcoleman2 said:




As I see it there are 3 categories of people who watch films.

1. Artisans - <0.5% of viewers - People who watch participate in some aspect of filmmaking/acting and look at it with a critical eye.

2. Die Hard Fans - <0.5% of viewers - Are very dedicated fans of the film as a genre or as a plot line. I'm critical of Star Wars movies etc. These fans are over analytical of their favorite films but will put up with crappy films because they are so dedicated.

3. Fair-weather fans - = Approx. 99% of viewers - Don't really care about the film and only go to movies that are widely considered "must watch" films. They aren't very analytical of films, don't really know how to evaluate talent, but are happy so long as the films make them "feel good" whatever their definition of good is.

I think artisans look pay much more attention to acting skill than do the average person. They may look at a guy like Keanu Reeves and think to themselves "he's terrible." He may actually be terrible if you look at acting as a craft. However if he has a niche or a certain charisma that lets him fit into certain roles and appeal to the mass public that is important. I argue it is more important than real theatrical talent because 99% of the people don't look that far beneath the surface.



[/ QUOTE ]

What is this elitist hobnobbery. I love it how all these so called "movie buffs" can generalize all movie goers into three catagorys. As if 99% of people who watch movies just go to see the big movies and have no idea what a "good" movie is

That being said, I think I agree about Keanu being more charismatic than he is at conventional forms of acting. But, obviously, isnt the most important part of acting charisma? For example, Will Farrrel, neither a great actor nor the best comedian but definitely charismatic and intresting to watch on screen.

It seems that a lot of these critics are just jaded that a movie that really isn't so awesome can be considered a "great movie". Independance day, Matrix, Star Wars. great entertaining movies. Every movie isnt going to be pulp fiction , but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy a movie that is entertaining.

 

Wahlberg vs Keanu

[ QUOTE ]
GodEater said:

Keanu can no more carry a film than Mark Wahlberg can. They both certainly come from the same "whisper = emote" school of acting but companions in the ability to carry exactly one note on screen don't make them worthy of any particular praise.



[/ QUOTE ]

Why paint Wahlberg with your shitty, grammatically mangled brush? Sure he started out not so great as Marky Mark and in some shitty movies, but his choices to star in riskier, more artistic films like Boogie Nights, the brilliant Three Kings and I (heart) Huckabees put him in a different league than dumbass, Jr. High-girl heart-throb Keanu.

With all the scripts that big stars get, Wahlburg's choices to do these movies suggest that he at least has a brain, not to mention that he is great in all these movies.

 

Re: Constantine: Neo Goes to Hell

[ QUOTE ]
By Vith_Dos
What is this elitist hobnobbery. I love it how all these so called "movie buffs" can generalize all movie goers into three catagorys. As if 99% of people who watch movies just go to see the big movies and have no idea what a "good" movie is

(emphasis added)

[/ QUOTE ]

They all have wonderful ideas what a "good" movie is, as well as ideas what "good" actors are etc. Good movies are movies that they like to watch. Hence, there are more people who think "Star Wars" is a good movie than there are people who think "American Beauty" is a good movie. This is evident in that more people pay to see Star Wars than American Beauty.

The elitest folk are people who tell us that the movies and actors that the masses are not willing to pay to see are really better than the one's they will pay to see.

 

Re: Wahlberg vs Keanu

[ QUOTE ]
SgtRamrod said:

[ QUOTE ]
GodEater said:

Keanu can no more carry a film than Mark Wahlberg can. They both certainly come from the same "whisper = emote" school of acting but companions in the ability to carry exactly one note on screen don't make them worthy of any particular praise.



[/ QUOTE ]

Why paint Wahlberg with your shitty, grammatically mangled brush? Sure he started out not so great as Marky Mark and in some shitty movies, but his choices to star in riskier, more artistic films like Boogie Nights, the brilliant Three Kings and I (heart) Huckabees put him in a different league than dumbass, Jr. High-girl heart-throb Keanu.

With all the scripts that big stars get, Wahlburg's choices to do these movies suggest that he at least has a brain, not to mention that he is great in all these movies.

[/ QUOTE ]

see, I would have thought it obvious why I chose to color these two paint by numbers clowns with the same brush: They suck. You think otherwise (at least with Wahlberg) and this is where we dissagree (you don't have a problem with that, do you?). I think he sucks. I think he was alright in boogie nights and I think he sucked in Three Kings.

I really don't care about an actors "choices" or the size of his brain if he can't deliver the goods. The quality of the movie becomes irrelevant when you shove a crappy actor in it. Wahlberg sucks. His character approach, delivery and ability to emote stay the same in every film he's in. That usually means that an actor is playing himself which in Wahlberg's case is a very bad thing. you know, because he sucks.

Three Kings rocked. I thought it was a fantastic and overdue film. Too bad about the casting choice, eh?

GE

 

Re: Constantine: Neo Goes to Hell

All I know is that christians were the only group of people who've been offended by the movie and refered to some of the scenes as 'blasphemus' and an insult to the bible. The Christians didn't like:
(1)The Misuse of Charactersexample)The chracter Gabriel was a messenger of God in the bible and was never evil or insane.

(2)The References to Godexample)In one scene, Keanu Reeves explained another character how God never had a plan for us and was just a kid with a magnifying glass who owned an ant farm.

Poor Christians
(3)No cameos of Godexample)In one of the later scenes in the movie where keanue reeves had slit his wrist and Lucifer appeared,it would of been a good scene for god to make an apearance so he could fight Lucifer and stop Gabriel of her fury, but he never did. Although he did try to lift constantine into heaven, he let lucifer take the upper hand by pulling Keanue back to earth.

 

Re: Constantine: Neo Goes to Hell

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem with the misunderstanding, that is not what I said, however. I said...

"However, bankability is the most important measure of any aspect of filmaking."

To more accurately clarify what I meant you should insert the word "professional" instead of "blockbuster." GodEater understands it correctly, but I want to communicate that it holds true for anyone who is not making films as a hobby or simply financing a movie as a way to communicate their own personal message.

As I see it there are 3 categories of people who watch films.

1. Artisans - <0.5% of viewers - People who watch participate in some aspect of filmmaking/acting and look at it with a critical eye.

2. Die Hard Fans - <0.5% of viewers - Are very dedicated fans of the film as a genre or as a plot line. I'm critical of Star Wars movies etc. These fans are over analytical of their favorite films but will put up with crappy films because they are so dedicated.

3. Fair-weather fans - = Approx. 99% of viewers - Don't really care about the film and only go to movies that are widely considered "must watch" films. They aren't very analytical of films, don't really know how to evaluate talent, but are happy so long as the films make them "feel good" whatever their definition of good is.

I think artisans look pay much more attention to acting skill than do the average person. They may look at a guy like Keanu Reeves and think to themselves "he's terrible." He may actually be terrible if you look at acting as a craft. However if he has a niche or a certain charisma that lets him fit into certain roles and appeal to the mass public that is important. I argue it is more important than real theatrical talent because 99% of the people don't look that far beneath the surface.

I realize there is some correlation between the talent and charisma. But, every so often there comes someone who has relatively little theatrical talent but loads of on-screen charisma when playing a certain type of person. IMO John Wayne was like that. My point, that Keanu Reeves is bankable, and your point, that Keanu Reeves is not a good actor, are not mutually exclusive so long as by "good actor" you mean someone with artistic acting talent.

[/ QUOTE ]

John wayne was never miscast to my knowledge.

Other than that you got me. I admit that I think of films has more than just entertainment. If we go by your figures, than I'm in the tiny minority. I am one of these freaks who prefers good acting over good explosions. I'm not even in this keanu argument thats occuring, he has only ever spoilt one film for me, and oddly enough it was almost certainly a case of producers worrying about 'bankabilty'. The film in question is Bram Stoker's dracula and keanu was a victim of criminal miscasting.
I struggle to think of a film (other than bill and ted) were keanu reeves was noticeble over other actors or actresses, regardless of wether hes been lead or not.