3 ms·
> Are they though? Emphatically yes? There's a pretty big gulf between low-budget/amateur stuff and more professional acting. > It's hard to say someone is go
by syllogism 7y ago
> Are they though?
Emphatically yes? There's a pretty big gulf between low-budget/amateur stuff and more professional acting.
> It's hard to say someone is good at acting if they are put into roles where they basically play themselves.
That's definitely true, but like, even if Keanu Reeves only plays one character, that character just happens to be someone who's fun to see in a particular sort of movie. You still can't achieve the same thing by getting a random person to be themselves, and face-swapping their performance with Keanu Reeves.
- Retra 7y agoYes, but... the difference between low-budget/amateur stuff is more than just acting. It's hard to know that it is even primarily acting. I just don't believe that successful actors are so necessarily due to their acting talents (not that there's anything wrong with that) and also that broadening the kinds of material their visage appears in doesn't necessarily detract from their reputation or the film quality in general. It might if they've only appeared in the greatest material and only if they are the very best acting talents. What if you wanted to shoot a scene where someone is hobnobbing with the rich and famous? You might need dialog, but do you need authentic dialog? What if you want to shoot a scene where somebody is stealing Keanu Reeves' boat, and he is just acting like a normal dude in a weird situation? You don't need his acting talent for that. What if you're shooting an alternative history film and want to present situations that conform to historical accuracy, yet defer from people's memories? Etc.