ShimmerFaux
ShimmerFaux t1_j26a656 wrote
Reply to is it true movies cant become cult films anymore due to constant opinion change? by bonghive
…
Public opinion of films and watching history is what cements a movie into this status. No one person defines the movie as a “cult film”.
ShimmerFaux t1_j212p0n wrote
Reply to comment by Tce_ in Why are actors with amazing performances in one high profile role, not re-casted in other high profile roles? by Royal-Geologist587
I wonder at that, past a certain point there’s no going back.
You’re too well known for one role, one type. I still cannot look at Patrick Stewart and not see Picard. Recently he’s reprised that role and brought it back. But before he did that he went big screen in multiple different IP’s including X-Men. I will forever hear his voice and hear “make it so”.
I am partly to blame for this very thing. I recognize that and i’m blaming myself. As a life long fan of his distinguished acting career, i will forever put him as Captain Picard.
ShimmerFaux t1_j20hrmg wrote
Reply to comment by Tce_ in Why are actors with amazing performances in one high profile role, not re-casted in other high profile roles? by Royal-Geologist587
That’s it isnt it? That distinction. You don’t like blaming the fans because they simply consume the media, buy the soundtracks, play the shows on their streaming service of choice…
But they drive the sales too? The actor is partially only great because they have great behind the scenes stuff… writers, music, props teams, countless others. But the actor becomes known for playing that character for such a long time simply because the company was allowed to continue to cast them for such a long time, because revenue streams continued for such a long time.
ShimmerFaux t1_j20e3pu wrote
Reply to comment by Tce_ in Why are actors with amazing performances in one high profile role, not re-casted in other high profile roles? by Royal-Geologist587
I’m not in disagreement at all about shatner, the guy by and large is completely unaware how narcissistic, narrow minded, and unattractive he actually is. But lets be honest, his hey day was in the 60’s. It was a different world.
I’m all for actors putting themselves in a lead role and continually being known for it, if that’s their wish.
Look at Adam Sandler, his most iconic role was Happy Gilmore or The Waterboy, the man is debatably a genius whose fully capable of doing amazing dramatic roles see Reign Over Me - 2007 but would rather be known for crazy comedy.
But, as we’ve seen countless other times, there are TV actors who want to move on, do other things, and can’t because they’re forever placed in the roll they played for sometimes as many as 15 years.
ShimmerFaux t1_j1zhrlh wrote
Reply to Why are actors with amazing performances in one high profile role, not re-casted in other high profile roles? by Royal-Geologist587
Playing a role like these takes years, sometimes it’s literally never possible to take up another role. People will inherently cast you in that role for their own reasons.
Look at Kit Harington, the guy who played Jon Snow in the often maligned HBO series. He goes up on stage during a panel at a convention people wanna talk about Jon Snow, not what he has coming up regardless of the actual intent of the panel which was to talk about what’s next.
William Shatner, is literally the one who put it best when he was bashing on fans: “I've spoken to many of you, and some of you have traveled, you know, hundreds of miles to be here, I'd just like to say … get a life, will you, people?! I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a TV show!”
As sucky as it is, this also really doesn’t respect the wishes of the actor. There’s many who want to continue acting but can’t because people “fans” loved those characters specifically.
Bryan Cranston is by all regard an incredibly talented and amazing actor, i challenge you to name one thing he did better than his role in Breaking Bad.
ShimmerFaux t1_j0mffg6 wrote
Reply to comment by FraseraSpeciosa in Researchers find that the free-ranging white-tailed deer of New York City may be a potential reservoir species for SARS-CoV-2 by glawgii
Actually,
It’s one of the few defenses we have that does work.
When avian influenza strains hit, it’s how we control it. It seems less likely to work in a cervine population, but the herds in new york cannot be that big. Couple hundred members at the absolute most. Probably less.
It seems more sad, and certainly harder because no one wants to be the guy who shot bambi’s mom. But were dealing with something that has the possibility to mutate rapidly, spread easier than hot butter, and affects all vertebrate animals.
The rat population would be much much much harder to curtail in a city the size of new york.
ShimmerFaux t1_j0k5a6h wrote
Reply to comment by sids99 in Researchers find that the free-ranging white-tailed deer of New York City may be a potential reservoir species for SARS-CoV-2 by glawgii
There’s nothing innocuous about this, we knew it was a thing because it’s actually likely that SARS was infectious to camels.
We knew that years ago, though we still haven’t traced the full source for SARS.
Finding out that SARS-Cov-2 infected other vertebrates in close proximity to a large human populace just means we need to take more aggressive steps to eradicate a possible pool.
ShimmerFaux t1_j3nhi9w wrote
Reply to comment by joshhupp in Woman sentenced to three years in state prison for collecting $400,000 in viral GoFundMe scam by AudibleNod
That others made…