Yes
No
Not Sure or It Depends
They are very different beasts; because they are being 'judged' (for want of a better word) with very different criteria. Movie stars are judged on box office success, fame, name recognition, popularity... none of that is about acting ability. You don't need to be a competent actor to be a movie star. That's not to say the two don't co-exist and align with each other at times, even often. But if proof of 'acting chops' (or a need to respect someone as an ACT-or, darhling) is backed up with 'their movies makes lots of money'... well... that's like saying 'this soup tastes really good, because I recognize the brand name'. Apples and oranges, really.
Last edited by Kieran_Frost; 07-18-2021 at 04:04 PM.
"We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Turing. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We so generous, we DeGeneres. We are Ziggy Stardust hooked to the silver screen. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato. We are Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."
Paul Newman grew as an actor and started challenging himself, Road to Perdition 2002, what if I remember correctly was his last film, put him in a very complex-villain role. Hopefully someone like Chris Hemsworth can get the same memo, after his time in the MCU is over.
Also Mathew Broderick likely sees himself far more an a movie actor and stage actor. back then, he may have felt doing TV was a step down, especially when you take into account Breaking Bad was not on one of the big networks. CBS,NBC, ABC or even HBO.
Broderick is a good actor to me, but I feel he gets easily overshadowed. Watch a film like Glory. Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman, overshadowed him and stole the show, even if Broderick's character was supposed to be the main character in the movie.
Oh, see I love Paul Newman, always have... and to me he's always be wonderful and bold with his choices, and daring and going for the truth of the character. And I think Chris Hemsworth certainly has the talent to be dynamite. Even AT Marvel, he's probably one of the most impressive performances.
Truthfully... I've never much cared for Matthew Broderick. I think the time I enjoyed him most was as the creepy/needy/helpless guy in 30 Rock (in corporate, I think, or the senate, I forget).
"We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Turing. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We so generous, we DeGeneres. We are Ziggy Stardust hooked to the silver screen. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato. We are Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."
The examples given are generally actors that don't have range to begin with, like Adam West or something.
A better example is an actor like Leslie Nielsen, who generally played the heavy until Airplane. Then he couldn't get any other type of role. I never heard that he complained about that, though.
Nielsen arguably had a far more prolific career in comedy than he had before hand; the more “serious” roles he had didn’t really show his talent or charisma.
Like action, adventure, rogues, and outlaws? Like anti-heroes, femme fatales, mysteries and thrillers?
I wrote a book with them. Outlaw’s Shadow: A Sherwood Noir. Robin Hood’s evil counterpart, Guy of Gisbourne, is the main character. Feel free to give it a look: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asi...E2PKBNJFH76GQP