Anybody here think it's a little egotistical on the part of Paxton to give himself top billing over McConaughey? He is a good actor, and also did a good job directing, but he was in a supporting role whereas Matt was the lead. (And, award-wise, there is nothing that would give him the edge, like the way Oscar winners sometimes get top-billing, regardless of their role)
JMHO. Feel free to weigh-in...
Wolf
"I Drank What?!" - Socrates
[deleted]
Anybody here think it's a little egotistical on the part of Paxton to give himself top billing over McConaughey?
He is a good actor, and also did a good job directing, but he was in a supporting role whereas Matt was the lead. (And, award-wise, there is nothing that would give him the edge, like the way Oscar winners sometimes get top-billing, regardless of their role)
king of bob: "Pretty sure Bill didn't do the credits himself."
- Pretty sure that as director, Paxton has final say over the credits.
- Pretty sure you missed the point of my question.
- Pretty sure I wasn't looking for a debate as to who among the entire cast had the most prominent role.
Wolf
"I Drank What?!" - Socrates
Pretty sure that as director, Paxton has final say over the credits.
Pretty sure you missed the point of my question.
Pretty sure I wasn't looking for a debate as to who among the entire cast had the most prominent role.
king of bob: "Very good, but do you really think he cares what order the credits appear in? He already gets more credits, why would he care about the order?"
- Do you really think that directors and above-the-line actors don't care about what order their names appear in the credits? That's quite naive.
king of bob: "If you knew anything about Paxton, you would know he's not really an egotistical person."
- No, I dont know Bill Paxton. I didn't realize you two were so close.
king of bob: "You wouldn't call Morgan Freeman the "star" of March of the Penguins would you?"
- Pretty stupid choice for an analogy. "Star" or not, I would still give Freeman top-billing. Who would you give it to? One of the penguins?
king of bob: "Pretty sure Paxton was in the movie more than McConaughey was, at least as far as on screen time goes."
- "Pretty sure", huh? You seem to be "pretty sure" about alot of things. How can one argue against such sound logic and rock hard evidence, such as your "pretty sures"?
But, really, where are you trying to go with all this? I asked a simple question. I didn't claim it was an issue of any importance. Certainly not enough for you to get your panties all twisted (and they are twisted). You go on and on, defending your good buddy Bill, and taking up the cause of poor O'Learly. You call my question "pointless", "moot" and one of "idiocy", yet feel the need to debate it so strenuously. And speaking of "idiocy", you defeat yourself with your own arguments while at the same time, bolstering my original point.
Just to reiterate, I put forward that since Paxton's role was no more prominent than McConaughey's, and Paxton was definately in a supporting role, did it not seem somewhat self-indulgent for Bill to give himself top billing? The point is, Paxton was not the lead (sole lead) or "star" (and again, I'm not looking to argue over who was). But, you're the moron who goes on and on (and on) that "O'Leary was that star! O'Leary was the star!!", yet you fail to address the fact that your pal Bill only gave your hero O'Leary fourth billing... (he's even billed after Powers Booth and his little 'cameo')
Simple question. Agree or disagree. I don't mind a little rhetoric, but for the most point, I really don't care. You, on the other hand, has personalized this issue, and lowered yourself to unprovoked insults. You say that I am "butt hurt" (whatever that means), when really, you are the one who is all bent outta' shape here.
Me - I'll log off and not give this another thought. Tonight, while you're drinking you're ativan smoothie, I'll be sleeping just fine...
Wolf
"I Drank What?!" - Socrates
Paxton clearly had more on screen time. Paxton was the lead. Full stop. McConaughey may be more pleasant to look at, attractive, talented, whatever you think of him I don't know, but he wasn't the lead. He didn't even appear first in the film.
sharesjdean-1: "Paxton clearly had more on screen time."
- "Clearly"? What is that based on? Your opinion? Or do you have some actual verification on that?
sjdean-1: "Paxton was the lead. Full stop."
- Again... you base this on what?
sjdean-1: "McConaughey may be more pleasant to look at, attractive, talented, whatever you think of him I don't know..."
- Um... ok. Regardless of whether I think McConaughey is attractive or not, he is talented, but that's all besides the point. I don't feel that his role was any less prominent than Paxton's.
sjdean-1: "...but he wasn't the lead. He didn't even appear first in the film."
- McConaughey was the lead. The story is about him, narrated by him and told through his point of view.
As for "appearing first in the film"... what does that have to do with anything? The first actor to appear was Powers Boothe. He speaks briefly with an extra, then we see McConaughey - in the opening scene, and before we see Paxton. But that's irrelevant, actors aren't designated as 'lead' simply because they are the first to appear in the film.
Wolf
"I Drank What?!" - Socrates
[deleted]
Hey Wolf, I watch a lot of movies and I did not realize that actors cared about the order in which their names appear in the credits.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think this is common knowledge.
As far as who the start of this film is, I thought it was the boy who played Fenten.
No, it isn't egotistical. No Matt was not in the lead role.
Matthew played the Adult Adam, with some voice-over work for narration. Paxton got far more screen-time.
Stars that are top billed means they usually play the principal characters in the film and have the most screen time.
If you insist on debating screen-time, I suggest you re-watch the film with a stop watch.
You're the one that claims "Paxton got far more screen-time".
Prove it.
Wolf
"I Drank What?!" - Socrates
I don't need to prove it cause I don't dispute it. If you need to justify your opinion, when EVERYONE else disagrees with you, than you need to "prove it" to us. Till then, we rest comfortably in the knowledge that you're wrong.
shareDid you even watch this movie? If you did then you would have seen Paxton had more time on screen in front of the camera then McConaughey. They were both equally important to the film. But Paxton was on screen more.
Plus no I don't think it is egotistical for him to have his name first. But being that he did direct it also I don't think it's out of order for him to put his name first.
Between the acting and the directing Paxton put a lot into this film. I don't see why you insist people prove he has more screen to you when you could just watch it and see for yourself. It's a good movie and worth a rewatch.
It wouldn't kill you to do a little work yourself.
OZ is the best show ever... EVER!
You're a complete f'n retard. Need proof? Mirror.
shareI think you're way off. McConaughey's giant face appears alone on the poster. I don't know many narcissists who would plaster someone else's face on their movie poster.
And if you're going to argue that Paxton didn't design the poster, then I can argue that Paxton didn't design the credit sequence.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Order of credits is contractual for the leads. Paxton in 2001 may have been the bigger star. And, Paxton's role was arguably the lead.
share