MovieChat Forums > ProductionNow > Replies
ProductionNow's Replies
And I wonder if those who casually label others as racist and sexist have the perspective to realize that such accusations can also be a construct o self- entitlement. If privilege (opportunity) is not doled out all nice and evenly, then it's assumed it must be a symptom of "racism or sexism". For every female filmmaker who was not hired, the white male filmmakers who were also not hired goes unnoticed since it sabotages the sexism/racism faux-accusations. It's not a question of being more deserving, whether they feel it or not. It's because life is not fair
I feel offended by women (and lawyers) who lie in order to seek a "settlement" hoping the defendant will not take the time to appear in court over nuisance law suits. At least the women he works with are honest whores.
But the question is if the established actors were funny enough. Esther Rolle , who may have had a a lot of experience on stage, was basically an unknown before Maude. And I never got her comic appeal; she seemed to have the same resignation-inflection in her lines, with that pallor looming over her.
Norman Lear really liked to find his actors via the stage for his sitcoms, but Bonnie Franklin seemed like the most unlikely unfunny actress to ever land the lead in a sitcom
Please, Peter Scolari, his Busom Buddies co-star, is far more talented with comedy.
That's just it: I never watched Family Ties and Growing Pains either (was that before or after Cosby, btw?) With Good Times, I think JJ could be considered an "exception" since he was genuinely funny. I don't know, it seems that a person needs to be old enough to have studied acting to learn comedy technique. However, with Happy Days, I'm not so sure the parents wee meant to be the main players--it felt more like an ensemble show compared to similair sitcoms (and again, a show I never watched, even though I was in my teens)
Because there wasn't a film like this before--or at least one that received a wide theatrical distribution-- that was was so raw and disturbing. However, I'd say the good acting would be a positive thing.
Then there are viewers like me who do not find children funny (with exceptions), and never liked sitcoms that revolved around children (never watched "Cosby"). Valerie debuted when it seemed that having children as the main characters was becoming more common (possibly Cosby becoming such a hit?) Of course, there was The Brady Bunch and Partridge Family, but it didn't seem as common before the 80's. I, personally, didn't care about Jason Bateman. My choice would be to watch Harper, even if I was a teen then, which I wasn't.
Aside from privacy, there is a pattern of fans/viewers of television to assume that co-stars remain close and friendly for eternity --or that they were especially fond of other in the first place. That would not be realistic ( I mean, of all businesses). Being an actor doesn't give them some innate fondness with everyone they work with, no more than everyday people. We don't know her co-stars from decades remained in touch
I agree, instead of the conclusion (a natural defense of Ms Harper) that is was about character development and the kids becoming older. Sandy is also underrated, and funny. As nice as Ms Harper was as person, business can bring out a different side in actors.
you ''appreciate'' a lot, huh. Let's see: ''engage in dialogue" means to speak/talk, right?
Just be yourself, sport.
OMG. And why aren't you counting the number of women who have tragically committed suicide who were NOT raped and/or bullied? Did this women have mental-issues aside from her rape-trauma to begin with? Why bother to check, right? And I'm sure you care about the men who have been raped, or otherwise violated!
You dont' say! So educational, sweetie. As if "men" dont' know this. And your depiction of ramming dildos and foreign objects up their asses is it's own perversion, not a typical rape scenario. YOU are saying we find rape more acceptable than it is.
Maybe some women should cease violating men by alleging rape when none existed, but you have the edge on that since why would society "disbelieve" such honest, innocent females.
That's a revelation. But we were discussing the correlation between LOOKS and casting. So, no correlation exists?
well.. could it mean that she is cast due (aside from bankability) to her unattractive looks?
You're asking why everybody cannot do whatever they wish, without considering the effect it has on society as a whole. Jenner is a symbol of that. It's not about him/her being evil or affecting every single one of us personally in our daily lives, but there are others who would be influenced by something that is a threat to those who are too vulnerable to everything they see and hear. This is not to lumped in the same category as homosexuality, for example; that is a different dynamic. We all could say that our decisions, and how we express ourselves, are to be respected and our right to freedom, but then it would turn into a case of selective-reasoning, hypocrisy, and anarchy. Why do you think some parents are actually enabling and encouraging that their 6 yr olds has decided he/ she is transgender; watching people like Jenner. That is a very dangerous path. As much as people have the right to express themselves, there are others who have the right to not accept it--without it falling into a case of bigotry or a phobia. The reality is that none of us are respectful to everyone we meet, whether we have the self-awareness to know it or not. And it isn't anything new.
Without attractiveness or no special talent (as you said), what's left?
You're fine, luke. It's the PC sheep and likely their age, enhanced by the obligatory arrogance. Many cannot write more than one sentence at a time without their attention drifting.
Streep may be above-average looking, but not by much. Same with Bogart, who was known for his charisma and distinction, more than classic good looks.
Nobody ''deserves'' something just because they want it. Sorry, but equal-opportunity need not apply to casting.(nor modeling, to a greater extent). Movies/TV does show unattractive people, but it's not a random casting decision. People can be whatever they wish, or happen to be, in real life. Hollywood must be the latest victim of today's pandering by indulging anybody who wishes to be an actor due to self- entitlement, which unfortunately, has become the norm.