Playing the dim character who reacts to things in a funny way is arguably harder than playing the one who always has a zinger handy, but doesn't tend to get recognized as much.
Similarly, playing "smart" characters will often give the actor that same kind of image in real life.
(Like, Emma Watson vs. Evanna Lynch, say.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Just watched "Breaking Away", terrific movie. I think I've literally never seen a college movie from the point of view of the townies?
I joked Dennis Quaid was still getting "guy who takes his shirt off" roles decades later in "Labor Day" but that was Josh Brolin. Seriously I cannot tell them apart and I don't know why.
But yeah I'd heard good things but I was like "how good could a cycling movie be", no offense to any cyclists. It's good though.
It's that, but then someone else posts something about Democrats losing working class to their shame, and around and around.
"Trump didn't win because of the REAL working class, he won because of the car dealers and golf guys."
"Ok, so what should Democrats do?"
"Improve with the real working class, that's why they lost."
As I've said I agree that "Soul" had like three or so possible themes floating around but they didn't want to engage with the negative implications of any of them so they're all half-finished.
Even down to the world-building itself. "No it's not your PURPOSE that's determined before you're born, that'd be grim, right, ha ha, that's not our premise, it's your...spark, a completely different thing".
I'm pretty sure 30% of their shows are shot in this warehouse.
Why is the CW being so aggressive about this. If it wasn't for "Riverdale writing being terrible for another three straight minutes" videos nobody would watch anything on there.
There's this weird black-and-white discourse pairing on this site where on the one hand "the elite are always the real fascists" but on the other hand "people are radicalized by material suffering" and it kind of just goes around in circles because they're both too simple duh.
So like when that guy shot up Vegas, someone found IDK he'd lost money gambling, "aha here's the material suffering!". But he was also rich so "aha, it's the rich guys you have to watch out for!". And it's all just like, scoring points or something?
So then people end up arguing about the material circumstances of these people they've never met based on like, pictures of their stuff, in order to score points for one or the other side, which then implies ??? about anything useful.