If you were an actor, how would you pick your roles?
I'd pick roles based how well they can amass money for me. I'd guess at which roles would be a box office success and pick those. Too many actors make "artistic choices". No, I'd want to make money first before I ever did that. I'm not a romanticist, I'm a practical romantic.
Actors who are only interested in making as much money as possible usually don't have very long careers.
Why do you say that R1?
In the words of Barrett Strong: Give me money, that's what I want.
LOL - like you have your "pick" at roles. That only comes later when you're certified gold at the box office.
Look at the long and pitiful career of Nicolas Cage - once a respected actor, but then he went for all $ roles and he's become a joke.
You're really naive OP. Most actors don't even make a living doing acting.
A lot of films that look like they should be money makers on paper end up being flops when actually made and released. Pick enough of those and you'll run your reputation into the ground.
I'm not saying one should only do art films, but the potential money shouldn't be the only thing considered is career longevity is desired.
Anything with "load weekend" in the title
Assuming I'd had a little bit of success that would allow me to, at the very least, have producers and directors ask me to audition for their films, I'd try to do a mixture of art-house and possible blockbusters. I'd try to aim to work with certain directors and producers if I could -- people like Lee Daniels, Michael Haneke, Terence Davies for the art-house side, Ron Howard, J.J. Abrams, Christopher Nolan for the blockbuster side. And if I had the body, I do nude scenes as often as possible.
In a perfect world, a mix of commercial and artistic, like Leo and Meryl. In the real world? All the plum jobs go to Bradley Cooper and Charlize Theron.
Be very selective. I picked Education Connection and you can see how that's working out.
If you were an actor AND had your pick of roles...
I would go with roles I found interesting, considering my tastes that would end up being mostly art house stuff. I'm assuming in this fantasy scenario I've already had at least one hit to make me money.
I would base it on the quality of the scripts and whether the material is personally interesting to me. I would not sell out like Nicolas Cage. I would forge ahead with human and substantial stories which, even if the quality wasn't at top level, would still be worth the viewers' time. In other words, I'd actually give a damn about not wasting my time being in production on some special effects nonsense and opt for the types of film that go straight to the moviegoers' hearts.
I would pick them based on who's in the movie. If it was a person I didn't respect as a person or if they were closeted I would pass. I would also avoid Hang Over type films, Nicholas Sparks book based films, and horror movies which have resembled The Ring for years and years.
I think of what audiences may like, and then I choose the exact opposite. I am crazy, but producers are seduced by my fame. I always try to make them lose money. It's my passion.
If you want a career like Pitt, Cruise or Johannson you have to submit to Hollyweird tactics. If you want something more respectable, you be more selective and work less rather than more.
I'd only do really off-beat roles that paid nothing, like Jack Nance or Michael J. Pollard (I only like zero-budget films about weird topics). After developing a cult following, maybe a few high-paying movie or TV jobs.
I always pick my roles in which I can let my femininity and beauty shine -- as the leading lady I was meant to be
The ones that pay the most, require the least amount of my time and are in projects so bad I dont have to worry about having to show up at some boring ass "awards" show.
Op, you're ridiculous. There are no absolutes with movies. You could have award winning directors, writers, producers and crew all working on the same movie and it might still not work or the studio may not want to spend a dime promoting it, or you have a crappy release date or the studio makes you change it because test audiences don't get it or don't like the ending, etc.
I do not pick my hole. It is considered rude and uncivilized.
In an ideal world I would pick scripts with a story I liked and with a character I felt I could play well and enrich the overall project. I would also choose to work with people whose work I admired.
In the real world I would work with anyone who paid me and I knew the check would clear.
Fart joke movie (NTS: get in shape for tighty whitey scenes)
Voice part for Pixar (NTS: get fat)
Depressing movie (NTS: stop eating)
Fart joke movie II (NTS: go vegan? or meth!)
Heigl kegel movie
Ron Howard movie
Tom Cruise, like him or not, has made the best choices (of film roles, duh) of any actor in the last 20 years.
Yeah, because you'd always have a plethora of blockbuster productions offering you the lead role.
Nothing but a steady stream of top-tier work for you your entire life, every week, with every studio fighting for your indispensable presence. Never mind that you'd be the first actor to do so.
OP = IDIOT
If I were an actor, I'd avoid becoming a movie star! Star actors burn out, but good character actors can work forever.
Of course I'd be deeply interested in paychecks, but for the sake of my career I'd look for roles that allow me to shine and steal scenes. I'd also take some indies that paid diddly, if they gave me a chance to show my skill in a way that was not possible in big studio films. That's why actors appear in indies, just to impress the critics and discerning audiences.
Pitt has had and continues to have a fabulous career. Money, fame, respect, and enough attention from awards. He mixes it up between popular and arty/edgy. Lately more arty & edgy. Also taken seriously as a real producer.
I also wouldn't sneeze at Cruise's career either. Though he is rather self destructive.
Cruise is a wreck because of his personality/personal life. If he was a normal, well-adjusted individual he'd be golden.
R25 Pitt produced that stupid Eat Pray Love movie. One of the most disgusting movies I have ever seen in my life, plus he is a REALLY shitty actor.
He is where he is because him and Angelina famewhore their relationship and their kids.
The way they handled their career unfortunately is the reason for idiots like Rhianna, Gosling, Di Caprio, Katie Holmes, Reese Witherspoon.
Depends on what position you are in your career. If you are a struggling actor then you just have to take whatever you can get. If you are more established then I would only choose stuff that I would be willing to pay to see myself.
Are you as good-looking as Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise, r25?
Even if you were, you'd still have a better chance at winning the lottery than their careers.
Actors don't get to determine their own careers. It's all up to the gods, even with the best of talents involved.
Expect a small career, realize it's a crapshoot and live with the consequences.
r7 = twat for thinking he gets to choose with whom he works and that that's going to be the best.
Also for mistaking Lee Daniels as talented -- PAPERBOY made him a laughing stock.
And Michael Haneke doesn't even work with Americans or the English language!
That r7, what a dope!
"Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it ... You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
We are switching to the new platform for The DataLounge this weekend. All of our mobile users have been using it for over a week and all first time users have been using it for about a month - which adds up to well over one million users. So we're ready to end this phase of the testing and move everybody to the new site. (more)
And yes, we've changed the look and some of how it operates.
Yes, we know you just *hate* it in well in advance.
Yes, we know we suck.
Yes, we are the biggest suckers that ever sucked.
But it was time for a change and with the huge shift to mobile it was long overdue. We've taken this opportunity not only to update the look but also make major changes under the hood (or "bonnet" if you're either British or pretentious or both). And we have to prepare for 2016 - a presidential election year where we can normally expect to see a 60% jump in traffic (yes, we've seen 5 presidential elections so far…Christ we're old).
The site has a bunch - nay, plethora - of new features which will make the site more usable: better search, the ability to ignore posters and threads, see link previews, to pick up a thread where you left off, spam and malware filtering and more.
If you want you can go explore and see for yourself, Click here.
And while running the tests we've noticed two interesting reactions to the new system - people are spending more time on the site and more people that come stay around longer and look at more stuff. Both good things. Yay!
Possibly we've not slain all the dragons and there will be issues that come up during the switchover. There's a help button in the lower right hand corner of the page which you can use to send us bug reports.
Please include as much information about the hardware (PC, Mac, Tablet, Phone etc), operating system (Windows, Mac OS, Android, iOS etc) and browser (Chrome, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer etc) that you are using as possible to help us replicate and fix the problem.
Please note that complaints about colors, fonts, icons and the like are not "bugs" - they are design choices that we've made and we expect one or two cases of world-class bitching. But they won't actually cause headaches, scurvy, heart attacks, Restless Leg Syndrome, Morgellon's Disease or the vapors (but have your smelling salts at hand just in case).
Talking to DataLounge servers. Please wait a moment...