Robert DeNiro got lucky!

Put him in a village in Ireland in the 60's. He could be playing to a full house of 50. I think he is of Irish decent.

As regards fitting actors into rolls the same could be said if you moved John Lennon to drums or maybe put Messi in goals Both would be still talented but not perform very well.

 

You're right OP I don't think DeNiro could do it on a cold rainy night in Stoke.

 

But his point was that De Niro was lucky, which is true. De Niro is not the greatest actor of all time who is so superior to many others, he has a good look about him that fitted certain roles and he is a decent actor.

In terms of pure talent the best 50 actors in the world have probably never seen the light of day in a big budget Hollywood film certainly not in any of the main roles.

 

This could be categorised as a... lucid thread.

 

Antbody who makes it will have to have an amount of luck but that was not the salient point did you miss i dont believe for a second that Robert DeNiro or Al or whoever, would add to Doctors, or Corrie

I watch programmes like The League Of Gentlemen, or Frasier, or Only Fools etc, and i dont believe for a * second that Bob could have played any of the characters any better than the actual guys that did it

The 2nd part puts DeNiro at best on par with the worst actor on League, Only Fools and Fraiser.


Do you believe this to be true?

 

Nicholas Lyndhurst was * in everything apart from OFAH.

 

Still better than DeNiro:smiley-laughing002:

 

No, to be fair I dont know what he's talking about there as ive no got a clue who Bob is. But are there better actors in those programmes than De Niro? i'd probably say there was a good few.

Acting when it comes down to is is who can pretend the best. If you are so good an actor you should be able to do various types.

If you took an actress out of Coronation Street, Eastenders and Hollyoaks and tested them against Scarlett Johansson, Jennifer Lawrence, Anne Hathaway and Emma Watson by asking them to pretend they were just told their daughter had died, pretend they just won the lottery, pretend they had just woke up after being knocked out in a car crash and pretend they were being chased with someone trying to stab them and then looked at their performances it wouldn't suprise me if it turned out that the * in Eastenders and Coronation Street were a lot better at acting that than famous worldwide actresses that earn millions per role.

 

Your not worth replying to if you do not know who the Bob he is referring to is. You are either trying defend an OP you don't understand or you are taking the *.

 

If you can't see the difference in quality of acting between Robert De Niro and the * in Coronation Street and Eastenders, then you don't deserve to watch a De Niro film.

*.

 

Messi not all that either. Put him in full forward for Cork against Kerry and it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't get a touch of the ball:smiley-laughing002:

 

Haha, I * love a 3am intellectual revelation. I'm assuming this thread is going to be good.

EDIT - Folk are seriously debating this?

 

:smiley-laughing002: I see what he means now he was talking about De Niro, I thought he was talking about a guy called Bob from one of those programmes who could have played any role De Niro did.

But the main thing is I see his point, actors in the big Hollywood films are lauded as geniuses and superb and all that when most of them are just decent actors who get the parts in the best films, they are not really the greatest actors which means they are lucky that they are getting the best jobs when they're not actually the best at the jobs.

Only thing similar to Acting is probably Singing in that talent only counts for so much.

Pretty much everything else talent comes out on top, song writing, dancing, playing sport, writing books, writing films, directing films or anything talent rises to the top. Acting and Singing as long as you are decent then if you have the right looks for it then people will use you to market their stuff.

 

Funnily enough the soap actors do that already in shows, and guess what, they're generally complete * compared to top Hollywood actors doing those same things.

Are you honestly trying to tell me someone like Danny Dyer could be as good as DeNiro, Pacino etc? Going with the Danny Dyer example, he has been in plenty of films and he's absolute * in pretty much all of them (Dead Man Running, Run For Your Wife etc). Yet he won a National Television Award for EastEnders last year. Clearly just a misunderstood genius who could pull it off when put alongside Hollywood's finest though :smiley-laughing002:

You say actors should be able to fit any role but that's completely untrue. Robert DeNiro is Robert De * Niro. He's a Italian-American with a knack for taking on personas of criminals and psychos, not playing a tuff cockney geezer from the East End of London, innit blud. He can't adapt to play some Danny Dyer role because that's completely out of his range as a human being and it would be unrealistic if he was put in that role. That's why we have a thing called typecasting; where actors are mainly put in certain identifiable roles throughout different films because their physical looks, personality, or general acting persona fits those kind of characters. You can't just then turn around and say DeNiro isn't any different from some random * off Coronation Street because he can't play certain roles. Of course he can't, he's a * human being who can't just morph himself to be whatever he wants to be.

The difference between them is actually watching them and seeing how they fit in their different roles. Does Danny Dyer stand out to you as some outstanding actor when he's playing his role in EastEnders rather than critically acclaimed performances in various films such as The Godfather, Taxi Driver etc by Robet DeNiro? That's the difference.

 

That guy from boyzone was in coronation street done a couple of cameos in Love/Hate. Probably the worst actor I have ever seen on anything worth watching. On a par with DeNiro

 

The point you're making is true I think but it's a bit of an over generalisation about Hollywood actors, of course they all get lucky in a sense, but people like De Niro and Al Pacino are evidently a level above even the vast majority of the more successful Hollywood actors. It's hard to actually back that up because performance is fairly subjective and there's not much critical writing when it comes to acting, but for me a De Niro or Pacino performance, at their best, is just so much more believable than a standard acting performance in a TV show or Soap, or even a moderately successful Hollywood Movie. I take the point that they were given the better roles but I've watched a few movies with them in it that I thought were good purely because of their performances, and I've thought if it was anyone else playing that role I probably wouldn't have enjoyed it near as much.



There's a large element of luck, and any actor will admit that themself, but I don't think that takes away from their ability or natural talent. They've just been given more of an opportunity to showcase it than others who may have similar talent.

 

I played golf with him a few years back.

 

Im not saying Danny Dyer, he is * and I wouldnt even count awards as generally only popular ones get considered so Eastenders has better chance of winning TV awards than most programmes as it's one of the most popular same as big Hollywood films and their actors tend to win all the awards at the Oscars even if someone was sensational in a wee average film.

It's hard to tell how good someone is acting too considering we don't know the people in real life to tell what they are really like and if they are just playing slight variations of themselves in films or if they are playing totally different people.

It's subjective too, like some people class certain acting performances as very good when others don't think they were that good. Like Di Caprio is probably going to win the Oscar for Best Actor in the Revenant but I would honestly say he was average at best a 5/10 or 6/10 performance, another actor could have added much more depth and played that role better making you feel more sorry or whatever feelings towards the character, the character I didnt care about at all if he lived or died, the bear fighting scene too for me was awful, a lot of screaming and stuff but there was no feeling from me that he was a guy in actual pain it wasn't bad in that I thought it was a joke but it wasn't good either, for me theres not a hope in * that our of the thousands of films made last year that that was the best acting performance.

 

Best method actor we've ever seen..