Gets to choose between two film careers:

1) An actor who stars in every blockbusters films and made a lot of money as a result but was considered a talentless hack.

2) An actor who stars in box office flops that happens to received great reviews by the critics and was nominated for oscar for several years in a row, even winning some but never made a lot of money.

Which would you choose?Why?
:)

Number 1, because I could pay to have my critics killed.

Definitely #2. Quality vs Quantity.





Cat

i want to want #2, but i actually want #1.

#2.  Those who star in the boringest, and biggest box office bombs, win all the Oscars :D

i want to want #2, but i actually want #1.


Me too!  ;D

1 , because I could use all my cash to collect orphans from around the world.  I mean bring awareness of orphans.

I think I'd pick the second option...
although either way you could be Dustin Hoffman.

I think I'd pick the second option...
although either way you could be Dustin Hoffman.


.. couldn't you just pick fights with Japanese tourists and claim that you're Dustin Hoffman?

.. couldn't you just pick fights with Japanese tourists and claim that you're Dustin Hoffman?


sure. is that option number 3?

Neither. Both options gives you an opportunity to be pigeon-holed or typecasted. I like variety and would make the most of my career by mixing it up.

The dude in my signature is a strong example of that.

Definitely 2,not making a lot of money in movie world is still making a lot of money in real world, and get to work with the best directors out there would be sweet,plus the less famous i was the better,i couldn't handle paparazzies,i would deck them and end up being sued all the time.

Just look at this board we spend more time talking about big budget...sometimes considered crap films then we do about the well recieved small box office returns "Quality Films"  so I choose one....mos def

Number 2.

Its always better to do quality work, and in most cases, eventually you'll get notice from it, and it will pay off.

Once you do, your rep as a quality actor is set in stone. You can then scope out the "big roles" for big money, no matter what it may be...

For example, look at Johnny Depp, he has done many a off beat film or character, or film that wasn't a blockbuster, but look at him now in all the Pirate films, hes making bank and can do whatever he wants and ask for a paycheck to match.

Number 2.

Its always better to do quality work, and in most cases, eventually you'll get notice from it, and it will pay off.

Once you do, your rep as a quality actor is set in stone. You can then scope out the "big roles" for big money, no matter what it may be...

For example, look at Johnny Depp, he has done many a off beat film or character, or film that wasn't a blockbuster, but look at him now in all the Pirate films, hes making bank and can do whatever he wants and ask for a paycheck to match.


Yeah but he cut his teeth in Nightmare on Elm Street, Private Resort  and on TV in 21 Jumpstreet... I'd venture to say he did those for money not art.

Yeah but he cut his teeth in Nightmare on Elm Street, Private Resort  and on TV in 21 Jumpstreet... I'd venture to say he did those for money not art.

Well, true, but he had to start somewhere. And you usually don't get artsy roles from the start, you get what they give...its the same for any solid actor, have you seen the first films of Robert De Niro (Hi, Mom its me? ::) ), or Jack Nicholson, stinkers one and all. :P

I think these guys get a reputation for putting their all into their roles and the roles they managed to snag (depending on the writting and the script) even if it was a down and dirty part just to pay the bills. Thereafter they get approached to do other more daring and offbeat things thereafter, their reputation grows for that kind of role from then on...

Well, true, but he had to start somewhere. And you usually don't get artsy roles from the start, you get what they give...its the same for any solid actor, have you seen the first films of Robert De Niro (Hi, Mom its me? ::) ), or Jack Nicholson, stinkers one and all. :P

I think these guys get a reputation for putting their all into their roles and the roles they managed to snag (depending on the writting and the script) even if it was a down and dirty part just to pay the bills. Thereafter they get approached to do other more daring and offbeat things thereafter, their reputation grows for that kind of role from then on...



Jack Nicholson did Batman and Robert De Niro did Meet the Fockers I'm guessing they weren't too concerned about their artisitic choices when they made these blockbusting gems...

2.  I don't mind if not every film, I do is a flop.

Option 3  would be.....

Actor who stars in bad films, and can't find work outside of bad films.

2.  I don't mind if not every film, I do is a flop.

Option 3  would be.....

Actor who stars in bad films, and can't find work outside of bad films.




those people enjoy their own kind of fame.  i think you have something there.