Don't bother arguing with him. There's never any logic to his answers and you'll just be writing in circles.
Tom Hardy as Bane
talli wrote:warnerg wrote:
I think its a lot to do with the director. I think Nolan will make Hardy outstanding in the role more then Hardy himself. The vision that comes out of this guy's mind is almost god like. An example would be Mark Walberg in Max Payne and then The Fighter. Same actor but 2 completely different performances. The director will utilize the actor's best areas and focus on those to areas to bring the whole movie together. Some directors get so caught up in their own vision of the movie and they see these actors and tools. What makes an outstanding director is he makes the actors make the movie, not the movie makes the actors.
I don't think Nolan has much to do with how the actors portray their characters. He might give them a few words to describe the character, but its up to the actor how to interpret those words and manifest it physically.
I agree with what you said but if a director accepts the acting in a certain take and the acting was not up to his standard, then i feel its the director's fault for allowing that to happen. I was reading something where they were saying that during the filming of Zodiac, Fincher was filming take after take until he got what he was looking for out of Jake G and Jake G was stating it was brutal (im talking 50 takes on one scene). If i was a director and i wanted something out of somebody, i wouldn't stop until i got it too. Yes the actor, is the actor but he has to do what the director visions in his head.
Posts: 536
Joined:
July 2010
I've noticed that.cooldued wrote:Don't bother arguing with him. There's never any logic to his answers and you'll just be writing in circles.
Posts: 3861
Joined:
August 2009
Fifty takes is not that abnormal for Fincher, he shot the opening scene of The Social Network in nearly 100 takes. I have a feeling knows how to communicate his vision for a character incredibly well and thus it isn't hard for an actor to mold his own take on the character around that.warnerg wrote:
I agree with what you said but if a director accepts the acting in a certain take and the acting was not up to his standard, then i feel its the director's fault for allowing that to happen. I was reading something where they were saying that during the filming of Zodiac, Fincher was filming take after take until he got what he was looking for out of Jake G and Jake G was stating it was brutal (im talking 50 takes on one scene). If i was a director and i wanted something out of somebody, i wouldn't stop until i got it too. Yes the actor, is the actor but he has to do what the director visions in his head.
TheArchitect wrote:I've noticed that.cooldued wrote:Don't bother arguing with him. There's never any logic to his answers and you'll just be writing in circles.
The only time i was really writing in circles is when i had to push the point to crazy eight about the steroid issue with Tom. Other then that i don't write much. Cooldued the only thing you post is about is what somebody else does as a blogger. Why don't you and crazy eight up you post count by simply arguing. Talli and Vader seem to understand where everybody else is coming from. As for you... you never commented on the actual topic so do me a favor.... Hush
Anyway IMO i think you'll see one of Tom's best acting jobs due to Nolan being the director...period.
theweatherman wrote:Fifty takes is not that abnormal for Fincher, he shot the opening scene of The Social Network in nearly 100 takes. I have a feeling knows how to communicate his vision for a character incredibly well and thus it isn't hard for an actor to mold his own take on the character around that.warnerg wrote:
I agree with what you said but if a director accepts the acting in a certain take and the acting was not up to his standard, then i feel its the director's fault for allowing that to happen. I was reading something where they were saying that during the filming of Zodiac, Fincher was filming take after take until he got what he was looking for out of Jake G and Jake G was stating it was brutal (im talking 50 takes on one scene). If i was a director and i wanted something out of somebody, i wouldn't stop until i got it too. Yes the actor, is the actor but he has to do what the director visions in his head.
Nicely put
Last edited by theweatherman on July 27th, 2011, 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Double post
Reason: Double post
Posts: 15900
Joined:
June 2009
yes, but Fincher doesn't know what he's looking for until he sees it. I think it's the same with Nolan. They trust their actors to do the necessary preparation and shoot the takes until something captivates them. But Fincher is much more demanding of surprising moments than Nolan. I think Fincher values spontaneity a lot more than Nolan. I think for Nolan, the story takes the forefront, and if an actor can give a naturalistic delivery of their lines, he won't dwell on the scene much longer because he has what he needs to establish that bit of reality for the scene.warnerg wrote:talli wrote:
I don't think Nolan has much to do with how the actors portray their characters. He might give them a few words to describe the character, but its up to the actor how to interpret those words and manifest it physically.
I agree with what you said but if a director accepts the acting in a certain take and the acting was not up to his standard, then i feel its the director's fault for allowing that to happen. I was reading something where they were saying that during the filming of Zodiac, Fincher was filming take after take until he got what he was looking for out of Jake G and Jake G was stating it was brutal (im talking 50 takes on one scene). If i was a director and i wanted something out of somebody, i wouldn't stop until i got it too. Yes the actor, is the actor but he has to do what the director visions in his head.
Posts: 536
Joined:
July 2010
I have no beef with you, I was referring to Talli in my two previous posts. I thought Cooldude was referring to him too.warnerg wrote:TheArchitect wrote: I've noticed that.
The only time i was really writing in circles is when i had to push the point to crazy eight about the steroid issue with Tom. Other then that i don't write much. Cooldued the only thing you post is about is what somebody else does as a blogger. Why don't you and crazy eight up you post count by simply arguing. Talli and Vader seem to understand where everybody else is coming from. As for you... you never commented on the actual topic so do me a favor.... Hush
TheArchitect wrote:I have no beef with you, I was referring to Talli in my two previous posts. I thought Cooldude was referring to him too.warnerg wrote:
The only time i was really writing in circles is when i had to push the point to crazy eight about the steroid issue with Tom. Other then that i don't write much. Cooldued the only thing you post is about is what somebody else does as a blogger. Why don't you and crazy eight up you post count by simply arguing. Talli and Vader seem to understand where everybody else is coming from. As for you... you never commented on the actual topic so do me a favor.... Hush
Ya after a few pages back (202 & 203) i noticed that cooldued isn't very liked around here :JGLface:
If he isn't liked its for having a different opinion than the norm around here, which is a stupid reason not to be liked. Its a message board...not everyone is gonna have the same opinions, if they did what would there be to discuss?warnerg wrote:TheArchitect wrote: I have no beef with you, I was referring to Talli in my two previous posts. I thought Cooldude was referring to him too.
Ya after a few pages back (202 & 203) i noticed that cooldued isn't very liked around here :JGLface:
Posts: 536
Joined:
July 2010
Discussing isn't the same as arguing. You can have the same opinion as someone and still have a fulfilling conversation with them.
