[quote]wukey wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Fabregas wrote:
when you’re a celebrity who gets paid outrageous salaries, keeping your image is part of the deal
if you don’t, prepare to get widespread criticism, it goes with the territory.
How is getting older even a part of keeping your “image”? We all get older. That means you too will also look much older eventually. There isn’t shit you can do about it. Plastic surgery may smooth some rough edges but it sure as hell doesn’t turn 50+ years old into 20.
getting old isn’t why the pictures are shocking, its how they let themselves go. you show me an old person in good shape and i’ll praise them and try to emulate their achievments, you show me a high profile person who once looked good and now dosn’t and i’ll want to see the pictures out of morbid curiosity, and i’ll probably even pass some underhand remark out of disapointment.
Mr X, you have even made many remarks about the general population getting obese, and these people aren’t even in the public eye, so why is it bad for me to express my disapointment at people who are in the public eye.
PS i’m not trying to be confrontational, its just that i’d like to clarify my position, and i’m hopeing you will too. its got potential to be and interesting debate.[/quote]
Who out of those people was OBESE? Since when does any extra body fat suddenly indicate OBESITY? Why are you judging the worth of people strictly by appearance?
Take Steven Seagal: he is arguably more out of shape than any of the actors in that article, and yet he still manages to make successful movies. Granted, they aren’t theatrical releases, but people still buy him as a credible action star, in spite of him clearly not looking like one.
[/quote]
lol successful? They fucking suck. And they are getting worse.
Take Steven Seagal: he is arguably more out of shape than any of the actors in that article, and yet he still manages to make successful movies. Granted, they aren’t theatrical releases, but people still buy him as a credible action star, in spite of him clearly not looking like one.
lol successful? They fucking suck. And they are getting worse.[/quote]
I never said I was a personal fan of Seagal. Despite the fact that his movies “fucking suck” as you so eloquently put it, despite the fact that they are “getting worse”, despite the fact that he is fat (and doesn’t give a shit), he still makes millions of dollars a year in a genre where looks are apparently a priority.
Someone, somewhere is watching his movies. Obviously you aren’t, but one thing is clear:
according to you, a guy who has travelled to Japan at the age of 19, mastered several martial arts and taught them to the natives, landed a movie deal within three years of returning to America and proceeded to make millions, married Kelly Lebrock, learned to play guitar and cut several professional albums is somehow not a success because his movies aren’t Oscar winners.
Take Steven Seagal: he is arguably more out of shape than any of the actors in that article, and yet he still manages to make successful movies. Granted, they aren’t theatrical releases, but people still buy him as a credible action star, in spite of him clearly not looking like one.
lol successful? They fucking suck. And they are getting worse.
I never said I was a personal fan of Seagal. Despite the fact that his movies “fucking suck” as you so eloquently put it, despite the fact that they are “getting worse”, despite the fact that he is fat (and doesn’t give a shit), he still makes millions of dollars a year in a genre where looks are apparently a priority.
Someone, somewhere is watching his movies.
[/quote]
You can admit it though, if you are a closet Seagal fan. We won’t hold it against you.
Take Steven Seagal: he is arguably more out of shape than any of the actors in that article, and yet he still manages to make successful movies. Granted, they aren’t theatrical releases, but people still buy him as a credible action star, in spite of him clearly not looking like one.
lol successful? They fucking suck. And they are getting worse.[/quote]
Take Steven Seagal: he is arguably more out of shape than any of the actors in that article, and yet he still manages to make successful movies. Granted, they aren’t theatrical releases, but people still buy him as a credible action star, in spite of him clearly not looking like one.
lol successful? They fucking suck. And they are getting worse.
I never said I was a personal fan of Seagal. Despite the fact that his movies “fucking suck” as you so eloquently put it, despite the fact that they are “getting worse”, despite the fact that he is fat (and doesn’t give a shit), he still makes millions of dollars a year in a genre where looks are apparently a priority.
Someone, somewhere is watching his movies.
You can admit it though, if you are a closet Seagal fan. We won’t hold it against you.
I still hold “Cockpuncher” in high regard.
[/quote]
LOL! I love the comment that reads “this movie would be 10 time better than anything he has ever done”.
You can admit it though, if you are a closet Seagal fan. We won’t hold it against you.
I still hold “Cockpuncher” in high regard.
[/quote]
OK, OK! I admit that I liked Seagal’s early movies, especially Above The Law and Out for Justice. Things went sour for me when he started to put on weight. I mean, who the hell does he think he is? How dare he make his own decisions as to what food he is going to put into his mouth?
I’ve paid to watch some of his movies: surely that gives me the right to decide whether or not he gets fat? He is in the public eye, after all. The public should decide what he puts into his body. He is a celebrity, after all. They are OUR puppets to control. Aren’t they? AREN’T THEY?!! [/control freak].
I’ll be sure to watch Cockpuncher (aka The Onion Movie), if only for the fact that it marks Seagal’s transition from unintentional comedy to intentional comedy. I’ll make the most of it too, because no matter how much I giggle at Seagal’s artery-clogged antics, he’ll still be richer and more successful than me
Take Steven Seagal: he is arguably more out of shape than any of the actors in that article, and yet he still manages to make successful movies. Granted, they aren’t theatrical releases, but people still buy him as a credible action star, in spite of him clearly not looking like one.
lol successful? They fucking suck. And they are getting worse.
Take Steven Seagal: he is arguably more out of shape than any of the actors in that article, and yet he still manages to make successful movies. Granted, they aren’t theatrical releases, but people still buy him as a credible action star, in spite of him clearly not looking like one.
lol successful? They fucking suck. And they are getting worse.
I never said I was a personal fan of Seagal. Despite the fact that his movies “fucking suck” as you so eloquently put it, despite the fact that they are “getting worse”, despite the fact that he is fat (and doesn’t give a shit), he still makes millions of dollars a year in a genre where looks are apparently a priority.
Someone, somewhere is watching his movies. Obviously you aren’t, but one thing is clear:
according to you, a guy who has travelled to Japan at the age of 19, mastered several martial arts and taught them to the natives, landed a movie deal within three years of returning to America and proceeded to make millions, married Kelly Lebrock, learned to play guitar and cut several professional albums is somehow not a success because his movies aren’t Oscar winners.
[/quote]
Yea your definately a closet fan
Nice work on totally misinterpreting what I said in a sentence.
He used to make ok movies.
He’s latest ones suck, and I really don’t think they pass as successful. I admit I haven’t even watched any of his new ones in the last 2 years because I watched about 3-4 which were a total waste of time. Kinda like Nicholas Cage. Segal is still successful himself. I don’t give a shit if he is fat.
Sure, because acknowledging the guy’s personal achievements and giving credit where it is due is overstepping the mark.
I’ll try to keep my rabid fanboy enthusiasm in check by slating his movies at every possible opportunity, even though it has no relevance to the thread topic…
[quote]
Nice work on totally misinterpreting what I said in a sentence. [/quote]
OK, so how is “lol successful? They fucking suck. And they are getting worse” such an ambiguous statement? Where, then, is this obscure and profound hidden meaning that I managed to miss? You were obviously talking about the critical success of Seagal’s movies; I was talking about their commercial success. If a movie makes a profit, it is deemed a success. Period.
I made no mention of the quality of Seagal’s work until you decided to bring your refined critical opinion into this and announce that they “fucking suck”. If you are going to play the misinterpretation card, you might want to read my posts with a little more care before swaggering through the saloon doors with lols a-blazin’.
I only mentioned Seagal in the first place because there was a debate going on about how an actor’s career is affected by their appearance: Seagal is an example of an action star who is still making profitable movies despite letting his appearance slide. This is relevant to the original topic; movie analysis is not.
I thought it was significant because he is an obviously overweight action hero (Sammo Hung is the only other example I can think of) - if Seagal can sustain his career in the action genre, so can Val Kilmer and Alec Baldwin in the mainstream: appearance can’t be that important.
That is what I was trying to say, and is a point that you apparently failed to understand, judging by your response.
[quote]
He used to make ok movies.
He’s latest ones suck, and I really don’t think they pass as successful.[/quote]
Fact is, Seagal is still working. His movies, thought not as good as they once were, still make him millions and that makes them successful. The success of his movies quite clearly feed his personal success.
I doubt Seagal is sitting in his mansion worrying about whether or not his next movie is going to tickle your refined artistic sensibilities.
So just to sum up: I have trouble understanding the point, when it turns out that you don’t consider Seagal’s movies to be either critically or financially successful. How then have I managed to achieve the impossible, and misinterpreted your post, when it turns out you don’t think Seagal’s movies are successful under any circumstances?
[quote]
I admit I haven’t even watched any of his new ones in the last 2 years because I watched about 3-4 which were a total waste of time. Kinda like Nicholas Cage. Segal is still successful himself. I don’t give a shit if he is fat.[/quote]
If you agree that Seagal is successful, where does the quality of his movies come into play? Why even mention it in a thread about actors aging (dis)gracefully? We got to this point because you brought it up…
When a person says a movie is sucessful, I doubt they think of the financial success seeing how close to nobody would even know this data, let alone care. Everyone I know, including myself would judge a movies success based on it’s popularity and reviews.
Movies such as Seagal’s which have low budget’s, bad and predictable story lines and crappy ratings would hardly be classed as successful in the eye of the public. Nobody I know talks about movie Profit & Loss statements. I assumed you were talking about critical success. My bad.
Seagal is still a big household name no doubt. And he would obviously have a large fan base, although I highly doubt this is growing.
Like I said, I haven’t seen his latest movies but don’t most actors get in a half decent shape for a role anyway. A photo taken when he doesn’t look his best doesn’t necessarily mean that he looks like that in his movies.
We obviously have different meanings of what makes a successful movie. That is all.
[quote]hardgnr wrote:
When a person says a movie is sucessful, I doubt they think of the financial success seeing how close to nobody would even know this data, let alone care.
[/quote]
You don’t have to have access to every single scrap of financial data in order to determine whether a movie is financially successful or not. What makes you think that?It either makes a profit or it doesn’t. You don’t need a full cost analysis in front of you to make that call.
[quote]
Everyone I know, including myself would judge a movies success based on it’s popularity and reviews. [/quote]
Most Hollywood producers couldn’t care less about the critical reception of their movies. They are in it to make money, nothing more. If the movie makes a profit, it is by definition, a success.
Profit is always going to be the most significant factor in judging the overall success of a movie, because you will only get that profit by convincing the public to watch or rent your movie. That in itself is a measure of popularity. There is far more to a movie’s success than good reviews.
All these things are not mutually exclusive, anyway. Look up the top twenty most profitable movies of all time, and you will find that most, if not all of them, were critically well-received.
[quote]
Movies such as Seagal’s which have low budget’s, bad and predictable story lines and crappy ratings would hardly be classed as successful in the eye of the public.[/quote]
Really? Then how do you account for the fact that they never fail to bring in a profit? That tells me that enough of the public pay to watch these movies and enjoy them for what they are.
[quote]
Nobody I know talks about movie Profit & Loss statements.[/quote]
That’s because nobody but movie executives do that. You don’t have to be a financial whiz to look at a movie budget, compare it to the box office gross and work out the profit, if any.
Unfortunately, he does. That’s why I used him specifically as an example.
[quote]
We obviously have different meanings of what makes a successful movie. That is all.[/quote]
I made it pretty obvious that I was talking about the financial side of the movie industry. That was only brought up to show that an actor doesn’t have to maintain the looks they had in their twenties in order to maintain their career. It isn’t as big a factor as some would believe.
I doubt Seagal is crying into his breakfast cereal because his latest release has gotten a critical mauling. I’d imagine that he’s quite used to it by now…
His current crop of movies are made on a shoestring budget, shot in cheap locations and wrap in less than a month. All this is deliberately geared towards making maximum profit for minimum cost. They don’t care if the end result is an abomination, as long as it makes money.
Roger Corman built a career on trashy movies with low production values: collectively, his movies stink. You might never have seen them, or even heard of Corman. He is still a multi-millionaire movie producer/director, though. Opinions won’t change that.
In spite of diminished quality, Seagal’s movies still net him millions. Whether you personally like them is neither here nor there. One person’s opinion, or even one hundred opinions, aren’t going to matter if thousands continue to watch his movies. There are plenty of people willing to keep his career afloat, as proven by the fact he is still in movies. Same goes for Alec Baldwin, Val Kilmer, etc…
That’s nothing. Wait until I post up my 20,000 word thesis entitled The History and Influence of Body Hair in Cinema: from Charlie Chaplin to Chewbacca and Chuck Norris. Then we’ll really have something to talk about.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
wukey wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Fabregas wrote:
when you’re a celebrity who gets paid outrageous salaries, keeping your image is part of the deal
if you don’t, prepare to get widespread criticism, it goes with the territory.
How is getting older even a part of keeping your “image”? We all get older. That means you too will also look much older eventually. There isn’t shit you can do about it. Plastic surgery may smooth some rough edges but it sure as hell doesn’t turn 50+ years old into 20.
getting old isn’t why the pictures are shocking, its how they let themselves go. you show me an old person in good shape and i’ll praise them and try to emulate their achievments, you show me a high profile person who once looked good and now dosn’t and i’ll want to see the pictures out of morbid curiosity, and i’ll probably even pass some underhand remark out of disapointment.
Mr X, you have even made many remarks about the general population getting obese, and these people aren’t even in the public eye, so why is it bad for me to express my disapointment at people who are in the public eye.
PS i’m not trying to be confrontational, its just that i’d like to clarify my position, and i’m hopeing you will too. its got potential to be and interesting debate.
Who out of those people was OBESE? Since when does any extra body fat suddenly indicate OBESITY? Why are you judging the worth of people strictly by appearance?
How many lives have your biceps saved?[/quote]
perhaps you missunderstood, or i wasn’t as clear as i thought. i ment that the ‘general population’ have regularly been called obese, which is a much worst critisism than i was bestowing on these ‘poor celebraties’.
we all judge people on their apperience do we not, even if it is a small thing like doing a favour for an attractive girl or crossing the street when a smelly homeless person walks past. so why is it wrong for me to publicly express my disapointment at people ageing badly when they are in the public eye. and is it not more poinient to critisize a person like steven segal who made his money though his apperance when he gains weight and looses what once made him ‘great’ (for want of a better word).
rather than a young kid whos always eaten what his parents gave him and is now waay overweight, a person like that didn’t make manny of the choices that make them overweight, but apparently they are fair game, people on this site regularly act offensivly to ‘the general populas who are overweight’ but apparently famouse people are ‘out of bounds’
all i’m saying is why are you showing these people mercy, when other more deserving people get none.
PS, its a good job i’m not here to make friends by the looks of how you have all reacted to my opinion. oops
[quote]Professor X wrote:
How many lives have your biceps saved?[/quote]
saved?
i didn’t coment on this befor because i wanted to think about it a min and not act inaproprietly or disrespectfully towards what is, i’m sure you agree, a way off topic point. i have’t mentioned ‘saving’ anyone, and as you could well assume, my biceps have saved no one. but similarly my opinion hasn’t hurt anyone either, its not like these people are goning to ever read this.
now can i ask you “are peoples opinion of you effected by your biceps?” and “if you were fat would you be awair of the change in how people treat you”
i’m not after an agrument, i just feel that you’re missing my point. similarly i’m not trying to get you to agree with me, i only want you to acknowledge i have a point. which is that weather we like it or not people are judged by there apperience, and if you are in the public eye you are judged more (and rightly so), and have more insentive and resorses to maintain good apperience. i’m not talking about the odd age related wrinckle or stretch mark, i’m talking about unnessasary and avoidaly body fat.
