Eve Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 ^ You must have a very sophisticated taste in entertainment if you are a fan of Ashton Kutcher's art. What do you think the pathos of Ashton Kutcher's character in "Just Married" was? Would you say he was a Byronic hero? What about Kutcher's foil, Brittany Murphy? Lol, maybe I just have a life and don't over analyse celebrities? it seems like bad karma to pursue such things, even though much of the stuff read about them probably is untrue. Just married was just a funny comedy to me. Got it on DVD somewhere. Not sure what you mean by 'Kutchers foil' (?) There is a gap within my being able to translate what that means as I am not from the US. I liked Brittany Murphy a lot. Anyhow, if you don't like him, you just don't like him I suppose. I feel like that about Clive Owen. I see most celebrity 'marriages' as train wrecks waiting to happen. It usually is a calculated move to increase their social circles, nothing more. Take care, Eve x
rocketboy9 Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 I met him in a bar in the city. He was a regular guy with the other men sitting at the bar drinking with us. Women came up to us in the bar and he ignored them for the most part because they were over the top. Sure he was cocky with the women but lots of men are like that if you got the looks and you know it. As for his talent, he is not any worse than the other actors out there.
Eve Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 At least you are very well versed and educated on AK and are speaking from your experience Dude.. you know more about AK than most women....hahaha That was funny. The guy is still HOT in my eyes. Clearly not relationship material but well, that's his issue to deal with. Take care, Eve x
O'Malley Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Like, howl at the moon with no panties on HOT. I love your wording. Kutcher comes across as a celebrity meatball, not my type at all. It's no big deal, all of us window shop, it doesn't mean I'd want to buy the merchandise.
KathyM Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 I think there's way too few really good looking young male actors. Now that the likes of Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Leo DeCaprio, etc. have aged, there is way too few young, good looking actors to take their place. Ashton is a rare breed in that respect. Way too little eye candy among young actors in Hollywood. That's why Ashton gets all the roles that require a young sexy stud in Hollywood.
Wolf18 Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Lol, maybe I just have a life and don't over analyse celebrities? it seems like bad karma to pursue such things, even though much of the stuff read about them probably is untrue. Just married was just a funny comedy to me. Got it on DVD somewhere. Not sure what you mean by 'Kutchers foil' (?) There is a gap within my being able to translate what that means as I am not from the US. I liked Brittany Murphy a lot. Anyhow, if you don't like him, you just don't like him I suppose. I feel like that about Clive Owen. I see most celebrity 'marriages' as train wrecks waiting to happen. It usually is a calculated move to increase their social circles, nothing more. Take care, Eve x Do you really think that movie is funny? If anything it's funny-lite , in reality, it would make any sane person want to mangle their eyes and ears. But you own the DVD, debate over This is one difference between men and women. We men might find a woman attractive, but we're not (Atleast not most of us) actually convinced they are funny/intelligent/charming if they aren't. I think you ought to reflect on that before contributing more money to this turds career. I think there's way too few really good looking young male actors. Now that the likes of Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Leo DeCaprio, etc. have aged, there is way too few young, good looking actors to take their place. Ashton is a rare breed in that respect. Way too little eye candy among young actors in Hollywood. That's why Ashton gets all the roles that require a young sexy stud in Hollywood. [/Quote] All 3 of those guys are actually great actors who have made some amazing films. I don't understand this obsession with casting unnaturally beautiful people in movies though. Wouldn't you rather see someone like you? I know I would. It's why watching movies from France, Argentina, Balkans, even England (to a lesser extent) are so much more satisfying and easier to identify with the characters, because the actors look like people on the street. But I suppose I'm pushing a lost cause here, the debate between substance vs pretty illusion has been long settled and pretty illusions won.
Eve Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Do you really think that movie is funny? If anything it's funny-lite , in reality, it would make any sane person want to mangle their eyes and ears. But you own the DVD, debate over This is one difference between men and women. We men might find a woman attractive, but we're not (Atleast not most of us) actually convinced they are funny/intelligent/charming if they aren't. I think you ought to reflect on that before contributing more money to this turds career. No not really. I can tell the difference between quality acting and a role which is, just what it is. Are you seriously saying that only serious actors should exist? I won't even bother to go into trying to make this a gender issue! Man, such strength of feelings about Ashton that you can judge even those who watch a film with him in it? Nah, not feeling your passion on this one. Maybe you are just angry generally, or something? Careful with that. I don't think his popularity will suffer from having a few saying they do not like him - though never meeting him on a personal level or even watching anything he does. Still, sometimes people can get you like that and it not be logical. I get that. Take care, Eve x
KathyM Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Do you really think that movie is funny? If anything it's funny-lite , in reality, it would make any sane person want to mangle their eyes and ears. But you own the DVD, debate over This is one difference between men and women. We men might find a woman attractive, but we're not (Atleast not most of us) actually convinced they are funny/intelligent/charming if they aren't. I think you ought to reflect on that before contributing more money to this turds career. All 3 of those guys are actually great actors who have made some amazing films. I don't understand this obsession with casting unnaturally beautiful people in movies though. Wouldn't you rather see someone like you? I know I would. It's why watching movies from France, Argentina, Balkans, even England (to a lesser extent) are so much more satisfying and easier to identify with the characters, because the actors look like people on the street. But I suppose I'm pushing a lost cause here, the debate between substance vs pretty illusion has been long settled and pretty illusions won. I think a lot of people would disagree with you on how good of an actor Tom Cruise is. He's mainly in Hollywood because he's eye candy. Women have always enjoyed handsome men in films, just like men enjoy beautiful women in films as well. Nothing wrong with that. (And don't make assumptions about my appearance. ) Just saying, people normally like to see beautiful actors in certain types of roles, such as romantic roles, and they like to see more character actors in comedys and dramas. There just seems to be very little in the way of good looking young male actors right now to play those romantic roles, and that is why Ashton keeps getting most of these types of roles.
runner Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 i think his best role was in 'dude wheres my car' which i think speaks for itself. as for the rest of him, meh. doesn't even register on my radar.
Wolf18 Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 No not really. I can tell the difference between quality acting and a role which is, just what it is. Are you seriously saying that only serious actors should exist? I won't even bother to go into trying to make this a gender issue! Man, such strength of feelings about Ashton that you can judge even those who watch a film with him in it? Nah, not feeling your passion on this one. Maybe you are just angry generally, or something? Careful with that. I don't think his popularity will suffer from having a few saying they do not like him - though never meeting him on a personal level or even watching anything he does. Still, sometimes people can get you like that and it not be logical. I get that. Take care, Eve x I don't think all actors should be serious , but you know, the barrel does have a bottom . Seeing various spinoffs of Kelso (who wasn't even remotely funny IMO) in every TV show and movie that seems to be coming out these days is pure agony. I think a lot of people would disagree with you on how good of an actor Tom Cruise is. He's mainly in Hollywood because he's eye candy. Women have always enjoyed handsome men in films, just like men enjoy beautiful women in films as well. Nothing wrong with that. (And don't make assumptions about my appearance. ) Just saying, people normally like to see beautiful actors in certain types of roles, such as romantic roles, and they like to see more character actors in comedys and dramas. There just seems to be very little in the way of good looking young male actors right now to play those romantic roles, and that is why Ashton keeps getting most of these types of roles. [/Quote] I don't know what the point is in making movies with talentless pretty people like Kutcher and Megan Fox. With women I understand it, since you guys love all that rom-com garbage, but with men it just blows my mind why anyone would pay to see a Megan Fox movie for the sake of Megan Fox considering the fact that I can look up one of Megan Fox's many porn star lookalikes and see her getting pissed on or taking 20 guys at once .
Eve Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 I don't think all actors should be serious , but you know, the barrel does have a bottom . Seeing various spinoffs of Kelso (who wasn't even remotely funny IMO) in every TV show and movie that seems to be coming out these days is pure agony. I don't know what the point is in making movies with talentless pretty people like Kutcher and Megan Fox. With women I understand it, since you guys love all that rom-com garbage, but with men it just blows my mind why anyone would pay to see a Megan Fox movie for the sake of Megan Fox considering the fact that I can look up one of Megan Fox's many porn star lookalikes and see her getting pissed on or taking 20 guys at once :laugh: . Pretty huge contradiction there Wolf. Methinks you are simply jaded and as such you are weaving jaded views into unrelated topics. Good luck with that. I will stick with Meagan in 'Transformers' and Ashton in 'Just Married' over the guile you watch anyday. If Ashton was saying **** like what you have come out with he would deserve a good slating. General dislikes are ok but man.. Anyhow, I have had enough of this negativity. All the best, Take care, Eve x
The Tiger Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Ashton Kutcher does not have such a great acting career anyway. He wanted to be a movie actor growing up but the only movies he gets cast in are cheesy rom-coms. I do hear he is very smart. I read on Yahoo that the chick from Glee who is co-starring with him in New Year's Eve movie did research on topics in her spare time because he was making her feel dumb in their conversations. He also has done producing and what-not so I guess he is a better behind the scenes guy than actor.
Nexus One Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) I think there's way too few really good looking young male actors. Now that the likes of Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Leo DeCaprio, etc. have aged, there is way too few young, good looking actors to take their place. Ashton is a rare breed in that respect. Way too little eye candy among young actors in Hollywood. That's why Ashton gets all the roles that require a young sexy stud in Hollywood. I don't think there are too few young good looking male actors today, I rather think there are too few young male actors with a strongly defined and iconic CHARACTER. And Ashton Kutcher DOES have a particular defined and iconic character, just like Al Pacino has a particular defined iconic character or Sylvester Stalone etc etc. They're just DIFFERENT defined and iconic characters. Young good looking men in film? Yes, plenty. Good looking young men with iconic characters that make them the walking talking superstars they are....not so much these days. In fact it's why I think the film industry is losing its shine. It also goes to show that it's hard to find actors who don't have bland characters. Regarding female characters I think Emma Stone is a new actress who has a defined and iconic character. Just think about it, how many people in your personal life do you know that have such a defined and iconic character that he/she could be an actor, a superstar, because they don't have bland characters and got that little extra X factor. I'd bet the number you'd come up with is very low. That's why I think Ashton Kutcher DOES have talent. It's easy criticizing him, but walk in his shoes for two weeks, then come back and say he doesn't have any talent. Edited December 10, 2011 by Nexus One
Wolf18 Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Just think about it, how many people in your personal life do you know that have such a defined and iconic character that he/she could be an actor, a superstar, because they don't have bland characters and got that little extra X factor. I'd bet the number you'd come up with is very low. That's why I think Ashton Kutcher DOES have talent. It's easy criticizing him, but walk in his shoes for two weeks, then come back and say he doesn't have any talent. [/Quote] LOL, Tom Green has a defined and iconic character, and he's 100X more funny and interesting than Kutcher, but he's ugly so we don't see him anymore. So what douchy shoe company is sponsering Kutcher? Etnies? Converse? I'll pick up a pair, wear them two weeks, then come back and tell what is obvious: the dudes just a type casted (male) bimbo ala Cameron Diaz.
stillafool Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 What has he done to deserve all these horrid comments? Did he give a bad interview recently? Take care, Eve x The guy is damn gorgeous. I can't imagine anyone hating him so much as to start a thread about it.
Eve Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 The point I was making soared over your head, but then again what can I say to a woman in her 40's who thinks Transformers is a good movie. What do films have age limits too? Anyhow, I will leave you to your rude comments. Take care, Eve x
Eve Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 The guy is damn gorgeous. I can't imagine anyone hating him so much as to start a thread about it. It's just you and me on this one! Can you imagine him in the morning, with his hair all messy? Man... Take care, Eve x
Nexus One Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 LOL, Tom Green has a defined and iconic character, and he's 100X more funny and interesting than Kutcher, but he's ugly so we don't see him anymore. That also has to do with how the business environment is set up around you and how you're pushed to the market. ANYONE can be pushed big to the market, no matter how bland you are, when the large and powerful mechanisms of certain production companies are backing YOU, then you're going to get exposure. Perhaps Tom Green is less lucky than Ashton in that regard. Tom Green is funny and talented, but he doesn't have the looks that Ashton has. He again has a DIFFERENT defined and iconic character. Besides, as a movie star it's smart to be backed by clothing brands, it makes you money. Wolf, would you seriously reject a bid from Converse of one million Dollars to wear their shoes for a night on some tv show? I bet you wouldn't, I bet you'd accept that money just like the next movie star. There are some actors that don't play that game, but most do. Part of it all is commercialism. Everyone wants to make money, I really can't blame anyone for that.
The Tiger Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) WTF does "defined and iconic character" mean? Do you mean type? That is what they call it in the biz. Every actor has a type to a certain extent. That is why you don't see Ashton Kutcher doing the same type of roles as Giovanni Ribisi and vice-versa, or why you don't see Emma Stone doing the same roles as Olivia Wilde. It's partly based on your looks and on a lot of other things like how you carry yourself, how your voice sounds, if you seem intelligent or mysterious or tough etc. Edited December 10, 2011 by The Tiger
Nexus One Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) WTF does "defined and iconic character" mean? Do you mean type? That is what they call it in the biz. Every actor has a type to a certain extent. That is why you don't see Ashton Kutcher doing the same type of roles as Giovanni Ribisi and vice-versa, or why you don't see Emma Stone doing the same roles as Olivia Wilde. It's partly based on your looks and on a lot of other things like how you carry yourself, how your voice sounds, if you seem intelligent or mysterious or tough etc. The word type doesn't describe it, because like you said, every actor has a type, but not every actor has their type defined to such an extent that it's iconic. Iconic in the sense that it's universally recognizable on an intuitive level. It has a sort of special touch to it, an x-factor in their personality that not every human being has or expresses. For example, when was the last time you met a guy like Al Pacino in the wild or Sylvester Stallone. They have a particular thing about them that they irradiate. The average actor does not have that, they have it up to a certain point, but not to the point that it truly makes them super star quality. In my opinion they're becoming more rare too. The new generation of actors overall is more bland than the old iconic actors. It's actually hard to explain what I mean. It's something you feel emanating from the actor and it's a unique quality. A quality only true super stars seem to have. It's why they are what they are and it's why production companies pay millions for them. Edited December 10, 2011 by Nexus One
Wolf18 Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 That also has to do with how the business environment is set up around you and how you're pushed to the market. ANYONE can be pushed big to the market, no matter how bland you are, when the large and powerful mechanisms of certain production companies are backing YOU, then you're going to get exposure. Perhaps Tom Green is less lucky than Ashton in that regard.[/Quote] Yeah , I totally agree. This applies to the music industry too, look at "Drake". Tom Green is funny and talented, but he doesn't have the looks that Ashton has. He again has a DIFFERENT defined and iconic character. [/Quote] Besides, as a movie star it's smart to be backed by clothing brands, it makes you money. Wolf, would you seriously reject a bid from Converse of one million Dollars to wear their shoes for a night on some tv show? I bet you wouldn't, I bet you'd accept that money just like the next movie star. There are some actors that don't play that game, but most do. Part of it all is commercialism. Everyone wants to make money, I really can't blame anyone for that. It's pretty hard if not impossible to buy me with any of benjamin bernanke's phoney money. I know talk is cheap (haw haw haw no pun) but I find the idea of a man loaning his body out as a billboard pretty disturbing.
Nexus One Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 It's pretty hard if not impossible to buy me with any of benjamin bernanke's phoney money. I know talk is cheap (haw haw haw no pun) but I find the idea of a man loaning his body out as a billboard pretty disturbing. But would you consider making a lot of money if it didn't involve posing for some billboard campaign?
Wolf18 Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 But would you consider making a lot of money if it didn't involve posing for some billboard campaign? Probably not. I'd rather have a stable job and earn my money by being productive. Having a lot of money for doing nothing leads to a kind of bourgeois narcissism that I've spent my life hating.
snug.bunny Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 Al Pacino is brilliance! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlAm-ulpx84 Christoph Waltz is another actor, who is unbelievably talented. I thoroughly enjoyed watching him in Inglorious Bastards: Very different from "Ashton". And while I think Ashton Kutcher is a good actor (he has done some "serious" roles), I think his claim to fame is still one that consists of the "Kelso" character variety combined with strategic "branding" altogether (i.e. Nikon, trendy/infamous restaurants, Twitter, his relationship with Demi Moore, MTV's punked, etc.). It has given him a huge following among the masses.
Woggle Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 I don't think Ashton is talented at all. Say what you want about Charlie Sheen personally but he has 100 times better on Two and a Half Men than Ashton Kutcher. Also Tom Cruise while no Robert Deniro is a decent actor. He was great in Born on the Fourth of July. Brad Pitt was good in Inglorious Bastards and Leo is a good actor as well.
Recommended Posts