Are one note actors bad?

There are certain actors who always seem to play the same character in every movie they're in. Kristen Stewart, Jennifer Aniston, Owen Wilson, Eddie Murphy and Sean Connery, to name a few. It's kind of logical to conclude that if an actor only seem to be able to do one character, they're not very good actors. But the box office, along with general opinion, often beg to differ. Maybe these actors have just perfected that one character to present the illusion, that they actually have talent.

__________________
The Freedom Roads

I am sure Eddie Murphy could act better if he got the chance.. he did do a good job as a serious cop in Metro, even though it had hints of his comic side, it was quite different from what he usually stars as.

I agree with the rest of the names you mentioned.

Inspite of being a good actor, I find Burton misusing Depp, everything after the Chocolate factory has been almost the same character workout for the guy.. Damn, even the costumes look the same.

I don't think Connery or Murphy are one note actors. They have a tendency not to be adventurous in their movie role choices, but that is not the same as being one note, which to me means they have a limited range. Connery and Murphy have shown on occasion they can play more demanding roles. Depp is definitely not one note, but seems stuck doing shtick lately.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Box office numbers =/= quality, general public's opinion is basically as useless.

Talent in one aspect sure, but anyone should know that limiting yourself is only setting yourself up for failure. You can't write pop music by listening to pop, you can't paint a picture by just studying watercolors, you can't act truly well through repetition. Just because those people you mentioned can "act" those parts (are they really acting at that point or just switching between two mindsets) doesn't mean they're talented at all. It means they need to sack up and expand their perceptions.

Wether they're one trick ponies or the film is the worst film in the world, if the actor is liked by the populous, it'll sell.

The Twilight vampire movies and all of the actors involved are utter tosh yet because Teenyboppers love the pretty boy that's in it, tickets will sell and the movies will make money.

Harry Potter is another, not one of them can act apart from Julie Walters and Ralph Fiennes and the entire Potter franchise is a great big lump of plagiarism. Yet because the girlies love Radcliffe and the ginger one and all the boys fancy Harmione, and at one point the pretty vampire from Twilight showed up too, tickets will almost certainly sell.


Talent (or complete and utter lack of) can't account for cutsie-handsome-popularity with the doughy-eyed stalkers that go to see the films.

__________________

You can't lump those two in together. What you say may be true for Twilight, and I admit I've been highly critical of the Harry Potter movies, but I've never heard of Potter tickets selling for that reason. They sell because of their exquisite source material, fans of which give me my shred of hope that today's youth aren't all complete airheads.

I think Jason Bateman has been chanelling his Arrested Development persona for nearly every film he's been in since it ended. That's not necessarily bad, I just think he plays it fairly safe in each of his movies (excluding Dodgeball and the most of The Change-Up).

__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."

I don't think Owen Wilson is a one-note kind of actor, maybe in his dumb comedies he is, but when he does more serious stuff he's completely different. I thought he showed some depth in Midnight in Paris, along with every Wes Anderson film he's done, notably The Darjeeling Limited. I don't think it's really fair to him to lump him in the same category as Kristen Stewart and Eddie Murphy.

Murphy was good in Dreamgirls.

I don't think it's a terrible thing to be a one note actor if you happen to be extremely good at what you do. The problem is that the audience catches on fairly quickly and they either get really excited to see them or bored of them. Schwarzenegger is one of the examples where he happens to be really good at what he does: playing a giant muscular man/machine who knows how to yell, kill, and make famous one-liners. Does it make him a terrible actor? Not really. It just makes him good at what he does. Eddie Murphy, Adam Sandler, Sean Connery, Own Wilson have all been similarly typecast at something, such as either comedic characters or bad-asses. However, when they do break typecast, a lot of times they surprise with how much depth they bring. Like Adam Sandler in Punch-Drunk Love, where he plays a mostly serious role that surprised the hell out of me.

I think you meant to say wasn't one note. I'd say for close to ten years he's been goofy Burton roles or goofy Jack Sparrow. Even the occasional Secret Window/The Tourist isn't saving him from himself.


I LOLed at this, despite my love for the books. Yes, J. K. Rowling rips on every myth, legend and fairy tale going back to the beginning of story telling, but the whimsical way the books tug at my inner child make me love them anyway. Most of the films were good-ish to passable, except for 3 and 5, IMO.

On topic, one note actors find their niche and stay there. Sure, they don't push the form or challenge the viewer, but they're doing what they do...

I think I just talked myself into not liking them.

__________________

I think it depends on the movie. If a part is written well and integrated nicely into the movie and the O.N.A. does his/her job, then it's a win. I'm sure they get more work too, as they're easier to cast...

__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/

There's some good points going on here, bouncingbrick said some actors find a niche and stay there.
One in particular is Robin Williams. He found his zany comedy calling years ago and stuck with it. Mork, Patch Adams, Hook, the list goes on.

So would I call him a one trick pony? Actually no, have you ever seen One Hour Photo? Man he's weird in that. He's pretty good in Bicentenial Man too.
Like bouncingbrick said, there are actors who find a niche and stick with it but they can do other things too, they just don't.

I stick by what I said in my last post though: Most one trickers only sell tickets because people fancy them.

For me Jack Nicholson is good only in his crazy,egocentric and confident roles.I saw a comedy with him once and I just disliked his performance.Also I didn't like acting in About Schmidt.It wasn't bad but it wasn't good either.As for Nicholson,I expected more.

But,for example, in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest Nicholson was perfect for me.Even better than any Marlon Brando performance.It's the best acting performance I've seen so far.In The Shining,Chinatown and Easy Rider he was very good,too.

Anyway I would agree that one note actors aren't good actors.They are good in certain roles,but overall they aren't.Following my example I would say that Marlon Brando is better actor but Nicholson has a better performance.
I tend to think that these one note actors usually in movies represent their personalities so it's obvious that natural performance is the best performance.But to completely show yourself you need talent(and hard work of course),too.So to sum up,I would say that they are talented but they are not the best.

Oh and many people like to argue with me about Nicholson and Brando but I'm sorry,I just can't change my taste. :/

__________________
"Anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time."

There's nothing wrong with a one trick pony until people tire of their trick. Then, you either take the money and live the rest of your life thankful that you had a trick people liked or you bitch and moan about how no one's interested in you anymore.

Sometimes it's just that they are cast in the same character over and over again.

as long as they entertain and we pay to see them, I say no.

Character actors are still great actors. Most actors play to a similar personality. Montgomery Clift payed the moddy, senstive types, Clint Eastwood always the anti-hero types. Nothing wrong with it, just how it is.

__________________
''If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?''

Hugh Grant is probably the best example of this, and yet it works. Although saying that, in his earlier period piece films, he's actually not been too bad. Maybe someone should take a chance on the poor man and cast him in a costume drama.