site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   3097 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for September 20, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Reading stuff on the internet, I was suddenly hit with a realization that Tom Cruise is over 60 now (looking ridiculously good for the age, btw). Which got me thinking - almost all the movie stars I am familiar with are officially old now. I am mostly into action movies (though not only, I like comedies and even occasional romcom) and it used to be that if the movie has, say, Bruce Willis, or Schwarzenegger, or Harrison Ford, yes, Tom Cruise, you get the idea - I'd at least pay attention to it. It may still be bad, but I'll at least bother to check (otherwise I'd have to hear some good hype from some respected sources to even pay attention, there's just too much junk around otherwise). So, my question is - are there any stars under 40 now that are worth paying attention to? Who are they? Obviously, it's very subjective criteria, a matter of taste, but I'd like to hear some opinions.

Tom Cruise is always getting older

He knows he'll never be that young again

And every time he looks over his shoulder

He sees a thousand younger leading men

And he knows someday he'll have to play an old retarded grandpa

while someone younger plays his sexy son

Too early to tell but I loved Anyone but you as a back to basics from com and suspect Glen Powell is a decent (and attractive) actor.

The collapse of the monoculture means that, with very few exceptions, no new "stars" (in the sense of celebrities who are household names to a broad cross-section of the population) have been minted since the smartphone era began in earnest. Jeff Maurer noticed that all of the celebrities featured in this year's Super Bowl ads were all people who were already famous twenty years ago. I sincerely cannot think of a movie star who got their big break since 2014 (when smartphones achieved saturation) who could legitimately be considered a household name.

With the caveat that i don't think that movie stars really exist in the same way anymore, I think Robert Pattinson is a cut above most prominent actors his age, is decent at choosing prjoects and is consistently starring in commercial and critical successes.

There doesn't seem to be. I think recently RLM talked about how Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson was officially a Hollywood sellout, and if he's in a movie you should run the other way. I remember when Top Gun: Maverick came out, people talked about how Tom Cruise is the last movie star. The last actor who's name alone can draw people to a picture.

Don't be sad it's over, be glad for all the good movie we already got.

You can be a total sellout and still be a good actor, though; doing this just means that the onus still falls back on your potential audience to look for other indicators of quality (reviews, non-sellout costars/directors/writers) rather than just trusting that you wouldn't be in anything that wasn't good. "The Rock" has been in a bunch of uninspiring stuff but that doesn't mean (assuming you have kids) you should run from Moana.

Consider Michael Caine for a better example. Two Oscars for Best Supporting Actor, four nominations for Best Actor, cast member in several fantastic movies, and yet perhaps his best line was the one he ad-libbed to a question about his appearance in Jaws: The Revenge (IMDB 3.0/10):

"I haven’t seen the completed film, although from all accounts it’s terrible. I have seen the house it paid for, though, and that is terrific."

I'm not sad, if needed, I could spend 50 years rewatching old movies. I was just wondering - could I be missing something? The Rock is 52 by now, not sure if it's "old" but definitely not "young" anymore.

Henry Cavil is 41. But he has also shown his colors as a die hard nerd and loyalist to original material. I think it has gotten him kicked out of / mutually left roles that have strayed to far. His participation in a project is kind of like a stamp of approval for me.

Yeah, Cavill leaving The Witcher was kind of a bummer. I'm not sure whether I'll keep watching.

I don't understand how anyone who knew the Witcher from other media could enjoy the TV show. Cavill leaving was the right choice.

I read the books (some of them) and I don't see anything bad in Cavill. Of course it's different - TV and book are different media. But I think for the series he is fine.

Oh I guess it was easy to misunderstand. No, Cavill was great! The rest, not so much. Cavill will not staying in that shitshow was correct.

Ugh I know. What a tragedy

The show itself was the tragedy. Cavill was right to stand on principle.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats