How about this; f**k what it looks like and read his character bio in the Empire Magazine article, come back here, and tell me that his excitement is out of character. The scene we're discussing here is before anything bad goes down, you'd think horrific events would change a g--
Hey, Space Sweeper, I say this with as much respect as possible because I do in fact find your insight very interesting but uh, how about you
chill out? You've got this agressiveness going on that's very unhealthy.
Yes, I read the article. I give it very little credance, as i've read dozens of those for countless other film and TV projects. Honestly, forget what a magazine says, or what interviews say. Often what the text says about a character turns out to be completely off the wall.
Of his final Bond outing, in response to fans questioning the realism of James Bond, Pierce Brosnan said that "Die Another Day" would be one of the most grounded and realistic Bond films. It turned out to be a nasty CGI mess.
In a magazine article on Star Trek Voyager, it was said that "Neelix" was going to be their breakout character. "Combining the charms of Odo and Quark from DS9." He turned out to be one of the most annoying
characters to ever disgrace Star Trek. It was arguably The Doctor who turned out to be the shows break out character, and absolutely Seven of Nine who turned the show around several seasons in. There's a reason SFDebris has a "stupid Neelix moment" in all his Voyager reviews.
Just because a characters description is given in a magazine does not mean he will play out that way when he's exposed to an audience. Depending entirely on the way he's played, and what stays in the movie, you can get a completely different performance when compared to the concept.
So, once again, going by what we've seen of him in trailers and the clips. He comes off as hammy, and unbelievable. That is in contrast to the very talented cast he's got all around him.
So, yes, from what we've seen of him thus far. I can say his performance sucks
. Why that bothers you, I don't honestly know. It's not even trashing Prometheus, it's trashing one shoddy actor's performance because he sucks when you compare him to the entire AMAZING ensemble we have for this movie. A sub-par actor sticks out far more when he's surrounded by really good actors.
Again, I shouldn't have to repeat this, but this is going by "What we have seen THUS FAR"
maybe you're right and the rest of the movie will somehow explain his oddball performances, but I seriously doubt it.
Really, I want to know, why do some of you get so upset that some of us have detracting remarks? I belive some of us have even said we're still really friggin' excited for the movie.
How about you guys see the movie first or better yet actually look in to who the character is supposed to be before throwing shit around. It's all available out there.
This is a discussion thread in the twilight of speculation on a movie about to be released. Why don't you
relax? What the Hell is wrong with people having opinions based on the media we've seen that you have to be so defensive over a character in a movie YOU have yet to see either? Okay, fine, you don't see the ham in the clips of him we've seen? That's fine. But follow your own advice. You haven't seen the movie, either. Why don't you
reserve the judgement that this actors performance is even defensible?
Because if all of us reserved judgement, and kept our opinions and first impressions to ourselves there wouldn't be a need for a discussion forum on this site to begin with!
I guess asking for an articulate response was a little too much. Don't get me wrong, I like Hudson and I think Paxton did a great job, but if you didn't have any bias attached to the classic Aliens and it was coming out in this day and age, you'd have the exact same problem with Hudson that you do with Halloway. And there's not a single doubt in my mind that Halloway will be a less giddy character than Hudson; he's a thrill seeking scientist with a thirsted determination to uncover our greatest mysteries. Hey, maybe you don't need to look at that Empire article now.
You keep marrying written concept and final performance together. A short snippet about a character written for a magazine, or a blurb used repeatedly in interviews does not actually mean a damn. What matters is the nuances of the script, and the actor's ability to translate that into a solid performance.
The actor playing Holloway sounded completely HAMMY in his delivery. It has nothing to do with what he's supposed to be, it's the fact that he completely misses that sense of believability entirely. As some people have said "I don't believe him." It's not because we don't get what he's trying to play. It's that we can SEE that he's trying to play something to begin with. An actor's performance should be invisible
. Do you disagree with that?