Actors Personality in real life, Does it make a difference to you?

ziedth

So I was out on Saturday night and I got talking to a chap about 10 years younger then me who called himself a big film fan. We were talking away till I was shocked to hear him say that he refuses to watch any Tom Cruise films because of how he is in real life. I tried to explain that some of his films are excellent and he's missing out but he wouldn't have it. Madness I thought but the wife(granted she is not a big film fan) wouldn't watch anything with Mel Gibson now since his meltdown. So maybe I'm wrong.

Personally, Although Christian Bale is suppose to be a prize cock he is still one my my fav actors and usually having him in a film would make me want to see it. Likewise I have seen in a couple of places that Paul Walker is one of the nicest guys you could meet but anything I have seen him in is **** and I'd prob avoid his work.

How about you? Does an actors personality off screen effect your opinion of their work?

Mickeroo

ziedth wrote: »

How about you? Does an actors personality off screen effect your opinion of their work?

Not even slightly for me.

Sad Professor

No, makes no difference to me whatsoever. I liked Tom Cruise, Christian Bale and Mel Gibson as actors long before they fell from grace in the eyes of the media/public and I still like them now.

I don't see why people have such a big problem with any of their personal lives anyway. I mean, Cruise is as much a victim of that Scientology cult as anyone else, Gibson is an alcoholic, and Bale has temper problems. Big deal! Most people wouldn't have to look far to find people in their own lives with those issues. Not going to see an actors films because it turns they are flawed human beings like the rest of us is incredibly stupid. Most of this bullish*t gets blown out of all proportion by the media anyway.

maebee

Apologies if I'm a bit off topic here but I cannot watch anything with Twink in it. I used to work in a store in George's St, Dublin in the 80s and and we all dreaded when she'd visit to shop (with dog in tow). She was appallingly rude and obnoxious to the staff.

Bodhidharma

I dont think it matters UNLESS its Tom Cruise. Its not so much his personality, it's what he represents; a kind of alien coldness that could only come from Hollywood. He just represents a sterile, joyless corporate agenda in my eyes. I wont go to see any fims he is in. I would add Will Smith and Adam Sandler to that list also.

Most actors are probably complete tools, like footballers in many ways. They are aliens and thats that. Bill Murray and Harrison Ford are notoriously grumpy but it doesn't bother me because I like their films. Obviously it would be better if all actors were nice but so what.

Das Kitty

A friend of mine feels like that about John Cusack. If you set up the conversation just right she'll have an extremely entertaining rant. Granted, many of her complaints stem from his acting, but there are some personality elements included too. I just think it's a travesty that she hasn't seen Grosse Pointe Blank!

Mr. K

Nope. If I met them in real life and disliked them, maybe that would influence me. But letting how the media portray people affect your opinion of their work is foolish!

losthorizon

Das Kitty wrote: »

A friend of mine feels like that about John Cusack. If you set up the conversation just right she'll have an extremely entertaining rant. Granted, many of her complaints stem from his acting, but there are some personality elements included too. I just think it's a travesty that she hasn't seen Grosse Pointe Blank!

Or Being John Malkovich. That has to be one of the best films of the 1990s (and it also features Cameron Diaz who features in a fair few Turkeys).

Sir Gallagher

It's interesting to look back at some reviews of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto when it was released. I'm pretty sure it was released after his "Jew" outburst and it's reflected in the reception it recieved. Even critics can let it get in the way it seems.

johnny_ultimate

Actually Mel Gibson is the one person whose stuff I just tend to ignore. Sure, him acting the racist certainly helped that decision, but his work just doesn't really interest me anyway. Never seen Apocalypto, and despite hearing some kind things from some respectable sources, I honestly don't consider it to be that much of a gap in my life!

Otherwise, no. I never fully understand how someone could write off a film just because it features a certain actor. So many otherwise deplorable individuals (in terms of personality and/or previous filmography) have been in absolutely astonishing films that I'd be willing to give most a chance.

Except for Rob Schneider. Glancing at his filmography, it's rather remarkable for such a productive individual to have been in absolutely nothing of note. Even Adam Sandler and Chris Rock have been in some watchable stuff.

Mickeroo

Byt johnny, Apocalypto is one of the best action movies of the last ten years

johnny_ultimate

I may well watch it some day. My disdain towards the man translates to mere apathy when it comes to that film, so perhaps one boring, rainy winter's night I shall sit down for some anti Semitic ultra-violent tribal warfare.

Sir Gallagher

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Actually Mel Gibson is the one person whose stuff I just tend to ignore. Sure, him acting the racist certainly helped that decision, but his work just doesn't really interest me anyway. Never seen Apocalypto, and despite hearing some kind things from some respectable sources, I honestly don't consider it to be that much of a gap in my life!

Otherwise, no. I never fully understand how someone could write off a film just because it features a certain actor. So many otherwise deplorable individuals (in terms of personality and/or previous filmography) have been in absolutely astonishing films that I'd be willing to give most a chance.

Except for Rob Schneider. Glancing at his filmography, it's rather remarkable for such a productive individual to have been in absolutely nothing of note. Even Adam Sandler and Chris Rock have been in some watchable stuff.

Reminds me of a Eberts European Gigolo review.

The movie created a spot of controversy last February. According to a story by Larry Carroll of MTV News, Rob Schneider took offense when Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times listed this year's Best Picture Nominees and wrote that they were "ignored, unloved and turned down flat by most of the same studios that ... bankroll hundreds of sequels, including a follow-up to 'Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo,' a film that was sadly overlooked at Oscar time because apparently nobody had the foresight to invent a category for Best Running Penis Joke Delivered by a Third-Rate Comic."
Schneider retaliated by attacking Goldstein in full-page ads in Daily Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. In an open letter to Goldstein, Schneider wrote: "Well, Mr. Goldstein, I decided to do some research to find out what awards you have won. I went online and found that you have won nothing. Absolutely nothing. No journalistic awards of any kind ... Maybe you didn't win a Pulitzer Prize because they haven't invented a category for Best Third-Rate, Unfunny Pompous Reporter Who's Never Been Acknowledged by His Peers."
Reading this, I was about to observe that Schneider can dish it out but he can't take it. Then I found he's not so good at dishing it out, either. I went online and found that Patrick Goldstein has won a National Headliner Award, a Los Angeles Press Club Award, a RockCritics.com award, and the Publicists' Guild award for lifetime achievement.

Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost to Jar-Jar Binks.
But Schneider is correct, and Patrick Goldstein has not yet won a Pulitzer Prize. Therefore, Goldstein is not qualified to complain that Columbia financed "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" while passing on the opportunity to participate in "Million Dollar Baby," "Ray," "The Aviator," "Sideways" and "Finding Neverland." As chance would have it, I have won the Pulitzer Prize, and so I am qualified. Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks.

Ouch.. :pac:

norrie rugger

I do not mind watching their films but I often find myself thinking of their personal events, during.
If their personal antics are enough to distract me, during a film, then I tend to not bother watching.

Admittedly though I will not watch anything by Roman Polanski, as the man should not have been free to make anything. He is using his fame to avoid the responsibility of his actions and I do not think that he should be rewarded with my money

3rdDegree

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

It's interesting to look back at some reviews of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto when it was released. I'm pretty sure it was released after his "Jew" outburst and it's reflected in the reception it recieved. Even critics can let it get in the way it seems.

It was released before his drunken outburst to the police officer. Critics received it well. Some say his cards were already marked by a moot of the heads in Hollywood after The Passion Of The Christ. But that could just be BS too.

Supraman

Interesting thread , met Samuel L. Jackson a couple of weeks ago after going to a performance of the mountaintop on Broadway. Very personable guy , big fan of his anyway but seemed to be quite a decent guy in the limited time I/others spoke with him . Not in the least bit arrogant , had good fun with the crowd while we were there.

Angela Bassett there also , seemed to be a very humble lady when hearing comments about her performance etc. Also chatted with people , signed playbills etc .

Must say it was nice to meet people who are so wealthy/famous and find them to be so personable.

Mellor

Bodhidharma wrote: »

I dont think it matters UNLESS its Tom Cruise. Its not so much his personality, it's what he represents; a kind of alien coldness that could only come from Hollywood. He just represents a sterile, joyless corporate agenda in my eyes. I wont go to see any fims he is in. I would add Will Smith and Adam Sandler to that list also.

That's ridiculous imo.
Tom Cruise may well represent a sterile, joyless corporate agenda.
But in his films, you are watching a character, which isn't related to his real life agenda.

Ethan Hunt represents covert warfare and intelligence operations.
Charlie Babbit represents the selfish yuppies of LA and a lack of social obligations.
Jerry Maguire represents an antithesis to the dishonesty and greed in the sports management business.

None of those have anything in common with Tom Cruise other than an extreme physical resemblance.

jaykhunter

I'll admit that I do. If I think a actor/actress is a huge douchebag in real life, I'll dismiss their films no matter how good I hear it is. Like Russel Crowe or whoever. I'd probably just not pay to see them but might watch 'em on TV or if others are. But I'd stay away from Tom Cruise as well. If I don't like them, I'll passively boycott their stuff. Same way with actors/actresses I don't respect (Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider, Wayan Brothers etc). I generally stayed away from Jimmy Smitts aswell until he was in Dexter and Star Wars

Mackman

An actors personality doesn't bother me at all. I have huge respect for Tom Cruise as an actor. Mel Gibson may be a racist, but he's a fine actor and director.

If I choose not to watch a movie because of who's in it, its because of their acting ability.

But I cant watch Renne Russo, my god that woman is annoying in everything she's done

Sir Gallagher

3rdDegree wrote: »

It was released before his drunken outburst to the police officer. Critics received it well. Some say his cards were already marked by a moot of the heads in Hollywood after The Passion Of The Christ. But that could just be BS too.

My bad, its just that i seen Apocalypto only a couple of months ago. After watching it i went online to Rotten Tomatoes to see what rating it got and it was only 65%(which i'm sure most people would agree is pretty low) most of the bad reviews focussed On Gibson rather than the movie so your right Passion of the Christ must have already had a negative effect on the critics.

Bodhidharma

Mellor wrote: »

That's ridiculous imo.
Tom Cruise may well represent a sterile, joyless corporate agenda.
But in his films, you are watching a character, which isn't related to his real life agenda.

Ethan Hunt represents covert warfare and intelligence operations.
Charlie Babbit represents the selfish yuppies of LA and a lack of social obligations.
Jerry Maguire represents an antithesis to the dishonesty and greed in the sports management business.

None of those have anything in common with Tom Cruise other than an extreme physical resemblance.

I have seen many Tom Cruise films and decided not go to see any more. MI are awful films. He almost ruined Tropic Thunder, tried to be Robert de Niro in Collateral, and lets not forget he hasn't made anything decent since Minority Report.

You can refer to the characters he plays, but to me he's "Tom Cruise in a wheelchair", an "Irish Tom Cruise", "Tom Cruise as a samurai" etc. I just don't think he's a convincing actor and is given roles in good films (Collateral) that would be better served by someone who can inhabit a character.

So I'm not basing my resistance to him on the media or anything.

As a piece of trivia its interesting to note that Christian Bale used Tom Cruise as a starting point of his character in American Psycho because although he seemed friendly and excited, there was nothing behind the eyes.

Mellor

Well, that's fine, if you think he brings nothing to those roles, then that means you feel he is a bad actor. Which is a mormal enough reason to avoid him. But that's nothing to do with his personality in real life. Maybe we are just taking a different view of personality.

Heard that before about Bale and Bateman. Tom Cruise is mentioned in the book too.

Sad Professor

Disliking an actor for their acting or because of their onscreen persona is fine imo. I can't stand Mark Wahlberg for example. But I think this thread is more about disliking an actor because of their personality in real life.

Naos

It's interesting the amount of people here who don't like Tom Cruise and how many have stated it's because of Scientology.

Just wondering why his choice of religion would make you not like him? His religion is as made up as any others out there.

As for OP: Wouldn't bother me. People have off days, it just so happens when a celeb has an off day it gets worldwide media coverage.

Sad Professor

Well, the only person who mentioned Scientology so far was me and I like Tom Cruise. Based on this thread it would seem people dislike him other reasons and not exclusively because of his Scientology beliefs.

irishh_bob

ziedth wrote: »

So I was out on Saturday night and I got talking to a chap about 10 years younger then me who called himself a big film fan. We were talking away till I was shocked to hear him say that he refuses to watch any Tom Cruise films because of how he is in real life. I tried to explain that some of his films are excellent and he's missing out but he wouldn't have it. Madness I thought but the wife(granted she is not a big film fan) wouldn't watch anything with Mel Gibson now since his meltdown. So maybe I'm wrong.

Personally, Although Christian Bale is suppose to be a prize cock he is still one my my fav actors and usually having him in a film would make me want to see it. Likewise I have seen in a couple of places that Paul Walker is one of the nicest guys you could meet but anything I have seen him in is **** and I'd prob avoid his work.

How about you? Does an actors personality off screen effect your opinion of their work?

bruce willis is meant to be an obnoxious asshole in real life

this makes me like him even more

irishh_bob

maebee wrote: »

Apologies if I'm a bit off topic here but I cannot watch anything with Twink in it. I used to work in a store in George's St, Dublin in the 80s and and we all dreaded when she'd visit to shop (with dog in tow). She was appallingly rude and obnoxious to the staff.

id never have guessed

Mellor

Sad Professor wrote: »

Disliking an actor for their acting or because of their onscreen persona is fine imo. I can't stand Mark Wahlberg for example. But I think this thread is more about disliking an actor because of their personality in real life.

Yeah i think people are confusing real life personality with being consistantly in certain roles.

There's loads of actors I don't like, for lots of reasons. But I don't know what anyof them are like in real life

Da Shins Kelly

Not at all. I acknowledge that the morals of Roman Polanski and Mel Gibson are probably up the spout, but they're still good at what they do. I don't think it affects their work. I also have some amount of sympathy with Gibson - he's an alcoholic, he didn't choose to be the way he is and I think his ex-wife/girlfriend is pretty guilty of exploiting a man who is in a very bad place right now when she released those phone messages.

There are loads of actors over the years who have had very questionable personal lives - Daniel Day-Lewis was a serious womaniser back in the day and left his long-term girlfriend upon discovering she was pregnant and didn't tell another girlfriend that he had in fact married Rebecca Miller without her knowledge, Richard Harris was a hardcore alcoholic in his day, as was Oliver Reed who behaved very badly when drunk too, Jack Nicholson got another woman pregnant after being with Anjelica Heuston for 16 years, Marlon Brando was notoriously difficult to work with and was also guilty of loving and leaving a lot of women too.

That's only a few, and it doesn't really affect what I think of them.

krudler

doesnt bother me at all tbh, unless its something completely fcuked up they've done ala Polanski who I wouldnt be a fan of anyway.

look at Robert Downey Jnr, he had a train wreck of a career for years and now is one of the most likeable people in movies because he's got real charisma and bounced back from it, and all his exploits in previous years just add to that, also he's got talent.

Fishooks12

Doesn't bother me in the slightest

Funny actually watching Memento again recently and how the role suited Cruise so much given he's a bit of a looper himself

mikhail

norrie rugger wrote: »

I do not mind watching their films but I often find myself thinking of their personal events, during.
If their personal antics are enough to distract me, during a film, then I tend to not bother watching.

Nail on the head, I think. If someone's off-screen persona is such that it strains your immersion in the film, that's going to bother you.

Admittedly though I will not watch anything by Roman Polanski, as the man should not have been free to make anything. He is using his fame to avoid the responsibility of his actions and I do not think that he should be rewarded with my money

Kudos. I'll watch his stuff if it's on tv, but no way am I paying for it. (And before anyone mentions that he gets royalties when it's on tv, I know, but not having a Nielsen box, I don't have any effect on tv schedules.)

Galvasean

I don't consider actors' real life antics/persona when deciding on liking/disliking a film. It wouldn't be long before I'd end up hating every movie. Apparently Russel Crowe, Christian Bale and Bruce Willis are massive a-holes in real life. I'm still gonna enjoy Gladiator, American Psycho, Die Hard etc. regardless.
Roman Polanski is a peedo.
Charlton Heston was a gun nut.
Mel Gibson is an anti-semite.
Bart Simpson is a Scientologist.

I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find any film that your enjoyment wouldn't have been hampered by if you obsessed over the various real life flaws attributed to the cast/crew.

norrie rugger

For me it is not a case of automatically disliking a film that they are in, more to do with getting taken out of the experience, by a random thought about their real life antics.

Put it this way, if you were the best salesman in your company and you were convicted of something, your company would still probably sack you. It has nothing with your ability to sell a product put with it interfering with others interactions with you

eire4

I think if I started to refuse to watch films in which an actor who has done some terrible in real life is a star then there would end up being quite the list of films I could never watch. Lets face it we could easily start a thread here of actors and list what horrible things many have said of done in real life and it would be one heck of a lengthy thread.
I guess if I personally experienced something from an actor or an actor did something which wasn't just bad but was of particuarly imporatance directly to me then maybe yes I would not watch their films but as a general rule I would say not much as an answer to this thread.

Mellor

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Funny actually watching Memento again recently and how the role suited Cruise so much given he's a bit of a looper himself

Tom Cruise isn't in Memento????

Were you watching Magnolia maybe

pickarooney

Mellor wrote: »

Tom Cruise isn't in Memento????

Were you watching Magnolia maybe

Of course he is. You probably need to watch it more often and take a lot more notes.

fryup

Don't like Mel Gibson with his hypocritical "holier than thou catholic persona" that has been blown apart in recent years.

Don't like Bruce Willis cause he comes across as cocky big head when ever he's interviewed.

because of that i can't fully enjoy any movies that these are in

ziedth

I saw an interview with our own Colm Meaney and he said that Bruce Willis was the worst person he he worked with. Really tore strips off him. Again, it doesn't bother me.

However, strangely I like to hear that actors that I like are sound. For example I have always liked Michael J Fox as an actor and I have heard from a few places that he is suppose to be very friendly and nice. I was happy to hear it.

FloatingVoter

I don't interview the postman about his peronal life. Why should I give a toss about the opinions a journalist has of an actor that they've met in a bar somewhere ?
As for Cruise's religious views - I didn't pick up on them in Collateral.
Mel didn't seem to have a problem with Jewish people in Braveheart. There weren't any. Or cops for that matter.
As for Russell Crowe and the anger management, not a lot of acting in Gladiator but certainly a lot in The Insider.

saa

Sometimes if I see their personality coming through in their work and if something if affecting their likability for me I think I might find it difficult to connect with the character.

Kooli

Bodhidharma wrote: »

You can refer to the characters he plays, but to me he's "Tom Cruise in a wheelchair", an "Irish Tom Cruise", "Tom Cruise as a samurai" etc. I just don't think he's a convincing actor and is given roles in good films (Collateral) that would be better served by someone who can inhabit a character.

Thank GOD someone said this! I thought I was living in a parallel universe!

Tom Cruise is NOT 'consistently in certain roles'! He is in totally different roles but plays them all exactly the same!
This gives rise to the feeling that he is just playing himself, and 'himself' is really, really unlikeable. So in this case I guess you could say his personality does make a difference to how I see him as an actor, cos they're the same thing.

There are other actors I think play themselves a lot of the time (Robert Downey Jr comes to mind), but that doesn't bother me as much because I actually like them.

floutingmaxims

I detest Tom Cruise. My cousin presuaded me to watch Knight and Day with him. I hate to admit it but it was good so i guess it was pretty stupid to let him being a massive asshole put me off.

MagicMarker

Bodhidharma wrote: »

He almost ruined Tropic Thunder, tried to be Robert de Niro in Collateral, and lets not forget he hasn't made anything decent since Minority Report.

WTF? Tom Cruise was the only positive thing about Tropic Thunder, Minority Report was shít and MI3 is the one of the best action movies of the last decade, and I'm not even much of a Tom Cruise fan.

Littlehorny

In Hollywood, its all about the money, as long as the public are going to your films you will be tolerated no matter how big a cnut you are. The actors who spring to my mind are 1.Meg Ryan, was in some really big rom coms, america sweetheart etc, but behind the scenes people knew she was a bitch for years but as soon as she had a few bombs she was scrapped and 2. Val Kilmer an ego the size of Jupiter but was tolerated when he made money but now no one will work with him.
Another off the top of my head is Mickey Rourke, so maybe when Bruce Willis,Christian Bale and Tom Cruise stop making big bucks for the studios they might realise just how unpopular they made themselves.

Enkidu

Actually I thought about this recently for exactly the same reason that some people here have mentioned, Apocalypto. I thought the film was quite a good depicition of Mayan society, even went to the effort of having modern Maya spoken in it and was brutally realistic. It's also one of the most historically realistic films I've seen in a while.

However alot of the reviews were just:
"Mel Gibson is mad, lol, like totally crazy and stuff. 40%, lol"

Honestly I don't think this stuff should influence reviews. Many great writers (e.g. Proust) were complete eejits in some ways, but their worksare still masterpieces.

mikhail

Littlehorny wrote: »

In Hollywood, its all about the money, as long as the public are going to your films you will be tolerated no matter how big a cnut you are ... so maybe when Bruce Willis,Christian Bale and Tom Cruise stop making big bucks for the studios they might realise just how unpopular they made themselves.

Yes. Also, the really nice guys who just get the job done, they'll also get dumped the minute they stop making money. Hollywood is not anyone's friend.

Mink

How someone is as a person or what they do in life never affects how I view them as an actor (or musician, writer, singer etc).

My favourite Tom Cruise movies are the ones where he plays baddies - Collateral and Magnolia (maybe not a baddy but messed up) come to mind. I'm not overly enamoured with his acting in the big blockbuster types, not my cup of tea. I actually think he's a good guy as he does a fair bit of charity work that is never broadcast as it "doesn't fit in" with the image the media are trying to put across.

But to not watch his films because you think he's a tool/cos of his religion would suggest that you are buying into the sh1te that the tabloids start and other media regurgitate again and again because it's "controversial". I never pay attention to anything in papers, mags, media etc. I only read or watch actual interviews with celebs where you can hear it from the horses mouth.

Jesus I'd really hate to be a celeb, nightmare.

I didn't pay any attention to the Mel Gibson / Christian Bale stuff, I love Christian Bale's work, and some of Mel Gibsons. Don't give a flying fook re what they said or did that the media love making a big hoopla about. They may have made mistakes but I don't care, that's their business and they have to lie in their bed they made.

Another example (bit off topic) is Courtney Love, she's a total mess & a biatch - and I've drawn this conclusion even just from what SHE says in her interviews, never mind the other media stuff. But I LOVE Hole & her singing & I always will.

Having said all that, if Hitler himself or Chairman Mao was in a movie, and even if they were really good, I'd have to draw the line there and boycott their movies .

paulosham

So I was out on Saturday night and I got talking to a chap about 10 years younger then me who called himself a big film fan. We were talking away till I was shocked to hear him say that he refuses to watch any Tom Cruise films because of how he is in real life. I tried to explain that some of his films are excellent and he's missing out but he wouldn't have it. Madness I thought but the wife(granted she is not a big film fan) wouldn't watch anything with Mel Gibson now since his meltdown. So maybe I'm wrong.

NO!

ziedth

paulosham wrote: »

NO!

Really? I mean I would consider Magnolia, MI:3, Minority Report and Valkyrie to be generally thought of as very good films.

Mickeroo

ziedth wrote: »

Really? I mean I would consider Magnolia, MI:3, Minority Report and Valkyrie to be generally thought of as very good films.

In all honesty, looking at his filmography there's only 3 films out of everything he's made that I would class as truely crap: M:I 2, Far and Away and Knight and Day. Everything else is either ok, good or really really good.