The Rock's new TV show

connemara man

Im not sure if anyone has seen or mentioned this but the Rocks new tv show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wtz5kvrwgM

Sorry on phone can't embed properly

J. Marston

connemara man wrote: »

Im not sure if anyone has seen or mentioned this but the Rocks new tv show

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wtz5kvrwgM&feature=youtu.be

Sorry on phone can't embed properly

For a big movie star, that seems like some low budget crap.

leggo

J. Marston wrote: »

For a big movie star, that seems like some low budget crap.

TV work is bread and butter for actors. It's easy money and exposure to a large audience on a weekly basis. Obviously Rock would rather have a Breaking Bad or Sopranos-type project landing on his door, and that's perhaps something he might wanna look into with his agents.

But then again maybe he's realistic and knows that, ultimately, he's a pro-wrestler who's lucked out by carving out a career for himself as an action star. He could be methodical like a Will Smith or Arnold Schwarzenegger and have crunched the numbers to see the type of projects that earn him the most money, consistently, over the long-term, regardless of quality or reputation. Nothing wrong with that. Would you rather have Will Smith's lifestyle or Bryan Cranston's?

Rock doesn't need to be the best actor in the world. He's already won the game of life. So, if his goals are as set out above and have a solid grounding in business, then he's dead right to do this reality stuff. 'The Hero' wasn't much of a show, but The Rock was the one person who came out of it smelling of roses. And millions of eyeballs were on him, seeing this, every week.

Jerichoholic

leggo wrote: »

TV work is bread and butter for actors. It's easy money and exposure to a large audience on a weekly basis. Obviously Rock would rather have a Breaking Bad or Sopranos-type project landing on his door, and that's perhaps something he might wanna look into with his agents.

But then again maybe he's realistic and knows that, ultimately, he's a pro-wrestler who's lucked out by carving out a career for himself as an action star. He could be methodical like a Will Smith or Arnold Schwarzenegger and have crunched the numbers to see the type of projects that earn him the most money, consistently, over the long-term, regardless of quality or reputation. Nothing wrong with that. Would you rather have Will Smith's lifestyle or Bryan Cranston's?

Rock doesn't need to be the best actor in the world. He's already won the game of life. So, if his goals are as set out above and have a solid grounding in business, then he's dead right to do this reality stuff. 'The Hero' wasn't much of a show, but The Rock was the one person who came out of it smelling of roses. And millions of eyeballs were on him, seeing this, every week.

Bryan Cranston's please. I don't think he spends his life using his stroke to force his annoying children into terrible music and terrible films.

leggo

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Bryan Cranston's please. I don't think he spends his life using his stroke to force his annoying children into terrible music and terrible films.

See you see it that way. I read that and I think, "Through his name alone can create amazing opportunities for his children to be superstars." Why would you rather the life where you can't create these opportunities for your children?

I prefer Cranston to Will Smith too, like, but I'm almost positive the latter has a better life without needing the critical acclaim.

bur

leggo wrote: »

See you see it that way. I read that and I think, "Through his name alone can create amazing opportunities for his children to be superstars." Why would you rather the life where you can't create these opportunities for your children?

I prefer Cranston to Will Smith too, like, but I'm almost positive the latter has a better life without needing the critical acclaim.

Not everyone is as all consumed by money as you seem to be.

Whosthis

Is this still the wrestling news thread?

leggo

Okay, clearly you just want to have a dig by getting personal so I'm going to let that pass. I'm simply trying to explain what The Rock's mindset would be in taking reality TV projects like this and how there's nothing wrong with it. It might be strange to hear in Ireland - but there's nothing wrong with a man wanting to earn a lot of money (and being intelligent in doing so) if rich people want to pay it to him! Bryan Cranston isn't visiting soup kitchens either lads. :pac:

He doesn't owe it to anyone to do projects they'd prefer to see him do, and it baffles me why people think he does. It's his life, his career, and if he makes bad calls it's him that feels the sting of that, not any of his 'fans'. So what if he wrestled in WWE for a few years? That doesn't mean that wrestling fans own him or that he owes them anything.

jaykhunter

That TV show looks like absolute garbage one-and-done seasons. If I were the Rock I'd wait for something better to break into TV but sure he gets paid well either way so happy days.

Moist Bread

leggo wrote: »

Okay, clearly you just want to have a dig by getting personal so I'm going to let that pass. I'm simply trying to explain what The Rock's mindset would be in taking reality TV projects like this and how there's nothing wrong with it. It might be strange to hear in Ireland - but there's nothing wrong with a man wanting to earn a lot of money (and being intelligent in doing so) if rich people want to pay it to him! Bryan Cranston isn't visiting soup kitchens either lads. :pac:

He doesn't owe it to anyone to do projects they'd prefer to see him do, and it baffles me why people think he does. It's his life, his career, and if he makes bad calls it's him that feels the sting of that, not any of his 'fans'. So what if he wrestled in WWE for a few years? That doesn't mean that wrestling fans own him or that he owes them anything.

I think he makes a fair point. You do seem to value absolute profit over artistic merit based on your comments. Your assertion that Will Smith 'has a better life' than Cranston is testament to that. It's more of a critical observation than a personal dig, surely? I would much rather Cranston's lifestyle over Smith's, enough money to do pretty much whatever you want and provide for your family, and not as high profile.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to make a lot of money. But the Rock values the money over the quality of his projects and there's something slightly cynical about that.

leggo

Moist Bread wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with wanting to make a lot of money. But the Rock values the money over the quality of his projects and there's something slightly cynical about that.

It's a job. People don't seem to realise this. It's absolutely sensible to choose a career path based on the will to make the most money possible: that's the purpose of having a job to begin with! Millionaires are just better at achieving that goal than the rest.

I mean, great if you can enjoy it and get admired for it...but generally the artists who bang on about 'artistic merit' are the people who aren't as successful as others. And, having never done the job themselves and perhaps being slightly skewed towards the views of artists they admire, fans assume that they're not just talking ****e when they speak of artistic merit and that that's the important thing that you're supposed to care about. (And yet they're still always surprised when said artists later 'sell out'...notice the pattern here guys!)

I've never been a Hollywood actor either but come on...all anyone criticising him here is saying is, "I want him to do the things that I want him to do!" No. It's his life, not yours. He gets to make that call. He owes you nothing and you don't owe him the courtesy of caring about his show either.

Moist Bread

leggo wrote: »

It's a job. People don't seem to realise this. It's absolutely sensible to choose a career path based on the will to make the most money possible: that's the purpose of having a job to begin with! Millionaires are just better at achieving that goal than the rest.

I mean, great if you can enjoy it and get admired for it...but generally the artists who bang on about 'artistic merit' are the people who aren't as successful as others. And, having never done the job themselves and perhaps being slightly skewed towards the views of artists they admire, fans assume that they're not just talking ****e when they speak of artistic merit and that that's the important thing that you're supposed to care about. (And yet they're still always surprised when said artists later 'sell out'...notice the pattern here guys!)

I've never been a Hollywood actor either but come on...all anyone criticising him here is saying is, "I want him to do the things that I want him to do!" No. It's his life, not yours. He gets to make that call. He owes you nothing and you don't owe him the courtesy of caring about his show either.

You have jumped to some conclusions in this post, some without any justification. The definition of success is different depending on the values of the person. All I will say is as consumers of entertainment we absolutely do have the right to judge it.

I do feel we have gotten slightly off-topic (my fault, most likely). So, yeah, the show looks like typical reality TV tripe. The Rock can do whatever he likes. As he is completely entitled to do so. I just don't think much of it.

Stereomaniac

I can understand the motivation of anyone who goes in for the money in the entertainment industry. I am a musician, but I have a "real" job as well. People always say to me would I not go for one of the T.V music competitions, or do a cover band to earn more money. Well, for some people that would suit them, but not me. However, we all have to pay the bills somehow.

Rjd2

leggo wrote: »

T

But then again maybe he's realistic and knows that, ultimately, he's a pro-wrestler who's lucked out by carving out a career for himself as an action star. He could be methodical like a Will Smith or Arnold Schwarzenegger and have crunched the numbers to see the type of projects that earn him the most money, consistently, over the long-term, regardless of quality or reputation. Nothing wrong with that. Would you rather have Will Smith's lifestyle or Bryan Cranston's?

Not really, but I can't blame anyone for getting a little exasperated at how ****e his output is and how lazy the majority of it is. His money is made, he is box office, maybe once in a blue moon step outside of his comfort zone.

We don't want him to starve obviously, but you can make money doing decent art, Cranston was on close to quarter of million an episode for BB towards the end of the show.

Heck Batista is rolling in money after that little known arthouse film Guardians Of The Galaxy!

Stereomaniac

Guardians Of The Galaxy was guaranteed money, pretty much. The roll that Marvel have been on it was a pretty safe bet. But that's great news as it has lead him to the new James Bond. I don't think anyone can accuse Dwayne Johnson of being lazy in terms of work-ethic. He has had a very respectable career so far, and I'm sure he probably knows what he's good at.

leggo

Do people actually know the Will Smith story I'm referring to? Basically, as he was moving on from Fresh Prince, he and his manager mapped out a list of the highest grossing box office movies of all-time and broke them down into several themes and sections, ala Netflix tagging. That set the path out for movie roles that Smith would accept because they were guaranteed box office winners. And the rest is history.

If you're going to judge someone as a professional actor, then you have to judge them based on thinking how a professional would think, otherwise it's not really a credible criticism because you're not evaluating them based on what their job is and instead based on you projecting your own values of them. As far as judging Will Smith or The Rock, sure it mightn't sound pretty or PR-friendly on paper, but it's hard to criticise their decisions from a career standpoint. Their box office success justifies this.

Stereomaniac

Bubba you said it perfect. It's like people in this country criticising U2 for tax stuff. They can't seem to understand when Bono comes out and explains that they do, for want of a better term, what's best for business in relation to their finances. Being shrewd like this is how people become successful financially. It's up to each individual involved in the arts to decide if what they are doing is fulfilling enough for them. A case in point would be CM Punk at the start of the year, which he recently outlined. It wasn't fun anymore, so he stopped. Anyway!

leggo

Moist Bread wrote: »

The food in this restaurant tastes like ****. It is a highly successful restaurant financially. Therefore the food is excellent.

It wouldn't be successful financially if there wasn't a market for what it served. Your subjective opinion is just one man's view and, if the restaurant continues to succeed, ultimately means nothing.

Stereomaniac

Taste of food is one of the most subjective things that could be used as an example. Coca Cola is one of the most popular drinks in the world, yet the taste doesn't really do much for me.

Moist Bread

Stereomaniac wrote: »

Taste of food is one of the most subjective things that could be used as an example. Coca Cola is one of the most popular drinks in the world, yet the taste doesn't really do much for me.

Yeah, I realised it was a bad example. Why I deleted the post.

I guess I am not arguing that the Rock is a success. He is an objective success by most metrics. I feel like I dragging this whole thing off topic too. So apologies.

Rjd2

leggo wrote: »

If you're going to judge someone as a professional actor, then you have to judge them based on thinking how a professional would think, otherwise it's not really a credible criticism because you're not evaluating them based on what their job is and instead based on you projecting your own values of them. As far as judging Will Smith or The Rock, sure it mightn't sound pretty or PR-friendly on paper, but it's hard to criticise their decisions from a career standpoint. Their box office success justifies this.

Why on earth does it matter to us if it makes zillions or not?

We are fans and we are entitled to an opinion, if we enjoy it will be praised and if we feel it is sub par which a lot of the Rocks output is it deserves to be criticised as does he for making it.

Its a discussion board lets not forget,or should we not discuss those or dare criticise those who achieve their financial goals?

How dull that would be.

Stereomaniac

Moist Bread wrote: »

Yeah, I realised it was a bad example. Why I deleted the post.

I guess I am not arguing that the Rock is a success. He is an objective success by most metrics. I feel like I dragging this whole thing off topic too. So apologies.

No need to apologise, I was enjoying the discussion. I just like seeing different peoples' perspectives on these things. We all have different versions of what success is in our own lives. In the TLC thread I was questioned for wanting Dolph Ziggler to win the Intercontinental championship, for example. I see that as a success.

Moist Bread

Rjd2 wrote: »

Why on earth does it matter to us if it makes zillions or not?

We are fans and we are entitled to an opinion, if we enjoy it will be praised and if we feel it is sub par which a lot of the Rocks output is it deserves to be criticised as does he for making it.

Its a discussion board lets not forget.

I feel like there are some crossed wires here. Leggo is arguing that the Rock is success because his movies make money. Fair enough, I guess. I am arguing that I find a lot of his movies are bad and that I don't think he has much of an acting range. A lot harder to prove without getting into examples. I would have to watch a lot of those movies again and provide examples which I would rather not do. There is the broader issue of criticism in general. You can get quite in-depth about the nature of subjectivity and maybe this is not the time or the place.

Also I am starting to sound like a dickhead and it's 4am.

J Mysterio

I ****ing love The Rock.

leggo

Not at all, you and everyone else are of course allowed to dislike anything you wish and voice that. This entire discussion (which I've enjoyed btw - different from the usual fare) was sparked by people wondering why he's doing this type of show and me trying to offer an explanation for why it's actually a good idea.

Of course you also have to remember that if you want to play the 'It's a discussion board, I'm allowed have an opinion' card that that works both ways. People are going to have an opinion on your opinion and that's what generates discussion. I'm not saying that anyone can't or shouldn't post and offering detailed rebuttals to any post addressing my points. That's a fair, balanced discussion. If you're arguing that I shouldn't do so then your point is actually the opposite to what you think it is.

Stereomaniac

Okay, well I don't think anyone told anyone else they couldn't have a certain opinion on this thread, did they? If I am watching something that I have no idea what it is, which I have done with a lot of The Rock's movies (Get Smart, The Tooth Fairy), I try to maintain an open and positive attitude towards them and get the most out of them that I can. For that reason I am able to enjoy things a lot more than I used to. It's how I am still up right now watching Raw.

leggo

For the record, by the way, I'm a huge Rock fan in wrestling but have only been arsed to watch a few of his movies. From what I've seen he typically plays his part well but they're not the best films. So I'm not just marking out for the chap either, my opinion of his movies is probably similar to most here. I just realise how it doesn't matter what I think.

Yep...that entire post was all for a cheap pun. It's late and I'm in a stupid humour.

J Mysterio

Th Rock is brilliant for comedy and ott stuff. He actually has a bit of range too.

Stereomaniac

The Rock has been so successful in Hollywood because he really is the most electrifying man..

connemara man

Post a video in the news thread.... ends up starting debate on tv professionalism.....