Why is the next Star Trek being delayed???

So to get stars at Conventions you need more $$$, more publicity that travels more public desired paths (get seen and admired every where), or raise the personal stars Star Trek is the future for them attitude. Now if you could make them feel that if and when any one looks back at history, that that person feels that they will be seen as a prime building block to how we got here today, and if they were not a block in that foundation what is here today would have never gotten here now.

I know that is playing with peoples minds, but are we not kind of all ready doing that via TV, Politics and the Mass media. There was big debates in the late 40’s and early 50’s about the effects of TV brainwashing the public in DC as they made laws for the new form of media known as TV.

Many of these debates are being done again as The Net (Internet, you know how you are reading this now). And they will continue until it is available and as easy to use as the Newspaper and TV are today.

The TV debate topics are only 60 years old so that can be found much easier than the Newspaper debates of the 18th century as America was forming. But that stuff in History is almost forgotten by our school teachers today.

I’m not sure why. There are plenty of great movie stars who were not/are not generally considered to be great actors.

In my own view, Tom Cruise is not a great actor—but he has most certainly been a great movie star.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was a great movie star—but nowhere near a great actor, IMO.

“A great movie star can also be a great actor.”

Agreed. I said as much in #12.

“I’d say Meryl Streep is both.”

Well, it’s probably debatable as to whether you could still call her a “movie star” today, at least by the definition that I am affording that term in this context (as it can also mean simply one who plays the lead in a movie)—-but she is absolutely a great actress. And at least at one time, she was both a great movie star and a great actress.

“And Anthony Hopkins is both.”

Again, I’m not sure I would call him a great movie star, but there is no question that he is a great actor.

If you’re looking for an actor today who is most certainly (IMO) both—then look no further than Tom Hanks. There probably is not an actor with a stronger combination of ability and “bankability” in Hollywood today.

As for Mr. Washington, I simply think that he would be somewhat overrated as an actor to be placed in the same category—-although again, he is most certainly (in my eyes) a good actor and a fantastic movie star.

“There are, in fact, many types of great acting. Not everyone has to play Shakespeare to be deemed a worthy actor. ”

Agreed, and not everyone who plays Shakespeare is necessarily a great actor.

Look, this is all completely subjective. But I don’t think it is “bizzarre” at all to see that there are differing opinions.

Probably the greatest movie star of the sound era was Cary Grant — and while he didn’t win any Oscars (other than an honorary), if you go back and look at his movies, he turned around some of the subtlest, slyest, best, most relevant performances of all time. I would argue that he was among the cinema’s greatest actors. Ever. Period.

A great movie star can also be a great actor. I think very often people mistake the distinction between comic or romantic leads (like Grant, for instance) and character actors (like, I don’t know, Charles Laughton) in a way that simplifies and diminishes both types of acting.

There are, in fact, many types of great acting. Not everyone has to play Shakespeare to be deemed a worthy actor.

Think of Hepburn or Bette Davis. What were they? “Great movie stars”? Or “Great actors”? I’d say both. I’d say Meryl Streep is both. And Anthony Hopkins is both. And, yes, Denzel Washington.

I can’t believe y’all are dissing Denzel Washington. Aside from the Oscar-winning work he’s done, even his so-called “middling” movies have a resonance and heft that would be missing without him. Did you even *see* “The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3″? Or “American Gangster”? In Pelham he played a beautifully measured schlub — a decent, fascinating, flawed guy forced into heroism. Really an amazing performance. And in “Gangster” he was just wickedly complicated and charismatic, a terrific foil for Russell Crowe. It wasn’t a great movie, but it was well-acted.

How bizarre that we’re even having this conversation.

And frankly, the great Anthony Hopkins would likely be the first to praise Washington’s acting ability.

Look, folks, if you like Washington as an actor, hey, more power to you!

I, personally, have enjoyed watching actors who far surpass his “abilities”.

Please unclench those sphincters of yours and try to recognize that It’s all subjective and to each their own, no?

However, I stand by my opinion that the one (”Best Actor In A Leading Role”) he received for “Training Day” was a sham reward for a series of nominations in the same category. I think that more deserving performances that year were robbed—-specifically, Sean Penn for “I Am Sam” and Will Smith for “Ali”.

Great Movie Star? Yes.
Good Actor? Yes.
Great Actor? Not so sure.

I think Harry has a point in that Denzel has really only shown us a limited range (at least on the big screen). Is that his fault? Possibly not. After all, an actor can only prove his worth with the material he is given.

Nevertheless, Harry’s “two emotions in his acting arsenal” comment is not a huge exaggeration, based upon the material he has chosen.

I realize the person who first stated that may have been suffering from Trekkie-overload, but the others who question his ability need to think on this again. Denzel is one of the top actors working today, period. And I’m not just talking about his status as a leading man — he’s an amazing actor who’s capable of doing anything that’s put in front of him.

Anyone who could float as effortlessly and effectively from “Malcolm X” to doing light Shakespearean comedy in “Much Ado About Nothing” in the same year is a phenomenal talent. End of story.