nauru wrote:After adjusting for lower expectations that we have for action stars' acting ability compared to other genres, you think he's awesome and I think he's horrible. As an action movie lead, you think he's awesome and I think he's horrible. I thought he was bearable in Death Race, mind you. But the Transporter is one of, if not the worst action movie I've ever seen. I'm not sure there's much point in debating this with you because we are really at opposite ends of the spectrum here. You can hardly think of anyone better for the lead role in action films, and I can hardly think of anyone worse (Ryan Reynolds might come close, if he starts making a lot more action movies).
You're free to believe whatever you want, but if you think he is bad, then who is good?
What really confused me, though, is that after knocking Statham, you then go on to name Jet Li and Dolph Lundgren, two of the worst actors EVER
, as people you wanted to see more of. Literally two guys who can't act to save their lives, although I still love them both. I can imagine a reasonable person disliking Jason Statham for whatever reason, but then praising LI and Lundgren's ACTING in the same breath?
Does not compute. I can see reasons for disliking a great director like, say, Robert Altman. But when that same person praises Michael Bay in the same sentence?
nauru wrote:Austin's physique: again, a matter of opinion.
No, this question is anything but opinion, unlike the one about Statham. Austin's neck and back injuries and surgeries are VERY well-documented, ever since Owen Hart almost paralyzed him with a piledriver.
nauru wrote: I don't want to rag on the guy's appearance too much here, he's taken a lot of punishment in his life and had some serious injuries. Partly as a result of these injuries, his physique, at 47, is not good, in my opinion.
It's not "partly"; it's "completely".
First of all, steroids do not cause neck and back problems, by themselves.
Secondly, there are a lot of wrestlers from Austin's time, many who didn't even do steroids, that are in FAR worse physical shape than he is, if not outright dead. Look at someone like Mitsuhiro Misawa, who was roughly the same age as Austin, never took steroids, and is now dead, after his neck degenerated so much that a basic move in the ring killed him at 46.
Or hell, look at a guy like CM Punk (the present champion), who has a skinny physique and is famously straight edge. He's 33 years old, and has already endured several major surgeries, fractured his skull, and almost had a hip replacement. That's all thanks to the brutal nature of pro wrestling.
By the way, I'm not even sure whether Austin did steroids. His physique was never amazing, and he was a naturally big guy who used to play football.
nauru wrote:Jet Li and Dolph Lundgren are not good dramatic actors, but I'd rather much rather see one of them in the lead role of an action movie like the Expendables than Jason Statham. I would also prefer Steve Austin in the lead role instead of Statham. Or Edward James Olmos for all I care, if it bumps Statham to something more secondary/tertiary/cameo in the action movie. You see where this is going.
But why? (Stick to Li and Lundgren)