The Instigator
Luna3
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Wierdkp326
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Jeff Bridges is one of the most under-appreciated actors

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 922 times Debate No: 1873
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

Luna3

Pro

Jeff Bridges is one of the most under-appreciated actors. He should be in the same category as a DeNiro, Nicholson, and Pacino. Perhaps the only reason he is not is because of his role choices -they seemed less "epic."

Bridges, as far as I know, is the only actor to have played both an alien (Starman) and an alien's mental health doctor (X-PAX) just one of many stunning displays of diversity. His filmography is as good as any A List actor in Hollywood's history, namely Big Lebowski, Fearless and Starman.
Wierdkp326

Con

Hey Luna3,
It's nice to have a light-hearted debate every once in a while. I like Jeff Bridges a lot, I thought K-PAX was excellent. But, I am on the side that he is not an under appreciated actor and I shall challenge you with the following assertion.

There are totally more under appreciated actors out there, and for the purposes of this debate, I look towards Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Now, if we start out with the raw numbers, according to IMDB.com, Jeff Bridges has stared in at least 30 movies or televisions shows since 1990, whilst Phillip Seymour Hoffman has stared in 46. This seems, at first, like Bridges is given less movies to start in... but let's look closer at this past 20 year period.
In more than 2/3 of Bridges' appearances, Jeff played a main character or lead role. At the minimum, you'll find his name on the front cover. Let's consider Hoffman's record. He has been the main character for barely a third of all of his appearances. Further, Hoffman was, like Bridges, an actor in The Big Lebowski... But, unlike Bridges, no one gave a damn about his part in it.
Hoffman's talent as an actor is completely underrated and a majority of his appearances are treated as "enter side character X". He is as versatile an actor as Anthony Hopkins, but gets the credit reserved for Luis Guzman (see if you know who that guy is!).
Bridges gets lead roles in romantic comedies where he gets the girl, and Hoffman gets hammered with roles where he's either being a key jackass or where he might as well be slitting his wrists (for more information, see Love Liza).

This is not to say that Bridges is a bad actor... Merely to say that Bridge's career is marked with roles where he is the main protagonist that everyone loves. Meanwhile, other incredible actors, like Hoffman, are given the dreg roles, like getting lit on fire in Red Dragon.
Debate Round No. 1
Luna3

Pro

Light hearted indeed.

First of all I am a huge fan of Luis Guzman, any fan of Paul Thomas Anderson would be.

Secondly, whereas you make good points none of them speak to the issue at hand.

You simply addressed the number of roles Bridges has had, and the types of roles Bridges has had, (in the context of his comparison to the great Phillip Seymour Hoffman) but you never addressed whether or not he was under-appreciated. You never addressed film-goers attitude and view of him. Role types and the numbers of films you have starred in dont speak to in the least bit audience goers and critics feelings about that person.

So to take another underappreciated actor (I would argue that critics have already espoused their love for him, and film goers are catching up) in Hoffman in order to measure Bridges, it doesnt make sense.

Its like saying the Dodgers dont suck the way you say they do because the Giants suck worse. The conversation wasnt "who is the only sucky team," nor now is it who is the only underappreciated actor.

Ask people to rattle of Hollywood's best. They will give you DeNiro, Brando, Pacino, Nicholson. I think its high time Jeff Bridges is in that category.
Wierdkp326

Con

My argument concerning Phillip Seymour Hoffman was merely to address that Bridges is not as under appreciated as other actors in cinema today. Though Bridges deserves a great deal of credit of for his roles in some excellent films, none of his films took the "epic" stance that you noted in your first argument.

You mentioned DeNiro, Brando, Pacino and Nicholson in the as hollywood's best, and that Bridges should be classified with them. Bridges' acting is separate from the category you asserted above. The above 4 mentioned have all starred in mainstream, action/suspense movies that have turned into classics. DeNiro had Raging Bull, Brando and Pacino both had the Godfather, Pacino also had Scarface, and Nicholson had the Shining. Unfortunately, as good as the "the Big Lebowski" was, the movie doesn't classify in the category of movies DeNiro and folk would fit in.

Further, Bridges' acting would not be underappreciated when he is put into the right perspective. I could argue how DeNiro and friends are not anywhere near "Hollywoods best", it's a matter of perspective in what genres of film I would classify as "the best". What if I enjoy creative comedies as "the best?" A new list of best actors comes to minds.

Should The Big Lebowski become the legacy of Bridges, his fame could be categorized in the group of cult film classic actors, like Bruce Campbell or Tim Curry. This wouldn't be a bad thing necessarily, their roles were just never the forefront of the mainstream moviegoer. And from there, he can be appreciated as one of Hollywood's best.

Perhaps the cult film classics doesn't fit. Then his role in Starman could be paralleled to Robin Williams' role in Bicentennial Man, John Travolta for his play in Micheal, or Anthony Hopkins and Brad Pitt for their positions in Meet Joe Black. These are all phenomenal actors, and Bridge's work puts him into this category.

In the end, it's a matter of perspective depending on what movies you remember someone for. Bridges deserves every bit of credit for his acting, and should be remembered for his legend roles. I argue that he IS remembered and appreciated for his acting, but it needs to be put into the right perspective. He can't be remembered the way Al Pacino and Brando are remembered because he DIDNT act in anything parallel to them, but that doesn't make him under appreciated, just different.
Debate Round No. 2
Luna3

Pro

Luna3 forfeited this round.
Wierdkp326

Con

I don't have anything to add this round. This was a fun debate topic. Take care Luna3! It was a pleasure debating you! :-)
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by alexthemoderate 9 years ago
alexthemoderate
The Dude is a legend. Jeff Bridges is amazing.
Posted by Dapperdan2007 9 years ago
Dapperdan2007
Definately a great actor. He plays all kinds of roles and does them all very well.
Posted by wingnut2280 9 years ago
wingnut2280
THANK YOU! The Dude is possibly the best character in cinema!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by BlueLemon 6 years ago
BlueLemon
Luna3Wierdkp326Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
Luna3Wierdkp326Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Luna3Wierdkp326Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Luna3 9 years ago
Luna3
Luna3Wierdkp326Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Wierdkp326 9 years ago
Wierdkp326
Luna3Wierdkp326Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03