The rock is a good actor
Debate Rounds (3)
The Rock is an action hero, plain and simple. And that's not in itself an argument, just look at Bruce Willis. Good actor, but mainly does action roles. But The Rock is not a good actor, he never takes on different roles, only action roles. I'm not saying he's a bad action star, in fact he's pretty decent as an action star. But there's an important part of being an actor that a lot of action stars almost never do - act. Most of the time he just plays a tough guy who's tough. And for your own good, don't use his family movies as examples of his "acting", you'll just help prove my point.
"the rock makes money than we have ever seen"
Okay, youre missing an entire word there, but also this is because he's an action star. He's done 6 movies this year alone, all of them action films.
"He takes roid and makes mullah"
I have no idea what mullah means, and steroids do not in ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM improve acting ability, try to remember what it is we're debating here.
"He stars in so many movies that it is almost no debatable."
No, it's completely debatable. Starring in a lot of films isn't the same as having good acting ability. I mean that's like saying my printer is a good printer because I have lots of paper. (Side note, my printer rocks)
"Why would Hollywood keep hiring him to play roles if he was not good."
They hire him because he makes money. Here's how the process behind an action film works.
Say a studio wants to make an action film. Now they won't go to any good actors like Leonardo DiCaprio for this, no sir. They go for someone who doesn't need to read the script in detail, who doesn't need an acting coach because he's not going to be doing any of that, and someone who's famous so that dumb action junkies will line up at the theater pissing themselves with joy that yet another action film has come out. So to answer your question, studios (not hollywood because hollywood is a place it doesn't hire actors) hire The Rock a lot because everybody knows who he is, and every casual movie goer who thinks a wrestler with some guns is on the same acting level as someone who, oh I don't know, ACTS. (you.)
Oh and to the voters who are might not vote my side becasuse I didn't site any sources: I don't need to site sources, this is an opinion based debate.
He also was a wwe star. Thats whats up
Okay, you see it's kind of hard to tell whether or not you're f***ing with me, because no WWE star is a good actor. NONE. Do you even know what acting is? It's not just being in a movie, it's playing a part. Let me list of some actors who I'd consider to be good.
Adding The Rock to that list might as well be saying "I have no taste whatsoever!" Being a Rock fan is fine, I like his action roles even. But saying he's a good actor gives me the right to punch your face in the face. (Yeah, that's what's up.) I'm going to guess that an action junkie like you only knows about a few movies those actors have done. Let me give you an even harder challenge: Go watch some of these movies on netflix or something. Then you'll get an idea of what acting is.
Being John Malkovich
Lost in Translation
Sure, all of those films will be boring by your standards, but that's because your standards involve explosions, cliches, and being touch being synonymous with characters, storyline and acting ability. This is why I think film is a dying art, because of little sh*ts like you who keep turning it into your way to see crappy action films.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.