The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The rock is a good actor

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 764 times Debate No: 35827
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




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.
Debate Round No. 1


the rock makes money than we have ever seen. He takes roid and makes mullah. He stars in so many movies that it is almost no debatable. Why would Hollywood keep hiring him to play roles if he was not good.


"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.
Debate Round No. 2


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.

Matt Damon
Ray Liotta
Daniel Craig
Collin Farrel
Ryan Gosling
Bradley Cooper
Hugh Jackman

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
Raging Bull
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.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Babeslayer 3 years ago
You know Snitch, Fast & the Furious 6, & GI Joe Retaliation were all filmed in different timeframes, right? It's not amazing. You know what's amazing? An actor being able to go into a role, and they're so good as the role you barely recognize them as an actor. This is not what The Rock does BTW.
Posted by Chapule 3 years ago
are you kidding me

the rock makes money than we have ever seen. He takes roid and makes mullah. He stars in so many movies that it is almost no debatable. Why would Hollywood keep hiring him to play roles if he was not good.
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
I am so tempted to semantic argument the hell out of this...
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
I agree that he's a good actor. What I find truly amazing, though, is that he is able to take parts, generally main roles, in many movies, while simultaneously doing the tv show "The Hero" and performing in WWE. It's quite impressive.
No votes have been placed for this debate.