Film: A Study Or Observation To Be Explained With These 10 To 20 New Generations Popping Up?

[Matthew Newman]

We all hear the terminology "over-casting" from film critics all the time where they would always think that it hurts the film industry. It is not even a disaster as well. All actors go through some type of career path in which they think suits them the best or if the producers would think they would allow a certain type of actor being picked out mostly.

The boom to CGI, originals, acting, directing, writing and digital cinematography has made an impression and a landmark ever since the 1980's and 1990's. Exploring the horizons of digital effects in cinema is bringing on remakes from 2001 and on. Blaming the actors on introducing their career in these films, such as Sam Worthington, is not really worth the effort to put up a fight about it. Unlike all of them, they are just getting their names known like every actor does actor does out there. In the past years, Nicholas Cage, Morgan Freeman, Nicole Kidman, Tom Cruise, Chris Farley (my favorite comedian of the 90's), David Spade and the other A-List actors had to progress in their acting career like everyone else. This is why these new actors and actresses are stepping up like those did.

Aren't stories supposed to be important in film too? The story and the way they are written are also portrayed 97% of the time in the films... Especially in direction. With the advanced technology in the computer effects of films, is if they are written in a digital world that really needs it. If it's fair to the viewers it's fair. If it's not fair, don't bother trying to understand the digital effects that are a part of the story in the film, at all. The computer effects, in a better under-statement, is the way to heighten the use in the story and, yes, the hype to the viewers. It is in conjunction of both the attention and the way they are marketed out there. If the direction, story and how it's written fits, it's a never a problem to the dialogue when it comes to the characters in it as well. The actors, portraying them, should not be picked at brutally by critics.

The film critics can make or break a film, but it's not just when a population of people that make mistakes and learn from them, directors and writers do that too.

A century, that produces ten to twenty or more generations, would have to understand and learn that from seeing these actors firmly build the foundations in their careers. So, do remakes lay out a reason for actors to introduce themselves better? Well, it all depends on what genre they fit in best or is more competitive to them and how well they pull it off in their career. Tom Hanks never played a role of a symbologist or a University professor in his acting career until 2006 with "The DaVinci Code" and 2009's "Angels & Demons." Mr. Hanks accepted the role in "The Lost Symbol" portraying Robert Langdon once again that's in TBA for 2011.

11 + 11 + 11 = 33 So typical like the site to the novel that reads: 9 + 15 + 09 = 34. It could be something like that in which Ron Howard has adapted the rights to the Robert Langdon adventure novels... If he could bear a date in mind that would equal up to 33 or 34, due to the site.

Adoptions to novels could help make or hurt the industry, but there is always a glimpse of light at the other end of the tunnel. Preparing the after-effect for the industry to heal later on, would get producers and agencies hungry for originals. In the meantime, it all depends if these remakes are worth the start in this century for these popping generations of kids, teens, and young adults being fascinated by the early culture remade digitally and remastered... Somehow, to even re-introduce new actors filling in for a start in their career.

Of course, all directors try to make films like those that have been done in the start of their career too. The managing, especially when it comes to producers, they have a voice in casting or any other. If they make an actor over-casted it is their problem. Actors read scripts and so do producers. Over-casting would be positive if it came to the actors part from wanting to accept a part in the script. The negative use would be through the producers behalf if they intentionally use that actor over and over. Everything is a quid-pro-quo when it comes to the actors part in marketing the film or the producers part due to over-using the actor.

With the generations booming these days, they would have a lot to learn on actors making a comeback or if it is a brand new one. The answer is that observations would help those understand. If it's a remake that "Clash"-es, it could be the directors or writers fault.