Poll of the Day > Would You Rather No 21

(+) Yeah! (+)

Roleplay!
---

Play the lead in a shit movie because I could still do great and it could help me get roles in better movies in the future.
---

Depends. Granted, I guess a minor role in a blockbuster is more likely to advance my acting career which will get me going as a director and then finally a producer. At that point, I'll find countless investors to front me massive amounts of money and find a terrible script, hire the worst actors, and watch the movie tank while I'm on the plane to sunny Rio.
---

All of you already play the lead role in a shit movie

People will look at that shit movie and say "That person was the only good part of that movie!"
---

Jen0125 posted...

Play the lead in a shit movie because I could still do great and it could help me get roles in better movies in the future.

See, I voted for "minor role in blockbuster" because of that same logic... Hmm.
---

Golden Road posted...

People will look at that shit movie and say "That person was the only good part of that movie!"

This is a really nice post

TheCyborgNinja posted...

See, I voted for "minor role in blockbuster" because of that same logic... Hmm.

How often does anyone look at Restaurant Customer #3 and think "wow, what an amazing actor"? Less often than a lead role in a bad movie gets you noticed, anyway.
---

I'd guess it'd depend on whether or not it was my acting that made the movie shit haha.
---

Jen0125 posted...

Play the lead in a shit movie because I could still do great and it could help me get roles in better movies in the future.

This is my thoughts too. It's better to say you've played the main role in a film than never having played a main role at all. This gives you more chance to show off your acting skills too. That's not to say I'd go around signing up for every shit movie I could because that's a good way to destroy your reputation but between these choices it's the best of the two.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Jen0125 posted...

Play the lead in a shit movie because I could still do great and it could help me get roles in better movies in the future.

This is my thoughts too. It's better to say you've played the main role in a film than never having played a main role at all. This gives you more chance to show off your acting skills too. That's not to say I'd go around signing up for every shit movie I could because that's a good way to destroy your reputation but between these choices it's the best of the two.

However, you're less likely to get exposure from a shitty film. There are countless shitty movies where the lead only starred in that one film (eg, American Poltergeist 2, which I watched pretty recently and the lead probably could have done a lot better). Even Tommy Wiseau, whose shitty movie went viral and theoretically *could* have landed him some comedy roles, didn't have much of a career.
---

It depends on how minor the role, I guess... Like someone said, you might not get a chance to be in bigger movies if you were a literal background character with a hundred others on a random street or something. But if you were like in an elevator with the leads, it might help. Or if someone was looking for someone with your exact looks or something.
---

LinkPizza posted...

It depends on how minor the role, I guess... Like someone said, you might not get a chance to be in bigger movies if you were a literal background character with a hundred others on a random street or something. But if you were like in an elevator with the leads, it might help. Or if someone was looking for someone with your exact looks or something.

A background character isn't a minor role, that's just an extra. A minor role can vary between a supporting character all the way down to a character with a few lines of dialogue in a scene.
---

Zeus posted...

However, you're less likely to get exposure from a shitty film.

I disagree. I can't think of many if any minor role actors that I remember in their minor role. Major roles in films that might not have done well though I can think of quite a few.

Zeus posted...

A background character isn't a minor role, that's just an extra.

Yet a extra still has a minor role in a film.
---

Zeus posted...

LinkPizza posted...

It depends on how minor the role, I guess... Like someone said, you might not get a chance to be in bigger movies if you were a literal background character with a hundred others on a random street or something. But if you were like in an elevator with the leads, it might help. Or if someone was looking for someone with your exact looks or something.

A background character isn't a minor role, that's just an extra. A minor role can vary between a supporting character all the way down to a character with a few lines of dialogue in a scene.

The way he described it(very minor) makes me think it's not a real supporting character. Maybe a line or two if he's generous...
---

GanglyKhan posted...

All of you already play the lead role in a shit movie

---

wwinterj25 posted...

Zeus posted...

However, you're less likely to get exposure from a shitty film.

I disagree. I can't think of many if any minor role actors that I remember in their minor role. Major roles in films that might not have done well though I can think of quite a few.

You say that but you're unlikely to have even seen 99.99999999% of shitty movies. A small amount of exposure in a major film is far more likely to get you other roles than leading in something people are never going to watch. And there are a good number of fairly successful actors who predominantly work minor roles, in addition to all of the ones who got their break working a smaller role.

And the fact that you do or don't remember an actor in a minor role doesn't necessarily matter because you're not a producer or director.

wwinterj25 posted...

Zeus posted...

A background character isn't a minor role, that's just an extra.

Yet a extra still has a minor role in a film.

...but they refer to completely different things. A minor role has a distinct meaning that differs from extra which also has a distinct meaning.

LinkPizza posted...

Zeus posted...

LinkPizza posted...

It depends on how minor the role, I guess... Like someone said, you might not get a chance to be in bigger movies if you were a literal background character with a hundred others on a random street or something. But if you were like in an elevator with the leads, it might help. Or if someone was looking for someone with your exact looks or something.

A background character isn't a minor role, that's just an extra. A minor role can vary between a supporting character all the way down to a character with a few lines of dialogue in a scene.

The way he described it(very minor) makes me think it's not a real supporting character. Maybe a line or two if he's generous...

For a frame of reference, "Sandy" and her brother in this scene would both be considered minor characters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15_VliW6X1Q" data-time="

They appear very briefly and set up a plot point. The other guys with them are presumably just the stuntmen working as extras, while the background actors are just extras. (Not the greatest of examples, considering that Jack Reacher wasn't a massive blockbuster and the actors there had minor success before & after.)

Otherwise a minor role could be the lead's neighbor who pops up in a few scenes and has a few comic reactions. Or it could be the slightly creepy guy a character runs into while jogging who hangs out with them for a little while at the fairgrounds... which was Tom Hanks's first role.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGdYiqt2XQ0" data-time="

Granted, I guess it could also depend on the "shitty film" designation. He might be referring to a critical flop like The Last Airbender rather than say, The Last House on Hell Street (which ranks among the worst movies I've seen)

https://www.mondo-digital.com/hellst.html

Predictably the leads in that film went on to languish in obscurity before retiring from acting.
---

I'm not reading all that shit.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

I'm not reading all that shit.

My response to you was literally two paragraphs, the second of which is a sentence long.
---

You're only in a **** movie because you're washed up

... but you have a better than average chance of meeting Tara Reid :O
---

Zeus posted...

My response to you was literally two paragraphs, the second of which is a sentence long.

Yeah. Way too much reading for me.
---

I'm not saying minor actors in movies don't sometimes get recognized. I'm saying that the way he says(types) it makes it sound like very minor. Like friend in group of 5 that has maybe one line and isn't seen again for the rest of the movie. That's still a very minor role. And in that case, I'd rather be the lead in a shitty movie. But if the minor role is bigger, I would probably go with it. But it's hard to choose when the question is vague like this, I guess...
---

_PrincessZelda posted...

A minor role in a blockbuster movie. Or else I'd be forever known as that guy in that crappy movie.

Unless you get a better role afterwards...
---

Jen0125 posted...

Play the lead in a shit movie because I could still do great and it could help me get roles in better movies in the future.

Golden Road posted...

People will look at that shit movie and say "That person was the only good part of that movie!"

These.
---