That shaved-head, hulking look is just for guards and secondary villains. It's a dopey, evil henchman cannon-fodder look, seen in real life mainly on bored, beer-drinking dads at Peter Piper. Does not look heroic at all.
shareAgreed about Bautista, the guy is perfect in support roles but I cannot see him carry a movie. I cannot say exactly the same about the Rock, but you are not 100% wrong. He did a decent job both with Walking Tall and The Rundown. But yeah, he also fits more of a support role. But about Vin Diesel I disagree, this guy definitely can carry alone. Just look at the Riddick trilogy, just the last movie he is absolutely alone for half the movie and still I never got bored. Sure, he's not the best actor, but still every role he has is always entertaining, no matter how small/big.
shareWho had more of a "hulking look" than Arnold? Are you going to argue that Arnold wasn't a great lead for action films?
shareTHAT WAS MY THOUGHT EXACTLY.
shareNo. Arnold was big, but he still had the look of a hero. He doesn't look like the big anonymous dumb guy with an axe who cuts off heads for the evil king. He looked like the guy who cuts off the evil king's head and steals his crown.
shareTHAT MAKES NO SENSE..."THE LOOK OF A HERO"?...I THINK YOU MIGHT BE DEEP IN YOUR OWN OPINION'S ASS.🤔
shareHERO: https://www.cnet.com/a/img/443rzJEgqu-VdsaTHf5W7Kkai34=/940x0/2016/06/27/0f84a107-1c3c-4bb7-8937-8f058970f613/gettyimages-50370646.jpg
GOON: https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/dave-bautista.jpg
A lot of it has to do with Bautista's tiny cranium, signifying a deficit of intellect. Maybe this will help you to understand.
I actually sort of understand what you're saying, but I still disagree.
I think Vin Diesel is awesome as a leading hero in the right kind of film. I still think both he and The Rock should have been in Predators, and they should have used the Riddick character, while the Rock played a special forces squad leader. That would have rocked (no pun intended... or maybe it was?).
Anyway, The Rock is only good as a leading man in certain roles. I feel like he's too large a life character to play second fiddle, but also not really as interesting as Stallone or Arnold to carry a movie all on his own.
The Rock was actually pretty good as a deuterogonist in Doom, and I also liked him in The Rundown. He also did quite well in Hobbs & Shaw. I suppose in some ways you are right that The Rock's best roles are when he's paired with someone else rather than leading the film on his own (e.g., Hercules or Skyscraper).
Then again, I thought The Rock was perfect in Rampage. He was pretty badass in that and a lot of it relied on his stature and physicality. I don't think Bautista would have done as well in the role... I think he's a little too... sappy, dare I say.
Bautista, however, is the much better actor of the three, and has more range. I really wish they tapped more into his rage, though. It's rarely ever on-screen and when it is it's definitely believable (as evident in the very small segment where he raged out on the zombies in Army of the Dead). But yeah, he lacks the charisma to be a leading man, and he's never been given any scripts to lead convincingly. He was cool in Bushwick but he was still a supporting character, same as his role in Heist, where he was quite good, too. But that still sort of furthers your point about them not being good leads.
As others pointed out, Vin Diesel is magnetic, and he carried the best parts of Riddick. In fact, the entire film should have just been about him surviving alone on the planet with occasional soliloquies. I could dig that.
Of the guys I mentioned, Diesel comes closest to the heroic type.
I see The Rock as the archvillain's general and I see Bautista as the archvillain's brutal executioner.
I remember when Pitch Black and The Fast and the Furious came out, Vin Diesel was super popular and I would talk to people who thought he was cool as shit. I feel, however, like he hasn't been able to hold onto his coolness as time has gone on. Whereas guys like Arnold and Stallone have stayed cool and still exude the sense of being badass, Vin today feels like a parody of himself.
I think it's also telling that outside of a few franchises the dude can't sell a movie. If it's not a Fast & Furious, Pitch Black or xXx film, forget about it. It's going to tank at the box office.
The Rock is definitely charismatic and highly watchable, but there is a certain something--some X factor--that he lacks that guys like Arnold, Stallone and even Van Damme have. This will always hold him back from being truly one of the greats in the action business. This isn't to say that he's not good, but there's a line between good and great.
It's interesting that you perceive that Bautista is a better actor than The Rock or Vin Diesel. You're probably right and Bautista has proven himself to be a better actor than I would have expected. I do wonder sometimes if Vin might stealthily be a better actor than he's usually given credit for. Go watch him in Boiler Room or Find Me Guilty. I wonder what could've been, if he had done more films like those which allowed him to show off his dramatic abilities a little more than his usual action fare.
Gosh you bring up such excellent points.
You're right that Vin Diesel today is certainly not the guy he was 20 years ago (yes, I know people get older but this feeds into my next point). You're right that Arnold and Sly never really changed, yes they got older but that X-factor you mentioned is still with them, hence why people love the R-rated Expendables films, or why people even gave Genesys and Dark Fate a chance at the box office.
I have seen Vin Diesel in his more actor-oriented roles, and it's true that he showed a spark of talent that could have led him to an Oscar, but then... I think after he did Fast & Furious (4), it was all downhill from there. He was basically recycling the same character ad nauseum, he also gained a lot of weight, and not muscle (he was very big yet svelte in his younger years, not unlike Stallone, but then he just kind of got bloated).
And then yeah, anything that wasn't F&F or Riddick tanked and was also quite terrible. His movies also kept recycling the same plot formula (i.e., Last Witch Hunter and Blood Work almost the same movie with different MacGuffins).
I do wonder if Vinny D stayed in better (viz., thinner) shape if he would have expressed himself differently in a broader range of movies? He seems to be fine cashing in as a producer of the F&F movies to really care these days.
I think the big issue with The Rock is that he hasn't had any career-defining action roles, and he's essentially always playing a wise-cracking tough guy. I mean, I'm not complaining too much, but Arnold had great themes to bolster his character, the sci-fi action in Total Recall and Terminator, or the interesting set pieces and action sequences in True Lies or Predator.
I don't think The Rock has had one memorable action scene/sequence/moment that has really helped to (re)define his career, nor has he spouted any memorable one-liners. A lot of his action fanfare is entertaining but forgettable. I feel Bautista is in a similar boat, too.
If you want to see what is probably Vin Diesel's best example of pure acting, then go watch Find Me Guilty. It's strange in retrospect that Sidney Lumet even had the vision to cast him in that role, but he did and Vin did well with it. I've always wondered why he didn't do more non-action films -- was it his choice or were the roles just not offered?
You're right about the look. He definitely got softer as time went on and, with his facial features, this kind of just made him look goofy rather than imposing.
As you say, he seems these days to just be content with making boatloads of cash off the F&F franchise. Does he have any other artistic ambitions? If he does they're not evident.
You're correct about The Rock not having any career-defining roles. When we think of films like Terminator and Rocky, the Bourne franchise, John Wick, the Mission: Impossible movies, or Die Hard -- The Rock doesn't have anything like this. He doesn't even have any great one-offs like The Rock (the movie, not the man) or Total Recall or Face/Off or Speed. The closest he's come is . . . what? . . . The Scorpion King?
And even though I like the guy, I also find something vaguely off-putting about him. He's also smirking for the audience and I never can take him completely seriously. I get the sense that he thinks he's really, really fucking cool and that's something of a turn off.
Like I said though, I'm cool with The Rock at the end of the day. I don't dislike him and I watch almost all of his movies. He was great in Pain & Gain, which I think is one of his most underrated performances. Hopefully he'll one day meet with an A-level script and produce an action classic.
I've always wondered why he didn't do more non-action films -- was it his choice or were the roles just not offered?
He doesn't even have any great one-offs like The Rock (the movie, not the man) or Total Recall or Face/Off or Speed. The closest he's come is . . . what? . . . The Scorpion King?
I get the sense that he thinks he's really, really fucking cool and that's something of a turn off.
I knew that Vin and The Rock had problems, but I've never heard of Paul Walker saying anything negative about Vin. If that's the case that surprises me, because I've always understood them to be very close when Paul was still alive. (RIP Paul Walker)
Good question about the production rights. I guess it's impossible to say, but it would be interesting to know what would've happened if Vin had made some different choices. As you say, guys like Crowe and Butler have proven that they can do some of everything -- they can be action guys, but they can also handle dramatic roles or even step into romantic comedies. Vin's career, however, outside of a few exceptions has been very one-note.
Regarding The Rock, I actually kind of liked The Scorpion King. I think it's a fairly entertaining, if simple, old school adventure movie. But it's certainly not a classic and it's not the kind of film that's going to put someone in the action hall of fame.
For the most part I think he's made a lot of movies that are pretty okay. He makes them, I watch them, I enjoy them, but they're not the kind of movies that I'm going to go out of my way to rewatch and they're not going to be remembered as great films. I mean, Hercules? Pretty okay take on the mythical warrior. San Andreas? Pretty okay disaster movie. Journey 2: The Mysterious Island? Pretty okay family adventure.
The brightest spots arguably are all movies where he wasn't the lead but had more of a co-starring role, like Pain & Gain and Fast Five.
I knew that Vin and The Rock had problems, but I've never heard of Paul Walker saying anything negative about Vin. If that's the case that surprises me, because I've always understood them to be very close when Paul was still alive. (RIP Paul Walker)
The brightest spots arguably are all movies where he wasn't the lead but had more of a co-starring role, like Pain & Gain and Fast Five.
Well that's weird about Paul and Vin, and surprising. Sounds like Vin is either an egomaniac or deeply insecure. If that article is accurate about Vin feeling very bad after Paul's death then at least that means he has a conscience.
By all accounts, Paul Walker was a genuinely good dude. Sadly many of his movies weren't very good but I liked him.
I guess for The Rock either he just doesn't have it when it comes to being a great lead or he's being held back by not being given projects with great scripts made by great directors. I guess if he ever does catch a break and get cast in a film with a genuinely great creative team behind it then we'll see how it goes.
Since we are judging the three -
Vin Diesel can, or at least could act pretty darn well - Riddick trilogy and the first fast and furious films is where he stood out. The 20 sequels to FF is where he basically killed himself - horrible scripts, crappy acting - but kids still buy tickets, so he'll keep pumping them out.
The Rock - His best film, in terms of acting, is Snitch. That film alone makes me wonder if he may in fact be the best actor of the three. I honestly think that Dwayne J. has the most untapped potential as an actor - he can easily surpass Arnold, if he is given the right roles/scripts/director - but given the roles he keeps taking/is given, I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Bautista - Hmm.... haven't seen much work by him. He did quite well in this film in the first couple of minutes, but..... when they got to the poorly written/acted melodrama.... it really went downhill from there. The first few minutes make me think he can do a pretty damn good job being the lead in the right role.
At the end of the day, over the decades, I've seen great actors do shitty job under poor direction, and shitty actors do awesome job under good direction - picking the right director+script is the key to how well these 3 perform. It seems to me, director is like an NBA coach - in NBA, there are some coaches that keep getting the championship ring, even after changing teams. That makes me ponder if perhaps the coach is the most important component of a team and the deciding factor of whether the team will be awesome or shitty. Same goes for film directors - they can create legendary stars out of mediocrity or turn awesome actors into complete unknowns (if shitty director+new, really talented actor).