What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to SugarWIki/RuleOfSeanConnery

ZeronoKamen
topic
08:23:16 AM Apr 22nd 2012
Why do we even have a Rule of Keanu? From what I've seen, more and more of the actors who were previously in firm 'Keanu' category can and have been placed in the Cage section because, as we all know, art is subjective and some people do like the roles they play. Why bother to have a Keanu section at all?
ajh
topic
10:02:44 PM Apr 15th 2012
Suggestion: Turn negative multipliers into fractional ones. Or otherwise change the formula. See my above misplaced reply.
AlexanderHegelund
topic
05:18:07 PM Dec 8th 2011
edited by AlexanderHegelund
Tom Cruise really should be in firm Rule of Keanu category. He can't act, he's made tons of bad films, his personal adherence to the Cult of Happyology make him an unlikeable person, his destruction of the Mission: Impossible franchise by turning the films into a one man show, all of these make him hard to watch, to the point that Paramount terminated his contract because he was increasingly unpopular. All it boils down to is, Cruise has made a few good films

(I didn't write this, rather moved it from the maintrope as it was a discussion. Replies are also copied. Could the original authors please post elaborations or further discussions?)

AlexanderHegelund
05:19:33 PM Dec 8th 2011
YMMV since Cruise has been nominated for an Oscar twice and making the Mission Impossible franchise rely solely on his star power isn't really his idea. To be sure, he's made tons of bad films just like Sean Connery or Michael Caine, but the point is whether he rescues horrid films into mere bad ones. Being in a kooky religion (okay, a f&%$ked up cult) doesn't necessarily make him unlikeable but rather his several faux pas in promoting his krazy kult.
AlexanderHegelund
05:19:57 PM Dec 8th 2011
YMMV on whether being nominated for an Academy Award or even recognised by the commitee is a show of talent. As mentioned on his page Gary Oldman hasn't ever been nominated despite the fact that he is arguably one of the finest actors working today. Whereas Cruise, through the aforementioned cult, is very well connected and has some influence in that area. Making judgment on his films and visible talent alone, the good ones could have replaced him with any other actor, the horrid ones, or the bland ones, stuff like Legend certainly aren't saved by having Cruise in them. Plus, he's been nominated for as many Razzies as he has Oscars.
AlexanderHegelund
05:20:44 PM Dec 8th 2011
YMMV as the description "He can't act" doesn't really argue for his placement in the Keanu category. Cruise is loved for his roles in Top Gun, A Few Good Men, Mission: Impossible and many more, hence the argument could be made that as he's been recognized by the academy and has become a succesful actor, albeit with a huge sheet of roles on both sides of this spectrum, he is very well placed in the Cage category. (This is my own argument).

ajh
10:01:25 PM Apr 15th 2012
edited by ajh
Whoa, negative awesomeness multiplier?

That canít be right.

For example, _The Matrix_ is clearly a positive quantity of awesome ó†so whatever amount of awesomeness Keanu could have brought it down by, it could not possibly have been enough to make it negative.

May I humbly suggest you consider *fractional multipliers* instead of negative ones.
Tomwithnonumbers
topic
08:18:03 AM Sep 21st 2011
I think we need alphabetical folders in the subcategories. Way too many plus multiplayers and it's not like they shouldn't be there
Petrocorus
topic
02:46:09 PM Aug 23rd 2011
Considering the number of examples of good work for keanu Reeves, maybe we should move him in the Cage category. What do you think?
Drolyt
topic
03:56:16 PM May 31st 2011
Seems to me that despite the naming Reeves really belongs in the Cage category. He has had a lot of good roles. Also, Constantine shouldn't be compared to Hellblazer. Reeves' performance is good in that movie.
tundragrave
10:19:44 PM Apr 18th 2012
I agree. All the example of good movies he has done detract from him being the trope namer. Perhaps a better name would be The "Wiseau factor" after one of the worst actors in one of the worst films of all time. He makes Rob Scheinder look postively genius by comparison.
92.128.87.21
topic
09:26:10 AM Sep 17th 2010
edited by 92.128.87.21
Wouldn't a "negative multiplier" place a movie below the zero of awesomeness, right in So Bad, It's Horrible territory ?
Beside, would two bad actors actually make a better movie, in virtue of -5.-5.A = +25.A ?
ekimekim
01:32:28 PM Nov 7th 2010
Exactly what I was about to say. Rather, the awesomeness factor eg. for Keanu Reeves should be 1/5, not -5.

Nick Cage is a harder case, 1/5 to 5 doesn't imply a uniform distribution - how about e^(+/-2) instead? That way it ranges from e^2 (approx 7.4) to e^-2 (approx 0.14 or 1/7.4) with an average of e^0, which is 1.
Tomwithnonumbers
08:17:20 AM Sep 21st 2011
That's getting a little silly :D

Sides I feel a negative score is so bad it's brilliant territory whereas a low awesome score is so bad it's terrible.

So Keanu Reeves should be 1/5 but Nicholas Cage is truly plus/minus 5
LeighSabio
topic
08:17:21 PM Aug 8th 2010
This should be cut. Isn't it a lightning rod for complaining and gushing?
Madrugada
moderator
09:37:52 PM Aug 23rd 2010
Why? There's neither out-of-control complaining or gushing on the page.
Citizen
06:29:15 PM Aug 25th 2010
This should be cut. This is just gushing about tropers' favorite actors.
KiiriiXVI
08:36:24 AM Jul 26th 2011
It seems harmless enough so far, and there haven't been any Edit Wars that I can see. However, it should probably be given a YMMV or Trivia tag and/or moved to Just for Fun, just to be safe.
Darth
09:22:45 PM Sep 27th 2011
Agree that this should be made YMMV — there's at least one instance on the site where it's referred to as one of a certain movie's "few graces."
somerandomdude
07:37:49 AM Jan 8th 2012
Statalyzer
05:47:06 AM Dec 26th 2012
"This is just gushing about tropers' favorite actors. "

Definitely - and it's become so overused with way too many names on it that it's trope decayed itself into a completely meaningless list.
loracarol
topic
07:41:55 PM May 20th 2010
edited by loracarol
What do you guys think of adding Morgan Freeman to this list? After all- He played God.
SomeGuy
09:25:40 AM May 21st 2010
rbx5
topic
12:06:44 PM Apr 7th 2010
edited by rbx5
Personally, I think a further addendum should be made in the form of Nicolas Cage, aka The Great Variable. His presence in a film can drastically alter it's awesomeness for better or worse; to paraphrase Scott Adams, he's the Hollywood equivalent of nuclear power: he can be used for good or for evil, and you don't want to get him on you. Thoughts? I'll go ahead and add him on, but feel free to remove him if you don't think it works.
back to SugarWIki/RuleOfSeanConnery

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy