[Rama Set]

The number of actors who seem like “not themself” from role to role is very small. It’s something people throw out when they just don’t like an actor and want to concoct a reason.

Exactly. Honk clearly just hates Momoa for some reason.

It’s because he is hot af. I hate him too.

Idaho was unironically one of the better characters in that movie and I thought Moma did great.

I thought so. He sold me on the empathy and respect he built for the Fremen, seemed to genuinely love Paul and House Atreiades. Could fight. 10/10 would cast again.

[Fortuna]

Saddam is just training to be a film journalist. Leave him alone

[honk]

Momoa can't emote. Well, he can show anger, but not much else. The scene where he reports on his scouting mission is the worst part. There are so many feelings he should be conveying at that moment - awe at the size and scale of the Fremen civilization, unease at his brush with death, admiration or envy of the Fremen's skill in combat - but instead he just casually smirks his way through every line. It's terrible. And that's my real issue with Momoa's acting. It's less that his characters are largely the same at their core and more that they all stay in the two lanes Momoa is comfortable with - yelling and fighting in action scenes and casual dudebro nonchalance in all other scenes.

[rooster]

I don't know, seems kinda in character to not emote that much. Just because you don't like his lanes doesn't mean he's awful. And I remember thinking it was obvious how much he respected the Fremens after his report. Sounds like a personal hang up tbh

[Rama Set]

Ah yes, elite military personnel and their emotional field reports. Makes total sense.

[honk]

I don't know, seems kinda in character to not emote that much. Just because you don't like his lanes doesn't mean he's awful. And I remember thinking it was obvious how much he respected the Fremens after his report. Sounds like a personal hang up tbh

Of course it's personal, seeing how Momoa is inexplicably a huge star despite his lack of any real acting talent. As I said, if you like Momoa, then you'll like him here. He once more does his usual Momoa shtick, which I guess is exactly what his fans want from him.

Ah yes, elite military personnel and their emotional field reports. Makes total sense.

Oh, please. There is nothing even remotely professional, realistic, or sensible about Momoa's character. His entire role is filtered through his dudebro persona, and this scene is no different. He grins and chuckles his way through the whole thing, giving off the exact same energy he would if he were telling his buddies about a wild night he spent drinking. And yes, I think he should have been conveying some emotions or feelings about what he experienced. Not that he should have broken down weeping, but his tone of voice could have changed, his expression could have shifted somewhat, and the like. A good actor would have done those things, and not only would it have been perfectly realistic, it would have made the scene - our first real introduction to the Fremen, remember - considerably stronger.

[rooster]

His expression and tone did change. Why are you so butthurt? Go watch an actual bad movie.

[honk]

His expression and tone did change.

I feel like you're taking what I said out of context with a reply like this. I'm aware that Momoa's expression and tone changed during the scene, as indicated by my criticism of Momoa smirking and chuckling his way through the report with his usual dudebro nonchalance. When I said that "his tone of voice could have changed, his expression could have shifted somewhat," I was talking about what a good actor would do to convey the emotions or feelings his mission brought up in him. The contrast was with Momoa handling the scene like he's just chilling with his friends, not with Momoa showing no emotion whatsoever and reciting his lines robotically.

Why are you so butthurt? Go watch an actual bad movie.

I don't know why you'd think I'm butthurt about any of this. I enjoyed the movie a lot and simply criticized Momoa for being a poor actor whose performance was the film's low point. I even conceded that Momoa's fans would almost certainly like his role, given that it's Momoa doing his usual Momoa thing.

[Rama Set]

He’s not a poor actor, that’s why you seem so butthurt. A good actor would not make a meal of a scene of exposition; it wasn’t the introduction to the Fremen, that was in Paul’s visions, and Villeneuve rightly saved the impact of the Fremen for
Javier Bardems scene with Duke Atreiades, show don’t tell. Momoa was there to pass on some information, not win an Oscar. He understood that and Villeneuve understood that, so you got a simple scene with some of Momoa’s charisma, which you don’t like because it’s too “dude bro” which doesn’t mean much.

[rooster]

He’s not a poor actor, that’s why you seem so butthurt.

Literally this.

I know what Saddam is getting at, but he's not a bad actor. I understand why someone doesn't like the characters he's suited for, but again, it's not bad acting. Like the Conan the Barbarian reboot. He actually did a fantastic job as Conan but I don't think people liked it because he didn't have the same cheese ball energy Arnold had. However, he was actually a MUCH better Conan and I say that as someone who has read almost all of the original Conan stories.

Saddam just didn't like his version of Idaho and it is what it is. But he wasn't bad and is no where near terrible.

[honk]

He’s not a poor actor

Well, this is where we disagree. Momoa is a likable screen presence, but his acting ability could be described most generously as very limited. This really isn't an especially controversial opinion. Momoa's looks and charisma are what made him the star he is today, not his dramatic chops.

A good actor would not make a meal of a scene of exposition...Momoa was there to pass on some information, not win an Oscar. He understood that and Villeneuve understood that, so you got a simple scene with some of Momoa’s charisma, which you don’t like because it’s too “dude bro” which doesn’t mean much

If something is worth doing, then it's worth doing well. Even if it's just exposition. I'm not saying that Momoa should have chewed the scenery or tried to make the whole scene about himself the way that someone like Jared Leto would have done. I'm simply saying that he could have effectively acted as he recited his lines of exposition, rather than remaining firmly in Momoa-mode (Moamode?).

it wasn’t the introduction to the Fremen, that was in Paul’s visions, and Villeneuve rightly saved the impact of the Fremen for Javier Bardems scene with Duke Atreiades, show don’t tell.

Okay, so this reads as a little contradictory to me, but I'll just ignore that - Paul's hazy visions of a couple of Fremen standing in front of him holding bloody knives was hardly a real introduction to the Fremen, and I think that a good performance from Momoa would have made Stilgar's subsequent introduction resonate more. It's interesting that you mention "show, don't tell," because that's the basic gist of what I think would have improved the scene. Effective nonverbal acting from Momoa would show us how impressed he is by the Fremen and how deeply he's come to respect them, instead of just having to rely on dialogue to tell us how impressed he is by the Fremen and how deeply he's come to respect them.

Like the Conan the Barbarian reboot. He actually did a fantastic job as Conan but I don't think people liked it because he didn't have the same cheese ball energy Arnold had. However, he was actually a MUCH better Conan and I say that as someone who has read almost all of the original Conan stories.

Greetings, fellow generic fantasy fan.

[Rama Set]

He’s not a poor actor

Well, this is where we disagree. Momoa is a likable screen presence, but his acting ability could be described most generously as very limited. This really isn't an especially controversial opinion. Momoa's looks and charisma are what made him the star he is today, not his dramatic chops.

He did a lot of scenes in Game of Thrones without speaking where he conveyed a lot about his relationship with Danerys. It’s not easy and he pulled it off really well. Momoa is an actor who made his mark by portraying parts with physicality and has shown chops in that, seen clearly in his fight scenes. I polled some reviews about him and I couldn’t see any negativity about him either. I imagine there is some hate for him on Reddit, because Reddit, but that’s not really indicative of a consensus.

If something is worth doing, then it's worth doing well. Even if it's just exposition. I'm not saying that Momoa should have chewed the scenery or tried to make the whole scene about himself the way that someone like Jared Leto would have done.

Exposition should be dealt with quickly and efficiently. Which he did. That’s about as effective as it gets. Honestly, you don’t really want exposition to be drawn out in any way because it’s not written for any purpose than delivering information. I still got the sense that he respected and awed by the Fremen. There is zero need to add dramatic content to this scene. The movie already has a pretty heavy handed tone.

Okay, so this reads as a little contradictory to me, but I'll just ignore that

It wasn’t.

- Paul's hazy visions of a couple of Fremen standing in front of him holding bloody knives was hardly a real introduction to the Fremen,

It was at least as much of an introduction as the Momoa scene, if not more. It showed you a fierce people living in the desert and showed that they played a massive role in the movie thematically.

and I think that a good performance from Momoa would have made Stilgar's subsequent introduction resonate more.

Why do you think that?

It's interesting that you mention "show, don't tell," because that's the basic gist of what I think would have improved the scene. Effective nonverbal acting from Momoa would show us how impressed he is by the Fremen and how deeply he's come to respect them, instead of just having to rely on dialogue to tell us how impressed he is by the Fremen and how deeply he's come to respect them.

You are trying to make a scene that wasn’t written. The scene is a reunion where stories are shared. It’s meant to be light hearted, which is why Brolin also makes “dudebro” jokes. Duncan talks about how legit the Fremen are and they move on. The part you want in this scene is in the scene with Bardem. Why double down? There is already too much material to get through, being precious by trying to add dramatic heft to every scene would bog it down.

It’s also worth noting that not all characters should have deep emotional lives. The actors are trying to portray authentic people in extraordinary circumstances and within that you will find people who are emotionally shallow. I find it interesting that you accuse Momoa of this but never mention Bautista. His portrayal didn’t exhibit a ton of range; I don’t think it needed to and Bautista doesn’t even have the charisma of someone like Momoa.

[rooster]

Greetings, fellow generic fantasy fan.

How dare you. Robert E Howard created the character in 1932. Show some fucking respect.

[Rama Set]

Greetings, fellow generic fantasy fan.

How dare you. Robert E Howard created the character in 1932. Show some fucking respect.

He sounds like a dudebro.

[honk]

He did a lot of scenes in Game of Thrones without speaking where he conveyed a lot about his relationship with Danerys. It’s not easy and he pulled it off really well. Momoa is an actor who made his mark by portraying parts with physicality and has shown chops in that, seen clearly in his fight scenes.

Fair enough. Momoa is very physically capable and excels in action scenes.

Exposition should be dealt with quickly and efficiently. Which he did. That’s about as effective as it gets. Honestly, you don’t really want exposition to be drawn out in any way because it’s not written for any purpose than delivering information. I still got the sense that he respected and awed by the Fremen. There is zero need to add dramatic content to this scene. The movie already has a pretty heavy handed tone.

...

You are trying to make a scene that wasn’t written. The scene is a reunion where stories are shared. It’s meant to be light hearted, which is why Brolin also makes “dudebro” jokes. Duncan talks about how legit the Fremen are and they move on. The part you want in this scene is in the scene with Bardem. Why double down? There is already too much material to get through, being precious by trying to add dramatic heft to every scene would bog it down.

It’s also worth noting that not all characters should have deep emotional lives. The actors are trying to portray authentic people in extraordinary circumstances and within that you will find people who are emotionally shallow.

I couldn't possibly disagree more with all of this. Every scene in a movie is important. Every scene should be done to the best of everyone's abilities. Every actor should give the best performance they can. I fundamentally do not believe that lame dialogue should be overlooked on the grounds that it's just exposition and a necessary evil, or that a dull scene should be shrugged off because it's just setting the stage for what's to follow, or that a halfhearted performance should be handwaved away because hey, maybe that character is just emotionally shallow, nothing to see here, move along. The film is the sum of its parts, both good and bad. Every line of dialogue, every scene, every character, and every performance are what make the film. If a certain scene feels it like it's only there because it has to be, and it's just something that you want to get over with quickly, then the movie has a problem.

I find it interesting that you accuse Momoa of this but never mention Bautista. His portrayal didn’t exhibit a ton of range; I don’t think it needed to and Bautista doesn’t even have the charisma of someone like Momoa.

Bautista has hardly a minute of screen time and only one or two lines, so his performance barely registered with me. But while Bautista isn't a particularly good actor either, he at least tries to give the appropriate performance for whatever role he's in. For better or worse, he doesn't just play essentially the same character every time.

Greetings, fellow generic fantasy fan.

How dare you. Robert E Howard created the character in 1932. Show some fucking respect.

I appropriated "generic fantasy" from Rushy a long time ago and now use it as a term of endearment. I have great respect for Howard as a pioneer of early heroic fantasy/sword and sorcery. One of these days I'm going to write a big post in the books thread where I talk about various fantasy writers from the early twentieth century and how Tolkien was not in fact the first author to write - or even achieve great success from - fantasy. Howard definitely has a place there, although I have to say on a personal note that I find him to be one of the least interesting of the early fantasists. His prose is overly ponderous and self-serious, he had an annoying tendency to repeat basic plots over and over, his racism certainly hasn't aged well, and Conan himself often comes across as just plain unlikable. Still, there's plenty of great fantasy out there that owes a lot to his influence. I like to think that Conan walked so that Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser could run.

He sounds like a dudebro.

[Rama Set]

I couldn't possibly disagree more with all of this. Every scene in a movie is important. Every scene should be done to the best of everyone's abilities. Every actor should give the best performance they can. I fundamentally do not believe that lame dialogue should be overlooked on the grounds that it's just exposition and a necessary evil, or that a dull scene should be shrugged off because it's just setting the stage for what's to follow, or that a halfhearted performance should be handwaved away because hey, maybe that character is just emotionally shallow, nothing to see here, move along. The film is the sum of its parts, both good and bad. Every line of dialogue, every scene, every character, and every performance are what make the film. If a certain scene feels it like it's only there because it has to be, and it's just something that you want to get over with quickly, then the movie has a problem.

I never said any of that.  I dont think anything should be overlooked, but not every scene is there to be mined for emotional and dramatic importance either. Some scenes have very simple purposes, and do not require as much from the performers.  Your characterization of Momoa as "half-hearted" is not something you could ever substantiate so you may want to drop it.  You don't get offers for work like he gets if you are dogging it.  It seems to underly the butt hurt you have from him though.  Also, if you think characters having varying emotional depth is handwaving then you may want to go back and have a look at fictional characters again because it's just a fact.

[rooster]

Welp, I have absolutely no desire to ever read your opinions on fantasy if that's how you feel about Conan.

And it definitely makes sense why you dislike Jason Momoa.

[honk]

I never said any of that.  I dont think anything should be overlooked, but not every scene is there to be mined for emotional and dramatic importance either. Some scenes have very simple purposes, and do not require as much from the performers.

If a scene is being acted at all, then it should be acted well. Not acted more, acted well. In my view, Momoa's acting in that scene - and in pretty much every non-action scene he was in - was poor not because he didn't act more, but because he didn't act well. I don't think I can put it any more simply than that. I don't drop my standards for any scenes when I watch a movie, and with this movie in particular, I never needed to, because every main actor aside from Momoa gave a great performance in every scene. Even when it wasn't an especially dramatic scene. Even when they were delivering exposition.

Your characterization of Momoa as "half-hearted" is not something you could ever substantiate so you may want to drop it.  You don't get offers for work like he gets if you are dogging it.

Nothing about calling Momoa's performance half-hearted suggests that he himself is overall a lazy or apathetic person, but nevertheless, Momoa's usual line delivery is by its very nature low-effort, because his laid-back, easygoing persona is part of his charm. I don't think it's good acting, but it's clearly popular, and that's why he's had the success he's had.

Also, if you think characters having varying emotional depth is handwaving then you may want to go back and have a look at fictional characters again because it's just a fact.

Of course, but in this case, it's just coming up as an after-the-fact rationalization of a poor performance. If Duncan in particular is meant to be emotionally shallow, the logical question to ask is why, and an answer of "because otherwise it means Momoa would have given a bad performance" isn't good enough. Characteristics are there to serve the story, and they can and should be excised if they aren't doing that. So why does Duncan smirk his way through his report with the same energy he'd give off if he were asking his buddies to meet him at the local bar for drinks? Is it for comedic effect? No. Duncan clearly isn't taking anything that happened to him seriously, but there's nothing about his report that's particularly ha-ha funny. Is it meant to provide a contrast with the more serious characters he's making his report to? No. Those characters don't really respond or show any particular reaction to Duncan's demeanor. Is it meant to provide a contrast with Stilgar's subsequent appearance? Also no. Stilgar does clash with the other characters, but it doesn't really have anything to do with how Duncan presented his report. In short, I don't believe that Duncan is simply meant to be emotionally shallow, and I certainly don't believe that he was ever intended to be the dudebro Momoa portrayed him as until Momoa ended up in the role. The end result is that we have a bad actor giving a bad performance in a room surrounded by great actors giving great performances.

Welp, I have absolutely no desire to ever read your opinions on fantasy if that's how you feel about Conan.

And it definitely makes sense why you dislike Jason Momoa.

Oh, come on, can you honestly say I'm wrong? There are some stories in which Conan is an absolute cock. "The God in the Bowl," for instance. Conan maims multiple innocent guardsmen in that one. You know that's just not cool. And I haven't even seen the Conan movie with Momoa in it. Maybe I should watch it and report back.

[Rama Set]

We will just have to agree to disagree and throw down when the next Momoa epic hits the theatres.

[rooster]

Oh, come on, can you honestly say I'm wrong? There are some stories in which Conan is an absolute cock. "The God in the Bowl," for instance. Conan maims multiple innocent guardsmen in that one. You know that's just not cool. And I haven't even seen the Conan movie with Momoa in it. Maybe I should watch it and report back.

I meant more in that it seems like you don't quite get Conan or if you do get it then you don't like it but I do kinda think you miss the point a bit.

His prose is overly ponderous and self-serious, he had an annoying tendency to repeat basic plots over and over, his racism certainly hasn't aged well, and Conan himself often comes across as just plain unlikable. Still, there's plenty of great fantasy out there that owes a lot to his influence. I like to think that Conan walked so that Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser could run.

Conan is great because he reads a bit like a demigod/hero from old mythologies. Complete with self-serious and repeating basic plots. Conan is definitely highly unlikeable at times but that's what makes him fantastic. He's such an arrogant, violent, hypermasculine caricature and that's what makes him fun.

But I'm sure you'll hate Momoa as Conan as well even though he's actually perfect for the role. The rest of the movie has its downsides but I would have been thrilled to get a Conan series with Momoa.

So I found this awful video that for a second shows the scene you hate so much and the setting very much seems like "military dudes chilling." Nothing about his performance seemed out of place or anything like what you described. If he seemed too 'dudebro' well, the setting seems pretty dudebro and probably exactly what the director was angling for.