Ryan Gosling

It seems he's on pace toward eventually becoming Hollywood's biggest superstar. Personally I'm a fan! I think he's an EXCELLENT actor, and have yet to see him in a bad movie.

Just saw him in the movie Blue Valentine. Depressing ass movie, but Gosling was superb in it.

Thoughts?

 

man you want to fuck floyd

half nelson is by far his best movie/performance

 

Excellent actor. Don't know if he's interested in becoming the "biggest" star. He picks his movies well, and hasn't really strayed into blockbuster territory as of yet. The longer he avoids that, the better in my book.

 

Nobleart, Gosling is the lead in a movie called Drive, directed by the same guy who did Valhalla Rising. It's supposed to be awesome, it was screened at the Toronto Film Festival.

It's about a stunt driver who moonlights as a getaway driver.

 

Didn't realize it was the same director. I have seen some good reviews for it.

 

He was great in Lars and the Real Girl.

 

GTFOH

That'll never happen.

That place is reserved for:

Michael Fassbender! :bears:

 

Saw the poster and read the synopsis for Drive and thought it would be lame. Watched the trailer and now it's on my will watch list. Looks good.

By the way is it true that Gosling is Eva Mendez' boyfriend? If so he gets props for that alone.

 

Fassbender did a good job as Bobby Sands in a movie called "Hunger" ... though he didn't really look like Sands very much

 

Sly has a hard on for Fassbender.

I'm sorry Sly.... but I said STAR! Not all great actors are movie "stars". I dont think we'll ever see Fassbender become a star.

Gosling on the other hand will probably reach Johnny Depp/Brad Pitt level of stardom in a few years, if not sooner.

Hell, in the movie "Ides of March" he's being billed as THE star, over George Clooney.

 

gosling's good. blue valentine was a depressing ass movie though. half nelson wasn't exactly a 'feel good' movie either haha.

 

I mean STAR when I speak about Fassbender. He will be a star mark my words and it wont even take 3 years.

Gosling? He'll be forgotten in 2 years.

 

Fassbender is a great actor, but is too atypical to achieve superstar status. He has a more refined style... I could never see him playing the "action hero"-esque role that Gosling is able to play, and does very well in "Drive". Those kinds of roles, even though they may sometimes be insignificant to the actor themselves, always prove vital when trying to gain the sort of mass appeal that superstardom requires. Both can do drama fabulously, they have proven that. Also Fassbender really didn't even make it on the cinematic radar until Tarantino found him for "Inglorious Basterds" 2 years ago... Gosling has been in memorable roles for almost a DECADE more than that. He is far more established in the minds of moviegoers, and has far more name recognition, so he has a better chance going in to achieve more wide fame... and he's younger to boot.

Also Fassbender has really been working to eat for most of his career, whereas Gosling has been able to be extremely, extremely picky thus far. He has left more projects that I can count, and almost always picks directors/scripts he wants and knows are quality form the get-go. He actually WALKED OUT and Peter Jackson with regards to "The Lovely Bones".. unreal.... but the guy knows what he wants. If you look at their careers right now, there really isn't even a comparison. Gosling has had by far the more notable roles.

Fassbender will have continued success, but he is going to gravitate toward very good supporting roles and will be a reliable, quality, character actor. I see him ending up sort of like Stellan Starsgard - definitely an A-list actor, but not a superstar. Gosling is already almost there, and "Drive" is going to help him tremendously, he does a great job.

Gosling has already been around 5-6 times longer than "2 years" and has not only not been forgotten, he has gotten better and more widely known and respected. Fassbender has only just been on the world stage for 2 years... it is silly to say Gosling will be forgotten in 2 years, you could easily have said the same thing 2 years ago... 2 years before that... 2 years before that, and you would have been wrong every time. Fassbender on the other hand, he may indeed be forgotten in 2 years. There is next to nothing anchoring him in cinematic greatness.... let's see how he does over the next decade.

 

Neither would ever be STAR!!!

Gosling is too picky......he picks correctly, critically successful movies..but to be a STAR those movies he pick need to make a lot more millions...


Fassbender??? Fuck is wrong w/ you Sly? He was very good in Inglourious and Xmen...but come on really??

 

Gosling = Jake Gyllenhaal ...very good.....but a STAR? Not quite...

 

Stars are done. It's just like the Heavyweight division up in Hollywood. Many will wear the crown but few will hold it for a significant amount of time, and even those that do might not necessarily be stars. They'll be...Klitckoisque.

 

He was good in 300 also, even though it was a small role.

The dude is a star. He woul dbethe PERFECT "James Bond". I hope the Bond people realize this and offe rhim the role. He'll bring back the bond character to the early Connery days. Then his star status would take off.

 

Wow when you like a guy, you really do like a guy hunh DNM? And can't nobody tell you he's less than stellar. Because you'll argue against them for days on end, facts be damned.

 

When I'm a fan of a guy's talent it means that the guy is highly talented. It's never been proven otherwise.

Mayweather's career has proved his talent. Hopkins also. Jones also. Sampras, Nadal, Bolt. You name it. Which contrary "facts" do you speak of?

 

Small, but Somewhat MEMORABLE Role in "Remember the Titans"....



REED:mj:

 

He was in another very good but much smaller football movie called "The Slaughter Rule" also.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bo0FMvCnAO8" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

 

1. Gosling is ALREADY a bigger star than Gyllenhaal.

2. Gosling is a better actor than Gyllenhaal. Not to say Gyllenhaal is a bad actor. He's good, but Gosling is better and has more range.

 

Gosling was also very good in "Fracture" with Anthony Hopkins.

 

Sly says the DUMBEST shit sometimes.

Fassbender has nowhere near the crossover appeal Gosling has.

Gosling is in the same boat as Depp, Pitt, and Dicaprio in that he's a female heart throb that can actually ACT.

The combination of those two things will make him a household name in movies for YEARS to come.

Fassbender? He'll never be a leading man.

 

Not really sure about that. I would say they're about equal, if anything Jake is slightly bigger.

 

Fassbender is a better looking guy than Gosling.

And I disagree that he'll never be a leading man, he has all the qualities to be one.

 

I wont go any further with this. Debating over male looks screams of homo.

 

:giggle: you kidding right?

 

word.

Fassbender is also a better actor. Fassbender has far more potential than Gosling, IMO.

 

NO he is not....