You know it's really fair to condemn someones entire future acting career based on their performance in their first movie. I think you'll find that the vast majority of "serious" actors didn't start out that way. They took the roles they could find, no matter how small or typecast, and worked their way up from there.Baresark said:I love how easily "nerds" are impressed. Sometimes "nerd culture" is so simple. Going by her age, is anyone surprised she played Pokemon or is aware of Goku or Superman. A couple of quotes and everyone is fumbling all over themselves.
She may be branching out into acting, but if she wants to be a serious actress, she should do something besides grunt and look mad at the camera. She is going to have a short and terrible career like Gina Carano, who did little more than that in most movies she was in. Ronda Rousey is already typecast. I watched Expendables 3, and there is no reason to have her do all those complex moves why she is being shot at, unless you want everyone to be sure of who she is when she is on screen. She is already the only woman in the Expendables and as such, is pretty recognizable. It was poor use of her if she wants to be a serious actress at any future time, and I can't help but feel it's going to be the exact same in the Fast & Furious film.
Plus, there's really only so much room at the top for "serious" actors because there are only so many parts available. But typecast supporting characters, there are tons of roles out there for those and the actors that play those parts can get plenty of work. Sure they may not get the multimillion dollar paydays for a single movie, but they can usually do pretty well and there's less stress since the success or failure of a movie usually falls on the lead actors, not the supporting roles. Also, doing more movies means more opportunities to meet new people and the more people you know the more work you can get. And occasionally a leading roll may come up that plays to that actors strengths.