Why all the Michael Cera hate?

[cheese_wizington]

It's just the fact he's the same person every time.

So is Clint Eastwood, but I'm guessing you don't mind that.

OP: As for Cera, I like him. He's a good actor.

A few major differences between Micheal Cera and Clint Eastwood

1. Clint is badass. Cera is just.... a normal kid.
2. Clint can act well. Cera... not so much.
3. The role Clint plays is about 10,000 times more fun to watch then Cera's.
4. Cera's movies are normally of lower quality then Eastwoods.

1. That's because Clint plays cowboys. Cera plays real people.
2. Cera actually can act. He can act his one part very, very well.
3. OK, you got me there. Unless you count Scott Pilgrim, I mean, COME ON!
4. By that do you mean the quality of the film as in budget or the quality of the film as in it's entertainment value? Considering The Dollar Trilogy was actually really low budget, Cera's movies are FAR better quality then Clint's early stuff.

Budget does not equal quality. I mean to say that Clint's movies are simply better.

 

[neuromantic]

I personally think he's great, I loved him in Superbad but then thats the only film I've ever seen him in.
From trailers I've seen, he does seem to play the same guy in every film so I'm not sure how much I would like him if I saw him do the same trick over and over again.

But then, plenty of actors these days seem to play the same guy in every film... Jack Black springs to mind..

Well, he can't play an awkward teen forever! We'll have to wait and see if he grows with time and takes on more challenging roles, or if he cracks and falls into obscurity.

 

[The Austin]

Don't worry, you didn't sound hostile at all. I've been on The Escapist long enough to know that most people on here have good intentions.

And here's a new analogy: Katana is too samurai sword as Klenex is to tissue paper.
Does that work?

Say, wasn't I just talking to you about my friend who didn't know what Citizen Caine was?

As a matter of fact, I think you were. And sure, that analogy works well enough, if only because it's not worth the effort to argue about it more.

Edit: Take that back. Nicolas Cage is easily the best Batman ever.

Nicholas Cage was Batman?

 

[Agayek]

Nicholas Cage was Batman?

In Kick-Ass he was Big Daddy, which was essentially Batman as he would have been if he were real.

 

[Lem0nade Inlay]

I think he's pretty damn awesome. I don't know how you can hate him, he seems like such a nice guy.

I'm with you buddy, I think he's great. He's probably my favourite actor at the moment.

 

[The Austin]

It's just the fact he's the same person every time.

So is Clint Eastwood, but I'm guessing you don't mind that.

OP: As for Cera, I like him. He's a good actor.

A few major differences between Micheal Cera and Clint Eastwood

1. Clint is badass. Cera is just.... a normal kid.
2. Clint can act well. Cera... not so much.
3. The role Clint plays is about 10,000 times more fun to watch then Cera's.
4. Cera's movies are normally of lower quality then Eastwoods.

1. That's because Clint plays cowboys. Cera plays real people.
2. Cera actually can act. He can act his one part very, very well.
3. OK, you got me there. Unless you count Scott Pilgrim, I mean, COME ON!
4. By that do you mean the quality of the film as in budget or the quality of the film as in it's entertainment value? Considering The Dollar Trilogy was actually really low budget, Cera's movies are FAR better quality then Clint's early stuff.

Budget does not equal quality. I mean to say that Clint's movies are simply better.

Actually, budget DOES equal quality. I'm sure we can both agree that a movie with a million dollar budget would look significantly better than a $2,567 movie, but I digress....

And you're right. Clint's movies are better, but that doesn't mean that Cera is bad. That's like saying that the Genesis sucks just because the Super Nintendo was better.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Spoiler

Yeah, he's like Nicholas Cage in that regard, I can't take them seriously as any type of action heroes.

Not even I can take Nicholas Care seriously.

Who can?

 

[The Austin]

Nicholas Cage was Batman?

In Kick-Ass he was Big Daddy, which was essentially Batman as he would have been if he were real.

Ah, that's right. Unfortunately, I will always have National Treasure burned into my mind.

While not a bad movie, it's plot was so ridiculous and concluded that I can never take N.C. seriously again.

 

[cheese_wizington]

It's just the fact he's the same person every time.

So is Clint Eastwood, but I'm guessing you don't mind that.

OP: As for Cera, I like him. He's a good actor.

A few major differences between Micheal Cera and Clint Eastwood

1. Clint is badass. Cera is just.... a normal kid.
2. Clint can act well. Cera... not so much.
3. The role Clint plays is about 10,000 times more fun to watch then Cera's.
4. Cera's movies are normally of lower quality then Eastwoods.

1. That's because Clint plays cowboys. Cera plays real people.
2. Cera actually can act. He can act his one part very, very well.
3. OK, you got me there. Unless you count Scott Pilgrim, I mean, COME ON!
4. By that do you mean the quality of the film as in budget or the quality of the film as in it's entertainment value? Considering The Dollar Trilogy was actually really low budget, Cera's movies are FAR better quality then Clint's early stuff.

Budget does not equal quality. I mean to say that Clint's movies are simply better.

Actually, budget DOES equal quality. I'm sure we can both agree that a movie with a million dollar budget would look significantly better than a $2,567 movie, but I digress....

And you're right. Clint's movies are better, but that doesn't mean that Cera is bad. That's like saying that the Genesis sucks just because the Super Nintendo was better.

A person has to be likeable in a film before I can actually like the film.

Micheal Cera just isn't very likeable to me, so he ruins the movies he's in.

 

[Dorian6]

I think it may have to do with the fact that he only plays one role.

Granted he plays it damn well. Though i like how he can play pretty much any and every musical instrument

 

[The Austin]

It's just the fact he's the same person every time.

So is Clint Eastwood, but I'm guessing you don't mind that.

OP: As for Cera, I like him. He's a good actor.

A few major differences between Micheal Cera and Clint Eastwood

1. Clint is badass. Cera is just.... a normal kid.
2. Clint can act well. Cera... not so much.
3. The role Clint plays is about 10,000 times more fun to watch then Cera's.
4. Cera's movies are normally of lower quality then Eastwoods.

1. That's because Clint plays cowboys. Cera plays real people.
2. Cera actually can act. He can act his one part very, very well.
3. OK, you got me there. Unless you count Scott Pilgrim, I mean, COME ON!
4. By that do you mean the quality of the film as in budget or the quality of the film as in it's entertainment value? Considering The Dollar Trilogy was actually really low budget, Cera's movies are FAR better quality then Clint's early stuff.

Budget does not equal quality. I mean to say that Clint's movies are simply better.

Actually, budget DOES equal quality. I'm sure we can both agree that a movie with a million dollar budget would look significantly better than a $2,567 movie, but I digress....

And you're right. Clint's movies are better, but that doesn't mean that Cera is bad. That's like saying that the Genesis sucks just because the Super Nintendo was better.

A person has to be likeable in a film before I can actually like the film.

Micheal Cera just isn't very likeable to me, so he ruins the movies he's in.

I know the feeling man. I feel the same way about Nick Cage.

 

[Turtleboy1017]

That kid REALLY has to work out. Like seriously, he is THE scrawniest 20-something year old I have ever seen in my life.

Also, I just think his acting is unbelievably boring. He shows no emotion whatsoever. He's like the opposite of Samuel Jackson. And since Samuel Jackson is awesome, Michael Cera has to suck.

 

[Jimmydanger]

It's just the fact he's the same person every time.

I totally agree instead of watching his lame regurgitation of every role he has ever done I'm going out to watch a movie that has actors with actual range and depth. That's why I'm seeing 'The Expendibles' with Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture, Steve Austin, Terry Crews and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

...Was that a joke or not, I can't tell...

Yeah it was a joke, but my perhaps too subtle point was that if these guys can get away with the characters/performances over and over why can't Cera. People should judge movies their quality not for who is in them and their similarity to past roles.

Except for Tom cruise movies I can't stand that guy.

 

[Dxz5roxg]

I just don't like him. Like people before me have said his voice is annoying and he's only played one character. Plus even if you replaced him in every movie he's ever been in the only one I would see over is Superbad. Maybe the type of movie he acts in is why I don't like him most.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I think he's awesome, he might not be an actor (since he's been playing himself for every movie he's been in), but he's good at what he does and I can respect that.

 

[Agayek]

Ah, that's right. Unfortunately, I will always have National Treasure burned into my mind.

While not a bad movie, it's plot was so ridiculous and concluded that I can never take N.C. seriously again.

Fair enough. National Treasure was an incredibly silly movie.

Also, I just think his acting is unbelievably boring. He shows no emotion whatsoever. He's like the opposite of Samuel Jackson. And since Samuel Jackson is awesome, Michael Cera has to suck.

I've no idea why, but reading that suddenly brought to mind that Dave Chappelle skit for the Samuel Jackson beer, performed by Cera. And it is hilarious. Video for reference:

 

[No Good Names Left]

Some people have a face that makes you furious. It evokes an irrational and primal feeling that just makes you want to punch them.

Spoiler: Michael Cera has that kind of face

At least that's my reasoning.

I agree, just something about that guys face makes me want to punch him...

That picture caused me to my Justin Bieber reaction.
His face, its so... punchable!

 

[Mr. Grey]

From what I understand regarding him as a person he's a very decent fellow.

As an actor... he's pretty much type-casted. Anything he gets will be that role so no one can mutilate the golden goose.

That's Hollywood. Maybe he'll finally stop reverse aging and get taken seriously. Till then, Quizboy will be a very lucrative role for him should Venture Brothers ever become live action... [small]of which I don't look forward to as a reality...[/small] He'd be perfect for it, admit it. He's got the whole awkward thing down. The speech can be taken care of in editing and so can his appearance.

And frankly, from what I've seen of him he does his job without slowing anyone down. That's all I ask in an actor or actress.

 

[DustyDrB]

A lot of people on this site have a prejudice against anyone who listens to indie music (I don't know if he even does, but some of the movies he's in has some indie songs). Then they label those people hipsters (which is really a weak putdown that I don't even know what the negative connotations are. Reverse bandwagoners, maybe?).

They say "he plays the same role over and over", but I'm sure we can find an actor they like who does the same thing because it happens all the time.