Congratulations. You've just had one of the worst takes I've ever seen. He's one of the best character actors working, period. Vice Principles, The Righteous Gemstones, Justified, Hateful 8, he's great in The Shield. I don't think he's ever actually been bad, and most of the time, he's better than everyone else in the project he's in.
No accounting for taste really. You could feel Day Lewis, Philip Seymour Hoffman, or Brando are bad actors, there’s definitely people that do - that’s your right and your opinion. However most would disagree with you, especially professional actors.
He always plays a certain style of character, but he's just a cool guy. Sometimes all you really need is someone with charisma that makes a show entertaining, and that's what he always does in everything. Sons of Anarchy, Hateful Eight, Justified. He pretty much steals attention and steals any scene he's in. I wouldn't say he's some amazing chameleon actor, but maybe he'll get a little more opportunity after the breakout success of this.
Vice Principals was a great show.
Vice principal is one of his most underrated role because probably nobody watched the serial to begin with.
I don’t have to imagine because I did it. My point is acting is subjective. A few rando people think those three suck, and you think Goggins is simply an average actor - but these are all outlier opinions. Most everyone who’s actually worked in the industry professionally will tell you Goggins is legitimately a great actor. Your “range” criticism tells me you haven’t watched a lot of his work - (watch I’m a Virgo vs fallout vs hateful eight vs vice principals vs righteous gemstones for example) - how would you say his “range” compares to a Jack Nicholson or Christopher Walken? Do you think they are average as well? Theres a reason he’s in two Quentin Tarantino films - you don’t see it and that’s fine - but to pretend it’s a consensus or some absolute fact is where it becomes a little ridiculous
Yeah because it is a consensus he’s a great actor in the industry. Thats my whole point - just like it’s a consensus all those other names are great actors. You can hate their acting but its against the consensus - it’s an outlier opinion
There is absolutely a consensus that Walton Goggins is a good actor. He’s used by great directors, he’s achieved great acclaim. I’ve never even seen anyone say he’s not a good actor until neogaf. Consensus means general agreement, which means there are outliers, so yes, there is a consensus he’s a good actor. There is not a consensus that he’s a bad actor.
My man, do you know the definition of consensus? This isn’t a debate, there is a general agreement overall that he’s a very good actor. There’s no controversy here. You can disagree, but that doesn’t change that there is a consensus.
I do mean what I say - if you read what I wrote. It’s ridiculous to say he’s a middling actor unequivocally when the consensus is that he’s not - just like it would ridiculous to say Tommy Wiseau is an incredible actor - when the consensus is that he’s not - you can have an outlier opinion but it’s an outlier. Theres no hypocrisy.
I’m curious if there’s a single instance recorded anywhere of someone thinking Walton Goggins giving a bad performance. I did a google search for “Walton goggins overrated” and “Walton goggins bad performance” and I got nothing but praise/the opposite. I know there’s at least one here on neogaf.
So an average actor gets nominated for a primetime Emmy somehow? How does that work? Youre talking about an industry with hundreds of thousands of people in it - The leading actor vs character actor distinction really doesn’t mean much because he’s a character actor. If you lead movies it doesn’t mean you’re a better actor - it’s not like Channing Tatum or the Rock are better than Philip Seymour Hoffman.
In a lot of ways, it is much more difficult to be a character actor than a leading actor. Most leading actors usually play similar versions of the same character in all their movies. Hollywood greats like Gary Oldman or Ed Harris were supporting actors the vast majority of their careers and nobody would denigrate them for their lack of leading man roles. Same with Phillip Seymour Hoffman. When it comes to TV shows, I would much rather have a very good character actor than your average Hollywood leading man playing the part
It could be 50 years. If you’re nominated for an Emmy at some point in your career - chances are you are far above average.
Er, they have the technology to build airships and power armor. Making a shirt and a razer doesn't seem that hard in comparison.
Or the Shield. He could have a youtube channel with twelve years of him doing nothing but sewing and I wouldn't care-- his performance as Shane Vendrell was historic
I think he’s a good supporting actor but I wouldn’t be searching to watch movies or series he’s in. He has memorable facial feature and mannerisms.
That whole scene was hilariously bad. Especially when you find out how powerful the armor could be.
The Bethesda Fallout Experience™
Eh, I've seen people in power armor crumble against yao guai in Fallout 76. Not entirely unbelievable.
i don't think it's better than TLOU of personally, i think just overall the performances and quality as a standalone show for TLoU was far better than this.Finished it during lunch
Brilliant. I’m now waiting on season 2 big time. The Ghoul steals the show anytime he’s on screen, amazing presence, voice and just western badassery.
When is season 2 expected? I hope it’s confirmed there’s a season 2 at the very least.
I’ve enjoyed this more than any other game to tv adaptation. Even TLoU which I liked very much.
I’m reinstalling New Vegas
I feel this way. I think TLOU is the better show but I enjoyed Fallout more because it had an original story line. TLOU show was pretty much just a 1/1 adaptation of a game I knew every plot beat
