Christopher Lee, Ian McKellen, and Hugo Weaving. Lucky? Or just that good?

In the past 5 years, these 3 actors, have been involved in argueably 4 of the greatest movie trilogies/series of all-time.

Christopher Lee- LOTR Trilogy/Sauroman. SW PT/Count Dooku.

Ian Mckellen- LOTR Trilogy/Gandalf. X-Men Series/Magneto.

Hugo Weaving- LOTR Trilogy/Elrond. Matrix Trilogy/Agent Smith.

Are their acting skills that good, or are they just the luckiest actors that ever lived?

 

Christopher Lee: Good, look at the rest of his work.
Ian McKellen: Good, look at the rest of his work.
Hugo Weaving: Lucky, look at the rest of his work.


And Christopher Lee in particular has been in Star Wars (Count Dooku), Lord of the Rings (Saruman), James Bond (Scaramanga in "The Man with the Golden Gun"), and he IS Count Dracula.

 

I think that all three are lucky, because before they those films listed went to theaters, none of them were sure-fire successes. LOTR, in particular, was a huge gamble as many believed that the trilogy would tank, and that only the first part would actually go to theaters. X-Men had a solid fan base, but considering that it was a comic-book movie, no one was ever certain just who the target audience would be, and if anyone would actually turn out for the film. Matrix was a different type of animal, and could very possibly have fallen into the deep well of sci-fi films that went nowhere. Even after TPM, there was plenty of concern as to whether AOTC would be successful.

Ian McKellen: Great
Christopher Lee: Good
Hugo Weaving: Decent C-List actor

All of the above: Extremely Lucky

 

Hugo Weaving's not bad. Anyone seen Proof?

 

Yep, The Interview is good too. He's not a 'C-List' actor.

Does successful = Lucky? They have all done a lot of work to get where they are haven't they? And they are all quite charismatic and talented. ^.^

 

I think they're all good. Amongst those listed, I think Weaving's LOTR performance is the weakest but his Matrix is the best (and I'm no Matrix fan).

 

It's not so much luck as it is good choices, IMO.

 

True that today Weaving isn't C-list, if there ever was such a thing. However, before The Matrix and LOTR, he wasn't well known by any means, his works were not blockbuster smash hits, and he didn't have a great deal of name recognition. Even Mark Hamill was better known than him at the time, and he really scrapes the bottom of the "B-List". He really hasn't impressed me all that much with the acting of his which I have seen, so I said that he was "decent" and "C-List"

I would say that all of them are lucky. Even if they could make some educated guesses as to which projects would become successful, all three of those films or film sagas listed were very shaky and success was by no means guaranteed, or, in some cases, even predicted. So, I would say that they are all very lucky...lucky, or psychic.

 

If you mean 'C' for 'celebrity' rather than 'C' for 'crap', then I would agree with you, the Matrix and LOTR are what have made Hugo Weaving a 'name'. But just because they are 'blockbuster' films, doesn't mean they are the only work he has done worth recognition.

I don't class him as a secondary class actor because I have seen him give high class performances in many roles. They just weren't American 'blockbusters'.


You don't have to be a great talent to get a role in a huge movie. So many 'actors' I would consider Lucky to be in big films as they lack the presence and talent to carry off a good performance. But I don't class the three mentioned in that category, they are 'that good' and I guess lucky in the sense that the films were recieved so well, but they got the roles because of their talent, so I consider it more success that pure luck. ^^

 

LotR and The Matrix have only made Hugo Weaving a big name in America and the wider world stage. I've personnally admired his work since he did Bangkok Hilton with Nicole Kidman (who, coincidentally has not better since).

 

A-List, B-List, and C-List referrs to how well know the actor or actress is, it has nothing at all to do with their talent.

Julia Roberts, Ben Afleck, and other actors and actresses who appear daily in tabloids would be A-list.

B-list are well known actors and actresses who could be household names and who recieve a decent amount of press recognition, but are not so universally known as the A-list. Ian McKellan and Christopher Lee have been in this category for quite a while, and both are much better actors than many of the "A-List"

Then there is the C-list. Again, this has nothing to do with the actor or actresses' talent, but their name recognition. C-List names won't draw crowds just because they are in the film. You won't find "C-list" sections devoted to one actor or actress at your local Blockbuster Video Rental Store. These people typically fill the minor roles in films, and the roles which don't pay as much or don't have very important speaking roles. Hugo Weaving was C-List while filming LOTR, and so he was given the relatively minor role of Elrond, who does not have many lines but wouldn't be an appropriate role for an extra or a new graduate from acting school.

C certainly does not mean "Crap" and does not mean "Celebrity"

 

Personally, I think that they're all amazing actors and they also got kinda lucky with the parts they recieved.

THere's no one else who could really have pulled some of those parts off, especially for Gandalf and Smith and Saruman. It's like those parts were just made for those actors.

:Targeter:

 

Bruce Spence, while not nearly as good an actor as the other three, played in LotR, Matrix Revolutions, and Episode III of Star Wars. Small roles, maybe, but he's still the only one to be in all three major sci-fi series' third and last chapter.

 

I thought that Hugo Weaving did some good voice acting as Rex the sheep dog in "Babe".

 

Hugo Weaving has been A-List in Australia for years before LOTR or The Matrix. He just wasn't well known in the States. He wasn't lucky, he got the roles due to his hard work and great skills.

Christopher Lee is a B-grader.

 

Hugo's an underrated actor. While I wouldn't put him in the same category as McKellen and he certainly doesn't have that immediate presence of Lee, he is far from a talentless guy who just got lucky. After all, who could believe that Agent Smith and Mitzi Del Bra from Priscilla, Queen of the Desert are one and the same (or that Bernadette Bassenger is Chancellor Valorum, and General Zod, aka Terrence Stamp, for that matter)?

I hadn't realized he did Rex's voice, although in retrospect it should've been obvious as Hugo's got a distinctive voice. "You, Pig, seem to be leading two lives. In one, you're sad little creature who's going to be the next holiday meal and in the other, you think you're some kind of...sheep dog. One of these has a future..."

 

Christopher Lee is great! He's showed himself to be (in my opinion) the greatest actor of all time when it comes to portraying villains! A SHAME he was cut out of "Return of a King"!

Sir Ian McKellen was great in LOTR and X-Men and I know he was awarded a Golden Globe for best supporting role in "RASPUTIN", so I think he deserves the sucess and recognition he's had recently!

Hugo Weaving is perfect as Agent Smith, but I only find him a bit annoying as Elrond, and I can't remember to have seen him in any movies besides that...he's overrated in my opinion! Can't compete with McKellen or Lee!

 

How is Hugo Weaving even in the same sentence as Chris Lee and Ian McKellen? He sounds and looks the exact same in every movie he's in, that's not acting talent. Bah.

 

Lee is better than McKellan but just bearly.

Weaving? I don't really know.

 

How is Hugo Weaving even in the same sentence as Chris Lee and Ian McKellen? He sounds and looks the exact same in every movie he's in, that's not acting talent. Bah.

Spoken by someone who's only ever seen Hugo in LOTR and The Matrix. Go watch Proof or Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, then get back to us.

 

Weaving's portrayal of the Evil Bank President from Yahoo Serious' Reckless Kelly (1994) has aways seemed to be the inspiriation for Agent Smith IMO.

The scene at the end with his army of armed bankers towing the island to Japan is a classic!

 

By far it has to be the coolest thing in the world to claim playing both a wizard AND a jedi. Simply awesome.

 

Just that good o.0

 

What about John Rhys-Davies? He played 'Sallah' in two Indiana Jones films, has appeared as 'Gimli' in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Both franchises are amongst the most successfull in film history. Was he lucky, or just that good?!?

 

How is Hugo Weaving even in the same sentence as Chris Lee and Ian McKellen? He sounds and looks the exact same in every movie he's in, that's not acting talent. Bah.

Okay, i love Chris Lee, i really do.. But i think HE'S more guilty of your claim then Weaving is, by FAR..

Chris Lee has that presence going for him, but he is ALWAYS playing the SAME TYPE of character..


I'd rank'em thus:

Ian Mackellan has the most talent. Watch his performances in LOTR, then in X-Men, then in Apt Pupil. He's got the most pure acting talent.

Then i'd go Hugo Weaving. More talent then Chris Lee. He's had a tonne of variety in his performances, up until "LOTR"..


Finally i'd put Chris Lee.

All are on my list of actors i like, though...