This would be a much easier discussion to have in person. Firstly, acting is subjective, but I can point out exact scenes and list facts, factors that weren't taken into account, etc., but that would take way too long to explain on a RU-vid comment, particularly when I disagreed with so many different points you each made and conclusions you both drew. However, perhaps I will film my own video response to you both and share it with you (I'm very busy with work and in my personal life so give me a few weeks to do this, although there is a chance I could do it sooner and put it out as early as this weekend). That would be much easier. I would likely remove the video when you are done viewing it though. I do want to start a RU-vid channel, but not necessarily about these types of topics.
After seeing how you handled responses to another one of the people who commented, I think I'll pass on making a video. I was going to post actual movie clips, provide excellent examples, and everything, but I don't think it's worth going out of my way, particularly when you guys don't seem open to objectively evaluating it and I have a full time career and family that takes precedent. Sorry. It's not really worth my time.
Adding my reply here, so that it's not hidden: I thought this was going to be a fair discussion about two great actors, and it was quite disappointing that you fell into preconceived and unfounded remarks about how the X-Men franchise is "trash". A more interesting discussion might have delved into whether Jackman's commitment to Wolverine has prevented him from getting some of the plum roles that Fassbender has received, and their two contrasting images - Fassbender has made a career of playing obsessed creeps while Jackman's roles have been a bit more heroic, or at worst, rogueish. So does that give Fassbender the edge in that he plays more "serious" parts? It'd be an interesting conversation. Instead, we got what you guys said.
You're hinging on a single line that we said... you do realize that they are both prominent characters within the X-Men universe? You seem to completely leave our entire discussion in the "drama" category unaddressed... It's possible that Jackman's commitments limited his possible roles, but those are choices that he made. Part of being a truly great actor is selecting a good role, see: Daniel Day Lewis. Fassbender still dominates the drama category, which is a stark difference between these two.
It is very subjective whether Fassbender "dominates" the drama category. The only film, other than X-Men, I ever liked his performance in was 12 Years A Slave. He also has a coldness about him, even when he is supposed to play warm characters on screen, that is a turn off for me. It is very similar to his interview personality, which I find quite dull. This coldness worked in 12 Years A Slave because he was playing a truly hideous person and nailed it. Personally, I find his acting range a bit limited for that reason, although I do think he is a great Magneto and that he was excellent in 12 Years A Slave. I thought he was okay as Steve Jobs. I do not feel his humanity when I watch him on screen. I do not connect with him. Jackman also has far more on screen charisma and natural charm, and believe it or not, those things are important too. I personally believe Hugh Jackman's performance in Les Miserables (which is what made me his fan) is better and more profound than anything Fassbender has ever done. Les Miserables is my favorite literary novel of all time, and Valjean is my favorite literary character, so I went into the movie thoroughly expecting to be disappointed because "Wolverine" was playing Jean Valjean, and instead, he ended up blowing me away, completely nailing the character in every single way and making me cry. There is more to acting than just "drama", by the way. For me, being well rounded and a phenomenal entertainer is more important than being just a great dramatic actor. Jackman nails it in romantic comedies like Kate & Leopold where he was so different from Wolverine. He can do uplifting family movies like Eddie the Eagle and The Greatest Showman. Honestly, he was so much joy to watch in The Greatest Showman, and Jackman has an ability to convey so much genuine emotion with just a facial expression. He reminds me of the great actors I admired from the 50s and 60s. I can look at his face and literally just tell what the character is thinking. He did this so well in The Greatest Showman and he does it so well in other films, too. He also is the best male crier I've seen on screen since Mel Gibson. Most actors look phony when they cry on screen. Jackman's crying is very real. There is a scene where he breaks down in The Fountain. It is some of the most vulnerable acting I have seen from a man. Even the scene in Prisoners where he is looking at the sock with blood and believes his daughter is dead ... he chokes up and it's so natural, so touching. The scene in The Greatest Showman where he apologizes to his wife towards the end on the beach - his emotions are so raw and genuine. The way he cried in Les Miserables - again, so raw and genuine and beautiful. Also, I consider someone truly great when they are very well rounded and able to switch genres effortlessly. Jackman can do that. Fassbender has not proven to me he can. Jackman was won a Tony Award on Broadway for his incredible performance in The Boy From Oz. He received a Lawrence Olivier Nomination for his wonderful performance as Curly in Oklahoma! To go from playing any of those characters to playing Wolverine believably is a stretch, and yet some how he managed to pull it off to the point of becoming iconic as Wolverine. He is hilarious, he can sing, he can dance, he is one of the best Oscar hosts we've had, and he can convincingly switch from playing one of the most flamboyant characters, Peter Allen, to being rough and gruff in other films like Prisoners. To me, that is what true talent is. And none of it is forced. If you think it is, you are in the minority, my friend. He reminds me of Cary Grant ... Gregory Peck... Gene Kelly ... he could fit in with those guys, and it would feel right. Also, Jackman nailed every single emotional and dramatic scene he had in 'Logan'. The nerve of you to say because he's played Wolverine so many times that the writing is the only thing that made 'Logan.' That was a character driven movie, and Jackman and Stewart both took their performances to another level. Mangold allowed them to shine with their immense talent (and Dafne Keen is gold). Jackman's performance in 'Logan' was far superior to his other X-Men performances, and that movie stands on its own separate from the other movies. It is a truly great movie from an objective standpoint. It is even among the top rated comic book movies of all time. I showed it to a couple of guys who have never seen the other movies, and they really enjoyed it to the point of wanting to buy it and said Jackman and Stewart gave performances worthy of Oscar nominations. I very much agree with them, and it was not an outlandish opinion. Believe me. I followed this. You claim that choosing better roles makes you a better actor? First you have to define "good role." That is so subjective. I only like 2 of Daniel Day Lewis's movies, but I still think he's a great actor. Critics say his roles are great. I disagree with critics on some of those movies. That is why many people don't watch as many Oscar nominated movies these days. Many of them are pretty boring, and I say this as someone who is very into film (movies like 12 Angry Men and Citizen Kane are far superior to most of the garbage that gets Oscars these days). Your take is a pretentious, hipster way of viewing acting. Most of Jackman's movies are enjoyable to people. He chooses movies that are close to home and does a lot of movies for his kids. Being a great dad is more important than choosing pretentious, boring roles that critics will obsess over. I would watch a Jackman film over most films that come out because at least I know he does films that are uplifting with positive messages and he's a joy to watch. Lastly, your entire section about best "Box Office" actor was complete garbage. You both were literally just picking which movies you personally liked and using that to make your decision. That category, by definition, should imply that the actor is the best box office draw ... that people are more likely to go see a movie simply because that actor is in it. Go look at box office mojo please. Movies STARRING Hugh Jackman, even unrelated to X-Men, make FAR more money than Fassbender movies. Jackman is an A-List movie star. Even a movie that was trashed by critics like The Greatest Showman, made $174 Million domestic at the box office because people fell in love with it. Real Steel, which you trashed, made more money than most of Fassbender's movies. And let's be real. Les Miserables made a lot of money. Logan is the 3rd highest grossing X-Men movie worldwide of all time despite being rated R, and that's accounting for Deadpool (which is #1). You can't use the excuse that Fassbender is in X-Men too for that one because Fassbender is not in it. People went to see that movie because of Jackman, and you know that. Lastly, more people went to see all the X-Men movies because Jackman was in them. That is why studios were so keen on even putting him in cameos. People want to see Wolverine, and they are in love with Jackman as Wolverine. First Class is the lowest grossing X-Men movie. Wolverine Origins may not have been great, but it made more money than Apocalypse (which I thought was terrible) domestically. You do the math. And to me, no actor has been more dedicated to a comic book role than Jackman was to Wolverine. As for the claim that X-Men movies are the "garbage" of the Marvel films ... you may want to do your research on that. In your opinions, sure - but objectively? No. Movies like Logan, X1, X2, Days of Future Past, Deadpool ... they are rated just as well - and even sometimes better than the other Marvel movies. And the arguable poor X-Men films like X3, Origins, and Apocalypse still have average ratings. This is not Fantastic Four. Don't be a dick.
I gave immense credit to Jackman in Les Mis and Prisoners. Prisoners is one of my favorite movies, after all. Jackman has been in a wider range of types of movies but not all of those roles are a good display of acting. Actor comparisons are difficult in the sense that we must be able to separate the actor from the writing, his support, and the film itself.
Excellent write-up on Les Mis and I completely agree that he killed that role. However, as you say, it is very subjective and I think that you place immense value in it since you loved the source content prior to seeing him perform. That goes one of two ways, so I'm glad you liked it. I would objectively argue that 12 Years a Slave and Hunger demonstrate a wider strictly acting ability, however. To your Logan point, he acted very well and it was a great movie. Let me pose you this question: if writing was not a decidedly important factor, why did Jackman not deliver the same level of quality in his multiple other iterations of the same character? To your Daniel Day Lewis point, role selection is different than film selection. If you were to watch DDL in a movie you dislike, could you appreciate his performance? For me, I always can, he is one of the best living. That is the difference. A movie is a collaboration, an actor is a single person in a single role. We must make the distinction for this analysis. Again, you keep talking about "films" rather than "roles." When Jackman chooses to do films for his kids, it results in shallow roles that do not allow him to flourish. This is what ultimately cost him this comparison. Your take on blockbusters... again... is focused on films over roles. We are talking about how well they acted in films that are large box office draws. We are not interested in if the actor themselves are the draw. To do so would be far too complex given the other ~20 actors, directors, and marketing for every movie that they are in. The X-Men universe is something Ill let you take up with Jay, I don't share his hatred of the universe and it is an aside. Thank you for your high effort comment, this is what we ultimately look for on our videos, even though we disagree. - Derek
