NEVER BECAME A BIG STAR. WHY NOT?
-
twilightfun — 19 years ago(March 15, 2007 10:24 AM)
I am deeply surprised that Richard did not rise to be named one of the greatest. It just looked from what I've read, along with the little I've seen, that he was someone who could have been pushed into our memories as an all-timer. I mean, the guy had both the look as well as the ability. It just makes no sense to me that things did not happen the way many people now see how it seemingly should have. Obviously it wasn't meant to be that way, but it is something many will always wonder about. It's not like that special something not through observation of his very private life, but rather from what has been seen wasn't present. Well whatever, the man definitely holds the cards as a "should-have-been," as far as a great in American cinematic history. And we will probably never know why it didn't happen, although we'd love to.
-
millenniumgroup — 18 years ago(January 14, 2008 03:47 AM)
Most people thinks Hayden Christenson from star wars is a terrible actor, along with all the cast from one tree hill, ben affleck etc etc.. and they still get new parts.. you ever wonder why?
Hollywood isn't about talent anymore.. sorry but that's the truth.
"Wait!" "Worry" "Who Cares?"
www.alienexperience.com
tiwwa.info/ -
TheRealRandyWatson — 18 years ago(January 14, 2008 08:00 AM)
I've only seen him in Twin Peaks and i thought he was great as Benjamin Horne. When i recently rewatched the show i did indeed wondered whatever happened to him. It's a shame we don't really see him anymore cause i think he's a very cool actor(or at least as Benjamin Horne)
Hayden Christensen was terrible in Star Wars, but so was everybody(in the prequels that is)But he was excellent in Life as a House and Shattered Glass. And Ben Affleck can be a good actor if he's given the right part.
just because you've forgotten, that don't mean you're forgiven -
-
Shadowman1 — 16 years ago(February 11, 2010 07:45 AM)
Hollywood changed dramatically at the end of the 1960's - the studios were losing money and many either closed down or seriously scaled back their film production. Those actors that came along in the early 1960's were really at the tail-end of the studio system and many of them didnt make the transition to the new style of cinema that was being made in the 1970's (smaller budget, independent films, etc)
I think Richard Beymer was one of the casualties of this, but he wasn't the only one - Russ Tamblyn, George Chakiris, Tucker Smith - none of them really went on to have the careers they perhaps should have. Really, only Natalie Wood went on to have a big career, but then again she was a star even before she made West Side Story. -
NorthernSpruceForest — 16 years ago(April 05, 2010 07:41 AM)
Those are good points. I didn't see "Twim Peaks" but have seen Richard in other peformances, and he is great in them. Such a charming and versatile gentleman.
That really shines a negative light on that Hollywood system, where they dismiss great talents like Richard's and hype the phonies and hacks. That is nothing new, but it's still a tragedy that Richard Beymer and other great talents do not get the recognition which they rightfully deserve. -
DarthBill — 13 years ago(September 02, 2012 06:05 PM)
Could have been any number of things - bad choices, bad timing or bad luck as Shadowman1 points out what with the change in the Hollywood system.
Richard Beymer certainly isn't the only victim of bad luck in Hollywood. Just look at Michael Biehn, the hero of the original 1984 Termb68inator and Aliens, another guy who should have been a star but for whatever reason he couldn't get to the top of the Hollywood hill. -
Bklyn4ever — 12 years ago(December 31, 2013 07:35 PM)
As a young actor, he was moderately talented at best (maybe he has gotten better since then). I've seen WSS many times. One of the first things I noticed, even as a child, was that his performance added very little to the film. He had that "deer caught in headlights" expression too much of the time. His movements in the dance numbers were fairly graceful (thank goodness he didn't mar the fine choreography), but he never sizzles with any sort of passion.
And then there's the fight scene, in which he is so wimpy that you really wish he had been the victim. From that moment on, he is nothing but a limp, wet noodle for the rest of the film.
If you consider his other youthful roles, they have a 1c84similar impact. He is classically handsome and nice to look at, but nothing really emanates from him. -
Gus-69 — 10 years ago(May 14, 2015 08:22 AM)
Because he was awful in the film that could've earned him his stardom?