Last time we checked in on Ben Affleck he was mulling over the decision between working opposite Leonardo DiCaprio in the great Gatsby or continuing his directing career with Argo. If you’re reading this based off the headline then you know how this turned out.
Source: Filmofilia
Well, guess what, it looks that rumors were true and according to the latest reports Affleck is indeed attached to direct and star in the film as well!
As we said, Argo is based on a 2007 Wired magazine article about the 1979-80 Tehran hostage crisis, called How the CIA Used a Fake Sci-Fi Flick to Rescue Americans from Tehran written by Joshuah Bearman.
Bearman described the whole thing this way: “The story is a CIA rescue mission during the Iran Hostage Crisis, when six American embassy staff escaped the compound and were on the lam in Tehran for months, until the CIA rescued them by creating a fake Hollywood production company and pretended to be in Iran location scouting for a big-budget sci-fi epic.
I can’t fault the guy. That premise sounds awesome and I’m already looking forward to seeing this project continue to be further developed. George Clooney is one of the producers on the project and I’m curious to see if he will decide to get involved on the acting side as well. I am a little disappointed that we won’t get to see him portray Tom Buchanan, the millionaire husband of Daisy Buchanan and nemesis of Jay Gatsby, alongside DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire but him not being in the film means we will eventually get both movies sooner than later.
As a preface, I do not wholly disagree with Ryan; my response is part of an assignment for an intro to logic class. Thanks for understanding.
Ryan argues that Ben Affleck “has a somewhat limited range” as an actor. As premises to support his conclusion he offers the facts that Mr. Affleck is “a solid actor”, that he “is very good at what he does well”, that he has not acted poorly in many movies and when he has acted poorly, it has been through no fault of his.
None of the premises make it rationally believable that Mr. Affleck has a limited range. The fact that Mr. Affleck is a “solid actor” (generally accepted as an above average actor) does not support the conclusion that he has a limited range. If anything, the fact that he is an above average actor would lead one to believe that he a good range. Most likely though, Ryan was not using this statement to support his argument but rather he was granting concessions to those who may disagree. Ryan’s next premise is that Mr. Affleck “is good at what he does well,” meaning that Mr. Affleck is talented at acting in a few similar roles. The implication is that he is not very good at roles dissimilar to his most famous roles. This premise, which is not supported but generally believable, supports the conclusion that Mr. Affleck’s range is limited. However, the fact that Mr. Affleck does not act poorly often does not support the conclusion that he has a limited range. It means that he has either chosen many very similar roles or that he has a large range.
Ryan doesn’t convince me that Ben Affleck has a limited range. Actually, if I accepted his premises, I may come to the conclusion that Mr. Affleck is a talented actor (possibly with a large range) who has chosen many similar roles during his career.
A-
:)
Ben is a way better director than actor anyway.
He’s a solid actor, and is very good at what he does well; I’ve just come to the conclusion that he just has a somewhat limited range. Honestly, there’s not very many movies where he’s bad in them, most of the bad movies he’s been in has more to do with the source material.