Talk:Typecasting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jungian Archetypal Relation?[edit]

Could we mention from the Jungian psychological model that actors are at times associated with archetypes also? It's specific and accurate. As an example: Jim Carey and Robin Williams play Jokers and Magicians, being from the same psychological root. No length of explanation is needed, merely a link-through to the appropriate article.

195.222.108.154 (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Neeson[edit]

"director may choose to cast an actor in a role that would be unusual for them to create a dramatic (or sometimes comedic) effect, such as Liam Neeson, who is usually cast in mentor-type roles, being cast as the villain Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins."

Umm...Liam Neeson IS a mentor role in Batman Begins, you find out he is the villain later on but for the most part you find him to be just a mentor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.225.82.163 (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Ed O'Neill[edit]

I think Al Bundy from 'Married With Children' deserves a mention in this aleready exhaustive list! I've heard over and over again, that people have trouble taking him seriously and that he really like playing more serious roles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.247.42 (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Wood[edit]

Does this article seem unusually obsessed with Elijah Wood? 168.215.121.16 20:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it does, I took out the first reference but put it back when I saw that it was repeated throughout. It should all be gone as far as I'm concerned, if a movie came out a few years ago, and the actor has gone on to do THREE movies that go against the type cast... well doesn't that defeat the definition? Oreo man 17:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Elijah Wood attempted to escape typecasting after his portrayal of Frodo Baggins in The Lord of the Rings' Sound pretty POV to me. - Evilio 0943 25/09/06
It also states in Elijah Wood's wikipedia entry that he has escaped typecasting, so I do think he could be used as an example as someone who has escaped it, if necessary, but not an example of someone who suffers typecasting. 81.103.35.130 16:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List[edit]

Here's one of my pet peeves: lists in the middle of articles. Sometimes they work, but in general lists should be lists and articles should have examples, not lists stuck in the middle! In this case, the stub was ignored but the list expanded, with a mish-mosh of actors of differing stature that didn't add to the article. Here's the info I cut; if someone wants to start a list somewhere, fine:

A list of some actors who have been typecast:

Quill 21:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I started List of typecast actors from this list. --Amoore 01:41, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I guess Quill started it after I failed to. Thanks! --Amoore 18:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quill did, and at some point I may cut-and-paste from the above mishmash into the new list. Someday...when I have time...thanks for responding Amoore! Quill 22:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you guys could forget Jim carrey :P!!!! -- sspecter

AHEM! Michael Cera! --Adorkable16 (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More typecast roles:

A Bad Thing?[edit]

"An actor may become typecast either because of a strong identification with a particular role or because he or she doesn't have the versatility or talent to move on to other roles." - being typecast doesn't necessarilly mean a lack of acting tallent; a lot has to do with natural human tendancies, and the fact that people really can't significantly change the way they look. Being thought of as a certain "type" is not necessarilly a bad thing, and many in the acting business even consider it a good thing, something which one should play to, rather than against. - Matthew238 02:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

R. Lee Ermey[edit]

I'm surpirsed that this article fails to mention R. Lee Ermey, one of the most typecast men in the history of filmography. He's virtually never in his over 100 appearance history played anything other than a militaristic/drill sergeant type character.

Uh, he's not playing those characters, he's being himself. Ermey was a drill sergeant.

UH UH UH, then why is he not "Gunnery Sergeant Ermey" rather than "Gunnery Sergeant Hartman" in Full Metal Jacket? UH UH UH! You don't even understand the definition of the word. Freeth (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting subject[edit]

Of course, this subject could never be "encyclopedic", and would always have a NPOV problem. On the other hand, it really belongs, and I would be the last to stick a tag on it. I've been there, and I'm not going to sign it for that reason.

What fans and the public fail to see is that because they have coopted the actors' life, they view it as their's to dictate under the control of flacks and the media, (and you may say the lucky ones who owe you). The poor old actor figures he or she will either go with the flow and get rich, or fight it to no avail and stop working, or keep going and not make any money and "fail" in their own eyes. One thinks of Lorne Greene, a Canadian whom I knew a bit. He got fabulously rich from Bonanza and did not follow through on his original intention, which was to be a fine character actor in the best sense of the word, and certainly the public would have laughed him off the stage were he later to have tried his hand at MacBeth. Was he happy at the end? No comment. One thinks of Ted Lange, the bartender on Love Boat, always wanted to do Shakespeare. The saddest ones are those who played a certain supporting role brilliantly at minimum scale, and may never work again. They tend to go into production or real estate. The answer some have is to stay out of it for awhile, like many years, and hope that the fans have forgotten them in their old success, and make a comeback as somebody else. But then the ever inquiring press will haunt them out. A very few succeed. Thousands don't. See, none of this belongs in an article, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it get hit with a delete tag by a roving Wiki enforcer (Any military style outfits yet? Or at least a Wiki tee shirt?). But nice to talk about it, even on a talk page.

I don't remember his name[edit]

Hello, I can't remember or find the name of a black actor, quite fat, with white hairs and round deep glaces, who portraits always generals or high rank officers in the american army.

I've found it: is James Earl Jones.

The lists have been deleted[edit]

I deleted all the lists. A great deal of them, maybe even most of them, were somebody's (in my opinion incorrect) opinions. Mangoe 19:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cera[edit]

Someone should add something about Michael Cera. He is so typecast as the 'awkward geeky love interest' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.73.141 (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I added him, and I used a good source. Check it now ^_^ --Adorkable16 (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Pacino[edit]

Al has pretty much played the same character in every movie he has ever been in, so I think a few mentions should do. He's the first person I think of when I hear "typecasting". Bloodbath 87 (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superman[edit]

It should be noted that the Superman films (and the TV show) have been deemed as "cursed" because the actors playing the title roles have been unsuccessful at escaping the typecast. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like the curse has been lifted, Henry Cavill has a career outside of just playing superman. Gauntpuppy93 (talk) 03:44, April 30, 2021 (UTC)

@Gauntpuppy93: Do you have any thoughts as to how to improve the article pertaining to this? Nightscream (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"This article does not cite any references or sources"[edit]

This makes me wonder, especially about the examples. Let's take Meg Ryan. What kind of source would you need to show she's been typecast? You can take a list of her movies and figure out that (say) 80% of them showed her as the cute America's sweetheart. It's more like doing math. Is there any other way to define an actor/actress as typecast? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many examples[edit]

This article is basically a list of actors who have been typecast. A few pertinent examples can be useful, but reading about fifty different people who have been typecast doesn't really cast any more light on the subject. Maybe this article should be spit in two - one about typecasting, and a list article containing actors who have been typecast. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Typecasted"?[edit]

Isn't the correct word "typecast" rather than "typecasted"?
Wanderer57 (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is.
Finwailin (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   "Typecast" certainly has logic on its side, but logic is a pretty poor tool for understanding language (not least when the language in question is English). I would be more likely to say that while Nate Silver had stunningly forecasted the 2012 election (even tho my spell-checker disagrees with me), he failed in forecasting the 2016. We should certainly (despite any horror on the part of academic colleagues) take into account Variety's style sheet in this case.
--Jerzy•t 05:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would Be Forever Known As[edit]

The paragraph under "With Character Actors" that starts with Bela Lugosi not only repeats the phrase "would be forever known as" several times, but is also somewhat inaccurate and speculative. Lugosi was obviously typecast as a vampire because of his portrayal of Dracula (a role he also played in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein), and that is certainly what he is associated with. Boris Karloff may be best remembered for his portrayals of the Frankenstein monster but is known for more than that role, though he was definitely cast in the horror genre only. Edward G. Robinson is remembered for a lot more than the "Rico" or "Johnny Rocco" roles, and was possibly only typecast early in his film career. His roles in Double Indemnity, The Cincinnati Kid, and Soylent Green are just a few examples of his ability to keep from being typecast. I guess my issue with that passage was the "forever known as" part. Finwailin (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted List[edit]

Deleted List as it had become an obvious example farm, it was fully unreferenced, and had become unmaintainable. In the future, examples should be limited to those which are referenced and increase the purpose of the overall article. -- GateKeeper (talk) @ 13:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of Anthony Perkins who became in public opinion Norman Bates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olbia merda (talk • contribs) 15:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on removing as none of them are at all, plus playing against type is common with actors who established themselves in a role is nothing uncommon. Are we going to include Steve Coogan because as an established comedian, he played his Alan Partridge persona in the drama Philomena? The drama films starring Ashton Kutcher was poorly received by the look of things and Jobs was a flop by the look of things, as it was never been released in cinemas in the UK, presumably it wasn't a box office hit enough to. So therefore god knows why he was included. Donnie Park (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 April 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– This article gets more than 86% of the traffic, with 10,844 views in the last 90 days. Unreal7 (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In computer programming a "type cast" is properly spelled as two separate words and really more commonly referred to simply as "casting". I'm not sure we should have a separate article on Typecasting (hacking) either. This seems more appropriate as a (sub)section in Type conversion or listed under Software bug. —Ruud 16:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IIO, I'm almost 100% certain you're the only editor on Wikipedia who gives a toss about Google Books. Unreal7 (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No in fact we have guidelines such as WP:RS which point us towards quality printed sources rather than vanilla Google searches which weight towards todays blogs, etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It seems to me like the acting term is the primary topic for typecasting with respect to pageviews and significance. BTW, by my count the article has gotten 46,089 hits in the past 90 days, not 10,844. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The 90-day page views can be found here, which show only the current page and type conversion have the significant page views. Since the computing term is located at a different title, this page should be un-disambiguated. Also, typecasting (hacking) really should just redirect to type conversion. kennethaw88 • talk 02:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kennethaw88: WP:Disambiguation says that the topic, not title, is what is important. In this case the page views for both main meanings of typecasting are about equal, and WP:RS usage in WP:RS print sources is about equal too. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Type conversion also has significant page views and it is also called "typecasting." The computing definition is significant and I don't think it should be discounted because the title of the article happens to be a synonym. -- Tavix (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the uses in typography and computer programming of the same term prevent Typecasting (acting) from clearly being the primary topic. (And per Talk:Garbage collection (disambiguation)#Requested move 5 April 2016 is seems that page views do not count towards determining what should be the primary topic. Per that reasoning it there should have been Garbage collection (computer science), while it was determined to be Waste collection.) —Ruud 11:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yet another proposal based purely on page views. As another user commented a while back, page views show what the reader found, not what they wanted. We perhaps need to clarify the guidelines, and this is a case in point. There is no primary meaning; Even discounting all other uses (and we don't), the historic use of the term in printing is itself of sufficient long-term significance to make it better to have the DAB at the undisambiguated name. Given that there are other meanings as well, the better choice is clear, despite the page view count. Andrewa (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bizarre [citation needed] tag situation[edit]

   I found, in examining the history of the tags added to the "Actor selection" (i.e., first titled) section, that what is now 2nd and final 'graph had a tag that dated back to 2010 but had its scope changed (from whole sent or 'graph, to first clause of last sent), without any corresponding fix. I'm restoring it, which may be as simple as editing it back with its original date. But the system may be smart enuf to reject my edit as having a forged date, in which case

{{Citation needed|date= <!-- July 2010 (NB: 2nd clause needs cit as much as first but '14 tagger contracted its scope -- so user:Jerzy hereby restores it, in)--> December 2016}}

may be the workaround needed for reducing the confusion of the situation.
--Jerzy•t 05:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

"In general"[edit]

   I'm a bit stunned by this grossly confusing wording, to point of ambiguity or vagueness:

Some actors welcome the steady work that typecasting brings them, but in general it is seen as undesirable for actors in leading roles.

Does "in general" include the actors who don't welcome (or don't get) the steady work (as the preceding "some" invites, when the reader reaches "in general"), or to the "actors in leading roles" who are discussed in the clause that the "in general" phrase is part of? Or is our colleague being too vague to give a damn?
--Jerzy•t 05:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 November 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Far and away the primary topic with regards to both pageviews and historical significance. The acting term has almost 500 views a day while the others have very few. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per pageview differential. I could be convinced that Typecast / Type cast should redirect to Typecasting (disambiguation) rather than a Typecasting page that was about just the acting usage, though, since that phrasing is more likely to be the computer science meaning. SnowFire (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. There's no question this is the primary topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Type cast" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Type cast. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 June 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– No significantly better arguments were presented at the November 2019 RM compared to the April 2016 RM, but it went through because the other side simply failed to show up. If you look at 2020 pageviews, Type conversion actually edges out this topic by a hair. Google Books results for "typecasting is" are also fairly evenly split: of the first 50 results, I see 15 for the CS term, 14 for the acting term, 4 for the typesetting term, and 17 for other uses (many related to the sociological concept of identifying someone using stereotypes, which does not have a Wikipedia article). Complicating things is the fact that some of these terms have different spellings (like whether to include a space in the middle) and we don't really know the relative frequency of them, so I propose moving the disambiguation page back to Typecasting and setting up a pageview test using special-purpose redirects to settle the question once and for all of what readers are really looking for when they search the term "Typecasting". (See Talk:MSG (disambiguation)#Requested move 2 May 2019 for more details on how to implement such a test.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - the page views comparison with the CS topic is apples and oranges. The topic related to the acting profession is the primary meaning of the word "typecasting". And the use of "cast" in CS is uncommon, and most often called "type casting" with a space. -- Netoholic @ 08:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Under what rationale? Both are subject-specific terms, so an appeal to subjective standards doesn't quite cut it for me. Google Books is a good indicator of the primary meaning unpolluted by recentism; you can see that the majority of Google results for "apple" are on the company, but a majority of Google Books results are on the fruit. In this case we see a pretty good balance between the acting and CS terms no matter where we look. Although the acting meaning bears some resemblance to the general sociological definition, the article does not discuss that so its significance in that context cannot be considered part of the significance of the acting term.
    As for the space: I will note that the Google Books result I showed is specifically for the spelling "typecasting". To make the situation more clear, why not collect some more data? Just have a disambiguation page at "Typecasting" for a month, and see where people want to go after landing there. If people do really want the acting term, then the numbers will prove it. There is no deadline, and if the current situation is the correct one the world won't end just because it's "wrong" for another month, when it's been that way for most of its existence. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @King of Hearts: Because we already have the proof - just add Typecasting (acting) (this article's former title) to your Pageviews link. It puts this subject past the finish line by miles. Consider withdrawing this RM early, please. -- Netoholic @ 14:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Most traffic on Wikipedia is via internal links, and since we have many more articles on actors than CS topics that's not surprising. So it may be true that 70-80% of people who read one of the "Typecasting" articles will be reading the article on the acting topic, but that's not the same question as what readers want when they land at a disambiguation page called "Typecasting". Quantifying usage by raw pagecount primarily benefits editors by saving them the work of making a piped link (when following links readers are mostly agnostic to whether the final landing page is parenthetically disambiguated or not); quantifying usage by conditional pagecount is what benefits readers, and is the criteria which should be used. Again, if you are right, then the test will prove it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @King of Hearts: Alright then, let's just add the redirect explicitly meaning the CS topic to your pageviews and we find... almost none. This is what I meant by apples vs oranges. -- Netoholic @ 14:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately that's not statistically valid. After November 2019, the acting topic holds the base title so no pageview comparison would be truly fair. Prior to November 2019, Typecasting (acting) had many inbound links while Type casting (computer programming) had very few (as people would link to Type conversion instead), so you're right that it's apples vs. oranges: we cannot directly compare the pageviews of the two. We would need to create temporary redirects like Typecasting (acting, from disambiguation) and Typecasting (computer programming, from disambiguation) to isolate the views that come from the disambiguation page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @King of Hearts: I'll save you the trouble and assume that the none of the views for the acting redirect come from the disambiguation page, and that ALL of the views for the CS redirect come from it. The CS-related redirect usage is still insignificant and this RM is never going to pass. -- Netoholic @ 15:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify my point about the subjective argument: if you want to make a case that the primary meaning of "typecasting" is "putting a person in a box" (which encompasses the sociological and acting definitions), then you may have a stronger case. Example from HBR: "In the late 1970s, psychologists Nancy Cantor and Walter Mischel, then at Stanford University, demonstrated that we all use sets of stereotypes—what they called 'person prototypes'—to categorize strangers in the first moments of interaction. Though such instant typecasting is arguably unfair, pattern matching is so firmly hardwired into human psychology that only conscious discipline can counteract it." However, we don't have an article on this topic, and the current article focuses solely on the acting component of it, so even though this definition may seem very similar, usage in this sense cannot be counted towards the significance of the acting term. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this already is at the common meaning. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article follows the common meaning of the term. Dimadick (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As I said before, clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Typecasting in horror[edit]

Horror movies seem to be a genre specially made for type-casting with a huge amount of character actors, for instance: Jeffery Combs (Reanimator series, mostly cast as playing mad scientist types) BRUCE MOTHERFUCKING CAMPBELL (If you don't know what movie he's from, go watch Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness) Kane Hodder (Jason Voorhees from Friday the 13th 6 to Jason X) Christopher Lloyd often gets cast as eccentric madmen that like playing with explosives (Until 2016's I am not a Serial Killer, great movie, check it out) Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger)

Whether this is due to horror movies being fun to make (They are, I speak from personal experience) or from being unable to find work doing anything else, these actors, and many more have been cast so many times its almost uncanny whenever they aren't playing a role like that.

Gauntpuppy93 (talk) 03:44, April 30, 2021 (UTC)

@Gauntpuppy93: Do you have any thoughts as to how to improve the article pertaining to this? Nightscream (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Playing against type" section Ben Stiller[edit]

Comedy actor Ben Stiller played a more serious role in Permanent Midnight... Thoughts?--204.78.15.10 (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unneccesary information[edit]

I don't ser how all the informatiom about the actors earnings has anything to do with typecasting. 82.174.221.64 (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, barely any woman[edit]

Hi Gentlemen it's pretty amazing to see that there is barely any woman in the many examples listed in this article... A section on woman in cinema would be pretty interesting though, Marilyn Monroe being a great example. I have no quality sources, but if someone feels up to the task that would be great... Astragales (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could add that yourself, you know. Be bold! :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Playing against type list[edit]

Regardless of the efforts of the editors, this list if turning into an WP:EXAMPLEFARM, full of people getting to list their acting heroes and subsequently, have their entries removed and this talk section is full of people making debates over it. Often, reliable sources can get things wrong. one example of this. Jackie Chan has played a serious role before, in Heart of Dragon (1985) besides I never heard of that listed film, The Foreigner.

Despite the claims by GQ magazine, I think this entry of Chris Evans is pretty dubious. He always plays himself in all of his roles and that's my opinion; he doesn't come off as impressive IMO. I don't recall seeing him in anything before Captain America as he is pretty forgettable but I seen him in that, the first Avengers and Knives Out; are his acting any different to each other? No.

I seen Collateral not long ago, was Tom Cruise any different to his other roles? What about Ice-T, why is he included? Does a gangsta rapper playing a police officer make him playing against type?

Sometimes ago, an entry for Robocop was removed.

Though not listed, can Nic Cage be cited as an example as like Matt Damon, he transitioned to action roles in 1997, in films such as Con Air and Face/Off.

Now, how about a suggestion, get rid of it all, otherwise this article will be nothing but edit warring. Playing a baddie does not make you playing against type. Why should we need an example since the list for Cinderella (sports) for removed for this reason. 81.99.82.214 (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Typecasting&oldid=1206011345"