Anthony Ingruber, A Talent To Keep Your Eye Out For

by on May 22, 2012

in Entertainment

Anthony Ingruber

Do you know who Anthony Ingruber is? More than likely not. But someday, you might!

When someone is just starting out in the acting industry, it’s an interesting conundrum. I for one rarely take notice of folks who are not mainstream names. They glaze right on by me with nary a thought!

For example, do you remember The Avengers Chris Hemsworth from playing King Arthur in the 2002 episodes of Guinevere Jones? Or do you remember him from the 2006 edition of Dancing with the Stars? Or in Deal or No Deal? I had no clue. I don’t remember seeing him!

Or what about Tom Hiddleston (Loki) when he had a part in the 2001 TV movie, The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby?

Did you take notice of Johnny Depp in 1984’s in A Nightmare on Elm Street or on TV in Lady Blue, in 1985?

What about Zooey Deschanel in the 1999 movie, Mumford? Nah… (She’s the girl in the ad that asks SIRI if it’s raining outside, while she’s next to a window!)

This list could go on and on. When I see someone who is a mainstream star today and I see them in an early role of theirs, I smack my head and go “Oh my god!

Anthony Ingruber

With that in mind, I thought I’d bring some attention to an actor by the name of Anthony Ingruber. He’s been in shows and movies you may or may not have heard of…

James Cameron’s Avatar as a Lab Technician, or Peter Jackson’s Over the Front. Or The People Versus George Lucas. And there’s the TV movie, Avalon High.

He’s also made appearances on TV in shows like Fraud Squad, Sensing Murder, & Karaoke High.

Over on his website, I particularly like his accent demonstration sound files… So as it stands, Anthony Ingruber is an up and coming actor. And who knows, in a few years, he may be a household name on the tip of our tongues like Joss Whedon’s name is right now. Just maybe.


{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }

Pseudonym May 23, 2012 at 10:47 pm

Speak of the devil…

Capt. Obvious May 23, 2012 at 10:35 pm

Did someone mention my name??? Sorry, I was off on a Needlepoint website telling them how irrelevant their articles are and that they should never write about brand new yarn that no one has ever heard of before…

Pseudonym May 23, 2012 at 9:45 pm

If you want, you can contact me on my Facebook. Send me a message; I assure you, it will be me who replies.

I think Anne Frank is a perfect example in this instance, as your complaint was, verbatim, “There are hundreds of thousands, more likely MILLIONS in the EXACT same position. This is why I find the article ridiculous.”. Simply because he shares his position with a large number of other people? Anne Frank shared a situation with a large number of people. So did Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, and J.K. Rowling, but do you complain about articles with them as the topic? Yet you’re so uncouth as to criticize this specific article and the writer for his choice of topic.

The reason you seldom see it in major news sources is because they don’t pick up stories like this until it’s gained a large enough audience to be worth their time. And even then, it’s rare unless the individual happens to commit a crime, go in to rehab, or do something otherwise viewed in a controversial light. How often do actors, even major celebrities make news stories on channels like CNN or Fox without having punched a paparazzi, landed in jail, or died? You’re more likely to see them on G4, or E TV.

The article needs no justification, and I assure you, it’s perfectly relevant, because in case you haven’t noticed, this is a journalist/author’s personal website. He may write whatever he sees fit, and it would be perfectly relevant. If he wants to write about Nazi unicorns and flying pigs, so be it. That’s his decision, as this is his virtual property. Naturally, as he has a comment board placed on it, he expects discussion, and even criticism. But criticizing the topic he chooses on his personal website makes about as much sense as criticizing an individual’s choice of which brand of paint they use in their house, or what they write on their weekly grocery list.

Also, you’ve forgotten Capt. Obvious. (Obviously.) Though, he appears to have been silent for the last few hours. The content of his last post seems to imply that he’s moved on to articles in a galaxy far, far away, but only time will tell.

Tara May 23, 2012 at 9:16 pm

There’s a reason only you and I are commenting here 😉

Tara May 23, 2012 at 9:16 pm

Assuming I haven’t been lied to, I’d say you’re lying about your identity.

How can you possibly be stupid enough to use your Anne Frank example as a comparative? We’re talking about a guy, who barely has a Youtube following, and is in a less thankful position than hundreds of thousands of other aspiring actors, yet, you believe I shouldn’t be criticizing the comparison of his position to that of some of Hollywood’s biggest stars? Hypothetically, yes, he could get there. As could the MANY others.

Do we ever see articles like this in the actual news? Of course not. People in a position that can be seen as dime a dozen situations are not newsworthy. You can’t possibly justify an article about this actor being more important or relevant that the many others out there.

The subject of the article hypothetically makes sense, it’s stupid as [expletive edited], but it makes sense. The relevance of such an article? ZERO.

Pseudonym May 23, 2012 at 9:06 pm

Again, I am male. Your favors appear to have fallen flat.

Tara May 23, 2012 at 9:05 pm

Or Lynette Carrington, as I’ve found she was a former publicist. I’m especially loving that you went as far to lie saying you had no association, in the hopes that it would make you appear more credible, while contrarily, making you more transparent.

I can get favors, too 🙂

Pseudonym May 23, 2012 at 9:04 pm

You have a good evening as well. Also, I am not a woman, I am male. If you want to contact me, look up Keberos Sephiroph on any major social network. (Except Twitter, where I go by a slightly different name.) Ergo, the results of your research are incorrect.

Pseudonym May 23, 2012 at 9:02 pm

I never said there weren’t. However, this article isn’t about engineers, doctors, musicians, filmmakers, lawyers, farmers, morticians, astronauts, physicists, artists, or computer programmers… It is about actors. One actor in specific, in fact; Mr. Anthony Ingruber. My statement was that I was unable to fathom the logic behind your choice to criticize this article. I still can’t. Do you criticize Anne Frank for the authorship of her diary simply because there were other people in her exact same position? This is why I find your comments ridiculous.

Understand? Good.

Tara May 23, 2012 at 8:58 pm

Have a good night, sad woman who’s too afraid to reveal her actual identity. I’m Tara Holeti of CO, and with a little digging (and a favor of my own), I’ve found you to be Wendy Shepherd, none other than Ingruber’s publicist. Go figure.

Tara May 23, 2012 at 8:54 pm

I’ll leave you with this.

“The past circumstances of most actors are exactly the same as Mr. Ingrubers current stance. That is the point that this article is attempting to make. ”

This is the case of any actor, engineer, doctor, musician, filmmaker etc. Ingruber’s position is not unique, quite the opposite. There are hundreds of thousands, more likely MILLIONS in the EXACT same position. This is why I find the article ridiculous.

Understand? Good.

Pseudonym May 23, 2012 at 8:43 pm

And a stereotype! Figures.

Tara May 23, 2012 at 8:25 pm

This isn’t worth another minute of my time. It’s like trying to argue with a Republican.

Pseudonym May 23, 2012 at 2:13 pm

To Tara:

I assure you, I understand that you find the subject of this article ridiculous; you’ve made that abundantly clear. What I fail to understand, however, as I’ve stated twice now, is your reasoning. Your criticism of the comparison of any individual to their “betters” seems quite akin to criticizing anyone who compares the color “maroon” with “red”. People make comparisons to objects, circumstances, or persons they see as similar. The past circumstances of most actors are exactly the same as Mr. Ingruber’s current stance. That is the point that this article is attempting to make. Yet you’re so bold as to criticize it solely for using a comparative you disagree with. Would you criticize Shakespeare’s writings for his use of comparisons? “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate.”. Is that cruel to that summer’s day to use such a comparison?

You can believe whatever you want about me. I’m unlikely to be able to convince you otherwise, even if I were to use my real name. But whether or not I can convince you doesn’t change who I am, so I really couldn’t care less what you believe about me. But I assure you, I’m not trying to discredit you; merely questioning your logic. My slant isn’t in Ingruber’s favor; it is in the favor of the author, Mr. Simmons. Whether or not your comments were intended as centrist, they came off as critical. And it’s not just me. You’ll notice both Capt. Obvious and Mr. Simmons himself also interpreted it as such. So don’t try to just dismiss me as being biased and defensive.

I never said he could see similar success simply because he’s on YouTube. Such would be a failure of a syllogism. Another example of such would be “Bill Gates is a billionaire. Bill Gates bathes regularly. If I bathe regularly, I’ll become a billionaire.”. However, the likelihood of success via YouTube is present. Albeit slim, but present. But building a fan presence on YouTube in addition to playing minor film roles is much more likely to lead to a successful career in some form of entertainment than simply going out for such roles on their own.

The internet has revolutionized communication. People are finding their future spouses online, they’re buying and selling merchandise around the world, and new acting and musical talent is being discovered by talent agents via the internet every day. So yes, I think YouTube greatly increases his odds of being discovered. No, I never said it was a guarantee, a promise, or any other form of assurance that he’ll be the next big movie star. But the fact that he’s getting out there increases the statistical likelihood of such. There’s always a chance you’ll get struck by lightning, but the likelihood raises whenever you wave a conductor near a Tesla coil.

Should he or anyone else care that you’ve unsubscribed from and unliked his pages? You don’t appear to support him beyond whatever mild amusement he’s provided you with, or believe he can make it past YouTube, anyway. Simply out of an effort to spite you, I am right now going to find his YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter accounts, and subscribe to, like, and follow them all in your stead.

To Capt. Obvious:

I still love saying this…
Thank you, captain obvious! (Again, no sarcasm)

Capt. Obvious May 23, 2012 at 12:01 pm

Says the kettle to the teapot… LOL.

You do seem to have an inane ability to inject words in the spaces between words. It’s most fascinating. I’ll give you that.

I’m off to find other offenders of the evil injustices of articles that are not necessary… I’m going to hang around websites I don’t like and complain in their comment sections about them… (duh!)


Tara May 23, 2012 at 11:09 am

Capt. Obvious:

I’m not even going to bother responding to your incredibly asinine comment. For your sake, I sincerely hope you aren’t as stupid as your post suggests.

Tara May 23, 2012 at 11:06 am

Just to make my point of your slant more clear, you’re now suggesting he could see success through a similar method to Bieber, just because he’s on Youtube. Are you kidding me? I’m not scoffing at Youtube, I’m scoffing at your lame attempt at comparative argument. Sure, Ingruber could be discovered similar to Bieber, as could the millions of others trying to get noticed via Youtube.

I’ve unsubscribed and unliked his pages. The unprofessionalism from you, whatever your relation to him may be, has only guaranteed that I will no longer support or watch anything he does.

Tara May 23, 2012 at 11:01 am

Pseudonym, not exactly. I subscribed to Anthony on Youtube over a year ago and I’ve been following him on Facebook for months. I’ve always left supportive comments. I find his impressions entertaining, I’ve already stated all of this.

I find the subject of this article ridiculous, that’s all. Why is this so difficult to understand? I’m a big Tim Tebow fan (which may be harder now seeing him with NY), if I read an article comparing him to Brady or Manning, or saying he could be on track to that same glory, I would be commenting in a similar fashion.

I have a very hard time believing you’re anyone but the person who asked for the favor. You’re essentially trying to discredit every criticism I have through an enormous slant in Ingruber’s favor, whereas my comments have been intended to be centrist from the beginning. They’ve only appeared to oppose him because people like you are getting incredibly defensive and attacking my opinions, which are clearly warranted. He could become Robert Downey Jr., just like I could become a Nobel Prize winner… everything about this is hypothetical.

Pseudonym May 23, 2012 at 9:30 am

To Tara:

1. I would hardly say my last post was “defensive”. Defensive implies I was the one being attacked. On the contrary, I was criticizing you. Ergo, I was on offense, not defense. This paragraph is a better example of defense, as now I am being accused, and am explaining my stance.

2. I never interpreted such a suggestion. The way I understood it, it was merely an acknowledgement that the vast majority of actors start off as struggling nobodies, and that even if they land a minor role in huge films everyone has heard of, few people pay them any attention or recognize them as those roles, even if some of them become huge stars. It then went on to describe how that is Mr. Ingruber’s present position in the acting industry; a small nobody with little to no recognition landing minor roles in the industry. It never stated that “He’s the next Johnny Depp!”, or anything of the sort. It merely called to attention someone who plays several roles we may recognize, but who none of us prior knew played them.

If you pay close attention to the closing two sentences of the article, they read “And who knows, in a few years, he may be a household name on the tip of our tongues like Joss Whedons name is right now. Just maybe.”. The last I’d checked, “maybe” denotes a chance for his career to go either way. It’s not a “suggestion that he’ll walk in their shoes.”. It’s the proposition that he might, just as any infant might grow up to be the next Einstein, Martin Luther King Jr., or President. Albeit the chances of that are slim, Mr. Ingruber is in the correct field for “following in their footsteps”, which somewhat increases his odds. I hardly think such remarks will make him “big headed”. That’s comparative to saying that telling a toddler “You could be the next President, some day!” boosts his or her confidence “too much”, and that he’ll grow up arrogant as a result. I’ve never heard of any such instances. Have you?

3. So your issue is that you feel Mr. Ingruber is “not in the position to make it”, and that is why you criticize Mr. Simmons’ choice of actor? That seems fairly near sighted, to me. Who cares if there are “better” impressionists? This article isn’t about who is the “best”. One could say there are “better” actors than Johnny Depp, but I’d never criticize an author’s choice in writing an article about Johnny Depp. And which one is “better” is subjective, anyways. It’s akin to saying “Beethoven is better than Mozart.”. That’s your opinion, yet you preach it as fact.

Also, in regards to your statement “To say an extra actor, who does some good Youtube impressions, is on their way to huge fame, is a joke.”, one could have easily said the same of Justin Bieber a few years ago. He started off as a small time musician on YouTube, and now he’s one of the top pop singers on the charts. Another example is the band “Bullet for my Valentine”, which started out as a cover band playing the songs of other bands, such as Metallica and Black Sabbath. They’re now one of the biggest modern punk/metal bands in the world. Fred started out as a YouTube comedian, and now he has his own movie series starring him. Need I list more examples..? YouTube isn’t something to scoff at. Unlike some of those movies Mr. Ingruber played in, on YouTube, he gets full credit, and people actually pay direct attention to him. So all in all, I’d say that, hypothetically, if he were to succeed in the acting industry, while those movies he’s played in may look good on a resume, YouTube will be his portal to landing roles and collecting fame.

And finally… Who cares that this was a favor? That’s what people do. You can’t tell me that the majority big actors never once pulled favors to get where they are in the industry. And despite it being a favor, the writer himself seemed pretty sincere, so I’m inclined to discount your claim that the fact that it is a favor renders the article “pointless”. Also, I assure you that I am neither Mr. Ingruber’s mother, friend, the individual who pulled in the favor, or otherwise related to him except in species. You seem to be attacking the motives of anyone who supports Mr. Ingruber or this article. It makes me wonder if there is a personal grudge influencing that decision.

To Capt. Obvious:

I’ve always wanted to say this…
“Thank you, captain obvious!”. (No sarcasm)

Capt. Obvious May 23, 2012 at 7:44 am

It looks like one of you actually read the words in the article for what it was and one of you seems to be on some wild mission of hate. Give it a rest T. You made your perspectives incredibly clear the first time, and blindly clarified them the second time when your inquiry was actually answered.

The post doesn’t say anywhere that this guy is “on their way to huge fame.” It seems to point out how actors aren’t noticed in their early days, and then after their big breaks, you recognize them. And the focus of this piece seems to be saying, maybe someday the same can be said for this guy.

Reading is a skill some have mastered. It’s not just for the blind.

Tara May 23, 2012 at 6:56 am


1. The opinions of the actor’s mom aren’t ones I would take seriously, but thanks for responding. The article is pointless, that’s all, the author himself says it was written as a favor, further proving my point. You’re extremely defensive for an unsolicited commenter, with no relation whatsoever to the actor.

2. The comparisons are cruel because you’re taking an actor and basically suggesting he’ll walk in those shoes one day. How is that not cruel? First, it’s insane to compare an impressionist to established actor’s, and in bad taste to get his hopes up, or make him big headed with such remarks.

3. I would suggest an article about an actor who is actually in a position to make it, not somebody who’s banking on a pipe dream (being an extra in Avatar and Over the Line don’t hold any weight, especially when he isn’t actually credited… who knows if this is even true?). OneManSho is a better impressionist, Truseneye is a FAR better impressionist, or I would suggest articles about, say, Andrew Garfield (someone who may be on his way to Downey Jr. status), John Hutcherson… you know, people who are actually on their way. To say an extra actor, who does some good Youtube impressions, is on their way to huge fame, is a joke.

Thanks… whoever you are. Anthony’s best friend, mom, or most likely, the person who asked for this favor in the first place. You could not be more transparent.

Pseudonym May 23, 2012 at 12:12 am

To Tara:

I acknowledge that it is your right to have an opinion, and to freely voice it. I also acknowledge that naturally, due to variations in opinion, there will be some individuals who disagree with this article. What I cannot fathom, however, is the logic behind your criticism.

You stated that comparing a relatively unknown actor trying to make it in the entertainment industry is, quote “almost cruel”. I can’t quite see how. I would consider such a comparison to such great examples of success to be a compliment, personally.

From what I can tell from your other comments, your main issue appears to be how specific the topic of the article is, rather than the content itself. To quote you twice, you first asked “Why so much puff revolving around this actor and not others?” then stated “This article literally could have been written about any aspiring actor.”. Which other aspiring actor would you have preferred this article be about? Say it weren’t Mr. Ingruber, but another aspiring actor or actress. Any one, it doesn’t matter which. You’ll notice that you could make that argument for any individual the author may have chosen. But you choose to complain that he chose this actor out of the millions of others? With that logic, you should go complain on every article written about the other afore mentioned actors, such as Johnny Depp, or Chris Hemsworth. Or rather, any article about any specific actor in general.

Of course, that logic may be further extended, as well. It wouldn’t be too drastic an alteration to say “Why so much puff revolving around actors and not others?”. So from there, you can complain about any field specific article. And you can keep extending it onwards to infinity, so that you may criticize even the most slightly specific articles! So answer me this: Why can’t this author choose to write an article about a specific individual without being harassed simply for his choice of individual? That is what I cannot fathom about your criticism.

To Mr. Bruce Simmons:

I, for one, think yours is an excellent article. It was very well written, and I enjoyed the comparative. It provided me with an interesting perspective of the sociology of the observed acting industry. I will definitely have to check out some of Mr. Ingruber’s work, after reading this. Thank you for taking the time to share this with us.

Tara May 22, 2012 at 10:20 pm

Ah, well that makes more sense then.

Bruce Simmons May 22, 2012 at 10:19 pm

I was asked to do a piece on him, as a favor Tara. Thanks for coming by though… I appreciate the visit and the input/opinion.

Tara May 22, 2012 at 10:19 pm

More than anything, it’s ridiculous because every actor starts out the way you’ve stated here. This article literally could have been written about any aspiring actor. I would think this was written by the actor himself.

Tara May 22, 2012 at 10:17 pm

I understand it’s a comparative, but could anyone not go to these same places? I really like Anthony’s work, I just found this to be ridiculous. Anthony is one of many I subscribe to, and his impressions are great, but still middle of the pack. My point is, these guys are a dime a dozen. Why so much puff revolving around this actor and not others?

Bruce Simmons May 22, 2012 at 9:57 pm

It’s a comparative Tara… No one was being wowed by Depp and Hemsworth in their earliest days. And now look where they are. I was looking to make that kind of comparison to show where Anthony can go… and it’s hard to make a point without creating other possible perspectives.

Gimme me a bit of a break Tara.

Tara May 22, 2012 at 9:53 pm

I’ve been following Anthony on Youtube and Facebook. His impressions are great! This article really seems puffy though. Listing names like Depp and Hemsworth to an unknown trying to break in with nothing to his name? That’s almost cruel.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: