5 ms·
Unheard of actors is generally a good thing when doing a new series: there isn't really a series where it's felt like a good thing that it was being initially r
by XorNot 4y ago
Unheard of actors is generally a good thing when doing a new series: there isn't really a series where it's felt like a good thing that it was being initially run as "starring <well known actor>". If they're any good at all (and most actors are absolutely fine) then they'll be good.
The CGI on the other hand I agree though I can put my finger on exactly the issue: the virtual sets "feel" small in the footage I've seen. There's a certainly quality to the limitations of CGI which generally constrains the camera because you can't actually pull out far enough to make it feel large (I suspect getting the lighting to cast onto the actors right is also a subtle challenge here).
- blakebreeder 4y agoidk, all of the best characters in game of thrones were the established actors. ned stark, Robert baratheon, roose Bolton, tywin lanister.
- tptacek 4y agoThere are "established actors", if Michael McElhatton is the standard we're using, in the new show. Sean Bean was the biggest draw in GoT and was gone after the first season. When we're quibbling over the resumes of character actors, we've conceded the main point, which is that GoT didn't use star power to attract its following.
- blakebreeder 4y agoI'm not quibbling over anything. I disagree with "Unheard of actors is generally a good thing when doing a new series" and the logic provided. It's just ridiculous on its face. Generally, people with more experience produce better results. Generally, people who have a history of producing better results produce better results. Who would have thought?
- tptacek 4y agoThat's wildly not the case in the performing arts; just, like, a crazy thing to say. Stars get cast over and over again because audiences are comforted by familiar faces, not because the stars themselves are somehow the best actors in the world. Ben Affleck is a leading man, for Christ's sake.
- blakebreeder 4y agoYou managed to ignore "generally" twice (specifically put in to avoid your exact kind of response), construct a strawman argument for me, and then failed to actually defeat that strawman argument. Who is talking about "stars?" None of the cast I mentioned in the original comment are stars. They're ESTABLISHED, EXPERIENCED, PROVEN actors. That's literally the whole point I was making. And your response to the strawman you constructed is... there is zero correlation between stardom and acting ability? It kind of seems like you and the op are saying there is an INVERSE correlation. But I'm the crazy talker here? okay.
- tptacek 4y agoYes, if we're going to just accept the "crazy talk" rhetoric (I'm fine with it!), I stand by what I said: you are the crazy talker here. :) I do love that citing Ben Affleck forced you to retreat into "I said generally!" though. We agree on something!
- Kranar 4y agoLooks like you're confusing experienced actors with popular actors. Just because the actors are not popular does not mean that they are not experienced and distinguished actors; furthermore just because an actor is popular does not mean they are experienced or distinguished.
- oneoff786 4y agoIdk. I don’t think most actors are fine. It doesn’t take much skill to pass suspension of disbelief that they’re not acting. It takes a lot of skill to be an engaging character. Severance comes to mind as a good show that is immediately more appealing to me due to Adam Scott