4 ms·

There's an adage in producing video or being on TV that you need to act 2x "more" than your usual self to appear mildly engaging due to the limits of the medium

There's an adage in producing video or being on TV that you need to act 2x "more" than your usual self to appear mildly engaging due to the limits of the medium. Some people go a bit further than that, but the idea of being far more intense and full-on than you would ever be in real life is pretty standard in modern video production. Makeup, lighting, and other factors will often be dialled up too. I've seen plenty of shy, geeky folks who've become YouTube famous talk about the necessity to do this as they progressed. You can see it for yourself, too, if you find a successful channel and go back to the oldest videos. The energy and style of talking will ramp up over time. Quite few folks will talk, act, and look entirely as they might naturally.

dylan604 3y ago
This is actually not the case in credible acting class. No acting teacher will tell you to act like a buffoon for the sake of being engaging unless you're trying to be a children's programming buffoon. Even then, if you look at what's popular for longer than a hot minute in children's programming, the people don't act like that. The people on TV that act like that are usually trying to sell you something. People believing "over the top == good" probably grew up liking JarJar Binks.
- petercooper 3y ago
  This is more an idea around presenting than acting, but I wasn't talking about being a buffoon, as such, but using more energy to overcome the limitations of the medium and to, ironically, appear more "normal" on screen. If you watch a lot of popular YouTubers' early vs later videos, you can see it in effect. It's common to see radical developments in elocution, projection, and energy from their natural state, and it's nearly always for the better.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    If you think this doesn't make them look like a buffoon, then you are much more generous than I. "always for the better" that's definitely a matter of opinion, and I'm not buying it. it's just another in the long list of reasons why i don't spend a lot of time watching these types of "creators"
seabass-labrax 3y ago
I don't think that it's the energy of the acting that's jarring. I think it's the frequency of the cuts. This could be to cover up mistakes in diction (you only need to remember less than a few seconds of your lines at a time!) or just to hold the viewers attention with unnatural movements. One example of what you describe is GreatScott, a videomaker covering DIY electronics. He has definitely developed a more intense style, but he still gets through a paragraph of his lines without a cut. He doesn't need to turn his image upside-down to be engaging.
- j4yav 3y ago
  It's definitely also the barely contained squeals of glee whenever anything interesting happens in the song.

dylan604 3y ago

This is actually not the case in credible acting class. No acting teacher will tell you to act like a buffoon for the sake of being engaging unless you're trying to be a children's programming buffoon. Even then, if you look at what's popular for longer than a hot minute in children's programming, the people don't act like that. The people on TV that act like that are usually trying to sell you something. People believing "over the top == good" probably grew up liking JarJar Binks.

petercooper 3y ago
This is more an idea around presenting than acting, but I wasn't talking about being a buffoon, as such, but using more energy to overcome the limitations of the medium and to, ironically, appear more "normal" on screen. If you watch a lot of popular YouTubers' early vs later videos, you can see it in effect. It's common to see radical developments in elocution, projection, and energy from their natural state, and it's nearly always for the better.
- dylan604 3y ago
  If you think this doesn't make them look like a buffoon, then you are much more generous than I. "always for the better" that's definitely a matter of opinion, and I'm not buying it. it's just another in the long list of reasons why i don't spend a lot of time watching these types of "creators"

seabass-labrax 3y ago

I don't think that it's the energy of the acting that's jarring. I think it's the frequency of the cuts. This could be to cover up mistakes in diction (you only need to remember less than a few seconds of your lines at a time!) or just to hold the viewers attention with unnatural movements. One example of what you describe is GreatScott, a videomaker covering DIY electronics. He has definitely developed a more intense style, but he still gets through a paragraph of his lines without a cut. He doesn't need to turn his image upside-down to be engaging.

j4yav 3y ago
It's definitely also the barely contained squeals of glee whenever anything interesting happens in the song.