Bad Acting vs Bad Writing

[ScytheBearer]

 

 

< whack >

 

As an alternative, consider the following.

 

Every show has a target audience, a "market share", and a "fan base". Writers must balance their writing to attract the target audience, to keep the shows market share, and increase the show's fan base. Make a show too highbrow, and the audience thinks the show is talking down to them. Make a show too "politically correct" and the audience thinks the show is preachy. Make the show to realistic, and audience thinks the stories are overwrought.

 

To achieve such balance, writers write to the lowest common denominator. The least among the viewing public. And that they succeed is demonstrated in the fact that the audience keeps coming back, and advertisers keep buying air time on the shows.

All very true, but when did making you think become insulting? Are we so sensitive now that if we have to research a little bit to understand something we are insulted? Instead we want to be spoon fed everything like "bad fan-fiction"?

 

And do any of us really honestly care what the actors writers directors or producers political whatever is?

 

Or are you more like me; because these are my thoughts when I hear some actor/singer/athlete try and tell me how great X politician is.

"I could honestly care less I pay for your stuff to be entertained, if I wanted wrong opinions I would watch the news. Now dance or something entertain me."

 

 

My point was simply that writers write to their audience. But you take three line segments out of context and use them to go off on a tirade. You do more to make my point than any treatise I could quote or write. The audience the writers have in mind are emotionally stunted adolescents with an eighth grade education and a fifth grade reading level. Thank you.

[HeyYou]

 

 

 

< whack >

 

As an alternative, consider the following.

 

Every show has a target audience, a "market share", and a "fan base". Writers must balance their writing to attract the target audience, to keep the shows market share, and increase the show's fan base. Make a show too highbrow, and the audience thinks the show is talking down to them. Make a show too "politically correct" and the audience thinks the show is preachy. Make the show to realistic, and audience thinks the stories are overwrought.

 

To achieve such balance, writers write to the lowest common denominator. The least among the viewing public. And that they succeed is demonstrated in the fact that the audience keeps coming back, and advertisers keep buying air time on the shows.

All very true, but when did making you think become insulting? Are we so sensitive now that if we have to research a little bit to understand something we are insulted? Instead we want to be spoon fed everything like "bad fan-fiction"?

 

And do any of us really honestly care what the actors writers directors or producers political whatever is?

 

Or are you more like me; because these are my thoughts when I hear some actor/singer/athlete try and tell me how great X politician is.

"I could honestly care less I pay for your stuff to be entertained, if I wanted wrong opinions I would watch the news. Now dance or something entertain me."

 

My point was simply that writers write to their audience. But you take three line segments out of context and use them to go off on a tirade. You do more to make my point than any treatise I could quote or write. The audience the writers have in mind are emotionally stunted adolescents with an eighth grade education and a fifth grade reading level. Thank you.

 

I would expect that Hollywood bias plays a role in there as well...... else the shows wouldn't take great pains to show how politically correct they are.

[Saggaris]

George Lucas wrote and directed a far better film than Star Wars... American Graffiti, that had some brilliant writing, (ok the bit where Big JM made claims about the strip could've been better) but Ron Howard, Candy Clark, Mackenzie Phillips, Cindy Williams and Charles Martin Smith were absolutely excellent, and the lines were written and delivered with absolute believability (maybe I have tinted specs)

I have found though that many American films/series depend upon non communication to drive the story deeper.... where a simple answer would clear up the problem and it could all end right there.

Edited October 30, 2022 by Saggaris

[JediMasterTallyn]

 

My point was simply that writers write to their audience. But you take three line segments out of context and use them to go off on a tirade. You do more to make my point than any treatise I could quote or write. The audience the writers have in mind are emotionally stunted adolescents with an eighth grade education and a fifth grade reading level. Thank you.

 

Uhhhhh, What?

 

I was agreeing with you.

[Pagafyr]

1,000,000 Years BC

 

How would you rate this movie?

[StormWolf01]

Ok, here's something that I wanna point out. Actors vs Writing.

In a lot of cases, many actors really do have a say in what they'll put forth in front of the camera. If some of them don't like a line, they'll refuse to play it until it gets re-written.

Now granted, that's not going to apply to somebody who just broke the scene, is playing a very small part, and has not credentials behind them.

However, in some productions... lets say, the original Batwoman. The main star had a lot of problems with her part, and the producers basically just told her to suck it up, and play the part that was written for her.

So there's factors in it. Sometimes... if a part is bad, yes... the actor IS as much to blame, as the writers/producers. BUT, that depends on how much they are able to shape the character themselves. Edward Norton, and Arnold Schwartzeneger (DO NOT expect me to be able to spell that correctly, IDGAF) are two very prime examples.

And in other situations, yes... it's the producer's fault.

 

As for modern writing. ANYTHING that is too on the nose, I don't watch. I don't care which side of the spectrum it's on. I watch to be entertained, not preached at, or be told what the producers think.

As for "progressive" and "liberal" writing. It depends on if I know the source material. If I enjoyed the original books, movie, tv show, whatever, and they took too much "Creative liberty" with it (Battlestar Galactica, MY prime example) Then I don't watch it.

If they took creative liberty to the point that it just breaks the laws of common sense, and throws it in the garbage can, then yeah...I don't watch that either.

[HeyYou]

Ok, here's something that I wanna point out. Actors vs Writing.

In a lot of cases, many actors really do have a say in what they'll put forth in front of the camera. If some of them don't like a line, they'll refuse to play it until it gets re-written.

Now granted, that's not going to apply to somebody who just broke the scene, is playing a very small part, and has not credentials behind them.

However, in some productions... lets say, the original Batwoman. The main star had a lot of problems with her part, and the producers basically just told her to suck it up, and play the part that was written for her.

So there's factors in it. Sometimes... if a part is bad, yes... the actor IS as much to blame, as the writers/producers. BUT, that depends on how much they are able to shape the character themselves. Edward Norton, and Arnold Schwartzeneger (DO NOT expect me to be able to spell that correctly, IDGAF) are two very prime examples.

And in other situations, yes... it's the producer's fault.

 

As for modern writing. ANYTHING that is too on the nose, I don't watch. I don't care which side of the spectrum it's on. I watch to be entertained, not preached at, or be told what the producers think.

As for "progressive" and "liberal" writing. It depends on if I know the source material. If I enjoyed the original books, movie, tv show, whatever, and they took too much "Creative liberty" with it (Battlestar Galactica, MY prime example) Then I don't watch it.

If they took creative liberty to the point that it just breaks the laws of common sense, and throws it in the garbage can, then yeah...I don't watch that either.

Yeah, Starbuck being female really surprised me. :smile:

 

And then we have John Clark, from the various Jack Ryan movies. (Tom Clancy) He can't seem to make up his mind what race he is.......

Edited November 5, 2022 by HeyYou

[DrakeTheDragon]

Oh, I don't know. Yeah, the new BSG series could not be compared to the old. Clean nuclear power vs. a-bombs launched from Battlestars, laser cannons vs. old projectile-based gatlings, god- and mono-faith centric Cylons? That just didn't add up.

 

But hey, totally ignoring what it's "supposed" to be about, nuclear warfare against flying a-bomb shelters in space, hyperspace jumping battleships that need to have all fighters inside and the bays locked up before they can jump, robot pet-like thinking fighters following their masters like obedient dogs? What's not to like about all that?

 

Really, once I did away with the silly comparisons and enjoyed the show as its own isolated work... I really enjoyed watching every episode.

 

And honestly, if I was to compare every movie adaptation of a video game series I played in my youth, I wouldn't have any movies left worth watching. But I don't compare them. I enjoy them for what they are, and to their fullest potential.

And in my honest opinion, who doesn't watch a new (remake) series, only because it doesn't match the expectations coming with its name, is seriously loosing out on something they could actually enjoy really greatly, if they didn't compare it.

[Wolpeti]

Nobody talked about the Witcher Series yet? Cause i am having a blast.

 

It was obvious from the start that the people who created this garbage fire were not sympathetic to the franchise, to the genre, and tried on purpose to make it repulsive. Starting with the absolut abysmal Nilfgaardian Costumes and the crowning moment came when Sir Eyck, by CD Project Red depicted as a principled Warrior Chad, was made out to be a bumbling, stupid bully who dies in his own feces. The archtype of the christian knight gets just killed and thrown on the s#*&#33; pile.

It was not just bad, it was a direct "f*#@ you" to the people who were watching it. And i have to admit i was watching parts of it, skipping trough, out of morbid curriosity, cause i knew what would happen next; people would force themselves to like it.

And so it happend. The month the series was released the first Witcher TV series Mods, because people for some reason wanted to bring the anti-aesthetics of that garbage fire to a gaming platform that was capable of so much more than Trash TV, faux leather armor and actresses from a world where beauty isn't created by magic. It was ridiculous! And now we learn that in deed the writers and producers hated the product and hate the fans, who frankly deserve alot of contempt for how they gobbled up this obviously inferior product. Its like when Randy Marsh in South Park has to listen to "young peoples music" and its all just s#*&#33;, but he keeps on pretending its good, digging himself ever deeper into a pile of s#*&#33;.

 

And before anyone talks about the books; forgett it. The books are utterly mediocre cause the Author just copied it from Michael Moorcock's Stormbringer Series. If you seriously think that this is compatible, even referable, in the age of modern media hyper reality, youre out for lunch. Nobody cares about the books, nobody should care about the books. If anything the series, still relying on book material, showed how pointless, mediocre and boring the books realy are. I would call it an example of bad writing if the polish author would have actualy written it.

 

And by the way, where did all the money go? The first season of witcher had an estimated budget of 80 million dollars. Does it look like 80 million dollars? No. It looks like backyard trash. Where did the money go? Where did all the money go? Did it go up the noses of netflix producers? Was it burned in a garbage fire together with a million better scripts?

 

The only one i feel realy bad for in all of this is Henry Cavill. Hes a genuin enthusiast about the fantasy franchise despite having so much more interesting stuff going on for himself, and they lured him into this mess where he had to interfer with the script writers to salvage some of it. I haven't seen such a downer since Mark Hamil described almost stuttering and then getting more tense how Disney Star Wars literaly butchered his Character of Luke Skywalker, one of the most successful franchise IPs on this planet.

 

These things are even more downing than knowing that non of this means anything. Big Corpo will not change this because why care about good writing and production when sicopahntic fans gobble it up anyways? After all, fan comes from fanatic, and the only thing that will realy change is that we will now see Liam Hemsworth mods on nexus, a guy whos brother was also already thrown into s#*&#33; by writers who just wanted to humiliate an archtype, the hollywood equivalent to the cornfield scene in Casino.

Mass media produced by committee will always be cathering to the lowest common denominator. The only hope for "culture", for engaging writing and depictions, will be, as it always was, the passion of a few talented men.

[StormWolf01]

Oh, I don't know. Yeah, the new BSG series could not be compared to the old. Clean nuclear power vs. a-bombs launched from Battlestars, laser cannons vs. old projectile-based gatlings, god- and mono-faith centric Cylons? That just didn't add up.

 

But hey, totally ignoring what it's "supposed" to be about, nuclear warfare against flying a-bomb shelters in space, hyperspace jumping battleships that need to have all fighters inside and the bays locked up before they can jump, robot pet-like thinking fighters following their masters like obedient dogs? What's not to like about all that?

 

Really, once I did away with the silly comparisons and enjoyed the show as its own isolated work... I really enjoyed watching every episode.

 

And honestly, if I was to compare every movie adaptation of a video game series I played in my youth, I wouldn't have any movies left worth watching. But I don't compare them. I enjoy them for what they are, and to their fullest potential.

And in my honest opinion, who doesn't watch a new (remake) series, only because it doesn't match the expectations coming with its name, is seriously loosing out on something they could actually enjoy really greatly, if they didn't compare it.

The old BSG was one of my most favorite shows as a kid.

I went into the show with an open mind, and some excitement.

That died.

As soon as I saw one of the cast shoot what was VERY much, a bottle rocket out of their "blaster".

And their use of weapons from a planet they'd never been to, made by people that the whole premise of the story, was they were trying to meet. (Modern day pistols).

 

I really did like some of the advances of the show. They ships looked awesome. The CG for the cylons coulda been better. But the designs were cool.

For me, the thing that didn't work tho, was the props. The effects with the props.

And all the nonstop blah blah blah blah blah. That's a personal thing. I like action shows. They talk too much (which they did, and not enough action For Me...) and I tune out.

That's a personal thing, and it's an ADHD thing. People talk too much and I zone past them cuz brain gets bored.