sariz
Sophomore
@sariz
Posts: 422
Likes: 70
 
|
Post by sariz on May 24, 2017 23:20:32 GMT
Do you guys think the best tv actors are on the same level as the The best film actors?
Im asking this because on the actors and actresses board someone said there is no way something like Hugh Lau a tv actor can be on the same level of Lawrence Oliver.
there is the typical thread of who you think are the best actors and on my list well I mentioned Hugh and someone said how can you mentioned Hugh as one of the best when we had Lawrence oliver and I felt his main complaint is that Hugh is a tv Actor.
So im asking do you guys think the best tv actors can compete with the best film actors?
ok not on award shows but on quality. For example I think Hugh is as great as Daniel Day Lewis and Ralph Fiennes two of the best film actors in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on May 25, 2017 0:05:04 GMT
I think that generally, TV actors have to be better than film actors, and they've been that way since the dawn of television,
when many TV shows were done live or in front of a studio audience, so that TV actors were required to be of the caliber of stage actors. Film actors always have the luxury of multiple takes, and they get to overplay dramatic roles and goof it up in comedic roles without worrying about comic timing, which in a film would be more the responsibility of film editors. TV actors, faced with more intimate levels of acting, have to be more subtle in dramatic roles. In comedies, they have to rely more on the audience's
reactions in order to pace their line delivery (or in the case of a comedy with canned laughter, especially one of those painfully unfunny sitcoms, pretend that they're getting laughs). And in a long-running TV series, they have to try to keep their character
constant through several seasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on May 25, 2017 1:31:01 GMT
Of course although Laurie and his barely passable American accent is not a very good example of the quality of acting on TV these days.
|
|
sariz
Sophomore
@sariz
Posts: 422
Likes: 70
|
Post by sariz on May 25, 2017 3:46:19 GMT
Of course although Laurie and his barely passable American accent is not a very good example of the quality of acting on TV these days. Barley passable??? i didn't know he wasn't American till I watched an interview with him. Maybe his accent is impressive for everyone outside the US like me but his movements and expressions are top notch. He is an an incredible actor at least for me he is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 4:04:26 GMT
Of course although Laurie and his barely passable American accent is not a very good example of the quality of acting on TV these days. Barley passable??? i didn't know he wasn't American till I watched an interview with him. Maybe his accent is impressive for everyone outside the US like me but his movements and expressions are top notch. He is an an incredible actor at least for me he is. Same here. Hugh Laurie should have won an emmy + golden globe every year for her performance of Gregory House- one of the most complex characters of all time. |
|
sariz
Sophomore
@sariz
Posts: 422
Likes: 70
|
Post by sariz on May 25, 2017 4:14:14 GMT
Barley passable??? i didn't know he wasn't American till I watched an interview with him. Maybe his accent is impressive for everyone outside the US like me but his movements and expressions are top notch. He is an an incredible actor at least for me he is. Same here. Hugh Laurie sould have won an emmy + golden globe every year for her performance of Gregory House- one of the most complex characters of all time. Finally someone who agrees on how great he is |
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on May 25, 2017 8:55:25 GMT
I think that generally, TV actors have to be better than film actors, and they've been that way since the dawn of television, when many TV shows were done live or in front of a studio audience, so that TV actors were required to be of the caliber of stage actors. Film actors always have the luxury of multiple takes, and they get to overplay dramatic roles and goof it up in comedic roles without worrying about comic timing, which in a film would be more the responsibility of film editors. TV actors, faced with more intimate levels of acting, have to be more subtle in dramatic roles. In comedies, they have to rely more on the audience's reactions in order to pace their line delivery (or in the case of a comedy with canned laughter, especially one of those painfully unfunny sitcoms, pretend that they're getting laughs). And in a long-running TV series, they have to try to keep their character constant through several seasons. Good points, all, though I'm not sure I agree with all of them. Well made points. I think that one area where the best film actors are or maybe I should say, in all fairness, appear to be superior is charisma. Yes, different mediums, and we may even differ on how to define charisma, but the whole "legend business" tends to be about movie actors, not TV ones, with the usual exceptions. On the other hand even if one were to agree there's the issue of whether charisma has anything to do with acting talent or is a talent at all, and even if it is whether it's fair to compare a brilliant actor who is charisma challenged,--Christopher Plummer, say, or Paul Scofield--to a charismatic actor whose gift is modest,--with all due respect, Burt Reynolds, Steve McQueen and Sean Connery come to mind. Most of the actors I listed are from the past. How contemporary TV actors compare to current film ones, I'm not sure. I've seen some brilliant performances from British TV actors, some of whom I don't even know the names of, and good work from American actors, too,--in current TV show and films, so my observations may be rather out of date. |
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on May 25, 2017 11:17:54 GMT
Hugh Laurie was good and helps prove the point. These guys do too: James in The Sopranos, Cranston in Breaking Bad, Pablo in Narcos, just about everyone in Game of Thrones. TV has passed movies in terms of quality in my opinion.
|
|
sariz
Sophomore
@sariz
Posts: 422
Likes: 70
|
Post by sariz on May 25, 2017 17:58:12 GMT
I think that generally, TV actors have to be better than film actors, and they've been that way since the dawn of television, when many TV shows were done live or in front of a studio audience, so that TV actors were required to be of the caliber of stage actors. Film actors always have the luxury of multiple takes, and they get to overplay dramatic roles and goof it up in comedic roles without worrying about comic timing, which in a film would be more the responsibility of film editors. TV actors, faced with more intimate levels of acting, have to be more subtle in dramatic roles. In comedies, they have to rely more on the audience's reactions in order to pace their line delivery (or in the case of a comedy with canned laughter, especially one of those painfully unfunny sitcoms, pretend that they're getting laughs). And in a long-running TV series, they have to try to keep their character constant through several seasons. Good points, all, though I'm not sure I agree with all of them. Well made points. I think that one area where the best film actors are or maybe I should say, in all fairness, appear to be superior is charisma. Yes, different mediums, and we may even differ on how to define charisma, but the whole "legend business" tends to be about movie actors, not TV ones, with the usual exceptions. On the other hand even if one were to agree there's the issue of whether charisma has anything to do with acting talent or is a talent at all, and even if it is whether it's fair to compare a brilliant actor who is charisma challenged,--Christopher Plummer, say, or Paul Scofield--to a charismatic actor whose gift is modest,--with all due respect, Burt Reynolds, Steve McQueen and Sean Connery come to mind. Most of the actors I listed are from the past. How contemporary TV actors compare to current film ones, I'm not sure. I've seen some brilliant performances from British TV actors, some of whom I don't even know the names of, and good work from American actors, too,--in current TV show and films, so my observations may be rather out of date. I think Charisma is more for enjoyment than making an actor good. Charisma can influence you to enjoy watching an actor more for example for me its Pierce Brosnan and Liam Nesson they are very charming and charismatic actors but I wouldn't put them on my best actors list though they are on my favorites list. I think most actors of the classic era relyied a lot more on charisma than real acting and maybe that's why they were such big stars, they were a few real thespians but mostly the classic era was about charisma Now there are many qualities of a great actor, i've opened myself a lot on what a great actor means. First when I watched Daniel Day Lewis I thought no actor who doesn't transform himself like he does can't be called a great actor. But I latter realized okay maybe not all have to go on chameleon mode to be great. Connery always uses his same accent and voice but he is great at expressing emotions. You see Marnie and its great how at times was really sweet and times his turned really dark and he is a great actor for it. And now with Hugh Laurie and Robert Downey Jr those two always look like themselves and sometimes they do great an accent but their main traits as great is their ability or great timing for comedy and drama. Both of them are equally at ease in both genres they dominate both with no problem. there are many actors who do one great but have a hard time with the other an Example Ralph Fiennes he is an incredible dramatic actor but looks like a fish out of water doing comedy the same goes for Daniel Day Lewis though he did a little of comedy in Gangs of New York and was very good. Its crazy but the more i add actors to my best list the more i open myself to different styles. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 21:17:52 GMT
I dunno. When I catch glimpses of old shows while channel hopping, a lot of the acting seems to be really wooden, really bad, especially when it isn't involving the lead characters. Nowadays, I hardly ever notice any bad acting, at least in the stuff I watch. I think it is because where I live at least (Britain), a lot of the people who have made it in acting have grown up going to drama schools and academies for acting and music, where as the old timers probably didn't do that, so there were less good actors about.
There probably isn't that much in it between the standard of film actors and TV actors these days, IMO.
Of course in a TV show you do have longer to develop a character, and kinda grow into.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on May 25, 2017 21:53:39 GMT
Well yeah A tv Actor can be as great and if not moreso usually.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 1:38:43 GMT
Of course although Laurie and his barely passable American accent is not a very good example of the quality of acting on TV these days. Barley passable??? i didn't know he wasn't American till I watched an interview with him. Maybe his accent is impressive for everyone outside the US like me but his movements and expressions are top notch. He is an an incredible actor at least for me he is. yeah what the hell-barely passable? His american accent was spot on, Same here,sariz - I had no idea he was English until I looked up his biography years later. You want to hear a bad accent poelzig ? Listen to Kevin Costner in Robin Hood Prince of thieves, Jon Voight in Anaconda,or Keannu Reeves in Bram Stokers Dracula Now THEY suck. Hugh Lauries nailed his accent- and meanwhile he had to dish out tons of medical jargon constantly too- without ever breaking his accent once.Thats right- a British actor effectively speaking in an american accent while spouting all sorts of medical terminology is tops in my book. |
|
|
|
Post by thebayharborbutcher on May 26, 2017 2:37:20 GMT
Ultimately I think it comes down to the performer. Some TV actors are better than film actors and some film actors are better than TV actors. It's hard for me to generalize it one way or another.
|
|
sariz
Sophomore
@sariz
Posts: 422
Likes: 70
|
Post by sariz on May 26, 2017 3:28:59 GMT
Barley passable??? i didn't know he wasn't American till I watched an interview with him. Maybe his accent is impressive for everyone outside the US like me but his movements and expressions are top notch. He is an an incredible actor at least for me he is. yeah what the hell-barely passable? His american accent was spot on, Same here,sariz - I had no idea he was English until I looked up his biography years later. You want to hear a bad accent poelzig ? Listen to Kevin Costner in Robin Hood Prince of thieves, Jon Voight in Anaconda,or Keannu Reeves in Bram Stokers Dracula Now THEY suck. Hugh Lauries nailed his accent- and meanwhile he had to dish out tons of medical jargon constantly too- without ever breaking his accent once.Thats right- a British actor effectively speaking in an american accent while spouting all sorts of medical terminology is tops in my book. Yes its crazy how good he was with the medical language, its like before being an actor he was a doctor. though maybe his great management of that language because his father was a real doctor. and like I said is not only the accent is the way moved with the cane snd doing incredibly well The dramatic and comedic moments. |
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on May 26, 2017 3:29:52 GMT
Barley passable??? i didn't know he wasn't American till I watched an interview with him. Maybe his accent is impressive for everyone outside the US like me but his movements and expressions are top notch. He is an an incredible actor at least for me he is. yeah what the hell-barely passable? His american accent was spot on, Same here,sariz - I had no idea he was English until I looked up his biography years later. You want to hear a bad accent poelzig ? Listen to Kevin Costner in Robin Hood Prince of thieves, Jon Voight in Anaconda,or Keannu Reeves in Bram Stokers Dracula Now THEY suck. Hugh Lauries nailed his accent- and meanwhile he had to dish out tons of medical jargon constantly too- without ever breaking his accent once.Thats right- a British actor effectively speaking in an american accent while spouting all sorts of medical terminology is tops in my book. Yes those are all bad. As was Charlie Hunnam on Sons of Anarchy, Ruth Wilson & Dominic West on The Affair, Anna Paquin in True Blood, Cary Elwes in Saw, the male and female leads in Preacher and I could continue for many many many pages. What does pointing out other bad accents have to do with the fact I wasn't impressed with Hugh Laurie? I've been to Europe numerous times so maybe that gave me a more discerning ear. Brits and anglophiles seem to cream their pantaloons as long as a UK actors "American" accent doesn't sound like he's in the cast of Oliver. They tend to either over exaggerate the regional sound, slip into their own accent often or do that generic flat monotone thing that only seems to exist with foreign actors trying to sound "American". That last one was what Laurie did and it's okay if you don't think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 26, 2017 4:15:23 GMT
Now they are.
I think everyone acts their face off nowadays, but TV is more dependent on the writer's contribution imo.
|
|
doivid
New Member
@doivid
Posts: 33
Likes: 5
|
Post by doivid on May 26, 2017 11:03:20 GMT
I don't feel like there's much difference anymore. Actors cross over between film & tv so much these days that the distinction doesn't really exist for me. Even on network tv you see film actors showing up.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on May 26, 2017 13:33:35 GMT
Aside from the "fact" that there is nop longer a clear here and there: Spacy, Close, Dunst and many others, it is more the names than the actual quality.
I think that many HOLLYwood blockbuster are bland at best, while the TVshow are getting better and better. TV show like the The Sapranos, Rome, Fargo, The Wire, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones - only to name a few - are often way, way better than anything Hollywood has these days to offer including the performances of the actors...but take The Shield: Glenn Close, Forest Whitaker, Walton Goggins, or House of Cards.
The one thing TV has and the big screens direly lacks is time.
How many movies were botched through time constrained editing and were only halfway saved by a directors cut?
Kingdom of Heavens, Suicide Squad, Apocalypse Now (albeit this one was fully saved).
Many movies lack character development, a proper introduction, a sound background story, story arcs that can develop or often a plot that make sense at all - mood pieces with tons CGI which jump from plot whole to plot whole.
I like Jennifer Lawrence a lot, but what was "Passengers" offering that makes it that special or better than the "Expanse" with all it complexity; alone the attention to what gravition or the lack of would means for space travel or colonization in space.
|
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on May 26, 2017 17:48:33 GMT
Definitely, some of the acting on daily soaps is on par with what I've seen on the big screen. Those daytime actors are simply amazing.
|
|
mykel
Sophomore
@mykel
Posts: 139
Likes: 68
|
Post by mykel on May 26, 2017 19:15:36 GMT
yeah what the hell-barely passable? His american accent was spot on, Same here,sariz - I had no idea he was English until I looked up his biography years later. You want to hear a bad accent poelzig ? Listen to Kevin Costner in Robin Hood Prince of thieves, Jon Voight in Anaconda,or Keannu Reeves in Bram Stokers Dracula Now THEY suck. Hugh Lauries nailed his accent- and meanwhile he had to dish out tons of medical jargon constantly too- without ever breaking his accent once.Thats right- a British actor effectively speaking in an american accent while spouting all sorts of medical terminology is tops in my book. Yes those are all bad. As was Charlie Hunnam on Sons of Anarchy, Ruth Wilson & Dominic West on The Affair, Anna Paquin in True Blood, Cary Elwes in Saw, the male and female leads in Preacher and I could continue for many many many pages. What does pointing out other bad accents have to do with the fact I wasn't impressed with Hugh Laurie? I've been to Europe numerous times so maybe that gave me a more discerning ear. Brits and anglophiles seem to cream their pantaloons as long as a UK actors "American" accent doesn't sound like he's in the cast of Oliver. They tend to either over exaggerate the regional sound, slip into their own accent often or do that generic flat monotone thing that only seems to exist with foreign actors trying to sound "American". That last one was what Laurie did and it's okay if you don't think about it. I agree that most of the above do a poor attempt at the American accent. The best one I have heard is Damian Lewis. I was amazed when I found out he was British after watching Homeland. I guess it helps that he's also a great actor. |
|
