Oh you bet!
Poll Disco v Lost in Space v Orville FIGHT
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
This is my whole premise that the formula tho muted in the TOS-TNG era was yea, shit can get crazy, but pushing thru adversity and keeping that optimistic view of our collective future was paramount to the enlightened view of a future society. STD is just dark all around and presents no happy ending. just depressing circumstances, and no real team structure, just incessant bickering.
Don't forget Pet Rocks!I remember the war the most. Watergate was political drama. Yuck stuff to a teenager. Gas shortages my parents stressed over. I walked to school. Lol The cold war. That's was the scary thing back then. People were building bomb shelters.
That's kind of it for me too. I want to like it. That is, I want to get that little buzz from entertainment. First and foremost I want that entertainment, I watch TV for the fun of it. Science fiction is wonder and imagination and escapism. Star Trek is a crew on a starfleet vessel exploring the universe, a 'family' in the future. I don't want patronising messages, just let it happen and get on with it. As for the darkness? Discovery needs to be careful it is not murky and indistinct.
Couldn't say it better myself. I watch for the exploration of new areas but, more importantly, to watch the crew overcome humongous obstacles, sometimes even risking their own lives for their crewmates, and somehow coming out of it together. If I want to watch people bicker and fight I'll go visit my in-laws.
Omg yes, in a little box and a piece of paper saying how to care for them. Lol Wish I'd thought of it.
Depends on the show. Have you watched Counterpart, for instance? Subtlety to spare.
Speaking as a huge fan of both shows, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, or what your assumptions are about the audience(s). Granted that fantasy and SF have somewhat different appeal (both on screen and in prose), they also have lots of overlap, and it seems to me that GOT in particular has a history as a high-quality show that appeals to almost everyone who approaches it with an open mind.It seems as if they were trying to get the Game of Thrones crowd, but I doubt they'd take the time to watch a Star Trek series.
You should definitely check out The Expanse. It's one of the most politically engaged SF shows I've seen since Babylon 5, and in particular it really grapples with issues of class.
As for Roseanne... is it really pro-Trump? How?
I admit I've never watched the original, but my second-hand impression had always been that Roseanne herself, and the rest of the cast, and the writers, were all markedly left-of-center.Well, there are periods I look back on fondly on a personal level.
As for the world at large, though (political, environmental, economic), I'm reasonably convinced we've been going to hell in a handbasket for my entire lifetime, and I've never really thought otherwise.
What I want from my entertainment isn't the kind of escapism that ignores the realities of the world, but neither do I want it to wallow in them. What I want, ideally, is something that acknowledges those realities but also shows how we can transcend them, solve our problems, and live up to our ideals.
To each his own. Political drama has always been catnip to me, including as a teenager! (Certainly long before I wound up studying politics and policy for a living...)
As for Roseanne... is it really pro-Trump? How?
Yup! See the interview with Roseanne Barr right here. Along with what the original writers think about the subject. They don't agree with her at all.
On another note, I'll add The Expanse to the list of shows I should watch.
Last edited:
True. Everyone is different. I was more into the human condition than the political one. It's probably why I love character driven stories rather than plot driven ones and why I went into the profession I did.
Roseanne is a curious product - I mean the show. The acting to me is almost deadpan and then deliberately punctuated. Its politics are not all surface level and if that comes from having a character such as the Roseanne one then it is balanced by other characters and arrives at some (needed in these current times) common ground, without denying the political profile of the various ones involved. Then there's the brazen personality of Roseanne that brings unique humour and you get a real sense of these people as a cast respecting each other and as a fictional family being as you may have remembered them but having been updated.
Voted for Discovery and Orville.
Seth MacFarlane had a great idea, hiring the same manatees who write Family Guy and writing names of Star Trek episodes on all the balls.
Seth MacFarlane had a great idea, hiring the same manatees who write Family Guy and writing names of Star Trek episodes on all the balls.
My point was, if you're seeing a lot of overacting and over emoting, then it is likely the shows you're watching, whether it is the Disney channel or not.The notion that this type of acting is a trend now, as you suggested, is not true, at least going by the shows I watch.
Well, off the top of my head, I watch Expanse, Killjoys, Dark Matter (which has been cancelled), Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Stranger Things, Seal Team, The Brave, Criminal Minds, and Star Trek Discovery just to name my most recent. I've started Anon. I do love my psychological twisters. I've watched Game of Thrones but not my cup of tea so I stopped after a few seasons. Not exactly kiddy fare.
So then you're not watching shows that show a trend toward overacting as your previous post suggested. So why is it you think there is a trend toward overacting?
At one time actors were more subtle. A small smile, a nod of acknowledgment, physical contact like a touch or a bump to portray a positive or negative emotion, actors who followed a scene by smoothly following a conversation as it switched from one character to another instead of staring intently or fluttering about like butterflies. We had words spoken with emotion but not exaggerated. We rarely got long drawn out speeches. That type of organic acting rarely shows itself anymore. People are used to the type of performance see these days because someone thinks we need to have a scene shouted at us. I'm not calling it overacting because that is not what I'm talking about. I feel its more over directing and script writing because they feel the audience can't pick up on the more subtle cues. For me It affects chemistry between the characters and makes the performances more jarring. The smaller, more subtle touches are missing.
Last edited:
Wheras I recall my first impression on seeing episode 3 was, "This crew can't stand each other and they're all terrified of their captain. This is awesome."Couldn't say it better myself. I watch for the exploration of new areas but, more importantly, to watch the crew overcome humongous obstacles, sometimes even risking their own lives for their crewmates, and somehow coming out of it together. If I want to watch people bicker and fight I'll go visit my in-laws.
As a lifelong Trek fan, it was a breath of fresh air to see that happening in Trek.
Sadly it was all undone by the episode where they all come to sit with Tyler/Voq in the mess hall. Tilly I could believe, but cranky scowly Seven of Nine eyepiece girl and everyone else?
I remember tuning in to Voyager eagerly waiting to see what insubordinate thing Tom Paris would do next... until it turned out to be a hoax
I don't think this is overacting. I consider overacting to be the hammy, theatrical style which works well on the stage (where people are very far from the actors, and need larger than life gestures to pick up on nuance). Shatner overacted, for example. So did Avery Brooks.
What you seem to have an issue with is that scripts and direction have moved heavily in the direction of focus on character conflict - sometimes to the point of melodrama. But IMHO TV acting is still mostly naturalistic, not theatrical and hammy.
As I said in my post it's not overacting! Maybe it's more underacting or maybe over managed? Since I'm a character driven viewer I may notice it more and I personally like character conflict as long as it doesn't overwhelm them.
I was thinking about this last night and how to describe it and here is what I came up with. Actors these days are fantastic voice actors. They can portray all manner of emotions and situations verbally but somewhere along the way the defining body language fell away. I feel this disconnects me from the character.
Case in point: Stamets and Culber. Their romance just dropped out of thin air for me. I should have picked up on it without words but that did not happen. There was some organic acting by Culber in sickbay and a little when they met after he was dead but the rest was mostly talking. I'm not talking tears because there is a lot more to grief than words and tears. Watch Russel Crow in Gladiator. His entire body is wrecked with grief and not just when he finds out. His body language changed after that for the rest of the movie but its subtle. He shows it in small ways, but doesn't talk it.
Shazad Latif who plays Ash is the most organic actor on the show. You can see him changed from Tyler to Voq without words though sometimes he pushes it a little too hard verbally. Subtle, please don't ram it down my throat. Again I feel it is the direction he is being given and the way the scene is written. It's like tptb think I'm stupid and can't catch the subtle nuances of a performance.
That kind of acting, what I call organic, just doesn't happen very often anymore. The voice and inflection are there but the physical manifestation is lost. That subtle form of acting is missing, at least for me. Instead we get scenes written that shout at us what we should feel. You will understand because the scene says you will.
Scenes without words can be the most powerful imho. Directors and script writers seem to disagree.
It's most evident in romantic scenes. Frustrates me.
That's just me though. I hope i explained it better and It may not be that way for everyone. I just like the more subtle approach but, to be honest, a lot of people call it poor acting. They want it thrust at them. I dont want that.
Sorry for the long post. Just trying to articulate what I mean.
I'm not a very visual person, so I haven't really perceived this. But after you've elaborated, it truly does seem like a failure of direction, rather than acting.
One thing to consider is movies and TV are very different. Movies are basically run by the directors. TV shows these days, in contrast, tend to be run by one or two executive producer "showrunners" who graduated out of the writers room. TV scripts do typically have some descriptive paragraphs of what's happening in a scene, but it's much less defined than the dialogue. Directors are basically hired guns who are brought in to do a handful of episodes a season - sometimes just one. There's usually much, much more continuity in the writers room than the director's chair. Thus the director may not have an intimate understanding of character motivations and backstory that the showrunner has. And the showrunner may be more interested in what is being told than what is being shown.
I think you are correct. I now remember reading a long time ago a particular show runner wanted facial expressions done a certain way. The actors objected but could not change his mind. I suspect this is what throws me off. When I don't get that subtle support for the scene it comes across as forced or false.
I was talking to my son about this and one show perfectly demonstrated what I was talking about. Stranger Things. The boy, Will, is what I call an organic, subtle actor. He doesn't have to say a word but he communicates his feelings amazingly well and when he does talk he uses his voice and body language to communicate what he feels. His mother, not so much. She comes across as forced. It's not the emotions, it's how it's portrayed and I'm not blaming the actors. Every so often I see a glimmer of organic acting in her performance. It's just not consistent and I suspect it's because she's being told it's not enough, push it more. Then the scenes are designed to ram it down my throat. She is frantic, I get it...oh no you don't, here's some more. Wash, rinse repeat. Sigh. Maybe the boy is so young they let him be and make his fewer scenes count more. There are rules regarding child acting. Too much directing and you might lose it all.
I've really enjoyed talking about this with all of you. Thanks for listening.
Last edited:
Similar threads
