Poll Disco v Lost in Space v Orville FIGHT

[Spaceship Jo]

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.

Though there are plenty of factors that add up to less than organic, less than subtle acting in DISC or in Stranger Things, the biggest piece of the puzzle is the writing. Between Will and his mom, there is no question which actor is more capable of subtlety, but she's not written that way. She is a frantic mother, and that's all they wrote. Sure, the situations are different from scene to scene, but she's given nothing else to play but frantic mother. Will can be organic in one scene and over-the-top in another, because he's given more variety to play, and in turn the director can have more feedback, and the showrunners can have more impressions of specific moments. Likewise, up until the writing became utterly one-note, Lorca was able to get impressive range out of his one-and-a-half-note scripting, which is saying quite a lot about quite a little.

 

[catshadowsi8]

Though there are plenty of factors that add up to less than organic, less than subtle acting in DISC or in Stranger Things, the biggest piece of the puzzle is the writing. Between Will and his mom, there is no question which actor is more capable of subtlety, but she's not written that way. She is a frantic mother, and that's all they wrote. Sure, the situations are different from scene to scene, but she's given nothing else to play but frantic mother. Will can be organic in one scene and over-the-top in another, because he's given more variety to play, and in turn the director can have more feedback, and the showrunners can have more impressions of specific moments. Likewise, up until the writing became utterly one-note, Lorca was able to get impressive range out of his one-and-a-half-note scripting, which is saying quite a lot about quite a little.

I agree about the writing. My example of Stranger Things specifically mentioned this. They keep pushing the same overall type of scenes over and over. It's as if they think they need to hammer it home, and with a sledge hammer no less.

As for the actress, in Stranger Things, I need to see it and while I see a little organic acting from her sometime, it is not what is shown the majority of the time imo. And she is not frantic all the time. She has some romantic scenes...which fall flat imo. I can't get into more without divulging spoilers.

Still, my point is, for some reason, this organic, subtle method is getting shoved to the side for more forced scenes and performances (and I'm not talking overacted either). It's also not reserved for Star Trek. It's more pandemic than that.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

As for the actress, in Stranger Things, I need to see it and while I see a little organic acting from her sometime, it is not what is shown the majority of the time imo. And she is not frantic all the time. She has some romantic scenes...which fall flat imo. I can't get into more without divulging spoilers.

Even in romantic scenes, she's still written as "the frantic mom". I get what you're saying, and it still comes back to the writing. We as audiences (but sadly also as creators) tend to fail to have language and grammar for breaking down what works and doesn't work, so we go in circles with which tangible detail is more surface or more implied in depth. We have a hard time expressing (or perhaps discussing) that we love something while also talking about things that are minor annoyances or outright failures.

I would call the writing on Stranger Things... adequate and sometimes interesting, what really makes the show is everything else. From the casting to the special effects to the sound design, it's resplendent in a coat of quality. And the writing is still worth talking about in its averageness. Likewise, DISC has a similar coat of production quality. You can see the money in the shots. You can know that the actors are good (let's presume they are good or great even though I know there's plenty of dissent on these boards about that) and still see past that to the average-at-best writing.

You can see this exemplified in "forced scenes and performances". There is nothing subtle or natural to act in a scene that is already forced by virtue of its premise and then again by the quality of the dialogue as written. There are enough moments here and there that show us that these actors are capable of much better things. There is direction that handles certain aspects with aplomb. So it comes back to the writing. The writers "keep pushing the same overall type of scenes over and over" because these unsubtle, unnatural scenes are what they know how to write.

 

[catshadowsi8]

Even in romantic scenes, she's still written as "the frantic mom". I get what you're saying, and it still comes back to the writing. We as audiences (but sadly also as creators) tend to fail to have language and grammar for breaking down what works and doesn't work, so we go in circles with which tangible detail is more surface or more implied in depth. We have a hard time expressing (or perhaps discussing) that we love something while also talking about things that are minor annoyances or outright failures.

I would call the writing on Stranger Things... adequate and sometimes interesting, what really makes the show is everything else. From the casting to the special effects to the sound design, it's resplendent in a coat of quality. And the writing is still worth talking about in its averageness. Likewise, DISC has a similar coat of production quality. You can see the money in the shots. You can know that the actors are good (let's presume they are good or great even though I know there's plenty of dissent on these boards about that) and still see past that to the average-at-best writing.

You can see this exemplified in "forced scenes and performances". There is nothing subtle or natural to act in a scene that is already forced by virtue of its premise and then again by the quality of the dialogue as written. There are enough moments here and there that show us that these actors are capable of much better things. There is direction that handles certain aspects with aplomb. So it comes back to the writing. The writers "keep pushing the same overall type of scenes over and over" because these unsubtle, unnatural scenes are what they know how to write.

Again I agree. I think the writers either don't believe we will get it or they don't know how to write it. Then the director seems to feel he has to micro manage everything or it will fall off the rails. That leads to great voice acting and everything else gets shoved to the side. Problem is imo their approach is the problem, at least for me, but they don't or won't see it.

I should say I really enjoy Stranger Things. I've watched both seasons. The production, special effects and even the overall story arc are great. However it still suffers from the same issues a lot of series have... a lack of organic, subtle presentations both in the scripts and the performances. I miss it.

 

[eschaton]

As for the actress, in Stranger Things, I need to see it and while I see a little organic acting from her sometime, it is not what is shown the majority of the time imo. And she is not frantic all the time. She has some romantic scenes...which fall flat imo. I can't get into more without divulging spoilers.

I have nothing substantive really to say here, except it's...amusing...to me you don't seem to know who Winona Ryder is, considering she is far and away the most well-know cast member on Stranger Things. Maybe you're just a whole lot younger than my 38 years though.

 

[catshadowsi8]

I have nothing substantive really to say here, except it's...amusing...to me you don't seem to know who Winona Ryder is, considering she is far and away the most cast member on Stranger Things. Maybe you're just a whole lot younger than my 38 years though.

Lol. Sorry but I saw TOS when it originally aired.

I am not talking about the actress' previous work, only her work on Stranger Things. Now, since you brought it up, tell me her acting is as subtle as in Little Women, or Age of Innocence? Edward Scissorhands? How about Beetlejuice? In Stranger Things, a child is showing more organic, subtle acting than she is! Sure surprised me.

Now, to be fair, I get that many fans like the more aggressive approach to storytelling. I'm fine with that. I was asked why I don't so I tried to answer honestly and it is just my opinion.

I'm sorry if I took this thread off topic. Just trying to explain why I said what I did about Discovery earlier.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Why does everyone create this false imperative where you can either like depressing shows OR you can like happy uplifting shows? There's room enough in the world for shows that remind you how awful, greedy and violent humans can be and for shows that remind you that empathy and human decency can still win out and make the world a better place.

The greatest enemy of a real utopian future is complacency. Look what happened when we got the idea into our heads that white supremacy was dead.

 

[Vger23]

I just finished LiS and thought it was very good. Yes, it had some annoying peril-filler (lots, actually), but the core story and execution were very nice. I also think the cast was unbelievably good.

Do I "like" it more than DSC? No, not by a long shot.

Was it a better executed season than S1 of DSC? I must admit that it was, yes.

DSC

LiS





Orville

 

[lawman]

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.
...
That kind of acting, what I call organic, just doesn't happen very often anymore. ... Scenes without words can be the most powerful imho. Directors and script writers seem to disagree.

Interesting. What you're describing as "subtle" acting you also call "organic," as in natural or realistic... but I'm a very verbal person, and (conversely) one of those unfortunate people who's never had a great instinct for reading body language in real life. More than once over the years I've said to people who are close to me that they shouldn't expect me to pick up on what they're thinking or feeling just from nonverbal cues... if you want me to know what's on your mind, tell me in words. That, to me, is the most natural (and effective) way to communicate.

(It's not that I'm completely "illiterate" in nonverbal language... but it's not instinctive either; I've had to train myself. I can appreciate a show like, say, Counterpart, which I mentioned earlier... J.K. Simmons is brilliant in that, as he's playing two different versions of the "same" person, and you can almost always tell which one is on screen right away, often even before a word is spoken, just from the attitude he projects. But most actors aren't that talented, nor do most stories demand that degree of nuance.)

Consider, also, that most screenwriters are (by their very choice of profession) more than likely to be fairly verbal people themselves. It's just natural for them to want their characters to communicate through words most of the time, as opposed to more indirect means. Some of my personal favorite screenwriters are people like Aaron Sorkin and Joss Whedon, known for their distinctive and memorable dialogue.

Still, it's not all one thing or another, on any show. As @Spaceship Jo mentioned upthread, for instance, even in DSC Jason Isaacs managed to convey a lot more depth to Lorca than was necessarily there in the writing, right up until almost the end.

 

[gblews]

I'm sorry, but this argument basically boils down to "DIS should be dark and edgy because it's fashionable." It's not really moving "forward" except in the most broad sense, because it's almost certain that given another few decades taste in media will move away from this paradigm.

My post said nothing about "dark and edgy". Those are your words. When I said the franchise is moving forward, I meant that it has moved past the point where the format has to be all one off episodes. I think a well written over arcing story or mini arcs can provide more gravitas and therefore greater drama than can be generally built in one hour.

I do love great drama. There needs to be serious consequences for actions and I want to see how it affects characters. Lightweight inconsequential stories told in one hour aren't everyone's idea of great escapism.

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.

Huh? A "happy ending" is exactly what we saw in the season finale of DSC. Burnham is reinstated, the crew is given commendations, the war with the Klingons is ended, the Fed is on the way to adding the Klingons. Burnham even gives a speech reiterating Starfleet and Fed values. Now, along the way, some serious shit happened, there were some terrible losses, but this is what great drama is all about.

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.

I read your subsequent posts on this topic but failed to hit the quote button, but I think I understand what you're saying about actors using subtle body language to convey information non-verbally.

In film acting I think this is something that has to be handled carefully, otherwise you might end up with Kate Mulgrew in Voy, constantly gesturing wildly or Scott Bakula in Ent, pacing, rolling his shoulders and constantly tilting his head to and fro and furrowing his brow. Both of them have stage actor tendencies. I think being able to use subtle body language is an individual actor trait. Some can do it much better than others and the ones who are able to do it well don't need direction in order to do it.

I agree with you about Shazad Latiff's ability to almost physically invoke Voq's presence even before completing the uncanny transformation by speaking his guttural form of Klingon. Some of his scenes were positively chilling. I also think Mary Chieff's subtle ability to convey strong emotion through all that heavy make-up was another of DSC's acting triumphs.

As for Stammets and Culber, I'm not the the greatest for picking up on non-verbals stuff, especially when it comes to romances between men, but when we first see the two of them together in sick bay my first thought was that these two must be good friends. Now both Anthony Rapp and Nelson Cruz have theater backgrounds, but it didn't manifest itself in physical hyperbole. There was something about the familiarity with the way Culber was "nagging: and Stammet's resistance to it.

Steve McQueen, one of the greatest film actors of his generation (or any generation) once said of film acting, "You have to let the camera do the work for you", which I think means that if you're going to use body language, it had better be really subtle.

 

[catshadowsi8]

Interesting. What you're describing as "subtle" acting you also call "organic," as in natural or realistic... but I'm a very verbal person, and (conversely) one of those unfortunate people who's never had a great instinct for reading body language in real life. More than once over the years I've said to people who are close to me that they shouldn't expect me to pick up on what they're thinking or feeling just from nonverbal cues... if you want me to know what's on your mind, tell me in words. That, to me, is the most natural (and effective) way to communicate.

(It's not that I'm completely "illiterate" in nonverbal language... but it's not instinctive either; I've had to train myself. I can appreciate a show like, say, Counterpart, which I mentioned earlier... J.K. Simmons is brilliant in that, as he's playing two different versions of the "same" person, and you can almost always tell which one is on screen right away, often even before a word is spoken, just from the attitude he projects. But most actors aren't that talented, nor do most stories demand that degree of nuance.)

Consider, also, that most screenwriters are (by their very choice of profession) more than likely to be fairly verbal people themselves. It's just natural for them to want their characters to communicate through words most of the time, as opposed to more indirect means. Some of my personal favorite screenwriters are people like Aaron Sorkin and Joss Whedon, known for their distinctive and memorable dialogue.

See for me I need to read body language in rl because it helps me see between the lines. Unconscious actions often gives me clues as to what is truthful, not being said or even concealed.

In tv or movies I want both verbal and non verbal. A great verbal presentation is wonderful because words can be so elegant and communicate complex ideas and emotions but I need the non verbal cues to go with it. I struggle when they are absent because I'm hardwired to be aware of it.

My problem is I am finding more and more shows compensates for a lack of non verbal by emphasizing the talking too much or they write the scenes so they are beating you over the head with what you should feel.

Even the simple things like a smile tells me information. Body posture, movement, all telegraph emotions. It's as unconscious for me to read as it is for the person projecting it. I can't skip one for the other.

And yes, it has to be subtle because in rl non verbal communication is subtle. We don't wave our arms in the arm and forcibly throw our bodies around. On the stage it is exaggerated because subtle doesn't make it to the audience in the last row but the camera is close and it doesn't lie. Body language that is exaggerated, misplaced or absent is odd, at least for me. I feel I'm only getting half the picture while verbally they are screaming at me to get it.

When I see an actor like Latif I get a rush. I don't want to just be told, show me.

And yes I believe a large part of the problem lies with script writers and directors. Actors must do what they are told. When a director or script writer sabotages the actor's natural movements it's jarring, at least for me.

 

[catshadowsi8]

I read your subsequent posts on this topic but failed to hit the quote button, but I think I understand what you're saying about actors using subtle body language to convey information non-verbally.

In film acting I think this is something that has to be handled carefully, otherwise you might end up with Kate Mulgrew in Voy, constantly gesturing wildly or Scott Bakula in Ent, pacing, rolling his shoulders and constantly tilting his head to and fro and furrowing his brow. Both of them have stage actor tendencies. I think being able to use subtle body language is an individual actor trait. Some can do it much better than others and the ones who are able to do it well don't need direction in order to do it.

I agree with you about Shazad Latiff's ability to almost physically invoke Voq's presence even before completing the uncanny transformation by speaking his guttural form of Klingon. Some of his scenes were positively chilling. I also think Mary Chieff's subtle ability to convey strong emotion through all that heavy make-up was another of DSC's acting triumphs.

As for Stammets and Culber, I'm not the the greatest for picking up on non-verbals stuff, especially when it comes to romances between men, but when we first see the two of them together in sick bay my first thought was that these two must be good friends. Now both Anthony Rapp and Nelson Cruz have theater backgrounds, but it didn't manifest itself in physical hyperbole. There was something about the familiarity with the way Culber was "nagging: and Stammet's resistance to it.

Steve McQueen, one of the greatest film actors of his generation (or any generation) once said of film acting, "You have to let the camera do the work for you", which I think means that if you're going to use body language, it had better be really subtle.

You understand what I'm saying as well. Latif is what I call an organic actor. Even in his quieter scenes he is broadcasting emotions both verbally and non verbally but it is subtle, not exaggerated. When he is talking to Burnham after all the crap is over and she is telling him you are on your own, his presentation was chilling. He was hitting it on all fronts and yet most of the talking was her. You could see and feel the different emotions churning inside him even though he was just standing there. That is what I'm talking about.

 

[BillJ]

(It's not that I'm completely "illiterate" in nonverbal language... but it's not instinctive either; I've had to train myself. I can appreciate a show like, say, Counterpart, which I mentioned earlier... J.K. Simmons is brilliant in that, as he's playing two different versions of the "same" person, and you can almost always tell which one is on screen right away, often even before a word is spoken, just from the attitude he projects. But most actors aren't that talented, nor do most stories demand that degree of nuance.)

Counterpart is brilliant. Too bad the Discovery writers couldn't bring that kind of nuance to the Mirror Universe episodes.

 

[eschaton]

I am not talking about the actress' previous work, only her work on Stranger Things. Now, since you brought it up, tell me her acting is as subtle as in Little Women, or Age of Innocence? Edward Scissorhands? How about Beetlejuice? In Stranger Things, a child is showing more organic, subtle acting than she is! Sure surprised me.

Sure, but as others intimated, she's acting the role they gave her. Honestly, comparing her work in Stranger Things to some of her earlier work, when she was kind of typecast in a handful of roles, leads me to appreciate her as an actor a lot more. Basically when you have well-known actors (not just A-listers, but always a-listers) Hollywood likes to typecast, because they develop a certain "brand" and people expect to see them in a certain kind of role. Ryder is very much playing against her historic sort of role in Stranger Things. The only thing I dislike about her performance is she's talking like she's from Minnesota even though the show takes place in Indiana.

 

[catshadowsi8]

Sure, but as others intimated, she's acting the role they gave her. Honestly, comparing her work in Stranger Things to some of her earlier work, when she was kind of typecast in a handful of roles, leads me to appreciate her as an actor a lot more. Basically when you have well-known actors (not just A-listers, but always a-listers) Hollywood likes to typecast, because they develop a certain "brand" and people expect to see them in a certain kind of role. Ryder is very much playing against her historic sort of role in Stranger Things. The only thing I dislike about her performance is she's talking like she's from Minnesota even though the show takes place in Indiana.

I'm not in any way taking away from her abilities.The problem seems to rest with the script and the director in her case because we know she can produce great, subtle, organic performances. She simply isn't here but that's Ok. I may miss it but she is at the whim of others as all actors are.

 

[eschaton]

I'm not in any way taking away from her abilities.The problem seems to rest with the script and the director in her case because we know she can produce great, subtle, organic performances. She simply isn't here but that's Ok. I may miss it but she is at the whim of others as all actors are.

One other thing to consider is Stranger Things is very referential to 1980s movies and TV - to the point that they purposefully did the cinematography to make it look like it was filmed in that decade. Because of this, they might be going for not a naturalistic/organic performance, but something which would be appropriately "period" to the time.

 

[catshadowsi8]

One other thing to consider is Stranger Things is very referential to 1980s movies and TV - to the point that they purposefully did the cinematography to make it look like it was filmed in that decade. Because of this, they might be going for not a naturalistic/organic performance, but something which would be appropriately "period" to the time.

That is possible. All I know is I'm not seeing it which makes me kind of sad.

 

[catshadowsi8]

I will add this eschaton. In Stranger Things 2 there is a scene where she is sitting on the edge of her bed. (I can't say more because of spoilers) She rocks that scene so when they give her a chance she definitely delivers the kind of organic performance I love.

 

[Jadeb]

Great news: LiS has been renewed for season two!

 

[lawman]

I struggle when [nonverbal cues] are absent because I'm hardwired to be aware of it. ... It's as unconscious for me to read as it is for the person projecting it.

Yeah, definitely not the case for me. When I do read body language and other nonverbal cues, it's a very conscious process. And IRL as much as in fiction, if you really want me to understand something you want to communicate, there's no substitute for words. Drives me nuts when someone expects me to pick up on something they haven't actually voiced.