Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9013719" data-attributes="member: 18">I mean, I think this was an issue, but I don't think the audience was the problem.I don't think acting styles have fundamentally changed that much from 1980s to now. We appreciate subtlety a bit more, but many successful shows are basically nothing but overacting even today.TOS was jarring when I watched in the early-mid 1990s, even, I'd note. Even compared to other 1960s shows, Shatner's performance was... unusual. Like, I could watch something like Ironside (1967) and it just seemed like a TV show - actually kind of a modern one in some ways in the early 1990s (forward-looking in several ways - no doubt it'd get called "woke" today for featuring a wheelchair-bound detective). Whereas TOS seemed like something truly from another era.I think ENT's problems did reflect a real problem with approaches to acting/directing.I think the issue was more though that they didn't have enough of a vision of how they wanted the show to be, how they wanted the characters to be, so all the actors essentially reverted to rather downplaying things - "safe mode" as it were - except Billingsley - he's an experienced stage actor and I don't think his default mode is the "safe" mode!And I do think that reflected the era a bit - because the general approach to TV acting back then was to be restrained but not in a subtle way - which is why I think that was the default. And that is no longer the general approach to TV acting.It's notable that VOY, for all its many, many faults didn't have the same problem. Instead pretty much everyone was at least trying for a strong/distinctive performance. And that sort of thing comes from the showrunners and the culture of the show, not from the actors.</blockquote>

Verification