Good Acting,bad Acting?

Can you define the difference between good acting and bad acting.What is it about made for TV movies that are so bad,yet some actors are lauded so highly for their convincing roles.It is a case of superior character? I write this because I'm watching a god-awful film I don't even know what it's called on the horror channel.The acting is so clichéd and vacuous,I get the impression the actors will never work again.

 

I've seen bad acting to where U can tell the actors act like they notice the cameras.

 

I think almost anyone can train to become an actor, but the great actors don't achieve that level through training alone. Experience helps, but if you watch Al Pacino in some of his earlier roles, he was great even then. I think it's a combination of imagination and personality, which are partly genetic, but mainly a result of the social environments they grew up in. I think that's why Italian- and Irish-Americans, particularly from the east coast, make good actors. Not to over-generalize, but they tend to be socially gregarious, expressive people. In a sense they've acted their whole lives. I remember an interview Joe Pesci gave on one of the late-night talk shows where he described growing up in a fairly tough neighborhood, and because of his size, to avoid being picked on by neighborhood bullies he learned how to make them laugh, and that's how he got by. I'm not downplaying the importance of good training and experience, I'm just saying that there's a lot more to it. Training and experience just serve to refine something that's already there.

 

Define bad acting? Easy, two words

Adam Sandler

 

I have no idea what you want describe through this post.

 

Like the Supreme Court Justice said about porn...he couldn't define it but he sure knew it when he saw it. Same with good acting/bad acting.

 

No it's the Rock hands down. worst actor ever.

 

In the meanwhile I just ordered Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw on DVD from amazon ...and yes starring Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson…..lol...

 

I don't know how you do it.

The only one I liked was jumanji 2 and it was for the smaller, littler black person. he made me laugh so hard, even when I don't think he was trying to be funny like when he was telling the rock off on the cliff, I was in hysterics.

If I was guaranteed he portrayed a similar character and sense of Humor in other movies I'd probably watch them.

 

In other news, I saw the trailer for bad boys 3?.or another bad boys movie. Them 2 dudes got old and fat.

 

Bad actors act for the camera, good actors act as if there isn't a camera.

 

Bad acting: when the actor/actress is not versatile !
Good acting : when the actor / actress can make you laugh, sigh, be sad, wonder, think, cry all at the same time !

 

For drama I think that sums it up. Good dramatic acting makes you feel like you're watching real people express themselves normally (even though nobody acts that way, that's the magic of good acting).

BUT that rule goes out the window with comedy. I think comedy requires a bit of 'forced' acting in a good way. Like John Ritter in Threes Company or the Monty Python crew, they ham it up for the camera just enough to nail the perfect delivery. A good comedic actor is very conscious about timing and where to place the gag.

Two opposite styles of good acting. That's why I think the best overall actors are the ones who can do both comedy and drama. The obvious Robin Williams, Tom Hanks crossovers are up there, but there's also Christopher Walken, Sigourney Weaver, Matt Damon types who started with drama and crossed over into comedy.

The entire horror genre sorta requires bad acting because REAL PEOPLE DON'T BEHAVE THAT WAY in horror situations! So it makes sense that you won't find much good acting if you're watching made for tv horror flicks. Also a lot of horror flicks deliberately use 'bad acting' for a bit of dark comedy. For example Drag Me to Hell, or the Sharknado movies, those are great movies because the actors are playing comedy material totally straight like Leslie Nielsen. That's an entirely different style of acting unto itself.

So I guess my point is 'good acting' is defined by the genre of movie and how well the actor nails what's required.

 

My partner enjoys watching soaps like Eastenders & Coronation Street, and I watch with her sometimes. You certainly get to see both ends of the spectrum in a soap. I have seen some great acting on occasion, but a lot more that is unbelievably bad.

 

Yep versatility makes the big diff. That's why I love Sandra Bullock

 

Much like Robin Williams, he became beloved as a comic rogue, but Wallach had 150+ film credits spanning 65 years of stage & screen. The man was a legend to those who have followed his career across the decades. Eli Wallach is definitely one of my picks for a fantastic, versatile actor!

 

The directors of the 3 Eli Wallach movies you name knew what they were getting when they hired him. I suspect they chose him for a reason and I suspect he played the roles the way the 3 directors (John Huston, Francis Ford Coppola, Sergio Leone) wanted him to. If they did not like the way he played a scene, they would have told him to turn it up or turn it down or do it different in some way. Hitchcock once said that 90% of a director's job was over if he cast the right actors in the right roles.

 

Bad acting just has this annoying quality to it that is really hard to watch. Like the actor is trying too hard and it shows