[ SECRET POST #6459 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6459 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.
[Helluva Boss]



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 16 secrets from Secret Submission Post #923.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

02. https://i.imgur.com/rllsXfn.png

[(Anonymous)]

On the one hand, I really strongly believe that filmmaking is a collaborative creative endeavor. And so I think actors absolutely should bring their creative energy to the project in whatever way they can. That is part of the process ofaking a truly great movie.

On the other hand, some directors - especially in recent years - take this way too far, to the point where it does make the end product feel flabby and weak. You can't let improvisation get in the way if plot, structure and pacing. And you still have to edit the improve together in a way that's ultimately coherent and works. You gotta be the one, as the director, to bring it all together.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, it depends. In tv shows the writers should be in partnership with the actors, who often have kept better track of their own character. Also there are some actors who just improvise really well. But the director should not be depending on improvisation. Don't just hire Jim Carey and have him mug to the camera for 90 minutes.

[(Anonymous)]

The series I like best? The actors all say they stick to a (good!) script, like Succession or IWTV.

It's fine to keep an improv'd line, but if improv is the method, I think the final product is usually weak.

[(Anonymous)]

I think sometimes actors have a really good grasp on the characters and sometimes they don’t. Especially on tv series where they play someone for seasons, often ad libbed things are good, but they might only be a few lines over the course of a whole season of dialogue. So not a lot. I can see movies being much tighter because every line counts more.

[(Anonymous)]

It sometimes is the actors' job! It's just a different balance between acting and writing. Like, if a comedian works from a written script then ad libs, that's still acting. Robin Williams was particularly famous for this, and much funnier than material that was written for him. What about Donald Glover in Community, where he either ad libbed or wrote substantial parts of his character's material, particularly all the "Troy and Abed in the Morning" segments? Of course, most actors aren't as good at it as those two, but it's a valid art form.

[(Anonymous)]

Many actors are also writers.

But even when they're not, their job while acting is to inhabit their character as well as they can -- which can naturally lead to either ad-libbing or disagreeing with a particular line. There's a balance to be had, of course, but allowing actors to contribute to their characters can produce stronger work than the alternative.

Also, sometimes, the writer of the script intends for there to be a lot of ad-libbing, because it suits their vision for the piece! The film 'Like Crazy' comes to mind: the original script was minimalistic, requiring the actors to come up with dialogue that fit their characters and the relationships between them. I suspect this was to make it feel more "real" and organic.