Posted on 04/30/2018 11:43:02 AM PDT by EdnaMode
Totally agreed. I think subtle acting is really difficult to do well. Foy is one of the best. :D
At the end of the first series, it was already going downhill. When they brought it back, it was NOT good and rapidly went to hell; the writing, the acting, the PC garbage...ALL OF IT!
Oh sure, the technology was better, less "crude", but family UNFRIENDLY, and they did away with the multi-levels, the "in" stuff, which made the original SO great! What you only know is the damned dumbed down crap, served up as worthwhile.
Hell...TORCHWOOD was more multi-leveled, complex, and even with the PC crap and the homosexual stuff, was better written and acted; not to mention the fact that unlike DOCTOR WHO, was NOT meant for kids.
Oh, well, none of these series stick to the truth or give us fair portraits of members of the royal family. One of the reasons I generally avoid them. We only watched The Crown based on Foy’s performance as Anne Boleyn.
I avoid the daily shenanigans of the Royals these days - except for Phillip and Elizabeth. Now, they’ve become total tabloid trash with the emergence of Markle. And I’ve always found prim little Kate a bore after the dashing and dangerous Diana.
Tobias Menzies has been cast to play Philip is the third season.
Really???? He was wonderful in Outlander.
So good...I’ve never seen a dual role done that well.
That’s absurd! Matt Smith is an established star, Foyle is not nearly so. Bigger name stars ALWAYS make more money than lesser known actors. This crap that women, whatever their star power, must be paid the same, just because they’re women, is ridiculous! Will that follow through in ALL work environments? If so, I guess free enterprise is dead, and communist equal wage rates for everyone (except the government) like Bernie wants, is coming soon. (On the plus side, actor’s agents will be pretty much unnecessary).
The thing about the original DOCTOR WHO series is that everyone of almost every age, could watch it and enjoy it; even people who weren't "into" Sci-Fi ! The scripts had hidden "gems" in them and it was a real mind teaser to try to figure out all of the literary and/or historical bits and pieces, and for the science minded, the science too.
Greek & Roman Myths, Bible stories, stuff from the GREAT BOOKS, and of course, real historical bits and pieces were wedged into the scripts, while still telling interesting, exciting stories. And eventually, there were even books put out, which talked about all of the themes that had been used.
Sure the sets, especially very early on, were "cheesey", but then, DOCTOR WHO began in the '60s and American Sci-Fi ( the original STAR TREK, which also used similar themes ) had really crappy/sometimes even silly sets too!
When DW was brought back, the sets and CGI were great, but the stories? Not so much, though every now and again, all of a sudden an episode came along that didn't completely stink on ice and had a teensy bit of history in it. But the PC and "diversity" crap ruined the show; not to mention that most of the actors and actresses mumbled and can't act.
Monty Python was an AMAZING show, when it began, and so were the early movies.
But yes, at the end, the show and the movies became less and less funny and c lever.
she is excellent so is the one playing Victoria. But the way decision seems right to me and fir based on the actors history and known to the audience,.
Okay, I get it...YOU like him, but his acting ability is not much and in the old days, he'd have been lucky to have a one line walk-on,as opposed to being just someone in a crowd scene.
It has nothing to do with whom I like or don’t like. I happen to like Claire Foy AND Matt Smith. But producers pay their “stars”, based on audience popularity, and ability to make money, more than talent. Acting is full of outstanding character actors, but they don’t often get the lead, or anything close to the money the established “star” does.
And because I lived through all of Queen Elizabeth II reign, that's also why I refuse to watch THE CROWN! I know, far too much about today's Royals to watch some stupid, fictionalized BS about them.
I hated Diana back then and still do! She was an emotional and mental defective, a conniving, manipulative, little ignoramus, whom Phillip foisted on poor Charles ( and I'm sure that that and also how his father always bullied him, turned him into the loon he is now ), who never stopped loving Camilla.
But apparently you don't know much about the history of actors and actresses, to have made the statement you did, re "character actors"!
Guy Kibby was an EXCELLENT "character actor"; however, he DID have some STARRING ROLES. The same is true re many other old time American and yes, Brit actors and actresses!
Is it still true, today?
In America...no.
In the UK?
Hell yes, it is !
Many different things go into how much anyone and yes, everyone is paid; not just actors and actresses. And since Prince Phillip, whom Smith was horridly MISCAST for, is only a tangential part, of THE CROWN ( it is, after all, Queen Elizabeth II who wears the crown ! ) he must have one hell of an agent!
Are you claiming that Foy is a "character actress" ?
She's playing the lead and is NOT a niche actress, as Matt is, has other hefty roles under her belt, and probably has a "following" herself.
Oh, Diana was a loon but so beautiful in her youth - and she upturned the royals in a way I enjoyed. But Elizabeth, in the end, beat her at her own game - although it was dicey for a while.
As my late friend Rodney, who adored her, said to me one time: “All the Spencer-Churchills are barking mad!”
There are many reasons why actors are paid what they are. Some of it has to do with the unions - what is called scale. And many “prestige” productions will pay actors who are not at all popular with the public - a John Malkovich or a Nicholas Cage, for instance - because they are critics’ darlings or because the Harvey Weinsteins of the world like their work. There are a lot of different reasons why actors are paid what they are paid. Actors will often take a huge pay cut if they love the script.
Personally, it is a non-issue with me as I couldn’t care less what they make except they make too much these days.
OTOH...allowing that loon, Harry, to marry that slutty gold digger, Markel, was even a worse mistake!
I never did think that Di was all that pretty.
Not sure if "ALL" of the Spencer-Churchills are "barking mad", but many have been, throughout the generations.
Yet once again, you nailed it and did so quite succinctly; BRAVA!
Personally, it is a non-issue with me as I couldn’t care less what they make except they make too much these days.
You’ve got that right, although comparing the stunts and keeping in superb physical condition, as many actors today, must, which ain’t cheap -— with most actors in the early 60’s on back, not having to worry about being in perfect physical condition, they are more than a little high maintenance. I think back to the days when female “movie stars” had voluptuous, curvy bodies, instead of today’s rail-thin actresses. In those days, the skinny women usually played the shrews,office managers, and old maids.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.