Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> but that it failed to meet fan expectations. 
> 
>> That, and the acting sucked.
> 
>   I have seen movies with truely bad acting, and I didn't see any of that in
> the SW trilogy. I never understood what people are talking about when they
> say there's bad acting in the trilogy. Granted, perhaps not oscar-worthy
> acting, but bad?

	I won't get into arguing about Star Wars too much, because while I
liked the original trilogy, it was only because I was quite young. I'm
sure if I saw them originally as an adult, I'd enjoy them, and forget
about them quickly.

	But anyway, I get amused with comments about "bad acting". What exactly
is bad acting? Can't seem to come up with an objective criterion.

	Friend of mine tried to insist good acting was, "They acted the way
real people would in that situation". He wasn't consistent with that
definition. He liked the acting in a lot of action movies, where almost
no one acts as they would in real life. I don't like that definition
(but hey, if someone really cares about realism...).

-- 
Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message