because it is very early and I'm very awake

[seperis]

The horrible danger of insomnia combined with friendsfriends--God. It's *crack*. I am totally understanding the draw. Currently working on avoiding ep reviews nad spoilers, since I haen't watched The Return yet.

Anyway, while cruising along, I came across an entry--oh, just an entry of SGA squee, pre-episode, mentioning this and that and then, randomly at the end, a sudden diatribe against Joe Flanigan's acting skills. There was generalized horror and repugnance and the usual--weirdly usual, almost rote--discussion of the level of suckitude, so normal I don't even *notice* with any more than a blink.

Huh, I said, and as usual, skimmed and wandered off.

But it being five in the morning, I thought, well. It's fandom, and this is what we do. We sit around dissecting shows, characters, and actors. So I have to ask, because I can--um, what the hell?

I don't pretend to be anything close to an expert on acting, other than hoping Keanu Reeves is given few lines at any given time and a lot of really good shots of him being hot. That's as far as I get on appreciating this nebulous realm of 'good' versus 'bad'. But the fairly constant discussion of Joe Flanigan's lack of talent, lack of emoting, lack of this, lack of that--often paired up, oddly enough, with essays on David Hewlett's brilliance at whatever the poster has watched/did watch/is watching--it really makes me wonder. Otherwise squeeful individuals break into really *sudden* critiques of things like how Joe performed a ten second facial expression during a scene, or lapse into--and this is what's jarring, I'm reading along on meta and halfway through the paragraph just--boom. This sudden really *odd* invective. And at first it was annoying, then I progressed to the shrug/personal taste, then I started to doubt myself and wonder if there was something wrong with *me* that I wasn't climbing on the Joe Sucks At His Job Bandwagon, and progressed to think, wait. Am I sitting here thinking I need to *look* for reasons to critique an actor because half my fandom spends quality time--and a serious number of entries--telling me that he sucks? Was my John bias showing?

Wait, I thought. I like the character of John. The character is played by Joe, who plays the character of John in a way I like. Ergo, I think I like how Joe does his job. I remembered the stuff thepouncer sent me and thought, huh. I liked that, too. That was kind of a relief.

I think at this point, it's just the build-up of seeing it so often--wow, so damned often, Jesus--and seeing it, not always, but a good chunk of the time, in direct contrast to a meta on DH's fantastical talent. Long, long entries on fantastical talent. Long, long entries on fantastical talent and etcetera. And you know, the coolness is there to love the actor. What I can't quite work out is how slamming Joe comes into a essay about how great DH is. Is that--supporting evidence or something? That kind of loses me in wondering what on earth the point is. I'm not sure how repeating in various formats how *much* Joe sucks is somehow going to make the DH adulation more convincing. I mean, I was sort of convinced without it? Then I just got irritated.

So I had this thought. It's a stupid thought, but then, everyone has stupid thoughts and they post them anyway. I was wondering, is there a direct correlation between how dramatic/flamboyant a character is--think McKay, Lex Luthor, Lionel Luthor, Justin Taylor--and the higher incident of actor popularity? I'm thinking of how TW in SV also picked up a lot of flack for being a sucky actor, with the exception of the times he was very flamboyant--Red comes to mind, and the beginning of season three that I can never remember the name of. Or Brian, for that matter in QaF.

Hmm. I feel this weird need to ponder this, but I also feel a real need to clean my bathroom, and neither are getting done at this second, because my greater need is to blankly stare at my flist in hopes I'll get sleepy. I'm just--weirded out by it, I think.

Comments

[miss-porcupine.livejournal.com]

Way back when smittywing and I were watching (the execrable) Farewell to Harry and a few other things Flanigan was in, we decided that Flanigan really doesn't have that great a range -- he's essentially the same guy in every role -- but that Flanigan's range and the role of John Sheppard were very good fits. There was a lot of overlap. Everything that Sheppard needed to do, Flanigan could do. Or near enough. And that was good enough. This stuff ain't Shakespeare.

Nobody seems to mind that MacGuyver and Jack O'Neill (and Nicodemus Legend) have the same mannerisms, after all.

Near as I can figure, admittedly not having spent much time considering it, is that actor love (actor/fan) is just like every other OTP -- completely intolerant of any other pairing. Some people like McKay/Sheppard and and can still groove to Sheppard/Ronon or McKay/Beckett. Some can't even read stories where McKay and Sheppard aren't screwing. Some people can thrill to David Hewlett's wackiness and still enjoy Flanigan's low-key, some find the other mortally threatening to their very soul. (Which is essentially another iteration on what everyone else is saying, so you can tell I'm killing time before synagogue.)

[ladyflowdi.livejournal.com]

we decided that Flanigan really doesn't have that great a range -- he's essentially the same guy in every role -- but that Flanigan's range and the role of John Sheppard were very good fits. There was a lot of overlap. Everything that Sheppard needed to do, Flanigan could do. Or near enough. And that was good enough. This stuff ain't Shakespeare.

I was going to post but you hit exactly what I was going to say right on the head. JF doesn't have as much experience in film work as DH does, so maybe hasn't honed his acting as well, but -- it doesn't matter. JF is perfect as Sheppard and vice versa, so it *works*. I kinda love it.

[sperrywink]

I disagree on a couple of points. I don't think A Farewell to Harry is execrable, I think it is a solid B-ish movie (I even like it enough to own it), and I definitely don't think Joe Flanigan is playing the same character in that movie as John Sheppard is. John Sheppard would chew up and spit out Nick Sennet and I think Joe Flanigan's acting more than adequately conveys that. There is none of the darkness of John Sheppard in Nick Sennet and I think Joe convincing plays both its inclusion and its absence (and for a character, this is a significant characteristic to capture).

I agree with the commenters who say Joe Flanigan just acts subtler or quieter than DH.

[shetiger.livejournal.com]

I think JF has gotten a lot of similar parts to play in his past. But that doesn't mean he acts the same character over and over again. For me, the example is Brendan Dean in Thought Crimes. Law officer, carries a gun, stuck in a situation out of his depth - a lot like John Sheppard, but the characters are much different. And yeah, JF does have a lot of similar physical expressions from one job to another, but so does David Hewlett. But what they do with those things creates unique 'people'.

(This is me agreeing with you. *g*)

[omglawdork.livejournal.com]

I am with miss_porcupine here, which I realize may not be the world's most popular opinion. JF may just put a lot of himself into all of his characters. That works really well for me, because I apparently really like him, because I love every character I've ever seen him play. I've watched several of his other shows/guest spots, and I always find myself thinking "Okay, Sheppard as an ad exec; Sheppard as a geeky grad student; Sheppard as an abusive asshole." I think maybe this is because Sheppard is just the perfect part for JF to play, allowing him to be charming, smart, goofy, and a little scary. I also think it's the best part he's ever been given, which helps.

I love the way JF plays Sheppard; I think it is subtle and can be very nuanced. I also think it's possible to be a good actor and not have an enormous range. DH (who I also love desperately and also find to be a very good actor) is a *character* actor, IMHO (see: very wide range and scenery-chewing propensities). He will always be more successful when he's not playing the lead, or when he's playing some kind of very wacky lead. I'm no expert (seriously), but in my mind, there are lead actors and character actors. Some truly great actors can do both; most fall into one camp or another. JF = lead. DH = character. And that's perfect, because they're both really good at what they do.

Also, I think the key to both JF and DH's portrayals of their characters on SGA is their interactions with each other. I rarely like them as much separately as I do together.

Basically, I think a lot of the opinions that people hold about DH and JF's acting aren't mutually exclusive. I think JF has a limited range, but is great within that range and portrays a strong, interesting, and against-type lead. I think DH chews scenery like it's going out of style, but that's his job as the character actor on the show, and as a character actor in general.

[wemblee.livejournal.com]

Off-topic:

Nobody seems to mind that MacGuyver and Jack O'Neill (and Nicodemus Legend) have the same mannerisms, after all.

Bartok/Legend/Ramos for the win!

...has anyone ever written Legend slash? Good Legend slash? God, I loved that show.

[miera-c.livejournal.com]

Delurking just to say:

Near as I can figure, admittedly not having spent much time considering it, is that actor love (actor/fan) is just like every other OTP -- completely intolerant of any other pairing. Some people like McKay/Sheppard and and can still groove to Sheppard/Ronon or McKay/Beckett. Some can't even read stories where McKay and Sheppard aren't screwing. Some people can thrill to David Hewlett's wackiness and still enjoy Flanigan's low-key, some find the other mortally threatening to their very soul.

That seems to me a very apt way to sum it up. Of course, it's not true for every case by any stretch, but yes, I can totally see that as a reason for some of the inexplicable bashing.