I never said anything about not liking it either, you just randomly implied that. And please, you wouldn't defend it to the death if you didn't like.
"it's generally considered good on a technical scale"
The acting did not even get any Oscars, so that statement isn't based on anything but your own subjectivity.
And no, acting "melodramatic and over-the-top" is not good on a technical skill. Don't forget you agreed it was exactly that, but that you argued it was intentional.
Anyway, just learn to deal with other people having the right to say that the acting is bad, just like I'm able to deal with you saying the acting is good even though that's just an opinion.
reply
share
punkrockgirl (1270)
4 months ago
You seriously base quality on Oscars? The Oscars have made a lot of mistakes in their decisions. Saying you think something is bad implies you don't like it. Whether or not I like it is irrelevant, my point is that's how the novel is written so it's acted that way. If the screenplay matches the source material loyally, you can't say that it isn't well made. You're assuming the way the story should've been done for a movie you didn't make. The style of filmmaking for the time is another thing to consider. I don't have a problem with your differing opinion, but rather your reasoning behind it. All your reasons are minor and nitpicky. Why do you automatically believe melodramatic acting is bad? Are you saying you don't believe it was intentional?
reply
share
Stratego (30534)
4 months ago
You said it was "generally considered good". If you don't look at the Oscar's opinion on that, then what? The opinion of the 82-year old lady living next door???
I was way more specific than calling it just "bad", I said it was melodramatic and over-the-top and didn't fit the story. And of course the fact that you like it matters, otherwise you would simply accept that opinion, instead of saying silly things like "just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad" or calling my reasons "minor" and "nitpicky".
Melodramatic acting for a soap is just fine, but even then it's better to be self-aware to avoid being unintentionally funny. Do you even have any proof the melodramatic and -over-the-top acting was intentional?
reply
share
punkrockgirl (1270)
3 months ago
I read reviews, ratings, I'm immersed in pop culture media. I know a lot of people haven't considered the Oscars relevant for decades.
My proof is from the source material. It's gothic, and gothic literature is often melodramatic
reply
share
Stratego (30534)
3 months ago
Hitchcock made this movie not just for you. If his point did not come across, he did not do a good job. I'm fully aware what gothic is. But gothic literature often being melodramatic does not make it good.
Basically you have no proof except your own opinion. And you know what they say about opinions...yours stinks as much as anybody else's.
reply
share
punkrockgirl (1270)
3 months ago
I never said he made the movie for me. And I never actually claimed to like/dislike the otp stuff, just that it's supposed to be that way and on good on a technical level, and people will either like or not like it
reply
share
Stratego (30534)
3 months ago
"I never said he made the movie for me."
You ACT like you need to know gothic to get the melodramatic acting. That's not even necessary, it should work without any knowledge about the source material.
Melodramatic already means it's not good on a technical level, it means the acting is unnatural and over-the-top. If the intention is not solely to go for a superficial emotional effect, then there needs to be another layer to it, something I'm missing in this movie.
reply
share