Often times actor input can change a scene or a character's direction dramatically from what is written. Also, interaction between an actor and the director can also effect how the director sees the scene. A director can feel an actor would be more comfortable or natural doing a scene much differently than what another actor would do. So that may have changed some things in the scene.
Genevieve Bujold as Janeway
#21
Posted 26 August 2006 - 09:39 PM
Often times actor input can change a scene or a character's direction dramatically from what is written. Also, interaction between an actor and the director can also effect how the director sees the scene. A director can feel an actor would be more comfortable or natural doing a scene much differently than what another actor would do. So that may have changed some things in the scene.
#22
Posted 27 August 2006 - 02:09 AM
I think I would have been happy either way.
I also liked the idea of Janeway as an older woman....but Mulgrew was not too young looking by any means.
#23
Posted 24 April 2007 - 02:59 PM
I am thrilled that Mulgrew did become Janeway, but if Bujold stayed as Janeway we would have grown accustomed to her, just as Roddenberry became accustomed to Patrick Stewart as Picard.
#26
Posted 24 April 2007 - 05:26 PM
I don't know what it is either, but it reminds me a bit of the accent Troi had in the first season that she gradually lost as the series went on. I'd almost go so far as to say that if they had wanted to make Lwaxana a much more "serious" character, rather than the jubilant and slightly flighty portrayal of Majel Barrett, she'd have been a good choice for it....
... I know you're probably thinking that the Chimp is smokin' his own special brand of banana doobies, but I'll stick by the statement.
#27
Posted 25 April 2007 - 09:20 PM
I am actually very glad they ended up with Mulgrew.
Bujold did not seem as warm. Her accent did seem kinda 'S1 Troi' meets 'Vasquez from Aliens'
I'm not sure how old Bujold was there...but seven years on from that she would have looked very worn.
#28
Posted 26 April 2007 - 10:07 AM
#29
Posted 26 April 2007 - 11:22 AM
Right Berns, no more of your nonsence..............bend OVER!!!
I think it was a good call to have swapped Bujold for Mulgrew. Mulgrew had a much broader appeal.
#30
Posted 27 April 2007 - 04:10 AM
When i invest my time into watching a tv series, i only do it because i build up some sort of emotional response to a character(s). With her as the captain, i doubt i would've felt anything (which may not have turned me completely off of the series, but would leave me wanting her scenes to be brief - not a good situation to be in if you're the lead in a tv series lol)
#31
Posted 27 April 2007 - 06:40 AM
#32
Posted 27 April 2007 - 06:40 AM
#33
Posted 27 April 2007 - 03:56 PM
TPTB hoped that Bujold was a more established actress and would bring more prestige to Trek because of her respected film resume. (it was a PR move). Bujold was not happy with the fast pace of tv filming and was unaccustomed to the quick shooting turnaround. Apparently she wasn't happy with the "dailies" (daily filming reels that production staff would watch to see if the scene "worked" or if something needed to be changed...i.e. lighting, wardrobe, etc.) and neither were the producers. Berman was very complimentary of Bujold saying that if they were shooting a motion picture, she would have been fine.
#34
Posted 28 April 2007 - 01:49 AM
#35
Posted 28 April 2007 - 03:08 PM
"Bujold wasn't happy with the dailies" doesn't mean that she wasn't happy to have to look at the dailies. It means that she wasn't happy with her preformance after seeing it on those dailies.
#36
Posted 29 April 2007 - 02:46 AM
#37
Posted 29 April 2007 - 06:42 AM
#38
Posted 29 April 2007 - 06:46 AM
I would imagine that watching dailies is much more important in the movie business.
From what I've read, on a movie, you can be filming the same scene for days or weeks. So, if you shot something on Monday and it looked bad on dailies, you can come back and reshoot it on Tuesday or Wednesday.
With the fast pace of TV production, I don't think there's often that luxury of going back to reshoot scenes. I'm sure it happens, but not often.
Of course, all my TV production knowledge comes from reading books on Trek, listening to Ron Moore's BSG podcast, and listening to DVD director commentaries, so what do I know?
#39
Posted 29 April 2007 - 08:52 AM
I would say it was about her acting. Not her ability, but her take on the part. And she must not have liked it herself after seeing the dailies.
Some things work and some things don't. You often can't see it on the set as an actor. Watching those dailies really helps.
I was doing a voice-over the other day. I recorded the same lines twice. I heard no difference while reading them. Then they played it back to me. The second take was way better than the first take. Not because suddenly my abilities grew. But because the first take had some hesitations that were probably caused by not knowing the lines well enough. In the voice-over bizz, you get your lines only seconds before you're behind the mike. The second take didn't have those hesitations. Why didn't I hear them when I recorded the first take? Because I was too concentrated on this piece of paper in front of me. I suppose it's the same thing when you're in front of a camera. You can judge more objectively when not preforming.
#40
Posted 01 May 2007 - 01:53 PM
Plus it's also about turnaround time. Being comfortable enough memorizing lines, movements, and business in order to shoot an entire episode in one week verses several weeks for a motion picture. You just don't have the time to refine your performance, and for perfectionists, this can be hell.
Susan Surrandon commented after her guest appearance on Friends that she couldn't do episodic television herself on a regular basis. She applauded the entire cast and any actor who could.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users