October 29
2005
Boreanaz Makes No 'Bones' About Being Happy.
A nice interview with David. Contains a brief mention of Buffy and Angel.
risingwaves
| Cast&Crew
| 02:25 CET
|
24 comments total
| tags: david boreanaz, bones
This thread has been closed for new comments.
You need to
log in to be able to post comments.
About
membership.
« Older
Matt Roush Would Love to See a Spi...
|
James Marsters leaves a few messag...
Newer »
© 2002 - 2017 - WHEDONesque.com
(
e-mail)
Individual posts are copyright their respective authors
This is a non-profit, unofficial website, not affiliated with Mutant Enemy, Inc., 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers or UPN.
VirtualWolf | October 29, 02:48 CET
Thomas | October 29, 03:10 CET
One thing though, is he ever going to get to play a character with a remotely normal name? Angel? Seeley? Huh?
WhedonTrivia | October 29, 04:40 CET
redtenko | October 29, 04:42 CET
ChosenOne5376 | October 29, 05:39 CET
Firefly Flanatic | October 29, 06:35 CET
I don't think it's strictly true, as I can remember times hearing where an actor ad-libbed in a particular line or made something a little funnier. So perhaps Boreanaz would have liked a little more freedom, but after all, the person who is writing the script knows what they are doing, and the actor isn't paid to write dialogue. Yes, they may represent the character and often can understand them, but the writers do this just as much whenever they have to write for them.
Personally whatever way Joss does works, whether he doesn't let the actors change anything at or, or keeps their changes to the minimum, it made 13 of the best seasons of TV ever, and a fantastic movie.
Razor | October 29, 06:39 CET
I will say I did see a clip about HAPPY DAYS and how they brought Robin Williams on as Mork and he just went nuts, and they left it in.
From what I hear from last HALLOWEEN (when James/David were recapping THE GIRL IN QUESTION) David is hilarious at coming up with stuff at the top of his head and had James and the audience in stitches. If they allow him that kind of freedom, it is probably for the good of the character, to be sure.
spikeylover | October 29, 07:05 CET
[ edited by SeanValen on 2005-10-29 15:57 ]
SeanValen | October 29, 08:56 CET
Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate it, just didn't love it enough to watch it.
kalia | October 29, 09:37 CET
Razor | October 29, 09:39 CET
RavenU | October 29, 10:23 CET
Chris inVirginia | October 29, 10:28 CET
Del | October 29, 10:52 CET
Elo | October 29, 11:34 CET
I don't think either David or James are dissing Joss or Jane by saying that they couldn't ad-lib, it's just a different way of doing things. I think some actor or another has said James busted through a wall accidently (or something) and still stayed in character and did the scene, since he's been on stage so much and you are taught to improvise when things don't go exactly as planned.
spikeylover | October 29, 12:02 CET
One of the most notable examples is Nick Brendon's "Redrum!" bit with Sid in "The Puppet Show."
[ edited by UnpluggedCrazy on 2005-10-29 21:11 ]
UnpluggedCrazy | October 29, 14:11 CET
I don't think his comments about acting from the Angel and Buffy scripts where negative comments, he's just comparing his last big job to his current one. He's a more experienced actor now then he was when he started acting as Angel, so he feels more comfortable adding his input and his mental picture of who his character is into his work. Plus, he doen't have to use all the forensic jargon like the other main characters on Bones and his character's lines are more natural and organic to begin with.
Does anyone else remember the time on Friends when Joey angered the writers of "Days of our Lives" and they killed off his character? I was reminded of that and thought I would share.
Arabchick | October 29, 15:34 CET
eddy | October 29, 16:14 CET
I don't think it's a bad thing in principal, and I don't think Boreanaz is too critical, but I think there seemed to be a little flexibility for the actors, but essentially it's their job to say what's in the script and listen to the director's instructions. That may be creatively frustrating sometimes, but that's what an actor has to do.
Razor | October 29, 18:27 CET
Actors interpret what is on the written page and a number of acting techniques can be utilised for this. I am quite sure some actors are content to learn their lines and stick rigidly to the script and the instructions of the director. Others would appear to need a much greater degree of flexibility, be it the likes of Robin Williams and Jim Carrey - or method actors like Daniel Day Lewis and Robert De Niro, who will go to extreme lengths to "become" the character. I would also say that for some actors it is undoubtedly a "power" tool, used when they acquire leading role status, although that's a whole different matter.
I very much doubt that any one method is necessarily better than the other. The skills of the actor are what are most paramount. Ad-libs are clearly a common tool used by actors to personalise a role and I don't imagine there is too much of a problem as long as there is some degree of restraint employed. Some consideration for the other actors in the scene is also of relevance. Obviously, when an actor tries to change whole tracts of dialogue there is a serious problem. I can certainly understand Joss Whedon's stance, as indicated by Boreanaz, especially after the problems he had encountered with various film scripts being butchered after the fact. I can also see that for Boreanaz the freedom to ad-lib is something he considers to be important to his approach to acting. I don't imagine there were any major tantrums involved.
It's kind of odd in some ways. Actors don’t, as a rule, expect to change the words written by Shakespeare (as far as I am aware). The skill is in the interpretation of those words. I can't say I have any great interest in the plays of Shakespeare, but I don't personally see any reason why the words he wrote should be treated differently to any other writer. However, since I am neither a writer nor an actor, I don't really know what I'm talking about!
Just the ramblings of an insomniac with time on his hands.
alien lanes | October 29, 19:24 CET
nixygirl | October 29, 19:31 CET
Ad-libs in the Whedonverse - this is an interesting topic because I have heard it mentioned here before by DB and I didn't think much about it. Now many people here are posting examples of Buffy adlibs, and I remember hearing on commentaries about them, and it makes me wonder about when they were permissible in these shows?
Arabchick I also loved that Joey on Friends adlibbed and they killed his character off.
Passion | October 30, 07:23 CET
Especially in Joss' shows. His writing style (that Jane and the others adopted so well) is indeed very particular, with carefully crafted rhythms and intonations and timing. If delivered right, it soars. If not delivered right, it can fall really flat. (Take what they did with his dialogue in Alien 4 for a brilliant example of that)Throwing that off can be like changing a few things in a house of cards. Jane was right. It was hard work for her to make it a certain way and a lot more thought went into that than in some words that an actor tosses out at the moment.
Hey I'm happy for David he gets to play around more but I've seen nothing on Bones that comes within a mile of a Buffy script, especially not in the dialogue.
It depends on the writer, the director, the actor and what type of movie/story/script it is. If the people in charge like to see ad libbing, and the actor is good it can work. But in the case of Joss and his writers, I'd say stick to the script.
I do understand, but we all know many actors in Hollywood get a little too big for their britches sometimes. Screenwriters are at the bottom of the pole and if a Tom Cruise wants to change his lines, he can (Unless he works with a director at least as big as himelf, a Spielberg or a Scorcese) and I bet it's often not a good idea. Donald Sutherland, a great actor, certainly contributed to the failure of the Buffy movie by rewriting his own dialogue all over the place and no one could stop him because they were all glad they had him there.
Sad thing is, nothing is more important than the script. (To quote Hitchcock, when asked what the 3 most important parts of a movie were: The script, the script and the scrtipt) A good script at the start is the foundation of your shot at making a good movie/TV show. Because lousy acting can still destroy a good script, but no amount of good acting can ever make a good movie out of a bad script.
EdDantes | October 30, 14:02 CET