Younger Actors: Should they be held to the same standards?

[Winchester91]

This has been a discussion on both the OLTL and AMC threads about the weak links among the younger cast. So, I wonder...should the likes of Laura Harrier/Eric Nelsen/Covin/Trischitta, etc. be put up against the likes of Susan Flannery or Tony Geary when discussing acting skills? I really haven't made up my mind about this topic as of yet.

[London]

Good topic, and I definitely don't rate them among the caliber of the vet...I just rate them on what I'm used to a teen set being and that dates way back to one of my favorite teen sets during the 90s Y&R with the Glow by Jabot crew [granted times have changed since then] and just overall what they bring to the table and some of them for me isn't cutting it. Laura H. on OLTL... my damn that girl is just bad.

For the most I just can't stand some of the AMC teens and I don't know if that's because of some of the mannerisms or if its the overall bratty nature these things have because I'd be hauled off to jail with AJ and Miranda has my kids... they better develop a strong backhand.

[jfung79]

I think they can be held to not necessarily the same standard, but still a high standard, because we have seen good younger actors before on other shows who make an impact from Day 1. Kids, even, who acted circles around some of these people. Mick Hazen was never even recognized with an Emmy nom but he was subtle, emotional when called for, natural, and effective on ATWT.

Kids also headline the Disney Channel shows and do pretty well, although they get more rehearsal time.

I'm with you on the AMC teens, London. I think the OLTL teens are fine.

They should be held to the standard of being compared with the other Younger Actor and Younger Actress people on the daytime soaps. It makes sense for there to be a separate Emmy category from the older veteran actors. But they do need to be held to some kind of standard.

[yr9190]

I often wondered if any of these kids cared enough about their job that they actually go on youtube to watch old episodes of their soap to fully understand what their job is all about.... I highly doubt it.

[AllMyDaysatGH]

I enjoy all of AMC & OLTL's teens/young adults Minus Laura Harrier & Daniel Covin, who I do think are trying and hope will get better over time. Laura was pretty ok last week! I dont think any of these actors should be held to the same standard as Flannery/Geary, etc, at all. I believe, to an extent, the whole "soaps are a training ground" argument so I don't mind watching these peeps grow at all. IMO It's only a problem if they don't ever improve but continue to stay on the show. LOL

[~bl~]

I hold different people to different standards and it is not solely based on age. I don't compare people to Flannery or Geary though. With some actors I compare it to other performances they have done, or when other actors have played similar story. I also see how actors are in scenes with performers that I already like. Some actors I never thought much of when working with just their peers, but I saw potential when working with someone I already enjoyed.

Matt Bomer when he was on Guiding Light pre-YouTube, searched out Jay Hammer who was no longer on the show, solely to get his insight on his character of Ben as he played his adoptive father after reading the GL 1997 book. So some younger actors do care enough to do research.

[Khan]

I don't think so. Flannery, Geary and others of that caliber are older and more seasoned.

Now, would I compare Covin, Harrier, etc. to, say, Jane Krakowski when she was on SEARCH FOR TOMORROW, or Andrew Kavovit when he was on AS THE WORLD TURNS? That's a different story.

[cassadine1991]

I heard Rob Gorrie looked up Eddie Alderson episodes..

Krakowski on SFT and Kavovit on ATWT was a different time that was when they at least cared about how their younger actors performed

[Khan]

You got that right, lol!

[DRW50]

I think some young actors have the charisma or raw talent to make their material work. Or if they have the proper people around them. I never got anything out of that twink boy who played Michael before Chad Duell, or Lexi Ainsworth, but they did have followings, and seemed to be seen by many fans as holding their own with vets.

To me the criteria should be, in order, 1) charisma 2) how you fit in with the people who will be playing your closest friends and family 3) acting talent.

I don't compare them to older actors because that was another era, different in every way, when younger actors had more theater training, more time to rehearse,

Even now, there are different standards at each soap. OLTL has a stronger younger cast than AMC but is going a little more for gloss and style. AMC is a little more everyday angst. GH is clearly, IMO, not casting on talent, but on jerkoff fantasies, and doesn't care about acting. B&B is mostly the look, and talent comes next. Y&R seems to be a mix of both.

[John]

Yes my standard would be that they show u to set. Know their lines, theeir characters motivation and do their job. Basically know their [!@#$%^&*]. If they are holding up filming by needing take after take, then they need to be cut. Acting aint abut how nice you are & Im sure they all are but this medium is about knowing the script, your character and making choices aand sticking with them. Then bringing that to the set & doing it in ONE take, maybe two . Then move on to the next scene.

Those that cannot handle that pace & there are hollywood stars (Joan Collins, joan Van Ark) who could not & were replaced. So Id replace these young actors as well under the same circumstance

[jo.frank88]

They should not be expected to be anywhere near in the same acting league as a soap vet such a Flannery or Geary...however they should have some acting skill - they need to make me believe in what I'm seeing on screen ( well.. as much as one can believe in a soap) and they should be able to make me care ( however, much of that also plays into the writing/directing too!)

[Khan]

That wasn't the reason why Joan Collins left GUIDING LIGHT, or why Joan Van Ark left Y&R, or at least not the ONLY reason. Collins left in response to what she perceived as shabby treatment from P&G as well as a misunderstanding over the terms of her contract. (She said she had an "out" to promote her latest book; P&G said she didn't.) Van Ark quit because she heard that Lynn Marie Latham was coming, and she held her, as well as Bernard Lechowick, responsible for her character, Val, becoming the "village idiot" (Van Ark's words) on KNOTS LANDING.

[cassadine1991]

and in AMC and OLTL's case, they had very BAD writing for almost 10 years

[John]

Joan Van Ark left in January 2005. LML joined as Creative Consultant in November 2005. I doubt JVA could forsee that many months in advance

JC part was her out & other was the pace