Skins Forums

MTV - Music Television (ended 2011)

Is the cast in the UK version better at acting....

  • Avatar of Zelemont

    Zelemont

    [1]Jan 25, 2011
    • member since: 01/14/06
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 20

    or did I not notice bad acting because of the British accent?


    I don't know how the US version was cast, but as most of you know, the UK version is created with brand-new actors. Somehow, they hit it right on the mark with just about everyone they cast, especially in the first two seasons. I just watched Episode two and I am really, really trying to go in with an open mind, but I can't get past the stiff acting of most of the cast, especially Tony. It is hard to accept him as the charismatic Type-A character the script calls for, especially when he sounds like he is reading every line straight from the script. The actress playing Tea was alright for the most part, but damn that girl needs to learn how to laugh realistically. It made me want to puke.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Zelemont

    Zelemont

    [2]Jan 25, 2011
    • member since: 01/14/06
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 20

    and for the record, I was constantly annoyed by the UK version of Sid because I thought he was just a poor actor, but his appearance and mannerisms worked so much better than the boring US version.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Helostwin

    Helostwin

    [3]Jan 25, 2011
    • member since: 11/12/06
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 2,517
    The US version is doing the best it can. These are young, inexperienced actors who are unknown. That makes it more realistic. Also considering how many parents groups are trying to get it taken off the air we better enjoy it while we can! They already cut a scene that had Stanley running naked down the street because of complaints that you could see his butt (and possibly more). There was even an anti-Skins editorial in the New York Times! So hold off on the complaints, the poor kids are getting enough critisism thrown at them!
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Zelemont

    Zelemont

    [4]Jan 27, 2011
    • member since: 01/14/06
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 20
    OK, how about a response that actually answers my question? Yeah, these kids are getting way more heat than they deserve due to the content of the show. Our country is so twisted that Sarah Palin is considered a legitimate political candidate, going to war based on lies and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and thousands of Americans is somehow patriotic, xenophobia is a political position, etc. etc. etc. yet a fictional drama depicting highschoolers doing drugs and drinking and having sex is the most offensive thing conceivable! The outrage is unjustified, and any human on the planet who hasn't been evangelically brainwashed can easily see that. It doesn't change the fact that this show is unsurprisingly disappointing so far. The guys sold out to MTV for god's sake, have you seen anything halfway decent on the channel in over a decade? But forget all of that, back to my damn question, are these actors on-par with the British skins, or are they worse? Do I only notice their inexperience because I speak with the same accent, or are they just flat actors?
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of aldaros23

    aldaros23

    [5]Jan 29, 2011
    • member since: 02/15/07
    • level: 53
    • rank: Commander in Chief
    • posts: 580
    given that it was the pilot and probably the first time in front of a camera for almost all of the US actors, yes it was a pretty rocky episode on the acting perspective. but the second episode was much better though. it may not have been the second produced however (sometimes they'll usually throw in a later produced episode at the beginning).

    UK version did pull it off better, but Nick Holt had acted before in a major role (About A Boy, several other roles) and he really draws you into the series in the pilot of the UK.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Helostwin

    Helostwin

    [6]Jan 30, 2011
    • member since: 11/12/06
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 2,517

    aldaros23 wrote:
    given that it was the pilot and probably the first time in front of a camera for almost all of the US actors, yes it was a pretty rocky episode on the acting perspective. but the second episode was much better though.
    Yes it is getting better & better. If you IMDB search the actors most of them have 2 or 3 previous small roles & that's it. Stanley/Sid has only a few BACKGROUND appearences in front of a camera, no real experience at all. For a bunch of 15 & 16 year old kids who have little or no professional acting experience and who are being villified by every commentator or pundit in the country I think they are doing suprisingly well. The uproar because this program shows kids drinking and smoking pot like REAL kids do and actually DARED to show a guys butt for 5 seconds is unreal! They are talking about prosecuting the writers for child porn over that ep because he's under 18! Okay, Standards & Practices allows MUCH less partying & sex on TV than it allows in movies but this show is actually pretty tame compared to what is available outside the USA. So quit bashing the actors, I think they are doing great everything considered.



    Had to edit cause 18 showed up as a smiley

    Edited on 01/30/2011 1:48pm
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of limomanuk

    limomanuk

    [7]Jan 30, 2011
    • member since: 03/17/10
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 5

    Speaking as a Brit, the British version was awesome for the first two seasons, but I found it hard to get into the third season because the previous characters had all moved on from college and were replaced by new ones!



    Nicholas Hoult, who played Tony in UK Skins, had a lot of good tv roles over the years before he eventually made it to the big screen as the shining light in the Hugh Grant movie "About A Boy" and then as the sexually abused son of Nicolas Cage in "The Weatherman!" So yes, he has had a lot of acting experience before taking on the role of Tony! However, even he was a kind of stiff sort of character in the show, so it may not necessarily be the poor acting because that is pretty much what Tony is and you will see him become!



    As for scenes of sexual nature, that scene you guys have spoke about with a bare arse on screen is tame compared to what we have seen in the British version! If the USA version follows the same sort of storylines, then you're gonna see a lot more, including drawings of male genitals drawn by Maxxie! By the way, the legal age limit for sex over here (both gay and straight) is 16, so our TV shows are probably a little more relaxed with such sights on screen compared to American - FCC I think are your guys who oversee such things right?



    Oh, and you should give it a chance by the way - it might get better! Have you heard of a show called Shameless? That was originally a UK show and it's just been remade American style with William H. Macy in the lead role and I've been watching it online! The first episode was a slow starter but it's bringing back so many memories for me from the original first season of the Brit version! I'm now a fan after only 3 episodes!



    Oh, and Shameless is 100 times worse than Skins with regards to sex, drugs, alcohol, guns, violence, etc! Just wait and see what happens with both shows and you'll see exactly what I mean!

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Helostwin

    Helostwin

    [8]Jan 31, 2011
    • member since: 11/12/06
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 2,517
    LIMOMANUK--- You make some very interesting points. I haven't seen the UK version. As far as the boys bare "arse" the uproar is because the actor is 16. If he was an adult it would be allowed, there was a famous scene in NYPD Blue showing that. Genitals of either gender and any age would NEVER be allowed on American TV and not even in films. That's considered porn here. The FCC is more about regulating the market like how many stations an individual can own. There is something called "Standards & Practices" that TV has to follow. TV & movies that undersge ppl can see are MUCH more tame than ones for adult viewers. No I haven't heard of shameless. We copy some Brit shows >> Skins and Being Human come to mind. American TV has no problem with guns since so many ppl own them (there are 4 privately owned firarms for every man, woman & kid in the USA). I've had a deer rifle since I was 12 myself! Alcohol use by teens is usually winked at, drug use less so. Depictions of teen sex is NEVER explicit even on cable it's mostly left up to the imagination to fill in. Even Canadian shows like DeGrassi get edited here.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of limomanuk

    limomanuk

    [9]Jan 31, 2011
    • member since: 03/17/10
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 5

    In the pilot episode of the American version of Shameless (on Showtime by the way) the gay son of the lead character (only 15 or 16) walks into his neighbour's bedroom to get something for the guy's girlfriend who is at the house next door - as he walks in, you see the guy lying in bed, naked - all genitals on show for the world to see!



    I also remember a TV show called OZ where you regularly saw naked men on camera, sometimes even urinating at the same time!



    I guess restrictions for those sort of things are starting to move on now eh!



    Anyway, have a look at Shameless - it's pretty damn good!

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Helostwin

    Helostwin

    [10]Feb 1, 2011
    • member since: 11/12/06
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 2,517
    limomanuk wrote:

    In the pilot episode of the American version of Shameless (on Showtime by the way) the gay son of the lead character (only 15 or 16) walks into his neighbour's bedroom to get something for the guy's girlfriend who is at the house next door - as he walks in, you see the guy lying in bed, naked - all genitals on show for the world to see!



    I also remember a TV show called OZ where you regularly saw naked men on camera, sometimes even urinating at the same time!



    I guess restrictions for those sort of things are starting to move on now eh!



    No the restrictions not new. Oz is a prison series. It was on HBO very late at night & it was about MEN not kids. I never heard of that on Shameless >> maybe the scene was cut out here & showed in Britain. I'm telling you that there is NO nudity allowed for actors under 18. There are even restrictions on older actors PORTRAYING characters under 18. It's simply out of the question. It's illegal. ANY show of genitals of either gender is considered porn here & is NEVER allowed. Europe yes, here no way. Not now & not in the past either. I'm positive!
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of showinuse9

    showinuse9

    [11]Mar 8, 2011
    • member since: 02/27/09
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 956
    yeah ive noticed the acting is pretty bad but at the same time no one watching this show for the acting. I still strangely like the show
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.