I know what you think about most of the actors, but would you agree that some of the less experienced ones have really difficult parts to play, therefore you can understand if they aren't as convincing? As a TV show, it should have actors that can play the part well, but I thought a lot of them, especially the younger ones, got much better last season.
Matter of fact is that, if they have difficult parts to play and they are not up to the task or they can’t do it well, then they shouldn’t do it! They shouldn’t have taken the part! Someone else should have played it. As clean and simple as that.
There are tons of actors willing to work and with more talent. Why not search more? Rather than just compromise a character with bad acting.
No character has it easy in this show, and certainly the actors have, each of them, their own challenges. So I just can’t find a justification in the “they had it not as easy as…”. If they had been better, then they wouldn’t have had problems with it. No matter the level of difficulty.
So I can’t agree with the first part of your comment.
On the second part of your comment. Yes, I think many of them got better. Some got worse, but some others improved.
And I agree, the child actors are the ones that stood out. They were the ones that gave a good, or maybe just ok performance on season 1, and then grew in their characters and gain more confidence for season 2. Like Sophie Turner, whose acting I think is a bit of a “hit and miss” sometimes, but on season 2 she improved a lot, and she had to work with a lot older and more seasoned actors. I think Maisie Williams and Isaac Hempstead were good, and continue to get better. But for the usual suspects, Clarke, Madden, Jones, Harington, Simon, and more, they went from bad to worse, or just stayed in the same narrow range that they were on season 1 (or from good to bad too). But Harington was slightly better for season 2, I have to say.
I think other actors, older actors, kept their good work. Except for one or two exceptions, that are not my favourites. But I think you’ve read that around this blog already.
But just an example to show you my point about your ask:
Working with older and more experienced actors is a difficult task, and not everyone can do it. So let’s say that’s the “difficult part” some of the younger and more inexperienced actors have dealt with. Now let’s see what happened in each case:
Sophie Turner with Peter Dinklage/Rory Mcaan: She was actually able to stand her ground, and make a convincing couple of scenes.
Emilia Clarke with Iain Glen/ or the actor who played the Spice King: her acting was all over the place. The differences of bad and good acting are abysmal in her scenes. And those are some cringe worthy moments to suffer through.
Maisie Williams and Charles Dance/Francis Magee (Yoren)/ and others: she was fantastic! This girl knows what she’s doing and she’s doing it well.
Kit Harington with James Cosmo: he comes and goes. He had a few ok scenes with him, but then he overacted a bit and was not convincing in others scenes.
Richard Madden with Michelle Fairley/ and others: this is something that puzzles me, ‘cause how can he work so well with her and other older actors, but then resource to the scrunchy face he did for most of season 2? Idk. He works wonderfully with other actors, and is just his solo work or with Oona Chaplin, the problematic point.
Isaac Hempstead with Donald Sumpter (maester luwin)/ and others: he worked pretty damn well with them. He was able to give a good performance and sometimes stood out when working with them.
So my point is, when the actor can deal with a “difficult part” is because they are actually good enough to play the role to begin with.
