#*my best

[suckmydickalexa]

hey i finally opened my ask box/submission thing and i like Might try doing s/p.7 requests sometime soon but idk yet ! but keep an eye out

[talentforlying]

                           [ out of cigs. ] anyone want a short starter before i bolt off to my                                                     family reunion?

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

Hi there, I'm new to your blog and have to say I love it! Re: Dany and the Dragons, I do wonder if that is a specific drawing point to get more male viewers more interested in the show. I do know that I had to mention dragons, zombies, and sex (yep...) to get my boyfriend interested; he came for those things, stayed for the storyline. So, who would you like to see featured predominantly in advertising if it wasn't Dany? Lbr, without her dragons (and Drogo), I find her kinda boring :/

Hi! Thank you!

That would be the ugly truth, wouldn’t be? Idk. I know a lot of male fans of the show, that watch it for many reasons but Dany and her dragons, and boobs. Though the boobs don’t hurt. But mostly they happen to be book readers. But again, many male viewers (only viewers) are interested in the male characters, Robb, Tyrion, Jon, and Jaime, and don’t care much for the fantasy aspect of the show. Idk, not gonna make generalizations, but it’s true that the show does have a tendency to feature what they think is the selling point of the story. And mainly because they have this assumption that women don’t watch the show. In fact, in earlier seasons, they seemed clearly surprised that the show attracted more female viewers, than male. And as soon as they made that realization, they tried to fight it, and made it all about attracting male viewers. Somehow a show with a larger female viewership, is something that they thought it might hurt the show in the long run (it’s not the first time I’ve seen producers do this though).

I don’t have a problem with the show featuring Daenerys and Tyrion, I have a problem with the show featuring only and mostly them. I don’t need one character to be predominantly featured as the face of the show. The show has a lot of characters, and a lot of good actors, that can be the one of the many faces that could be featured. Early into this show, a couple of reviewers commented on the “annoying" fact that this show didn’t have lead characters, and stupidly enough, the producers went to “fix" what was not broken. The reviewers were speaking from the perspective of people who have no interest in the genre, or even in the show for the long run. And the first complaint was the number of actors and characters, and that Daenerys wasn’t enough in the show. A season later, the producers changed both things, “fixing" everything this one reviewer didn’t like about the show. I doubt the reviewer now sees the show differently, in fact, I doubt he even watches it, cause he didn’t seem interested in the show, nor the genre, and wrote a review with the passion of a turtle, and criticized things that were not a problem or an actual issue of the production, but were only his personal likes or dislikes about the genre, and the show in general. So, in my opinion, the producers are doing what they think attracts the masses, and the good reviews. Ironically, neither of the changes done, have improved the show, from a critical to a fan’s standpoint. The show is now more or less, a good cgi’d show, with some good shock value moments, embellished by some unnecessary nudity. And if some critics and or fans like that, is because they don’t know how good it could have been, if the producers hadn’t bastardized the purpose, the look, and the storyline so much. It’s ok to like it (or love it), but to call it “great, amazing, or groundbreaking" is trying to reach for the stars with a stationary bicycle.

Thanks!

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

Okay, I have a theory: So if you watch an interview with Emilia, you'll see she is naturally over-expressive (eyebrows all over the place...). She can't help but carry that into Khaleesi, /except/ when she's consciously aware of her overexpression, and she tries to suppress it which ends up looking straight-up unnatural (i.e dead eyes). So it's not because she *over*acts, it's because she doesn't at all know how to *under*act.

Ok… So, she overacts (cause that’s who she is), cause she can’t underact= Therefore she just overacts!

I think there’s not much science in it. Whether it’s underacting or overacting, that’s not good acting. And there’s nothing else to it.

If she can’t make a performance controlling her reactions, her expressions, her body language, and herself, then I can only say she’s not acting, or is acting badly. Cause basically the 4 things I listed, are pretty much basic requirements for acting.

I understand what you tried to say here, but if she can’t control her own expressions, then I have no idea what she pretended to do when studying acting. And it’s not just about her eyebrows getting all crazy (cause personally I don’t find that to be one of her problems, or maybe that’s the least problematic part of her performance). Her overacting is about everything she does in the scene, from the pitch of her voice, to the way she delivers her lines, to the intensity in her face, to the expressions she uses to convey the character’s mood. None of those things are on point in her performance, therefore, she just ends up going from “dead eyes” to overacting.

thanks.

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

Rather sure you misunderstood me. I didn't mean she was an empty shell told what to do. You must not know how it works. They're given a roll to play. And told what is expected of that roll. How they want the character to be. To be acted and portrayed. Also, I wasn't saying that because she's beautiful she can be shit. But time and time again, females talk crap about other females, and that stems from jealousy. You can pretend otherwise, but I bet you're not happy with yourself.

But time and time again, females talk crap about other females…You can pretend otherwise, but I bet you’re not happy with yourself.

You don’t see your own contradiction here?  (assuming you are female. and if you are not, then please stop trying to do this, cause it makes you even worse).

EDIT: To make it very clear. You are using sexism to disprove my criticism. You attack me with sexism, in order to come up on top in a conversation that was always respectful from my part.

I can’t do this all over again. You have to come back and read what I wrote.

Rather sure you misunderstood me. 

No, I did not. I understood you pretty well. But maybe you don’t realize that you contradict yourself. Is easy to tell that you wanted to make a remark on my response, but you clearly avoided to all cost answering my points:

I ask you now. If she was doing incredibly, would it be because of her, or because she is doing what she is told to do?

Does it always have to end in women against women for what society deems as valuable on women?! Are we allowed as women to have arguments or dislikes over something not related to beauty, childbearing, and house chores?

Are people ever gonna be able to judge a woman for her work, her words, her opinions and so on, without resorting to “who cares she’s pretty/ who cares she’s ugly”?

After all I said, you still come back with “omg you are so jealous”. When I told you that is a sexist approach to pin women against each other for what society deems valuable on them.

This is not a personal blog, so I feel no need to engage in some word-vomit to talk to you about why I like myself, and why I don’t need to look like anyone else to feel good. And even if it was, I have nothing to prove to anyone. And why should I? When the point of this blog is not to talk up or down the looks of the actress, but to talk about acting. ACTING! 

She can be as pretty as she is, she can be as sweet as people say she is, and she can be as nice as she seems to be, I really don’t care. I only base my critiques of her work on her work. 

It's easy to find big excuses for her lack of abilities, and it’s even easier to try to trash me. Which I don’t get, but to each their own. I don’t go around making comments in publications that don’t like my personal taste saying “this writer might be so unsure about his/her looks, to trash this actress’ acting”. I don’t. I don’t see why you might find it as a criticism to what I do, that is nothing else than writing my feelings, thoughts and concerns of this show and its acting. 

I’m probably wasting my time with this, since I thought you would get what I was trying to point out about your previous ask, and why it was problematic. 

I don’t mind people defending her acting. But defend her acting with her acting, not with her looks, her personality, or whatever else it might be ok in your head. If you are to do so, then you are helping your cause in no way. And quite frankly any actress is better off, if that’s the case. 

But time and time again, females talk crap about other females,

I can agree with this to some extent (if I were to consider this separately from the rest of your asks), because:

this blog not only criticizes her work, but other actors’, including male ones. 

I’m not talking crap. I’m saying her work on GOT is no good.

And I can’t fully agree with you on that, since the addition of this: and that stems from jealousy, makes me realize you have no freaking clue why women go against women. 

I want to be brief here so: for internalized misogyny, for not adjusting to what society expect of us, and lashing out when other females don’t, which shows how bad it is. Anything probably that might result from it, comes from a place of society pinning us against each other, for things we ourselves, probably don’t care about. (And a perfect example of that is how people and magazines feast on made-up feuds between actresses, who don’t even care, or don’t even have problems with each other)

Neither of those things it's done here. I made myself sure no one would get a free pass when criticizing about something that is not her acting. Or any other actresses’ acting. 

You must not know how it works. They’re given a roll to play. And told what is expected of that roll. How they want the character to be. 

Hello Captain Obvious! Of course they have a script, they have lineaments of what is expected from the role. But when they are in front of the camera, is their art they put to work, and that makes a difference between mediocre actors and good actors. 

She’s not responsible for writing crappy lines, for making up a stupid plot, or for directing the scene pretty badly. She’s however, responsible for her overacting, responsible for giving a flat performance, for showing no emotions, for having the worst line delivering of the cast. Is as simple as that. We cannot always excuse her average-to-mediocre skills with “but that was expected of her character”, “but that was in the script”, “but that was how it was written”. At the end of the day, is she who made a crappy performance, and any other actress would have made it differently (for good or bad), and that’s how you know, is not just what was expected of her role.

And frankly I doubt they were going or asking for a terrible performance. I doubt they wanted the scene to be overly dramatic, and badly executed. 

Let me sum it up with an example: I can learn to play the guitar tomorrow, but that doesn’t mean I’m ready to give a concert, or even that I would ever be ready. And even if I was, I could still be a crappy guitar player, not deserving of the praise, or the possibility to work with great musicians. Is that so hard to grasp?

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

Doran Martell -one of the best players in the game-

Hi.

Under a cut for SPOILERS! (AFFC-ADWD)

I personally liked Doran from the very first moment he's mentioned on AFFC. The whole chapter of him at Water Gardens, the description of him, and the way Areo sees him, is just amazing. To me that's one of the best chapters GRRM ever wrote. Maybe that's why I like the character. 

As a character, I just think that his personality and the way he acts, always so calmed, always so pensive, is a real strength. He's a mystery, we barely even know about his feelings towards the situations that are happening. He's smart, really smart, plans ahead, takes action without people noticing, and leaves the emotions for later, without actually being cold hearted. He's a good leader and takes good care of his people. He's probably one of the few good people, in the books, that has some brains and strategy. 

Now to your question:

I think Doran is one of the best players because he planned and planned, and never let Dorne or his people be used for someone else's cause, if they were not gonna get something in return, and if he wasn't sure that it was not going to be in vain. He was smart enough not to help Viserys with his cause to take the throne publicly (at the moment he would have been the only one to support him, and that wouldn't have ended well for Dorne). But he came up with a deal, secretly, to take the throne for him later. Him and Oberyn were the ones that thought the best way to get revenge for Elia's death, was to marry Viserys with Arianne and go after the Lannisters and their bannermen. Of course them, Varys and Illyrio planned all of this. 

But it was mainly Doran the one with patience enough to come up with this. And he was the one pulling his brother back, to wait, and get things done right. To actually keep a cold head and not act in a rage impulse, has kept him alive and tranquil, while others had to look over their shoulders.

To gather the dothraki army, Dorne's army, and the Golden Company, to support Viserys claim, would have been a real threat for anyone who might have opposed in Westeros . If we think about it, that's probably one of the best plots ever in the books. It was so well planned out, that not even Viserys or Dany knew about it. They were just pawns in the game, they had big parts to play, but never thought for a moment that all of this was planned out. And to think Dany was the one that frustrated the plans, by getting Viserys killed, and killing her husband, is somewhat tragic for her. 

Of course even after this fell through, Doran continued to seek for revenge, without even showing weakness. Where DWD ends he reveals to his daughter, that he's still planning to help Daenerys. Don't know how that will fit into the Golden Company following Aegon at this point, but will see. 

He's an amazing player. I don't think he wants the power that the throne might get him, but he just wants revenge, and dead Lannisters all over the place. And the best thing about it, is that the Lannister don't even know it. They don't really trust the Martells (Tyrion mostly), but they know little about them, and how much they wanted justice for their own. I think more often than not, the Martells are taken for granted, underestimated, and not even noticed. And that's a good thing, and is because of Doran and how he kept his people controlled for a long time, and even though the sand snakes tried to rebel and start a war, and Arianne tried to take matters into her own hands, he controlled them, he was able to keep his mind cold and aware, and plan for later. All I can say is, revenge is a plate best served cold. 

Thank you! Sorry for the late answer. And I loved this asks btw. 

[the-khaleesi-sucks-at-acting]

she has stated in an interview before that she really hates the internet and wont go on it (a response to a twitter question) because she once read something she didn't like about herself of there (not surprisingly if i might add... i dont remember the interview but I could find it if you want, wouldn't be that hard)

Ha ha. So convenient for her!

I do agree that there are some nasty things on the internet, and the actors probably shouldn't visit certain sites. But there's actually some good things written around tumblr or fan sites for example, and people do have a point. I'm not talking about people bashing some actor's looks or outfits, I'm talking about some serious concerns over some actors performance.

I really don't respect that approach. I don't care for actors who say they stay away from anything that might not be positive over their work. I don't respect or believe in the "I don't listen to the critics" approach. Well then you are doing your job wrong! Cause people are the ones watching your show or movie, so you need to listen all the opinions out there. I don't respect taking home the awards for some things, but not listening to critiques over other jobs. Is hypocritical. 

In my opinion, you have to learn to take the good and the bad. If you have people around you 24/7 kissing your ass, and you take those compliments, then you have to deal with the people who won't be happy about your performance, and take in consideration their critiques (as long as it's constructive criticism of course).  

Come on! I keep hoping she will get better, but like previous anon said, if she doesn't see how bad she's doing, then there is no hope. 

Will be great if you could find it anon! I definitely want to read or watch it. And maybe submit it or send me the link. Would be really appreciated if you could do that.

Thank you so much for the info!