The Incredibly Morose Performance of DB In Angel Season 3

[NotASlayer]

I suspect he has more series in him... and I suspect he'll let himself age into 'senior cop/soldier' kind of roles and keep on acting as long as he wants. Just as he let go of the Buffy era 'pretty boy' pretty much by the end of Ats season 1, I suspect he'll let go of the 'action man' 'younger' and move on to the 'active man' 'older'.

Giles, in other words? 😀

Joking aside, I could see him playing the sort of role Giles was.

 

[AlphaFoxtrot]

Eh, there is a psychological/physical hit you take in your early thirties. I mean, if nothing else, the number of club girls who watched Buffy in Grade School was starting to become more noticeable, and that angst was probably something he could use. Or not, I mean, he was shirtless (IIRC) with Wicked Prayer in 2005, he couldn't have been that body shamed. I mean, he should feel shame for that film, just not for his body.

P.S. I wanted to say he should feel shame for, ahem, "taking a trip down to taradise" but I never actually heard that as a rumor.

 

[hoponlilmama]

Perhaps DB does not have the range of some actors, but Angel/Angelus showed that he did have range. And a lack of huge range is not the same as being a bad actor.

Carrying, say, a couple of hours of an action film if you are less than great as an actor is a far different thing from being the lead role in three series, 24 seasons, 425 episodes and over 300 hours. That is pretty much impossible to carry on looks alone, and all the main characters on Buffy and Angel had looks. So, maybe he does not have a huge range and sticks to what he is good at; he is still good at it. And his looks mean nothing to me,

Exactly. No one is stating DB is the greatest actor.

But there's much to be said for someone jumping from one successful show to another. I've not watched Seal Team outside a handful of episodes, but my understanding is the series was praised, along with DBs acting, because it's a more serious role.

Without any acting chops, you're not going to get very far. If his range and ability remained as he appeared in s1 of Buffy, we'd be having a different conversation.

And yes, sometimes people stay within their acting wheelhouse. I guess the comparison is Metallica suddenly attempting R&B. Metallica generally stick to what they do best, and where they excel in.

DB isn't Daniel Day-Lewis. And I imagine he'd be the first to say he's not the greatest actor that ever lived.

 

[NotASlayer]

Exactly. No one is stating DB is the greatest actor.

But there's much to be said for someone jumping from one successful show to another. I've not watched Seal Team outside a handful of episodes, but my understanding is the series was praised, along with DBs acting, because it's a more serious role.

Without any acting chops, you're not going to get very far. If his range and ability remained as he appeared in s1 of Buffy, we'd be having a different conversation.

And yes, sometimes people stay within their acting wheelhouse. I guess the comparison is Metallica suddenly attempting R&B. Metallica generally stick to what they do best, and where they excel in.

DB isn't Daniel Day-Lewis. And I imagine he'd be the first to say he's not the greatest actor that ever lived.

And as @DeepBlueJoy pointed out, you don't always want the greatest actor that ever lived, especially for television. You want a good, competent, solid actor who will turn up and do the leading role you expect them to do, not someone who is arguably better at acting but can't be depended on. Heath Ledger was arguably a better actor - he did win an Oscar after all - but could you have really expected him to manage acting on multiple seasons on multiple TV shows? TV shows have different requirements to films, and whereas you can get away with unreliability in films if the actor is good enough, or lack of talent if they are pretty enough, managing the schedule of a television series is an entirely different thing and audiences will tune out if someone genuinely is a block of wood in a leading role.

And if you want range, well, hire a Brit. : D (There does sound to be an element of truth in that statement.)

 

[hoponlilmama]

audiences will tune out if someone genuinely is a block of wood in a leading role.

Exactly this. Your lead has no skill or lacks charisma? Not going to work long-term. Looks can only go so far.

And if you want range, well, hire a Brit. : D (There does sound to be an element of truth in that statement.)

*cough* ASH *cough*
From Ripper, to wounded dwarf with the mystical strength of a doily! 😉

 

[Ethan Reigns]

What you want for a television series is a "one take" actor. This is someone who is good enough to get a scene completed in one take because the time crunch in television is far more important than in a movie. According to the actors and crew, the show was called Buffy the Weekend Slayer when it was filming because there was a lot to do every week and it often spilled over onto the weekend. Since the TV camera is relentless and the plot keeps moving, you do not need the ideal delivery of a line every time, so the best actor is not necessarily the one I would hire. After his first year on Buffy, DB was good enough for television. You absolutely do not want someone on TV who demands prima donna treatment or who can't remember the lines.

What you don't want is the movie actor who can eventually get the ideal delivery of a line only after a number of takes. The pace can be a bit slower because you don't have to put out 45 minutes of material a week.

 

[famicommander]

Exactly this. Your lead has no skill or lacks charisma? Not going to work long-term. Looks can only go so far.

Stephen Amell has been on TV for more than a decade straight now and he couldn't play dead in a Western. He just looked hot in his Green Arrow role.

 

[thetopher]

Stephen Amell was actually pretty decent in Heels, that's more on a (strong) ensemble cast show but it was critically acclaimed (including Amell's performance). So I guess many qualified people would disagree with your particular assessment.


Also a decade on 1 (crappy superhero CW) show is not comparable to over 25 years and 3 different successful shows. Bones alone went on for 12 seasons.

 

[NotASlayer]

Stephen Amell has been on TV for more than a decade straight now and he couldn't play dead in a Western. He just looked hot in his Green Arrow role.

If people only watch Arrow because Amell looks hot, why do I watch it? Yes, I know there are plenty of shirtless fanservice scenes, but that only works as fanservice if you find Amell attractive.

Stephen Amell was actually pretty decent in Heels, that's more on a (strong) ensemble cast show but it was critically acclaimed (including Amell's performance). So I guess many qualified people would disagree with your particular assessment.

Something I noticed about the Arrowverse shows I have seen is that sooner or later, they effectively end up with an ensemble cast; Legends effectively started with one. Which took some of the pressure off the intended lead. I thought Amell did a serviceable job in Arrow. Nothing groundbreaking, but this wasn't a show that required anything groundbreaking.

 

[famicommander]

Just compare Amell to the other main Arrowverse leads. Grant Gustin and Melissa Benoist are both orders of magnitude better than Amell. Matt Ryan as Constantine, Cress Williams as Black Lightning, Tyler Hoechlin as Superman, even Brec Bassinger as Stargirl acted circles around Amell.

Amell is closer to Ruby Rose tier. Which is to say, not good at all. Even Caity Lotz ended up better than Amell by the end of Legends and she was more of a stunt performer turned actor.

 

[nightshade]

I think we've gone quite far away from not only David Boreanaz, but Angel season 3.

 

[AlphaFoxtrot]

Re: CW; Okay, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson was America's highest paid actor for quite some time, and he was never going to be Patrick Stewart.

Most CW actors were hired because they looked pretty. The WB hired the Buffy and Dawson actors because they looked pretty. This network didn't learn the same things we did from the 90s.

I also suspect that Joss was pushing his performers in ways that a lot of these productions weren't.

 

[thetopher]

The truth is that CW's Green Arrow is pretty boring; a second-rate Batman. A cruddy character doesn't stretch a actor's abilities. I maintain that Amell was good in Heels, so it was probably a mix of 'first time lead role' and 'typical CW writing' that made that show unwatchable. Not that many of the CW super shows are quality entertainment.
...Also Ruby Rose is a whole different level of awful to any other small-screen actor. Saying otherwise is an indication of piss-poor judgement.


Anyway, I'll always maintain that DB very much lucked out when it came to Angel; a character with many different facets to explore over the course of two shows and many episodes; he had to do action movie, drama, comedy (both broad and subtle); play the villain and valiant hero and many shades in between. It's the nature of a lot of genre shows; you're possessed by a ghost, you've lost your soul, you've swapped bodies with somebody else, you've lost your memory and regressed to a much younger version of yourself, etc.
It stretched him as an actor the way the latter roles didn't as much.

 

[AlphaFoxtrot]

It always saddens me to think of all the great series that struggled to make it to three seasons, or never made it all. Star Trek, Arrested Development, Firefly. But Batwoman somehow survived three seasons.

 

[famicommander]

It always saddens me to think of all the great series that struggled to make it to three seasons, or never made it all. Star Trek, Arrested Development, Firefly. But Batwoman somehow survived three seasons.

It was produced by Greg Berlanti, who at one point in time was actively producing 18 different live action television/streaming series including what were by a wide margin the two most popular shows in the history of the network that Batwoman aired on (The Flash and Arrow). You get a little bit of leeway with that sort of track record.

 

[NotASlayer]

Batwoman was also part of a successful universe of shows, some more popular than others, so it had those to back it up. Being the first in a series of connected shows means that a show has to perform better out of the gate. Once that universe exists, a show can be given more time to try and step up.

Season two of Batwoman was better than season one, but that was a pretty low bar. However, it did end up breaking a lot of the connections between the characters, which did not help. When three of the main characters were the original Batwoman's sister, stepsister and father, that caused issues.

 

[thetopher]

I don't feel bad for Star Trek, because of all the movies they eventually got. Plus ST: Voyager was pretty weak but got 7 whole seasons. And Enterprise was shockingly awful and got...4? God, that show was dire.
Every good idea a previous Star Trek show introduced; Klingons, Vulcans, The Borg, etc, was clown-ified by those last two iterations of the franchise.

Batwoman succeeded because it was a Batman spin-off, and many people will watch anything Batman adjacent, even if its dire. S2 was bad for different seasons that the first; the replacement actress was much better but her character was somehow worse. And it was strange having the same origin story- 'Imma gonna just straight up steal the batsuit, say I'm better than what came before and act insufferably entitled'- for both seasons, only for the second they added 'poc' to the intersectional identity blender.


Plus, I know people give both Buffy and Angel crap for sometimes 'letting the bad guy escape' (i.e Spike or Harmony or Darla) but that Alice woman would be allowed to freely murder people whilst Kate Kane would straight up beg her to stop or leave town or some crap, rarely bothering to even try and capture her.


....Thinking about that show really puts AtS S3 in perspective really, its a masterpiece in comparison. Great characters, great villains, interesting plot, shame about the ships.

 

[NotASlayer]

Every good idea a previous Star Trek show introduced; Klingons, Vulcans, The Borg, etc, was clown-ified by those last two iterations of the franchise.

Voyager created itself a huge problem by having Voyager travelling through Borg Space and regularly encountering the Borg. Given the Borg's abilities, that would have led to Voyager being destroyed easily. There should have been the original encounter, then skipped over Borg Space. Instead, you had Voyager and the Delta Flyer going up against a Borg tactical cube and not being annihilated, even though a lesser cube had been one-shotting Federation ships (admittedly older ones, but the Delta Flyer was a shuttle) which outnumbered the cube dozens to one at the Battle of Sector 001 and eventually Janeway jacking Borg ships for parts.

There really was no way of having the Borg being Borg and having them encountering Voyager on a regular basis without nerfing them.

 

[Kendar]

Voyager created itself a huge problem by having Voyager travelling through Borg Space and regularly encountering the Borg. Given the Borg's abilities, that would have led to Voyager being destroyed easily. There should have been the original encounter, then skipped over Borg Space. Instead, you had Voyager and the Delta Flyer going up against a Borg tactical cube and not being annihilated, even though a lesser cube had been one-shotting Federation ships (admittedly older ones, but the Delta Flyer was a shuttle) which outnumbered the cube dozens to one at the Battle of Sector 001 and eventually Janeway jacking Borg ships for parts.

There really was no way of having the Borg being Borg and having them encountering Voyager on a regular basis without nerfing them.

Voyager was the most inconsistent of the Star Trek shows. You'd have some really great episodes and some truly horrible episodes, not only in the same season but sometimes right next to each other.

 

[Tome]

I stand by what I said. It's true that he got better over time but he's still a very limited actor whose primary success is based on being hot while playing a character in a relationship with someone also hot. It's a simple formula, it works, and I'm not mad at the guy for cashing those checks. There are innumerable successful actors that are pretty much 100% coasting on their looks. You cannot possibly tell me anyone would hire Gal Gadot or Kyle Maclachlan for any other reason that that they are pleasant to look at. Well, you could tell me, but I wouldn't believe you.

David Boreanaz is a pretty decent actor. He just sucked in the early goings of BtVS. You can't expect every actor to be able to play every type of character. He is best when he can be snarky and funny, whether he is playing a good guy or a villain.

Also, how is Kyle MacLachlan a bad actor? The heck! Let's not compare him to Gal Gadot.

DB's success is being a hot, action-hero type guy who can play emotional vulnerability well, he has pretty good chemistry with most of him female co-stars and has enough comic timing to land a good humorous scene or spit out a pithy one-liner when necessary. He was also a fairly compelling villain that was distinct from their heroic counterpart.
All of that is what he learned on BtVS/Angel and its not nothing, especially compared to actors who are more famous than him who can't do half of that.

Basically he deserved the spinoff and his modest success in TV land despite what others may think; there are more deserving targets of scorn both in the acting profession as a whole and the Buffy shows specifically and yet its always DB that gets singled out...because those same critics have a beef with the character he plays, basically. It's so tired.


I say all of that knowing that the best actors on either show are Amy Acker, Alexis Denisof and Tony Head; nobody else comes close in terms of versatility and range.

DB gets singled out in BtVS because his character, outside of Angelus, is one-note and he doesn't get much material to work with aside from being Buffy's dark and broody boyfriend. You combine that with DB being a newbie actor to begin with and it makes it easy to pick on him.

I agree about Amy, Alexis, and Anthony. I'd probably add Alyson, Seth, Julie, and SMG.

By that metric the worst actor ever is Sean Connery. Can't even do any kind of accent; he's always a Scottish Russian Submarine commander or Scottish Egyptian Immortal lol.

Well, Sean was good, but I think overrated if you look at his entire career. 😉 (I will never get over how he turned down LoTR)

*cough cough* Charisma Carpenter *cough cough*

People make all sorts of excuses for CC, but really that is because she is gorgeous. Terrible actress. But so pretty. Still, so so pretty.

"Terrible" is an overly strong way to qualify her talent as an actress. She was great at comedy and made her character really endearing.

I'd say she's in the 'mid-tier' of acting. She didn't luck out after Angel and didn't get another decent role on TV. She could have gotten more popular had she oriented herself toward comedy instead of drama.

Yep. She also fluffed her lines a lot, which is bad. She is a good comedic actress and she really nails all her 'Cordelia-isms' but dramatically? Urgh. Plus hands down probably the worst villain performance over either show.
I mean, Jasdelia was worse than the hyena-kids from S1 The Pack, and they were very cringe.


Also, to bring it back on topic; Cordelia in S3 Tomorrow almost single-handedly downgrades that season finale from great to only partly good.

I don't think she was that bad as 'Jasdelia' (lmao 🤣 ). I think she wasn't too into it because of what was going on behind-the-scenes, and because she probably didn't enjoy Cordy's storyline in that season.

I've seen you mention that scene from 'Tomorrow' so many times. Why was that such a big deal for you?