but De Niro at his best was provably in a top 0.0000001 per cent. How many actors whether in soaps or otherwise would come up to that? A handful? That's not a reason to rubbish someone else's work. I think on the whole Ryan has put in a good performance as Robert, There were some weak moments but hey, no one's at their best all of the time.

He's he wuss, so he has to act like a wuss. He can't cope without the sticks.

The lucky actors are in that position but are by no means the greatest.

Like in any industry there are very talented people struggling for their lucky break whilst so many get through on pure chance or luck.

In the 40 + years of ED the show has not produced a single actor who's gone on to be a lead actor in quality TV dramas or movies. Doesn"t that tell you something?
They cannot all have been unlucky.
When they leave ED and auditon for better quality roles than soaps they are going to be up against better quality actors going for the those roles. If even the so called better ED actors fail to get the work and end up returning that underlines the acting in ED us not as good as what some people on herw think it is. Harsh but true.

Ryan can ham it up the same way as Charlie Hardwick can. All very entertaininf if you like that kind of panto stuff.
Sorry but last week was the telling point for Ryan. That waa not the usual mundane one shot one take kind of everyday scene in which all soap actors put in the odd duff scene here and there. He had to actually do some serious proper acting. There he couldn't get away with pulling his smarmy expressions. He wasn't even close to hitting the marks.
Friday he was totally outacted by Kelvin Fletcher who is hardlly one of the best soap actors around.
OK I will drop the level way down from a peaktime De Niro and ask this simple question.
Do you or anyone else seriously think Ryan Hawley could walk away from ED and land a lead role in a quality production alongside quality actors? Do you think they would cast someone who cannot do some of the very basics required for drama? He might do one day years from now but he'd stand a snow ball in hells chance of doing it now .

Joseph Gilgun's done all right. Jason Merrells was already well-established and is doing fine. Jenna, obviously (though I don't like her much). I'm sure there are others.

But that's not the point. The point is, actors don't need to be super-talented and starry to be good, enjoyable soap actors. Obviously it gets in the way for you, because you've stopped watching, but for me, it doesn't much matter really.

If you're basically saying the acting on ED has always been crap, why have you ever bothered with it? I don't get it.

Jason Merrelles is hardly a product of ED and neither is Jenna Coleman. She made it big years after leaving ED.
I dont think all soap acting is crap but there are a lot of really crap actors in soaps. In ED I would say those who play Ruby, Rachel, Dan, Ali, Bob, Jimmy, Val, Jai, Kirin, Rishi, Priya, Chrissie and Lachlan are all rank.
I just don't see any of these great actors people keep going on about in soaps. The record shows how few make it away from soaps

Agree. I mean we all have a few characters we might not like but to consistently slate most of the actors on the show who work really hard and dont get a lot of takes to get it right is just being negative for the sake of it. Some great actors who have had guest stints on these Soaps have stated that they dont know how Soap actors do it day in and day out on such a fast moving show. They woud not be able to cope at all. It is the main reason that I might slate the characters on a show but I am uncomfortable slating the actor which is strictly not really allowed on these forums anyway.

OK. So you're not saying all acting on ED is crap. You're criticizing anyone on here who has ever slightly over-enthusiastically described an ED actor they like as "great".

Lordy. Sorry, but sometimes it's fun to be enthusiastic. I'm sure I've sat here and said "oh Ryan was great in that scene" a few times, and I didn't mean he was Lawrence Olivier, I was just enjoying myself. Don't think anyone's going to stop just because you don't like it.

I know, when we are saying how great someone is in a scene that it's all in the context of soap actors anyway. It's not like Hollywood is filled with the greatest actors anyway.

I think overall he's been fairly good. Thursday and Friday's performances were not convincing to me. I'm not an actor so I'll take your word for it that he made technical errors that I wouldn't spot, and that's what contributed to the scenes not being so believable for me. My overall impression is that he plays the character, who IS a bit if a panto villain (something I'm assuming is a deliberate choice by the writers and directors) fairly well.

If it's ok for De Niro to falter, with his years of experience, surely its acceptable for a younger actor to have talent but room for improvement?

I'll have to take your word for it as an actor that he can't do the basics - or perhaps you could explain where it was he went wrong? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely interested to know what you're seeing that I'm not?

After tonights episode with the revelation that Robert is still on top I definitely think a 'whodunnit' is on the cards for October.

[QUOTE =ArtyAttack;79090970]Agree. I mean we all have a few characters we might not like but to consistently slate most of the actors on the show who work really hard dont get a lot of takes to get it right is just being negative for the actors -f it. Some great actors who have had guest stints on these Soaps have stated that they dont know how Soap actors do it day in and day out on such a fast moving show. They woud not be able to cope at all. It is the main reason that I might slate the characters on a show but I am uncomfortable slating the actor which is strictly not really allowed on these forums anyway.[/quote]

Actually fm's are allowed to be critical of the actors acting ability. Just look at the topics on some in Corrie atm.
Out of a big cast there's not really that many who i think are really bad actors. If can even like watching soap characters played by bad actors with Gail in Corrie being one of them. It's only the terrible characters played by terrible actors - Dan and Rachel in ED are two - that I have a problem with.

That is fair enough. I have no problem with them being called great at soap level.

they must be so happy you deign to watch What about all the out of work actors? I bet there's plenty of really good ones working as waiters or getting occasional bit parts. Does that mean that they're bad actors? Then you get ones who are regularly in work and its almost impossible to tell why. Like most other fields (and probably more so) acting is not a level playing field. Can you really judge some actors based in the lack of success of others who at some point have worked in the same programme? I would think most actors being offered a part in a soap would jump at it, and not question too much whether they'll get turned down for a quality part later on. I also wouldn't mind betting that there is a huge amount of snobbery about soaps. It's great that you take an opgimistic view of the ability of good actors to progress but is it realistic? I've known a couple of actors in my time, one of whom was a close relation of a relatively famous film and tv actor so at the very least had insider knowledge and the best she got was playing a Taggart villain (she must have rocked it though because she was still being recognised for it ten years later).

I judge actors not by their technical skills but whether I can relate to the character and they seem believable (with the exception of those who are obviously being written and directed to fit a certain type e.g 'comedy' or 'panto villain'). If they seem natural, and I can say to myself 'he reminds me of the secretive, slightly shifty, troubled kids that hang around the bus shelter' (as Lachlan did) or 'she reminds me of my sister' etc etc, then they've resonated with me. There are one or two of the 'great actors' who I can tell are technically great but they seem to me like they're overdoing it. I find myself wondering how long its been since they've been out in the non-acting world meeting a wide variety of people? I think that's what the good soap and popular drama actors do well. Given the choice between Kevin Whateley and Daniel Day Lewis, I'll watch Kevin. He might not win awards but he sure can play an ordinary policeman well.

I don't say good soap actors any more than I say 'good comedy, ' or 'good drama' actors. If I think they've put in a good performance I praise them for it, regardless if what the medium is, although I recognise that some will be more suited or prefer working in certain genres.

I'm not in the acting world. It's just that I've read enough and seen enough people in the biz from actors, directors, producers, writers and respected critics talking about what is good and bad acting. Tonight it was once again the atrocious Charlie Hardwick showing how it's not supposed to be done.Truly terrible actress

Okay. I do watch a lot of films and proper TV so I can tell the difference.

True, acting is not like a sport where the winner does mean they are the best.
But there's just no getting away from the stat of the show not producing one single star actor in over 40 years. ED has clearly not been a good enough training ground.

If you knew the sheer number of people in the acting industry and the percentage of them that get ANY work at any one time you would be incredibly surprised.

Star actor =/= talent.

Half of the biggest stars in Hollywood couldn't act their way out of a paper bag.

True, but the problem was that he began to believe his own publicity, and he became lazy and self indulgent, mumbling his dialogue usually written on cue cards in his later years.

Ironically, Paul Newman was looked upon as a poor man's Brando in his first years in Hollywood. I thought that he had far more distinguished career, and with better films, he was also more likeable, and certainly looked better than Brando as he aged.

I agree with everything you said there.
Brando wasted much of his career and by the time of his role in Apocalypse Now he was indeed dishing out self indulgent mumbling nonsense. It really was difficult to understand what he was babling on about . I'd go as far as saying he spiolt the end of very good film.

Would love Robert to stick around till xmas.

I thought I was in the wrong thread then!

i too like the new robert... great storylines... but tbh i dont know where they can go with him when everything unravels.