Has Alexis always been such a bad actress?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life
adindavw — 9 years ago(November 29, 2016 08:28 AM)
Boy, o, boy I just finished the revival-series and am utterly disappointed in the choices the writers made. But more so I'm surprised at Alexis Bledel. I feel she played the role of Rory as if she was reading from the script and I thought she was a spoilt brat, even more than in the 'old' series. Plus: I know Rory could be a bit awkward at times, but apparently this hasn't changed in the last ten years!
For the first time I really, really don't get why all the boys in her life can't get over her. -
fairykissesrowan — 9 years ago(November 29, 2016 08:34 AM)
I often found Alexis (at least in the original series) to at least be passable. Sadly, I agree with you about her performance in the revival series. At times her acting seemed to be reading directly off a cue card level bad.
As for her love interests being hung up on her for so long, I guess Amy decided to turn Rory into Bella Swan? -
ilves — 9 years ago(December 06, 2016 05:24 AM)
As for her love interests being hung up on her for so long, I guess Amy decided to turn Rory into Bella Swan?
Good one
Though I think all the boys (except Edward) got finally over Bella, even Jacob. But nobody gets ovet Rory Gilmore, and nobody seems to get over Lorelai either, since besides Luke Chris always loved her and even Digger in his few lines made clear he was still interested.
"Wait! Does this also mean putting out doesn't get you love?" -
sleepersix — 9 years ago(November 29, 2016 08:41 AM)
I'm rewatching the show now and I'm surprised by how good she actually was in the earlier seasons, especially compared to her acting later on. In seasons 1-3 she's a lot more natural and has a dry, deadpan delivery that she weirdly loses as she gets older. She also nails the emotional scenes in the early years, like her breakdown in class after hitting the deer or fighting with her mom the morning after the winter formal.
I mean, she was never amazing, and she''s always been completely eclipsed by Lauren Graham. But in seasons 1-3 I thought she was very good at being "Rory." -
justinohearn — 9 years ago(November 29, 2016 06:02 PM)
I agree she was a lot better in the earlier seasons of the show. She was more natural as you said. Her freak out when she couldn't take the Shakespeare test was really funny. I don't know what happened.
Usually the opposite is true. When people start out in a series their acting is rough but gets better over time.
"Notice how I ride side saddle, it proves I'm a lady of quality."
Witch Hazel -
jasongibbonsxxx — 9 years ago(December 06, 2016 01:15 AM)
I think she's terrible. And also Lauren Graham. I hate this show with the burning passion of a billion suns. I might have to break up, just so I'm not forced to ever overhear another episode of this pointless, ham-acted drivel.
-
deniselleswan-50425 — 9 years ago(December 07, 2016 06:32 AM)
I think she was picked for her innocent looks, not her acting talent. When the show began, she was still baby-faced, and staring with her big eyes and mumbling insecurely was part of that. Having a teenager meltdown in class is also part of it. In later seasons, when she had to be a grown up, it no longer worked. The difference between her and Lauren Graham got more obvious, since LG obviously was hired for her talent, not just her looks.
It's similar to child actors. They learn to say things in a certain way and smile and be adorable, and then they're 30 and trying to be a serious actor and still have those mannerisms. It just doesn't work anymore. -
Delta_Orionis — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 06:02 AM)
In seasons 1-3 she's a lot more natural and has a dry, deadpan delivery that she weirdly loses as she gets older. She also nails the emotional scenes in the early years, like her breakdown in class after hitting the deer or fighting with her mom the morning after the winter formal.
I completely forgot about the deadpan delivery, but now you mentioned it I can totally see it. She was definitely better in the early seasons, I wonder what changed for her. Also I agree with the OP, thought her performance was quite beep in the new ones.
-
TxMike — 9 years ago(November 29, 2016 11:16 AM)
Yes, she is just a poor actress. It fit the original series because she was a teenager but she is not believable as a 30-something professional. Mediocre acting and poor enunciation. I have seen her in a couple of movies and she is no better. She has an attractive face, that is why she got into the business.
.... TxMike .... -
-
adindavw — 9 years ago(November 30, 2016 04:46 AM)
I guessed I never noticed it because it fit her "cute and innocent" personality. But I imagined that this would fade when she'd grow up.
Oh who am I kidding. If the revival taught us anything it is that she never really grew up, at least not with realistic expectations of the world.