Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
Backstage: "Fox is changing the way it selects actors for pilots. The network is phasing out traditional in-person network tests, in which finalists for each role audition for network executives who choose a winner."
this reminds me of a behind the scenes casting video that i was watching about the new fox series 'glee', when the producers and director of glee were talking about the casting process it was obvious that they took a lot of consideration to each role and each actor cast because such a huge part of that was relied on the type of chemistry actors had with each other, i think its great that fox is not only standardizing but also making a very thorough screen test for actors because a cast can def make or break a show
I'm glad that Fox is not making its decisions based only on the video. without other human interactions, i don't think its truly a representation of how they will act on the show. But i'm glad they are considering that people have an off day, or something went amiss. To combat that fact, they are taking two forms of auditions in correlation with each other. For such an important part of the success of the show, i definitely agree that 2 forms is better than one!
When dealing with a genre that is watched on TV, it makes sense to look at taped auditions. As often happens in theatre auditions, this takes away from the actor's ability to take notes on the audition and redo things or try a scene a different way. In-person auditions also allow the producers to see the actor up against somebody else they are considering for the pilot. The nature of pilots is such that studios aren't sure whether the show will make it on air, so if it is cheaper and more efficient to watch videos than take the time to see everybody, of course they are going to do so.
It makes sense to look at taped auditions, when dealing with a genre that is watched on TV. I can see this as being a negative thing for the actors who are missing out on the practice of auditioning, but it might be easier on them in the long run. Having in person auditions maintains the chance to compare different people in an audition, but you can also get this by asking the people to come in once you have it narrowed down. Many times casts change once a show has been accepted, so it makes sense to save money in that way.
Casting is a very tricky process, especially when talking about television. Becuase of the long running and deep connection needed between character and audience that will be built throughout the show, it would be extremely difficult to base the casting off a one time audition. There is no real way to 100% ensure an actor will be perfect for a role because they couldhave had a bad day while auditioning for example. I standing in the position that there are ways to weed out the bad actors, but when it comes down to it, it only matters on how hard the actor will work to maintain the integrity of the role.
I think that the combination of different audition styles is a good idea. The article mentions that one of the problems is that decisions are not being made on the spot and actors have to wait by phones to find out whether they were cast. But I think that this inconvenience is made up for by the fact that there are video and in-person auditions that allow actors to show more of what they can do and their potential.
I'm actually very surprised that Fox hasn't been using taped auditions at all. It seems very logical that since they are looking for actors to be filmed, they should rely more on how they are on film than in person, especially since it allows the actor to have more control of the environment at the time of taping, because it could potentially be very frantic in person. That being said, I'm glad that they are also considering live auditions, to get a better feel for potential chemistry.
I'm curious as to the inner workings of Fox TV; they pick up so many wonderful shows that rarely last longer than one season. In fact, there are so many actors that end up on multiple TV shows on the network. Some actors are just better suited to TV than other mediums. This casting process seems like a lot of work to go into a show in pre-production. There seems to be a disconnect between the creative process when a show starts and the executives who choose if a show lives or dies.
This is another example in society that we are wising up to the idea that a few people cannot speak for all of us. Whether it is political, religious, or simply to get the right actor for the part, a larger mass of people are being drawn in for the decision making process.
A focus group will pick the actor that is most likable to them. If they think the actor is likable, then others will too, and in turn, more people will watch the show.
This same mentality of moving away from a few select people calling the shots can be seen in the political world. Prop 8 in California is a great example of how opinion changed when many people got involved with the decision process.
I think that when casting for a television series a lot of attention should be given to the ensemble cast as a whole. Not only does each cast member have to convey their particular character to the audience, they also need to interact with the other characters with ease and fluidity. Sometimes tv shows don't work because all the actors are great, but they have no chemistry with each other.
It makes sense to use video for casting, because it could save a lot of time and broaden the horizons for potential actors, but I can also see how this can negatively affect certain people in the process. I feel like the actors auditioning may have mixed feeling over this process. On the one hand, it gives some an oppurtunity to audition when they might not have been able to. This also widens the field, which some can see as a problem.
Well this makes perfect sense. On television much of the actor's performance is perceived differently. you may have a very charismatic and talented actor who in person is perfect but comes off very cold on screen. If you are casting for television you really should just have the casting director's view tapes and screen tests more than in person. The final decision MUST be based on screen tests as that is the medium that their actual role will be.
In terms of interactivity between the cast and the director, that is an important element but then the executive producers (or the people who will not actually physically there during the taping of the final show) should rely on screen tests.
So the ideal process is to see how an actor looks on a television. Then to film basic interactions between other potentials and the director. The results of that should then be sent to the top and they decide based on the demographic of the show and what they are hoping for.
This seems like a much more logical method to select actors for pilots because they are preforming for tv so their on camera performance is more important than how they "read" live. Plus it seems this would take out stress for the actors, not having to sit in front of the casting agents.
13 comments:
this reminds me of a behind the scenes casting video that i was watching about the new fox series 'glee', when the producers and director of glee were talking about the casting process it was obvious that they took a lot of consideration to each role and each actor cast because such a huge part of that was relied on the type of chemistry actors had with each other, i think its great that fox is not only standardizing but also making a very thorough screen test for actors because a cast can def make or break a show
I'm glad that Fox is not making its decisions based only on the video. without other human interactions, i don't think its truly a representation of how they will act on the show. But i'm glad they are considering that people have an off day, or something went amiss. To combat that fact, they are taking two forms of auditions in correlation with each other. For such an important part of the success of the show, i definitely agree that 2 forms is better than one!
When dealing with a genre that is watched on TV, it makes sense to look at taped auditions. As often happens in theatre auditions, this takes away from the actor's ability to take notes on the audition and redo things or try a scene a different way. In-person auditions also allow the producers to see the actor up against somebody else they are considering for the pilot. The nature of pilots is such that studios aren't sure whether the show will make it on air, so if it is cheaper and more efficient to watch videos than take the time to see everybody, of course they are going to do so.
It makes sense to look at taped auditions, when dealing with a genre that is watched on TV. I can see this as being a negative thing for the actors who are missing out on the practice of auditioning, but it might be easier on them in the long run. Having in person auditions maintains the chance to compare different people in an audition, but you can also get this by asking the people to come in once you have it narrowed down. Many times casts change once a show has been accepted, so it makes sense to save money in that way.
Casting is a very tricky process, especially when talking about television. Becuase of the long running and deep connection needed between character and audience that will be built throughout the show, it would be extremely difficult to base the casting off a one time audition. There is no real way to 100% ensure an actor will be perfect for a role because they couldhave had a bad day while auditioning for example. I standing in the position that there are ways to weed out the bad actors, but when it comes down to it, it only matters on how hard the actor will work to maintain the integrity of the role.
I think that the combination of different audition styles is a good idea. The article mentions that one of the problems is that decisions are not being made on the spot and actors have to wait by phones to find out whether they were cast. But I think that this inconvenience is made up for by the fact that there are video and in-person auditions that allow actors to show more of what they can do and their potential.
I'm actually very surprised that Fox hasn't been using taped auditions at all. It seems very logical that since they are looking for actors to be filmed, they should rely more on how they are on film than in person, especially since it allows the actor to have more control of the environment at the time of taping, because it could potentially be very frantic in person. That being said, I'm glad that they are also considering live auditions, to get a better feel for potential chemistry.
I'm curious as to the inner workings of Fox TV; they pick up so many wonderful shows that rarely last longer than one season. In fact, there are so many actors that end up on multiple TV shows on the network. Some actors are just better suited to TV than other mediums. This casting process seems like a lot of work to go into a show in pre-production. There seems to be a disconnect between the creative process when a show starts and the executives who choose if a show lives or dies.
This is another example in society that we are wising up to the idea that a few people cannot speak for all of us. Whether it is political, religious, or simply to get the right actor for the part, a larger mass of people are being drawn in for the decision making process.
A focus group will pick the actor that is most likable to them. If they think the actor is likable, then others will too, and in turn, more people will watch the show.
This same mentality of moving away from a few select people calling the shots can be seen in the political world. Prop 8 in California is a great example of how opinion changed when many people got involved with the decision process.
I think that when casting for a television series a lot of attention should be given to the ensemble cast as a whole. Not only does each cast member have to convey their particular character to the audience, they also need to interact with the other characters with ease and fluidity. Sometimes tv shows don't work because all the actors are great, but they have no chemistry with each other.
It makes sense to use video for casting, because it could save a lot of time and broaden the horizons for potential actors, but I can also see how this can negatively affect certain people in the process. I feel like the actors auditioning may have mixed feeling over this process. On the one hand, it gives some an oppurtunity to audition when they might not have been able to. This also widens the field, which some can see as a problem.
Well this makes perfect sense. On television much of the actor's performance is perceived differently. you may have a very charismatic and talented actor who in person is perfect but comes off very cold on screen. If you are casting for television you really should just have the casting director's view tapes and screen tests more than in person. The final decision MUST be based on screen tests as that is the medium that their actual role will be.
In terms of interactivity between the cast and the director, that is an important element but then the executive producers (or the people who will not actually physically there during the taping of the final show) should rely on screen tests.
So the ideal process is to see how an actor looks on a television. Then to film basic interactions between other potentials and the director. The results of that should then be sent to the top and they decide based on the demographic of the show and what they are hoping for.
This seems like a much more logical method to select actors for pilots because they are preforming for tv so their on camera performance is more important than how they "read" live. Plus it seems this would take out stress for the actors, not having to sit in front of the casting agents.
Post a Comment