Jensen Ackles *Master Actor* Fav Characters VS Dean

[7kstar]

On 7/15/2022 at 1:42 AM, MAK said:

I don't know about anyone else, but I would love a thread/topic about Jensen Ackles characters. Where we can talk about his acting/styles/looks and compare the differences and/or similarities between his characters. 

Because I want to talk about the way JA slaughtered Abaddon and how SB kills Mindstorm. And other comparisons. 

It would be across a few different shows/movies so how would that work?

[7kstar]

Created a topic space but open to changing topic title. 

Always thought Dean would like Alec.  Haven't seen Soldier Boy from the Boys, so no thoughts yet.

[MAK]

OMG! Now I have to get my thoughts together to talk about something other than just simping!

Thanks for starting the thread!

[Aithne]

Great thread!

So I'm a big fan of The Boys - I think it lets Kripke get as sophomoric and wild as he wanted to be without all the restrictions on SPN (network and also just tonally speaking). So of course, Soldier Boy is fresh in my mind. 

I was pretty impressed with JA's contribution to the show. Without getting into spoilers, I thought he created a character who was believably the top dog of his day, with all the assumptions and beliefs of that time period, yet meshing seamlessly with the existing cast. The last three episodes were all fantastic from him in one way or another, from the

Spoiler

Cosby line

to his

Spoiler

back and forth with Hughie

in ep 7, to everything about the finale. Not a trace of Dean Winchester to be found, even when I expected it. Compelling and distinct and just very well done. 

I do wish 

Spoiler

he hadn't been so isolated - he mostly worked with Karl Urban and Jack Quaid, and it was a great dynamic, but I would've been interested to see him more integrated as I think that cast is across-the-board fantastic. But at least we got those few scenes with Antony Starr, which were just... *chef's kiss*. The final exchange was just phenomenal from JA, infused with all the disillusionment and self-loathing, and ah. Beautiful. And his incredulity with Butcher - I felt that, man. Justice for Soldier Boy, who kept faith with Butcher and ended up in the no-doubt tender mercies of Grace Mallory for his troubles. (Just kidding, I know why he had to go. But at least let him depower Homelander for you first. Ryan probably would've been okay, maybe.) 

Edited July 17, 2022 by Aithne

[roamyn]

5 hours ago, 7kstar said:

Always thought Dean would like Alec.  Haven't seen Soldier Boy from the Boys, so no thoughts yet.

Oh yeah, Dean & Alec would be good friends, I think.  Alec covered his pain & empathy in sarcasm & occassional childish joy.  Dean does the same.

But I could also see Ben looking up to older Ben, aka Soldier Boy.  Both have pain and ‘mother/father figure’ issues.  But neither knew how to deal with it, other than thru violence. One was created in a lab, the other was created thru lab work.

Edited July 17, 2022 by roamyn

[MAK]

There isn't really a point to this post except to gush about Jensen's acting. (Hopefully that's the through line of this thread.)

Both characters, Dean and Soldier Boy, have basically trained themselves to be stoic in all situations.

Soldier Boy --- "You know what I do when I feel scared or sad? F*cking nothing..." 
Dean Winchester (I'm not sure of the wording or the exact episode)--- "You just take everything and you push it down..."

Yet Jensen shows a lot of the conflict of fighting to remain emotionless and in control on their faces. Soldier Boy's face talking to the Crimson Countess and when talking to Butcher about his father is so different from Dean's "betrayed" emotional scenes. His face when Sam walked out the door with Ruby, or when he's telling Mary "...There's the door..." I know the situations aren't exactly the same, but similar in that the subject is about the people he should be able to count on and love, are letting him down.

The end of Brother's Keeper getting ready to kill his kid brother, and with Homelander, getting ready to kill his son, the sadness, regret, but necessity. (The scene with Homelander telling him that he's a disappointment, made me want to cry for both of them! The two main villains! The ones whose demise we are supposed to cheer!) The expressions are so alike yet so different too!

I know there's been quite a few years between Lucifer Rising, The Raid, and now The Boys episodes, but even considering that Jensen is older (can't really say "aged"), I didn't see any Dean in his face or his voice. True master!

I think I rambled a bit, but hopefully you guys get it!

[roamyn]

3 hours ago, MAK said:

I think I rambled a bit, but hopefully you guys get it!

No, you described some good examples.

JA is the mark of a great actor in that he can disappear in his roles and you see the character, not the actor.  We’ve been having this discussion over in the ‘Heart Eyes’ forum. 

[ahrtee]

47 minutes ago, roamyn said:

No, you described some good examples.

JA is the mark of a great actor in that he can disappear in his roles and you see the character, not the actor.  We’ve been having this discussion over in the ‘Heart Eyes’ forum. 

One of the problems of being very good-looking is that you can never *really* disappear into your roles as long as people can identify you.  That's nothing against Jensen or his acting abilities.  Cary Grant was always Cary Grant, no matter what role he was playing or how old he got, and he always did a wonderful job.  That's why easily recognizable actors tend to go to parts that require major changes to their looks in order to showcase their abilities, and why they tend to get so many more accolades when they do.   

[roamyn]

24 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

One of the problems of being very good-looking is that you can never *really* disappear into your roles as long as people can identify you.  That's nothing against Jensen or his acting abilities.  Cary Grant was always Cary Grant, no matter what role he was playing or how old he got, and he always did a wonderful job.  That's why easily recognizable actors tend to go to parts that require major changes to their looks in order to showcase their abilities, and why they tend to get so many more accolades when they do.   

I don’t believe that’s the case - for me - for Jensen.  I can watch Dark Angel and not see him or Dean or SB.  Ditto with Soldier Boy or Tom Hanniger (sp?)

I don’t include Smallville, because there I do see Jensen.  But that’s because a) it was a horrible cheesy show and b) the writers did a 180 on the character,

[tessathereaper]

22 hours ago, roamyn said:

I don’t believe that’s the case - for me - for Jensen.  I can watch Dark Angel and not see him or Dean or SB.  Ditto with Soldier Boy or Tom Hanniger (sp?)

I don’t include Smallville, because there I do see Jensen.  But that’s because a) it was a horrible cheesy show and b) the writers did a 180 on the character,

Yeah I don't see Jensen, I don't see Dean, I don't see Alec.  He's a great actor and he makes his characters DIFFERENT. That's why I enjoy watching him.  It's because, not only the more obvious changes like hairstyle or clothing or the way he uses his voice(which a lot of actors who are considered excellent don't even do, unless they are doing a different accent but Jensen will sometimes change the timbre or rhythm of his voice, like he did with Soldier Boy for example) but the look in his eyes is different.  The person looking out of his eyes, the brain that appears to be working there, is different.  I can't really explain it but it's not the same.

When they say an actor is "Cary Grant is always Cary Grant" it's because the actor is playing a specific persona in a specific way, it has nothing to do with their looks.  I mean John Wayne was always John Wayne, people sometimes comment that nowadays Tom Cruise is always Tom Cruise(though he is capable of more he just doesn't now).  Actors in general, esp American actors or actors who hit it big here, DO tend to be very good looking but that's not the reason for it.

I don't really see Jensen in Jason, Jason just wasn't a "character" as you might say.  He was kind of a bland guy in the sense that he wasn't written to have much in the way of personality quirks, he was just Lana's boyfriend, Clark's coach, Guy with the mommy issues but that didn't get explored that much before he had to leave but boy they appeared to be doozies,  but Jensen did a really great acting what he was given, esp when the character's relationship with his mother was revealed and also with Lex like when they were captured.

Edited July 18, 2022 by tessathereaper

[ahrtee]

59 minutes ago, tessathereaper said:

When they say an actor is "Cary Grant is always Cary Grant" it's because the actor is playing a specific persona in a specific way, it has nothing to do with their looks.  I mean John Wayne was always John Wayne, people sometimes comment that nowadays Tom Cruise is always Tom Cruise(though he is capable of more he just doesn't now).  Actors in general, esp American actors or actors who hit it big here, DO tend to be very good looking but that's not the reason for it.

I'm not saying anything against Jensen's acting.  I think he does a phenomenal job with just his expressions, voice, mannerisms.  He may be a different character every time, but I'm always aware it's Jensen, just by the way he looks.  After all, most of the time, he's the reason I'm watching the show/movie.  So I enjoy seeing him play different characters, enjoy watching the way he can make the character come alive, but I'm always aware that I'm watching Jensen's body (sorry, that sounds creepy) inhabit the character.  And I'm enjoying watching Jensen.  It has nothing to do with always playing the same basic character.  (And Cary Grant did try to play against type in quite a few movies, but they didn't succeed because people *wanted* to see him as Cary Grant--he'd become a character in his own right.)  

The main test for me for an actor "becoming the character" is when you're more aware of the character than who's playing him.  Sometimes you don't even recognize the actor till later, or till you hear their voice.*  And those who've built their following based on their looks usually can't accomplish that till they get older and less, well, recognizable.  

*ETA:  That's "disappearing into the character."  Most actors known for their looks can't do that unless they're heavily disguised.  It's nothing against the actors; more about the audience and what they want.

Edited July 18, 2022 by ahrtee

[tessathereaper]

22 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

I'm not saying anything against Jensen's acting.  I think he does a phenomenal job with just his expressions, voice, mannerisms.  He may be a different character every time, but I'm always aware it's Jensen, just by the way he looks.  After all, most of the time, he's the reason I'm watching the show/movie.  So I enjoy seeing him play different characters, enjoy watching the way he can make the character come alive, but I'm always aware that I'm watching Jensen's body (sorry, that sounds creepy) inhabit the character.  And I'm enjoying watching Jensen.  It has nothing to do with always playing the same basic character.  (And Cary Grant did try to play against type in quite a few movies, but they didn't succeed because people *wanted* to see him as Cary Grant--he'd become a character in his own right.)  

The main test for me for an actor "becoming the character" is when you're more aware of the character than who's playing him.  Sometimes you don't even recognize the actor till later, or till you hear their voice.  And those who've built their following based on their looks usually can't accomplish that till they get older and less, well, recognizable.  

I wouldn't blame "the audience" just because you can't do something. I have no trouble seeing the different characters for what they are no matter what an actor looks like, if they are a good actor. 

I don't need to forget who an actor is, to see the character.

[ahrtee]

8 minutes ago, tessathereaper said:

I wouldn't blame "the audience" just because you can't do something. I have no trouble seeing the different characters for what they are no matter what an actor looks like, if they are a good actor. 

I don't need to forget who an actor is, to see the character.

Geeze, I'm not insulting anyone.  No need to insult me.

I didn't say I *can't* see the character.  I just said many people (including me) watch a show because they like the actor.  And often, the way they look. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by ahrtee

[roamyn]

29 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

ETA:  That's "disappearing into the character."  Most actors known for their looks can't do that unless they're heavily disguised.  It's nothing against the actors; more about the audience and what they want.

And that’s why I said “for me”.  To me he’s a beautiful person physically, but I find his personality and his voice and the way he talks abt his family and the way he treats his fans, more attractive than just the pretty face.  I can get lost in his characters, unlike the Cary Grant & John Wayne examples.  Tom Hanks is another, that you’re just aware that he’s TH all the time.  

[Aeryn13]

Of course every actor looks how they look - if they are considered good-looking or not (it's not like I can't pick out Danny DeVito in a project easily) - so they can always be identified like that.

But IMO that is neither here nor there in terms of acting. I don't even consider super-physically transformative roles any indicator of how good an actor is, maybe how much they are willing to do for a role.

Jensen is a very charismatic actor and he brings that in spades in roles like Dean or Alec or Soldier Boy. Whereas for example Ben in Dark Angel is the polar opposite of Alec in the same show (and that alone told me enough about his range) and while the character still has great screen presence, he isn't written or supposed to be charismatic in the same way as the above-mentioned, therefore Jensen doesn't play it like that either.

CJ? on Dawson's Creek is also a much calmer gentler character (and not someone to be considered flashy on the show, that was Pacey, and honestly less well-written).

Now at this point I can easily say Ben, Alec, Dean and now SB are definitely my fave roles of his. Alec and Dean as written has some likeness to the characters but also some big differences. And even in early SPN, I never really felt reminded of the Alec character. 

Now even a great actor can't totally help if characters are written too similarly. For example I think Robert Downey Junior is insanely talented and of course I could tell apart Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes but the character archetype was just so similar, I was reminded a lot of one in the other. But I wouldn't put that on the actor. He acted both roles similarly not because he has no range but because he was supposed to and cast as such. 

[ahrtee]

All I'm saying is that I tend to watch Jensen in roles, not just because I like the character, but because I like him and how he can create the characters.  There are many shows I wouldn't have watched if he wasn't in them, so it wasn't the character that was the draw, it was him.  Of course, once I was sucked in, then Jensen's looks became part of the character.

If they'd made Soldier Boy look his actual age--80 or 90--and given him Sam's fright wig from the final episode, I'd be more aware of the character himself rather than Jensen.  It doesn't mean that Jensen wouldn't be playing him the same way, or that I'd like him less--just that I'd most likely lose *him* and see just the character.  I'd say it's like voice acting, but then you'd miss Jensen's expressions and gestures that also add to the portrayal.  

[MAK]

Maybe part of it is the hair and beard, but not all of it. I mean, he has a similar styling for Big Sky, but Beau Arlen doesn't look like Soldier Boy, or vice versa. His face really does change. When he was talking to Crimson Countess, I swear his mouth was a different shape. And there are so many fan edits showcasing his lips, that most of us are familiar with what they look like!

How different did he look in the Logical Point of View video? He didn't even look like the "current" Soldier Boy. And yes, hair is combed different, clean shaven, more like Dean's style, but he doesn't look like Dean. Or Dean in the Chronos time travel episode (even if he was younger then). He seemed to have been channeling Robert Mitchum or even Dean Martin. But Soldier Boy has his own look, doesn't reallly remind you of any older actor, just a hint of a bygone era. 

I thought Dark Angel Ben and Alec looked different. Watched some of Dawson's Creek, and couldn't believe it was the same guy from Dark Angel. Then watched 10 Inch Hero, I didn't even recognize him. Even at the end, I couldn't really believe that was the actor who plays Dean Winchester. 

(I didn't watch Smallville or any of his horror movies.)

14 hours ago, tessathereaper said:

When they say an actor is "Cary Grant is always Cary Grant" it's because the actor is playing a specific persona in a specific way, it has nothing to do with their looks.  I mean John Wayne was always John Wayne, people sometimes comment that nowadays Tom Cruise is always Tom Cruise(though he is capable of more he just doesn't now).  Actors in general, esp American actors or actors who hit it big here, DO tend to be very good looking but that's not the reason for it.

IMO, this becomes true for successful actors, not just "good looking" ones. People who make movies, want what sells, and once an actor becomes commercially viable, able to sell a movie just because they are in it, the filmmakers cater to what they think the audience wants and they give it to them. Like Sylvester Stallone, he's just Rocky and the First Blood guy wrapped into one. Every role he plays is a version of that because that's what they think the audience wants, and maybe it does, who knows. But, at least to me, it doesn't seem like his success was based on being "good looking" (not counting built body in good looking). And the old actors, like Cary Grant or John Wayne, almost guaranteed a successful movie by having their name on the marquee. Of course filmmakers wrote the same roles for them, it was fast, easy, cheap, and still profitable.

Edited July 19, 2022 by MAK
Spelling

[Aeryn13]

55 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

All I'm saying is that I tend to watch Jensen in roles, not just because I like the character, but because I like him and how he can create the characters.  There are many shows I wouldn't have watched if he wasn't in them, so it wasn't the character that was the draw, it was him.  Of course, once I was sucked in, then Jensen's looks became part of the character.

If they'd made Soldier Boy look his actual age--80 or 90--and given him Sam's fright wig from the final episode, I'd be more aware of the character himself rather than Jensen.  It doesn't mean that Jensen wouldn't be playing him the same way, or that I'd like him less--just that I'd most likely lose *him* and see just the character.  I'd say it's like voice acting, but then you'd miss Jensen's expressions and gestures that also add to the portrayal.  

While I know they initially planned to make the character look older (before Jensen was cast), I think the youthful looks are an integral part of the character they wanted to portray. Age-wise they have an out with Stormfront on the "don`t visibly age" front and if he was the poster boy of Vought before and a movie star and everything, it stands to reason that he was hot and charismatic. Because that`s marketable. And if he was looking old now, like his real age, the joke of him sprouting all these old-timey lines just falls flat. A lot of things they went for this Season work far better with someone looking young but acting (in-show, that is) old.    

[gonzosgirrl]

I've always side-eyed praise for an actor being great/believable in different roles. That's... acting. It's right there in the job description. LOL! What I find more impressive is when an actor can do what Jensen did with his dual roles in Dream A Little Dream of Me and The End, when he's playing the same character, with the same voice, and yet you know exactly who is speaking at all times, just from his body language. That's freaking talent. And having the range to go from super-angsty drama to comic relief, sometimes in the same scene and be absolutely believable - that's great acting, and Jensen is superb.

Edited July 18, 2022 by gonzosgirrl
sigh

[gonzosgirrl]

I think that actors who have striking looks, whether handsome (like Jensen) or unique (say, Steve Buscemi) are always going to be recognizable on screen. You are never not going to 'know' that it's Jensen or Steve, but their characters are so well crafted and portrayed that you never think that they are just playing versions of themselves, or the same character all the time, because they are great actors. But you are also never going to accept lines like Badd wrote about "Dean" not being attractive, because he looks just like Jensen Ackles. And Steve Buscemi is a fantastic actor, but nobody is going to buy him being the Marlboro Man. It doesn't diminish their talent to observe this. Unlike, say, a William Shatner, who is Bill no matter if he's playing Captain Kirk or TJ Hooker.

I think maybe the most amazing example ever of this is Carroll O'Connor. Archie Bunker was one of the most recognizable, iconic characters in tv history, and yet without changing his look at all, Carroll became Bill Gillespie on In The Heat Of The Night and there was no trace of Archie Bunker whatsoever. I think Jensen achieved this with Soldier Boy, following so closely on the heels of Dean Winchester.

Edited July 18, 2022 by gonzosgirrl

[Bergamot]

4 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I think maybe the most amazing example ever of this is Carroll O'Connor. Archie Bunker was one of the most recognizable, iconic characters in tv history, and yet without changing his look at all, Carroll became Bill Gillespie on In The Heat Of The Night and there was no trace of Archie Bunker whatsoever. I think Jensen achieved this with Soldier Boy, following so closely on the heels of Dean Winchester.

This is a very good comparison, and I think that Carroll O’Connor is an excellent example of an actor who could inhabit a totally different character and bring him to life in this way.

As an aside, I am also reminded of a story that I read about Carroll O’Connor in a book that I have, which talks about another quality which he had as an actor. He had such a compelling screen presence that he always drew your attention whenever he was in a scene. Back in the sixties he had a guest role as a quirky villain on the show “The Wild Wild West”, and Robert Conrad, who played the handsome and heroic lead character, commented on this.

Quote

Writer Ken Kolb recalled O’Connor’s great performance and how Conrad felt that, every time they appeared on screen together, O’Connor stole the scene……”We were watching a scene with Bob and O’Connor together, and you could feel Bob getting upset about something. Finally, Garrison asked, ‘What’s the matter Bob?’ and Bob said, ‘That son-of-a-bitch upstages me, even with his back to the camera. How does he do that? How does he get everybody to look at him when I’m looking at the camera and he’s looking the other way?’"

I feel like Jensen as an actor has this same kind of screen presence, and draws your attention in this way. Like Robert Conrad said, I don't know how he does it, but he steals the scene when he is on screen!

[MAK]

2 hours ago, Bergamot said:

This is a very good comparison, and I think that Carroll O’Connor is an excellent example of an actor who could inhabit a totally different character and bring him to life in this way.

Yes, absolutely! I never saw Archie Bunker in the Heat of the Night.

2 hours ago, Bergamot said:

I feel like Jensen as an actor has this same kind of screen presence, and draws your attention in this way. Like Robert Conrad said, I don't know how he does it, but he steals the scene when he is on screen!

IA, I  always want to know what Jensen's character is doing/thinking. This is probably why Badd made that "other characters breathe" comment. But that's not Jensen's fault. They could have written better for the other characters or coaxed better performances (I don't feel any of the other weren't talented). But I was always more interested in what Dean was doing, even when he wasn't on screen.

[7kstar]

3 hours ago, MAK said:

IA, I  always want to know what Jensen's character is doing/thinking. This is probably why Badd made that "other characters breathe" comment. But that's not Jensen's fault. They could have written better for the other characters or coaxed better performances (I don't feel any of the other weren't talented). But I was always more interested in what Dean was doing, even when he wasn't on screen.

One thing that helps this is when an actor really listens to what is being said in the moment.  Being totally present.  So the reason he can draw your attention is because it is honest.  Real.  He is reacting in real time to what is happening.  I don't catch Jensen phoning it in.  So he can draw your eye to him as he is always reacting.  This creates a 3 dimensional character vs someone that is in their head reacting, but it doesn't really match. 

Sometime you can't put your finger on it, but you know something is off.  Jared gets that reaction from me.  Something's off and it pulls me out and I start watching as a director instead of an audience member.

15 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Now even a great actor can't totally help if characters are written too similarly. For example I think Robert Downey Junior is insanely talented and of course I could tell apart Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes but the character archetype was just so similar, I was reminded a lot of one in the other. But I wouldn't put that on the actor. He acted both roles similarly not because he has no range but because he was supposed to and cast as such. 

But for me, even though there may be some instances where they are similar, they also are very different.  That's why Robert Downey Jr is a great actor.  Now he does plays many of the same type of character but if you watch they also have something unique to each character.

I feel like Jensen did this.  In "Still Life" Jensen's character isn't like Dean, Alec or Ben.  Now looks can be there which can draw you out but that means they can't play a character actor.  Lead actors are usually who you recognize.  Character actors, you don't.  A really good one - you can't remember where you saw them last and it really bugs you.  Until Jensen ages, he won't be able to do that.

I loved Cary Grant, but he was stuck in having to play a type, as it's what brought the studio money.  However, he is more talented than John Wayne.  John Wayne is more what we call a personality actor.  I've seen maybe one or two films where he wasn't Wayne but he wasn't that strong either.  But when John Wayne did his best stuff, it worked for those films.

Shatner is the over the top stage actor that is doing what would have worked for stage on film.  So it's too much.  But sometimes it worked.  I enjoyed him as Kirk.  But the 60's acting isn't what we want now. 

[MAK]

1 hour ago, 7kstar said:

He is reacting in real time to what is happening.  I don't catch Jensen phoning it in.  So he can draw your eye to him as he is always reacting. 

Didn't some directors of SPN and guest stars say the same? I remember one of the directors commenting that if they needed to pad a scene, they could always count on Jensen to provide it, because even if it wasn't his coverage, he was still acting/reacting and the cameras were told to keep that footage if needed. Don't remember if it was Singer or Sgricca or Speight who said it. I do remember the actor who played Gadreel (or was it the one who played Benny?) say at some convention that Jensen would give his whole performance even if it wasn't a retake of his shot.

[Aeryn13]

5 hours ago, 7kstar said:

One thing that helps this is when an actor really listens to what is being said in the moment.  Being totally present.  So the reason he can draw your attention is because it is honest.  Real.  He is reacting in real time to what is happening.  I don't catch Jensen phoning it in.  So he can draw your eye to him as he is always reacting.  This creates a 3 dimensional character vs someone that is in their head reacting, but it doesn't really match. 

Sometime you can't put your finger on it, but you know something is off.  Jared gets that reaction from me.  Something's off and it pulls me out and I start watching as a director instead of an audience member.

But for me, even though there may be some instances where they are similar, they also are very different.  That's why Robert Downey Jr is a great actor.  Now he does plays many of the same type of character but if you watch they also have something unique to each character.

I feel like Jensen did this.  In "Still Life" Jensen's character isn't like Dean, Alec or Ben.  Now looks can be there which can draw you out but that means they can't play a character actor.  Lead actors are usually who you recognize.  Character actors, you don't.  A really good one - you can't remember where you saw them last and it really bugs you.  Until Jensen ages, he won't be able to do that.

I loved Cary Grant, but he was stuck in having to play a type, as it's what brought the studio money.  However, he is more talented than John Wayne.  John Wayne is more what we call a personality actor.  I've seen maybe one or two films where he wasn't Wayne but he wasn't that strong either.  But when John Wayne did his best stuff, it worked for those films.

Shatner is the over the top stage actor that is doing what would have worked for stage on film.  So it's too much.  But sometimes it worked.  I enjoyed him as Kirk.  But the 60's acting isn't what we want now. 

I don’t think recognizeability is a marker of quality in that regard. Lead actors are usually easily recognized because they have the most exposure in a project. But that doesn't mean the lead can't be a character actor. Or that vice versa a more recurring played can't still be easily recognized for role xyz.

The "hey, it's that guy" phenomenon I usually have for actors who had interesting bit roles in projects here or there but nothing so breakout or so long, that I instantly know their name. But if that's the case, that's honestly more of a career problem of said actor. Once an actor/actress has garnered some fame in whatever project, and even if it is just one signature role, I know them and of course recognize them in every other role. No actor can act so well to make me actually forget as a general rule where I know them from. Nor would that even realistically possible. But that's different to me than the ability to "disappear" into a new character.

[ahrtee]

6 hours ago, 7kstar said:

I feel like Jensen did this.  In "Still Life" Jensen's character isn't like Dean, Alec or Ben.  Now looks can be there which can draw you out but that means they can't play a character actor.  Lead actors are usually who you recognize.  Character actors, you don't.  A really good one - you can't remember where you saw them last and it really bugs you.  Until Jensen ages, he won't be able to do that.

I loved Cary Grant, but he was stuck in having to play a type, as it's what brought the studio money.  However, he is more talented than John Wayne.  John Wayne is more what we call a personality actor.  I've seen maybe one or two films where he wasn't Wayne but he wasn't that strong either.  But when John Wayne did his best stuff, it worked for those films.

Quote

I feel like Jensen as an actor has this same kind of screen presence, and draws your attention in this way. Like Robert Conrad said, I don't know how he does it, but he steals the scene when he is on screen!

Thank you.  That was what I was trying (apparently very badly) to say.  It's nothing against Jensen or his acting ability, or even the type of roles he's given.  It's just that he doesn't fade into the background, even when he's not at the front of the shot.  

Edited July 19, 2022 by ahrtee

[FlickChick]

4 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Thank you.  That was what I was trying (apparently very badly) to say.  It's nothing against Jensen or his acting ability, or even the type of roles he's given.  It's just that he doesn't fade into the background, even when he's not at the front of the shot.  

I remember a discussion about what Jensen (as Dean) does in the background. Dean is always moving - folding clothes, putting a mug in a sink, etc. even when the focus is on another character (usually Sam). And I have to admit, that's where my eyes go. He really has the strongest presence even when he's not front and center. I love that Jensen has said that he never took any acting classes, he just acts natural in every scene. I think that may be key to what draws our attention.

[7kstar]

3 hours ago, FlickChick said:

I love that Jensen has said that he never took any acting classes, he just acts natural in every scene. I think that may be key to what draws our attention.

It's the right kind of acting lessons.  I always got the message "something happens when you're in a scene,"  I always listened, and was a naturally good listener.  As I did take acting lessons, many didn't really help, but I would pick up some tidbits here and there.  Jensen's acting lessons were reacting to other strong actors. 15 years of experience on just one show.  He had actors along the way that helped him develop his craft.

I know at one point I felt I was missing something that other actors had, I didn't really start acting until my senior year in high school,  But I had life experiences.  Many different forms of trauma and unusual situations.   So when I created a character, I had something I could pull from my life to help me.  In the 90's I found a mentor that really helped me improve.  I realized I was doing Meisner techniques without knowing I did it.  I think Jensen is the same.

Jared has the speech and debate tournaments training and it gets in the way sometimes.  Marking the script with keywords to stress.  This leads to a fakeness that you really have to overcome to make it work.  It makes you react in your head vs. listening to your gut.  He also may be more method and that can be a bad mix.  Jared's listening skills are lower, you see it in the cons vids.  Sure he listens, but with the intent on how can I spin it back around to me or create a joke?

It really shows up when he is telling the fans how much they will love this story as long as it involves him.  He never saw how it harmed Jensen's character.  Now of course, an actor will want to have the best story for his or her character, but I think Jensen gets a kick out of seeing other actors doing a great job.  His support helps them and helps him to give a better performance.

Jensen is also a director.  That broadens his scope because he understands what is needed in a shot.  By him being in character when he didn't need to be, it also helps his fellow actors to do better.

I always told my students watch that young actor you love.  If they stick with it in their 40's they'll really grow.  Why because life happens and as it happens so does your acting skills improve.  Even John Wayne is a much stronger actor in his later years than when he first started. 

[7kstar]

10 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

I don’t think recognizeability is a marker of quality in that regard. Lead actors are usually easily recognized because they have the most exposure in a project. But that doesn't mean the lead can't be a character actor. Or that vice versa a more recurring played can't still be easily recognized for role xyz.

I'm going by what is more the definition of lead actor vs character actor.  Typically, the lead actor looks a certain way.  Now you may argue that they are starting to change the definitions, but it hasn't become the norm yet.

If I turned my head shots in, I would be auditioning for a character part vs leading lady.  I might get a mom, but I wouldn't be up for the lead.  Many things in the business side of acting hasn't changed.  It's why there isn't a clear pathway for becoming an actor.  It's why Jensen has even said, I know more talented actors that never got that lucky break.

The world of acting is brutal sometimes to the emotions of those that attempt to do it.  You have to be able to handle rejection and in today's world, social media, which, let's face it, can be brutal in their opinions. 

[Pondlass1]

I find I suffer along with Dean.  I get how he feels. I’m miffed when he’s not respected, I ache when he’s betrayed, I smile when he finds joy.  Jensen’s that good you see.

But we must remember the story is about Sam Winchester.  That’s the prime directive.  The writers were never allowed to forget.

[Nick24]

4 hours ago, Pondlass1 said:

I find I suffer along with Dean.  I get how he feels. I’m miffed when he’s not respected, I ache when he’s betrayed, I smile when he finds joy.  Jensen’s that good you see.

But we must remember the story is about Sam Winchester.  That’s the prime directive.  The writers were never allowed to forget.

F*ck those writers and their directives. For me the story has always been about Dean's life tragedy and it always will be. It's all thanks to Jensen. I'd never known such real fictional character before Dean. And he'll always be real to me, because all his feelings, emotions, pain, everything are with me now. No other actor/character could do that. 

Edited July 20, 2022 by Nick24

[FlickChick]

21 hours ago, 7kstar said:

Jared's listening skills are lower, you see it in the cons vids.  Sure he listens, but with the intent on how can I spin it back around to me or create a joke?

It really shows up when he is telling the fans how much they will love this story as long as it involves him.  He never saw how it harmed Jensen's character.  Now of course, an actor will want to have the best story for his or her character, but I think Jensen gets a kick out of seeing other actors doing a great job.  His support helps them and helps him to give a better performance.

Loved your whole post. It's very informative since it is your field. Re: bold - I agree 100%, and I think that it's a reflection of his personality. He's just a really, really good guy who wants to do his best and help others do their best. I never got that feeling from Jared in any way.

[Bergamot]

Just for fun, here is a little online quiz:

"Who said it -- Dean Winchester or Soldier Boy?"

I actually got one wrong, and I thought I was familiar with every word Dean Winchester ever spoke! 😊

[tessathereaper]

I  got one wrong as well.  I really don't remember Soldier Boy saying it. So I just chose Dean, even though I couldn't think of a situation he'd have said it, I thought maybe one of those eps where they had to make up a story about killing a creature.

I think maybe Soldier Boy didn't say it outloud, but it was in one of the articles that was shown on screen about the night MM's grandfather died. So kind of a trick question.

[Aeryn13]

40 minutes ago, Bergamot said:

Just for fun, here is a little online quiz:

"Who said it -- Dean Winchester or Soldier Boy?"

I actually got one wrong, and I thought I was familiar with every word Dean Winchester ever spoke! 😊

Neat. I actually got 100 % but I made two guesses on account I couldn`t remember Soldier Boy saying that but I most certainly couldn`t remember Dean saying it and one sounded a bit like a press release statement. So I went with SB. 

[gonzosgirrl]

One wrong. I don't recall Soldier Boy saying this at all. Nor did I recall Dean saying it, but since The Boys was more recent I figured I would have remember that. Hmmm.

Spoiler

7. "The Robbery Suspects I Stopped That Night Have No Regard For Human Life."

It seems like this would have to have been about the MM family incident, but I do not remember that line at all.

Edited July 21, 2022 by gonzosgirrl

[Bergamot]

47 minutes ago, tessathereaper said:

I think maybe Soldier Boy didn't say it outloud, but it was in one of the articles that was shown on screen about the night MM's grandfather died. So kind of a trick question.

I bet it was the same one that I got wrong! Definitely a trick question. That makes me feel better about missing it. 😊

1 minute ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Spoiler

7. "The Robbery Suspects I Stopped That Night Have No Regard For Human Life."

Yeah, that's the one that I missed! I guess the explanation is what @tessathereaper mentions above.

It was kind of fun to read the quotes, because it showed how the characters have things in common -- because some quotes I can imagine the other one also saying it. Yet at the same time it showed how completely different they are -- because even though I can imagine the other one perhaps saying it, it would be coming from a completely different place in that character's personality and illustrate the gulf between them. Two very interesting characters!

[ahrtee]

I got 100%.  I was stopped by the same question, but I figured it was SB, because (a) Dean wouldn't have bothered with robbery suspects if they weren't supernatural, and (b) SB was the one being challenged about his lack of regard for human life.  Dean always considered collateral damage and human lives, even when they were possessed.  

[Aeryn13]

38 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

One wrong. I don't recall Soldier Boy saying this at all. Nor did I recall Dean saying it, but since The Boys was more recent I figured I would have remember that. Hmmm.

  Hide contents

7. "The Robbery Suspects I Stopped That Night Have No Regard For Human Life."

It seems like this would have to have been about the MM family incident, but I do not remember that line at all.

I really do think it wasn`t a spoken line but just in the background in writing. Which could be technically misleading because the quiz is about "who said it". Unless "saying it" also included written interview/press release statements.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Aeryn13

[MAK]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

One wrong. I don't recall Soldier Boy saying this at all. Nor did I recall Dean saying it, but since The Boys was more recent I figured I would have remember that. Hmmm.

Got the same one wrong too! 

Was it part of the news clippings ormwas there a news cast interview or something?

Time for a re-watch!

[gonzosgirrl]

I call BS if it wasn't actually 'said' on screen. :) 

[Bergamot]

24 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I call BS if it wasn't actually 'said' on screen. :) 

We are all Dean experts, and they knew that they couldn't beat us unless they cheated! 😄

[catrox14]

I got the same one wrong as all of you! It's a conspiracy!

[7kstar]

Finally watched a good portion of Season 3 of the Boys.  I missed 2, but since I'm not a fan of the Boys, I don't think it's all that bad. 

Dean and Alec are my favorites from Jensen.  Soldier Boy isn't bad. I just don't like the show.  I'll let the fans of the show fight about who is the best actor of the Boys.  When you fast forward through major chunks of the show...why watch?

[FlickChick]

@7kstar, The Boys is certainly not everyone's cup of tea. My daughter was surprised I watched it (pre-Jensen). I just checked it out because it was Kripke's project just as I did with his other shows on network TV. I wasn't crazy over it, but I did watch both seasons before Jensen joined. Soldier Boy was wasted - not a well-developed character considering all the promotion for his appearance. Guess Kripke thought he was still writing for "Dean". 😉

[7kstar]

4 hours ago, FlickChick said:

Soldier Boy was wasted - not a well-developed character considering all the promotion for his appearance. Guess Kripke thought he was still writing for "Dean". 😉

The flaws for Kripke writing are more apparent with the Boys as they try to cover it up with gore and etc.  I think it is the actors' ability to elevate his scripts that keeps the fans. 

My question would be is would SB have been Dean, if Jensen had been the poor actor people tried to make him out to be?

I think Kripke gets excited about how something is made vs how the audience sees it.  Look we can do all of these things, isn't it exciting? VS what does doing all of these things do to the character?  If the showrunners after Kripke had really been talented, would we still think highly of Kripke?

I'd like to see Jensen given a top-notch script and then see what happens?  Would people be surprised at what he could do if everything was at the highest level?  I wouldn't be...but I could see all the haters being in shock.

[gonzosgirrl]

Soldier Boy could have been a caricature if Jensen were not so talented, but he is nothing like Dean. Certainly not in performance,  but not in writing either, IMO. SB is an asshole on paper (Dean is not) but Jensen's portrayal imbued him with some humanity. 

[Myrelle]

6 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Soldier Boy could have been a caricature if Jensen were not so talented, but he is nothing like Dean. Certainly not in performance,  but not in writing either, IMO. SB is an asshole on paper (Dean is not) but Jensen's portrayal imbued him with some humanity. 

IA with this.

IMO Kripke, first and foremost, wrote Soldier Boy as the poster boy for toxic masculinity-in his(Kripke's) mind, that is.

He did, however, know that Jensen would most certainly imbue the character with so much more than just that.

That said, I also feel that the character was indeed very much underwritten for that very reason(among others, not the least being that he had to cater to some of the actors/characters and their fans that he started out with 2 seasons ago).

Jensen said at the last con, that he felt Butcher was more like the Dean Winchester that Kripke would have wanted to write if he hadn't had to worry about answering to the standards and practices people at the network.

I also agree with that assessment, so I think a more apropos question might  be how do we think Jensen would have handled playing Butcher as he's been written on this show, but only if he had never played Dean first.

Personally speaking, I think  Karl Urban has done a more than commendable job as Butcher and he most certainly has his fans, but if Jensen had been given that role even without ever having played Dean, I have little doubt that he would have been my favorite character on The Boys even above Homelander who was my favorite character before Soldier Boy(even with the limited writing attention that he was afforded) came onto the show.

Needless to say, I can no longer imagine myself watching this show with the same level of excitement that I watched it this season if Soldier Boy isn't in some significant way a part of S4 too.

I've already decided to wait to binge it next season if the buzz warrants it to me. And that's a big IF because the fight for Ryan's soul does not interest me in the least unless they decide to bring SB back as part and parcel of it too.

Not surprisingly to me, Kripke really did a number(and not in a good way AFAIC)on most of his original characters with that finale and I doubt that he sees it that way considering all the kudos he's still getting over S3. I just hope that he's  noticing that a huge part of those kudos are coming his way directly because of the addition of Jensen's Soldier Boy-who I do believe-and again even with the very limited amount and type of writing he was given-now rivals Homelander as the most popular character on the show.

And that right there, IMO, shows you The Power of The Ackting. 

Edited August 5, 2022 by Myrelle

[Aeryn13]

5 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Soldier Boy could have been a caricature if Jensen were not so talented, but he is nothing like Dean. Certainly not in performance,  but not in writing either, IMO. SB is an asshole on paper (Dean is not) but Jensen's portrayal imbued him with some humanity. 

Soldier Boy was somewhat of a tightrope IMO. His public persona - back when he was the poster boy Supe - was to be handsome, heroic movie star. So he needed to be charismatic. But they also wanted a more or less sledgehammer-y trope version of "toxic masculinity (of yesteryore)" so that by nature would make the character look bad.

I think in the end result the charisma won out by far. I mean, this show is populated by horrible people, including the "good guys" so a character`s main onscreen bad traits being really outdated and therefore offensive comments - that even played out as comedic because how the other characters reacted to it - isn`t really shocking material. 

Which, I think they wanted charisma and were happy Jensen brought it in spades but banked on a lot more pearl clutching shock at SB than there probably was. Sorry, Kripke and co., reallife is hard enough as it is, I don`t spend my time in a state of perma-outrage at ficitional characters. I know he was a bad person but his entertainment value was insanely high which for fictional people is vastly more important to me. 

[Nick24]

Soldier Boy probably was the only character in S3 I did really care about. Jensen took all my attention to his character. Well, we all know how it goes, Jensen/Soldier Boy didn't leave the other characters any room to breathe in his presence. 😄

Actually, that's good. After that S3 Finale I don't want to even think about the others. I need SB back. If he's not coming back, then I'm with @Myrelle and not sure how I'll be watching S4.

5 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

SB is an asshole on paper (Dean is not) but Jensen's portrayal imbued him with some humanity. 

IMO Without Jensen, Dean would have been an asshole with Dabb's/Berens' writing. That's for sure. 

19 hours ago, FlickChick said:

Soldier Boy was wasted - not a well-developed character considering all the promotion for his appearance.

Does Jensen have some sort of curse on the writing for his characters?