I figure the character of lana is exactly how the people making the decisions want her to be. The writers, directors, and producers. They probably play a greater role in that than she does, especially since she was a relative unknown starting out. She's not the one that says, "cut, print". If they didn't want Lana to come accross like she does, they could try and change that.
I do understand where sky is coming from with what he's saying. Each individual actor's interpretation of the character makes a world of difference. When you watch audition tapes, it's pretty funny just how different some of the actors read for parts. But in the end, the decision makers are the ones that go, "she's the one that came closer to what I had in mind". So it's not like the actor can make the role do whatever they want. Someone who came and played the character in a way that most of us would rather see, would probably not get the part because that's not what they want. Basically, it's what SoS said; if you give them what they want, you've done your job.
I do think she could do a better job even within their framework. But I also think the character is innately weak so it wouldn't make much of a difference.
As for the bad vs. nice character roles, it goes both ways for me. Bad characters tend to have more presence or pizazz or whatever you want to call it. So my reaction is, "that bad guy kicks ass". They can turn out corny or repetitive at times, but overall I think it's easier to create an entertaining bad guy than an entertaining good guy. On the other hand, nice characters, when they're really likeable, can be very endearing. I think this is harder to accomplish, but has a greater effect than being a cool bad ass. If either one is well done, they're equally impressive. | 
03-18-2005, 02:11 PM
