Question about acting quality and low budget.

H

harmonica44

Some threads talk about how when it comes to low budget it's best to do something light, because of the acting quality will not come off as serious a lot of times in low budget. But I don't see how that is. I have seen a lot of low budget movies, with great acting, and a lot of high budget Hollywood ones with poor acting.

So it seems to go either way, and I don't quite see how low budget has more of a likeliness to cause poor acting. What causes that likeliness, if there is any?
 
Inexperience. If you're not paying your actors, or only paying them small amounts, it's very likely you'll have inexperienced actors.
 
Well yeah, I was assuming you would be hiring actors with some experience for a small fee. Some big Hollywood productions have bad acting in, and they are still taken seriously. Some of the James Bond movies, Van Helsing (if that's enough to be a hit), and the latest Star Trek were hits, and I thought the acting was poor, but I guess they still made money for other production qualities, that a low budget film cannot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top