Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

David Boreanaz's parts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • David Boreanaz's parts

    That got you looking!! I'm talking about his acting parts specifically. What is his best portrayal of a character? Which do you believe the most?

    I'm sure I'm not in the minority of people that think DB's acting in S1 and early S2 of Buffy wasn't all that great, but definately improved as time went on. In my mind now there is no-one else who could've pulled off Angel the way David did. So, as a fan of DB I started watching Bones when it was first shown in the UK and immediately thought that the part of a Booth is much more suited to DB's personality than Angel ever was.

    I have also seen him in "Valentine" and "I'm with Lucy", and I didn't think either of those characters suited him very well. In "Valentine" he was supposed to be a drunk with a violent temper, but he came off too nice for it to work and (without giving away the ending for anyone who hasn't seen it) it should've done to make the film more plausible. In "I'm With Lucy" he was supposed to be charming but arrogant, and although he sold it I don't think the character was DB at all, he just can't do arrogant in my books - sad to say he was acted off the screen by John Hannah and that bloke who was Elliott in ET.

    So that leads me back to Angel and Booth. Both characters have pasts that they are trying to redeem for, both are consumed by a need to protect innocent people, but Booth isn't broody and morose like Angel is. Apparently DB in real life is a funny and nice guy, so to me that shines through in his characterisation of Booth.

    So is it that the part fits him better, or is it just improved acting? When you watch Bones do struggle to differentiate Angel from David Boreanaz, or do you buy Booth completely as a different person who shares an uncanny resemblance to Angel?
    sigpic

    Peter Capaldi is the 12th Doctor

  • #2
    I've only seen him in Bones and as Angel.

    Season 1 and the first part of season 2 were not all that ... He was the worst actor of the regulars. But I'm impressed with him since the second part of season 2. When we met (his perfect) Angelus, he met Angelus I guess. Since that arc he was a lot better in brooding and showing guilt. In his own show he improved his acting every season and in season 5 of Ats ... he became the best actor in the buffyverse. (Well besides the always fantastic Alexis and Anthony). I really think he was better as good actors like SMG, JM, JB and AH in the end. I'm in love with the emotion in his eyes in Damage (Look, I said it again ... ), his face in Your Welcome broke my heart in many tiny pieces, and in the last scene in Double or Nothing, that scene is too much for me. And that while knowing, that David is goofy and has a lot of humor.

    Booth is an other story ... I like his Seeley Booth, and I really don't see Angel in his Booth. Somewhere in season 2 he has a scene (it's the scene with the barbeque) with Stephen Fry (Gordon Wyatt), and he was perfect ... I think one of the best scenes I ever saw on tv, and David and Stephen were fabulous. But Booth is less deep as Angel and way more like David ... he is less challenged.

    I think David is a real tv-actor, he needs more that 100 minutes. He needs to make a character his own I guess. But he became one of the better tv-actors. He won't win a Golden Globe or an Emmy as long there are tv-gods like Michael C. Hall, James Spader and Hugh Laurie on tv ... but he is really good.
    Nina
    and her haircut.
    Last edited by Nina; 25-11-07, 08:37 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Nina View Post
      I think David is a real tv-actor, he needs more that 100 minutes. He needs to make a character his own I guess.
      Very well said! He needs to grow into his characters.

      With Bones, I feel like he has really shone! It's such a great part for him and a wonderful departure from Angel. He's cocky and funny and fierce and flawed and heroic.
      sigpic
      follow daydreaming on twitter / livejournal / tumblr / facebook for instant site updates!

      Comment


      • #4
        ok, i'm going to defend david in the first 2 seasons of buffy. no, he was one of the highlights of early buffy. he grew, but was never awful as some people like to say. he was supposed to be playing a very insecure, hurt and unsure character, and he totally pulled that off. don't confuse a character who is supposed to be unsure of himself with bad acting. and the angelus change wasn't some epiphany that he could act--it was just a different character. he clearly played both well. and it wasn't angelus that got him his ats gig--it was playing grace newman--which was far closer to being angel than angelus.

        the point is, angel wasn't supposed to be funny and sure of himself in early btvs. he was supposed to be a lost soul who wasn't even sure if it was possible to be redeemed or if he could help people.

        imo, it's revealing that the show didn't take off until the episode "angel". and david boreanaz is a good chunk of the reason that btvs got an audience, and more than just for his looks. it was also the best written character and the most interesting... even in that pre-angelus part of the show. there is a reason that of all the characters in btvs, angel was the one that got his own show.

        had angel not been played with an actor who was strong and manly but sensitive, beautiful but menacing, etc... he would not have worked. look at what the original idea behind angel was--mysterious beautiful stranger who gives information to buffy and fades off. that's it. the fact that he became a regular and was the ONLY character to spin-off (in a spin-off that lasted 5 years) tells you a lot about how he was received and how much potential the character had as well as star-power the actor had playing him.

        as for booth... i love booth, but just because a character is happier doesn't make the actor better for playing him. i'd argue david had a lot more characters he had to play as angel, with a larger variety of emotions. booth is closer to who david boreanaz is, but that makes angel all the more amazing because he wasn't always playing himself--but at the same time, angel and david were deeply connected in other ways. angel was a more challenging dramatic character, but booth is much more of the fun audience-bait scene-stealer. angel was more complex, though.

        a lot of people forget that david boreanaz probably had to play the biggest range of emotional states of any actor in the jossverse. it was often he who had to one minute be scaring the crap out of people and the next weeping on his knees. the one that one minute was showing his comedic big lovable lug chops and the next has the pain of the world in his eyes. i'd argue no other actor in the jossverse had near the pressure of him or the variety of emotions to play.

        i would say david boreanaz, alexis denisof and sarah michelle gellar were the actors that had the most work put on them, just do to the kind of roles they played (and in david's case--the largest variety of characters that he played). james marsters and amy acker also had a lot of this frequent emotional work. amy acker was probably the only one who came closest to playing characters who were entirely opposites. not even sarah or james had to do anything as extreme as what david and amy did.
        NileQT87
        The Dark Avenger
        Last edited by NileQT87; 26-11-07, 05:16 AM.

        "If there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do."
        "Nothing in the world is the way it ought to be. It's harsh and cruel. But that's why there's us. Champions."

        Comment

        Working...
        X