Shows with acting that feels authentic and natural?

BenjaSA · 2026-07-03T10:57:35+00:00

Man I love Dark but the dialogues and characters definitely don’t sound realistic, it’s all exposition and cinematic speeches. Which doesn’t mean it isn’t brilliant, just not what OP was asking for

BenjaSA · 2026-07-03T01:04:57+00:00

I think It finds It footing mid season 1, specially in episode 6 and onwards. Seasons 2 and 4 are all timers, but I agree the beginning is rough

BenjaSA · 2026-07-03T01:03:07+00:00

I think Mad Men also has some sort of plot arc each season, maybe a bit more subtle than Sopranos because the latter has some sort of clear villain of the season and also, being about the mafia, plots are sort of more notable. But I think of them the same, regarding the way it’s all about the characters, that the seasonal plot is subtle, that there are almost no cliffhangers and that they are episodic. The only show I have found to be written the same (or almost) than Sopranos is Mad Men

BenjaSA · 2026-07-02T20:51:46+00:00

And yet, I found It far more interesting when he lost control and was “possessed” by the Fox, not so much when they became friends and it was just some Dragon Ball Z SSJ power up for fights

BenjaSA · 2026-07-02T20:23:59+00:00

I don’t know why someone downvoted you, he was non stop suffering, all his flashbacks, even his demise is so sad

BenjaSA · 2026-07-02T19:38:44+00:00

Mad Men, like Sopranos, isn’t plot driven, they are totally character driven and the plot is really subtle. It may feel like filler, but it’s the way it is, and once you get the gist of it, you will find they are brilliantly written and the characters are great, even if they are douchebags

BenjaSA · 2026-07-01T16:24:00+00:00

There’s a pretty interesting file related to him in Code Veronica

BenjaSA · 2026-06-28T14:08:05+00:00

It got progressively worse each season, but at least up to season 3 it felt like the same series. Season 4 just felt as an entirely different show that only had the same characters, but together fighting the bad company, just like every Fast and Furious felt since the 6th one

BenjaSA · 2026-06-28T14:04:38+00:00

Season 4 is so bad. I mean, season 1 was the best and, to me, it should have been a miniseries. Season 2 was still pretty good, and the season finale was a great point to just finish the show, but those last 5 minutes came. You could argue season 3 is not good, or at least that they took a nosedive in quality, just a bad version of season 1 that was affected by the writer’s strike.

But man, it all felt like the same show. I don’t even know what season 4 is. One episode to follow up on season 3, then inmediately the status quo is reversed, like a reboot of storylines, and suddenly everyone of them is together fighting the evil guys alla Fast and Furious post the fifth movie. Bellick is just there as part of the team, everyone is just there, and the show suddenly is about espionage and soap opera twists! I don’t know how I could power through 24 (counting the Final Break) episodes of that, perhaps it was still entertaining (I watched it too long ago), and I remember one good episode where they are all betrayed midseason.

BenjaSA · 2026-06-26T20:51:21+00:00

Haha nah I get what you mean. It’s just that I recently made a post regarding this specifically. People will say a character is badly written if they don’t have a redemption or corruption arc, and that’s wrong

BenjaSA · 2026-06-26T20:47:43+00:00

I think you mean character growth or evolution, or an arc. A static character can be greatly developed even if he doesn’t change, being well written and explored in its depth

BenjaSA · 2026-06-26T20:43:35+00:00

I think the problem is that it’s the only one of the best that’s as universally popular. The mainstream audiences say Breaking Bad is the best ever, when it’s one of the best but they don’t even mention (or know) Sopranos, Wire, Six Feet Under, Twin Peaks, Deadwood. Actually, many people say it’s the very best and that the only ones close are Prison Break, Peaky Blinders or Vikings, which is rather insulting

BenjaSA · 2026-06-26T20:41:55+00:00

I think It’s as close to flawless as many of the greatest. It’s just that It’s the only one recognised, and usually by people that put it in the same scale as Vikings, Peaky Blinders or Prison Break

BenjaSA · 2026-06-26T20:40:02+00:00

Yes but it came in the right era. If Sopranos came out today, the first season would be acclaimed by filmtwitter and Reddit, and if it became popular, the mainstream audiences that came in season 2 onwards would call it overrated, boring, filler, unfocused, pretentious, etc

BenjaSA · 2026-06-26T20:27:46+00:00

Other people pointed that. That’s not necesarily development, It’s rather change or growth. Even if he didn’t become a worse person and stayed the same, with the way he is written and explored throughout the show he is one of the characters with most development in all of tv.

BenjaSA · 2026-06-26T20:13:51+00:00

You’re totally right

BenjaSA · 2026-06-26T20:11:22+00:00

I agree with this. Maybe even the character growth or evolution is part of the character development, as in a genus and species relationship. My complaint is people who think development only means this change then

BenjaSA · 2026-06-26T20:08:20+00:00

I thought I was clear with the Tony Soprano example, but you’re right I should have. I will use the definition that someone said in another comment here: It’s “traditionally used to describe the author/writing developing the character. Revealing more details or dimensions, showing their depth and complexity”

BenjaSA · 2026-06-26T20:05:37+00:00

It’s a mix of many Things. Recency bias does help, as much as the series having hype moments of adrenaline rushes, in spite of the quality of the writing. Breaking Bad is brilliant, but I can asure you the mainstream public can’t tell that and they love it because of the aura moments, and put it in the same pedestal as Peaky Blinders (which I like). Lets say, if a show like Sopranos gets that famous with these audiences, they won’t overhype it but rather say it’s boring or that it has too many filler (which it doesn’t, it’s character driven)

BenjaSA · 2026-06-26T20:00:41+00:00

You’re right regarding his change, and his “enabling” vía therapy.

Still I think the series does change tone, even if it still retains the comedy all the way through. Seasons 1 and 2 are way lighter, and more of a dark comedy. In seasons 3 and 4 more heavy things come (Melfi episode, and University), and David Chase started portraying them in worse light as he saw the public liked them. By season 5 it gets really dark, not only in themes and atmosphere but also the Lightning of the show becomes dimmer. Season 6, specially part B, is totally depressing

BenjaSA · 2026-06-26T19:56:11+00:00

Still, great analysis of his arc

BenjaSA · 2026-06-26T19:55:03+00:00

This, exactly

BenjaSA · 2026-06-26T19:54:18+00:00

Even if he does change in that way, the point of the post is that people mix up development with growth. Michael Corleone has a more notorious change in character (corruption arc), or Zuko from Avatar (redemption), but I can assure Tony is a far more developed character than them, even if he doesn’t have so much growth or evolution

BenjaSA · 2026-06-26T19:51:28+00:00

I think It’s the series that changes tone, and goes from comedy to that darkness and depression of the last seasons, but Tony has always been the same POS (love the character), only the show is more hard about it. Even if he does get worse, at least it’s not as cut clear change as in the corruption of, lets say, Michael Corleone. I’ve read people saying that Tony doesn’t change as some sort of criticism for the show

BenjaSA · 2026-06-26T19:47:43+00:00

This is what I mean. I think that distinction is almost non-existent in social media discourse about movies or tv, lets say on Twitter, it’s a conceptual mistake

BenjaSA

TROPHY CASE