[blakebreeder]

I'm not quibbling over anything. I disagree with "Unheard of actors is generally a good thing when doing a new series" and the logic provided. It's just ridiculous on its face. Generally, people with more experience produce better results. Generally, people who have a history of producing better results produce better results. Who would have thought?

[Kranar]

Looks like you're confusing experienced actors with popular actors. Just because the actors are not popular does not mean that they are not experienced and distinguished actors; furthermore just because an actor is popular does not mean they are experienced or distinguished.

[tptacek]

That's wildly not the case in the performing arts; just, like, a crazy thing to say. Stars get cast over and over again because audiences are comforted by familiar faces, not because the stars themselves are somehow the best actors in the world. Ben Affleck is a leading man, for Christ's sake.

[blakebreeder]

You managed to ignore "generally" twice (specifically put in to avoid your exact kind of response), construct a strawman argument for me, and then failed to actually defeat that strawman argument. Who is talking about "stars?" None of the cast I mentioned in the original comment are stars. They're ESTABLISHED, EXPERIENCED, PROVEN actors. That's literally the whole point I was making.

And your response to the strawman you constructed is... there is zero correlation between stardom and acting ability? It kind of seems like you and the op are saying there is an INVERSE correlation. But I'm the crazy talker here? okay.

[tptacek]

Yes, if we're going to just accept the "crazy talk" rhetoric (I'm fine with it!), I stand by what I said: you are the crazy talker here. :)

I do love that citing Ben Affleck forced you to retreat into "I said generally!" though. We agree on something!