Originally Posted by vogus
it's kind of sad when somebody just has no talent for something, but they want to do it so bad that they don't realize it. Serena's acting would be awful even in the 8th grade school play.
That, of course, is why they keep giving her roles, right?
You're letting your emotions get in the way of your business sense. Or maybe you don't know much about the business side of TV. Putting someone in a movie or a TV role is has no talent is EXPENSIVE. It doesn't cost tens of thousands of dollars to do one episode of a TV show. It cost HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars. For a hit, it's MILLIONS of dollars. Why do you think you don't see Ann Kournikova all over TV? She's popular enough, but she IS a bad actress. And you don't risk a two million dollar investment by putting someone with no talent in a position to ruin it. Bad actors STAND OUT in movies and TV. If you're bad enough, it's all anyone talks about in an episode.
Serena's okay. Nothing special, but if you didnt know it was her, you wouldn't pick her out of a scene as a non-actress. The best thing about her Cosby episode was that she WASN'T the one thing people talked about afterward. For that to happen, she'd have had to be very good, or very bad. And very good isn't likely in a non-professional.
BTW, most of you are reading that article wrong. Look at what they actually wrote.
It would be very difficult to choose between tennis or acting, she told the newspaper.
that might be difficult. But who's asking her to do that?
If anything, it's to everyone's advantage that she do both.
1) Her tennis is what makes her a celebrity. Her celebrity is what gets her acting parts.
2) The acting parts raise her already high profile, improves the ol' Q-rating, which menas she can charge sponsors more.
3) The tour gets free advertising to non-fans who happen to hear she's on a show. Maybe they'll check out her tennis.
4) The show maybe gets some tennis fans tuning in who otherwise would not have.
That's all good as long as she wins a slam every year.
In five or six years, she might get to be good enough to make a career out of acting. I doubt she'll ever be Meryl Streep, but people become millionaires doing supporting roles. And, to take an example, Nick Nolte went from being a professional (American) football player to being a very accomplished and awarded actor. It took him time. Serena HAS time.
But the idea that some TV production company is going to waste two or three million dollars letting Serena stink out the joint on TV is ludicrous. You get the first part on name recognition. If you're good enough, you can KEEP getting parts on name recognition. If you're bad, all the fame in the world won't help you. If all it took was fame and popularity, don't you think Anna Kournikova or Monica Seles would be all over TV?