Do introverts tend to be better actors than extroverts?

Do introverts tend to be better actors than extroverts?

What do these special snowflake terms mean?

Does the pope shit in the woods?

>What do these terms mean?

extroverts feel more energised in social situations, introverts feel drained when they're in social situations

Those aren't the definitions, one is a shy person, the other is an outgoing one.

incorrect

>this is an 11/10 in bongland

>asspolice
haha

>somebody actually thought this was worth posting

lol

Nauraa

wrong

t b h f a m she's pretty good

Sorry tumblr you can't disagree with the oxford english dictionary.

In my personal experience. No.
The strongest actors I've known have been chatty, pleasant to be around, sociable.

There's a stereotype of the Stanislavksi loving actor brooding in front of a mirror perfecting their limp, sitting in the shadows observing the "normies" photographing with their mind's eye life going by, each finger flick, each curl of the lips, roll of the eyes, rock back on heels... but I think that's bunk.

To be an actor you need to be open, no filter otherwise everything you do with have a stilted, self-censored quality.

Introverts require Scientology if they want to do nude scenes.

actually you can. language changes all the time.

i would think it's the other way around, though some truly great ones will probably be introverts because introverts are geniuses while extroverts are fucking retards on average

introverts are better writers, extroverts are better actors

I work in theater

Emma + anons blowbang when desu

Do introverts tend to be worse taxpayers than extroverts?

Introverts tend to be better at everything they do professionally, unless their job heavily involves socializing IE account man like Pete Campbell, just because they spend less time in the presence of others and have less room for distractions as a result.

lol

xD

Well I don't get tax, so?

Depends on the character surely? An extrovert would play a better raver. An introvert would play a better recluse.

Well it depends if said actor played in one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises or not. Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

I would literally give my life for her to shit in my mouth.

Do introverts/extroverts feel more drained/energised in all social situations?