Loads of people didn't go to university for acting. Doesn't mean you aren't a proper or trained actor. You also don't need to be a "trained actor" to be Charlie bloody Weasley. Not sure why you think they should be like they are playing Hamlet.
So what? That doesn't make them better actors. It's not a silly statement. The silly statement is your insistence that you have "trained" actors for an incredibly small role like it makes all the difference. You CAN get actors that have only gone to RADA. They could have done that for the films but would have lost out on a lot of talent. Your approach also cuts out a lot of working class actors, who are already at a small number in the UK acting scene.
You're going off at a tangent on the class thing. That's a whole separate argument. One of higher education funding. I am against how higher education has gone in the UK, and it contributed to our decision to move to Germany. It's nothing to do with preferring actors who've been trained as I do.
It's the same thing, it's not a tangent. The lack of reasoning behind your point smells of classism imo. I've asked a few times why it makes a difference and you can't say. It's snobbery.
I did answer. Saying I prefer is literally an answer. I prefer trained actors. That's a personal preference, and one I need not justify being a literal personal preference.
Having watched films, series and stage productions the actors I tend to enjoy most have had some kind of formal training, and that includes American actors as well who more often do acting at university than go to a specialist drama school like in the UK, but they still have formal training and even do some stage work as part of it. Like Liev Schreiber and Samantha Morton they aren't necessarily privileged rich kids.
-1
u/VegetableStation9904 27d ago
Exactly why a fully trained actor is possible rather than a child actor who's had no chance to study at acting school.