At present, the guarantee of drama ratings can not only depend on the strength of acting skills, but acting skills are not the only guarantee to determine ratings. Some actors have acting skills, and the director thinks he is suitable for this play, but he has to refuse because of insufficient traffic. This example is not without.

Sometimes I think too much about ratings and think about how to attract viewers. However, not from the aspect of acting, but from who the audience likes to see and who they like. But who the audience likes is not because of his good acting skills, but in other ways, which has nothing to do with acting skills. Therefore, it is irresponsible for both the actor and the audience to choose the role in this way.

Powerful, but the plot is stupid. Some dramas are full of coffee, but the plot is idiotic, which really wastes those actors who have acting skills. Of course, there may also be problems with shooting or editing. In short, I just feel that although I am here for the acting school, I still can't stand this bloody story. Moreover, in the end, the play didn't catch on. The plot is empty, and the big coffee can do nothing. Therefore, actors can't just take the show for the pay, especially if they are all big coffees, they won't choose to waste the audience. Relatively speaking, some dramas don't have big coffee, but the plot is good, the shooting is good, and there will be good ratings.

There are many factors for the success of a play, such as the flow of stars, the design of the plot, the director's ability and so on. We can't let powerful acting actors bear all the possibilities in order to ensure the ratings. Other aspects should also be coordinated in place. Acting is not everything, let alone the ratings. Good ratings are the result of many factors, and they are collective achievements, not individual contributions.