Most of them weren´t that good actors

EXACTLY! That was the hook of this series, unfortunately it was also partly the reason it didn't catch on with the masses....it was too real

Having no actors or bad actors doesn´t make a show more real, that has todo with writing or directing. In Dawson´s Creek you could notice that Michelle Wiliams was above her peers on the acting department. But what I mean is that I´m amazed how some of them became great actors like Lizzy Caplan or Ben Foster whom I thing weren´t that good in F&G. And some others like Franco.... I still don´t understand how come he got that Oscar nomination. He was- and still is- a very bad actor.

Yes, I know how casting works. Sometimes is about chemistry not just acting. I just read an interview in which Feig or Apatow decided to cast non actors for this show and asked for permission to do that. They did that for The Office and it turned out great in that case because you wouldn´t tell most of them weren´t actors but that needs a lot of supporting from the writing department since they need mostly one liners to get away with it. Writers should have been nominated also and Cardellini should have been nominated as an actress for whatever awards a show like this could apply, not sure this show was adult or teenage oriented).

Franco wasn't that bad. The scene where he cries to get Lindsay to help him cheat on the maths test I felt really showed what he was capable of but yes other than that we didn't really get to see his acting range.

Seth Rogen I agree wasn't good.

Lizzy Caplan, literally had one episode where she had to be in love with Nick. Hardly worth critiquing when she basically had 5 lines.

Rashida Jones basically played a bully for 5 minutes, again not sure how that's worth criticizing.

Shia, same again played an ex mascot with a handful of lines.

Segel was ok, same with Busy Phillips. Segel probably had the most screen time out of the freaks so I felt like it was easier for him to show his acting chops than most of the others.

As for the geeks, not sure how you not being able to see them in other roles has any relevance here. You can only judge them for their work on the show or you need to change your thread title. Sam Levine was my favourite character but his acting was just ok. He was very good as a geek but his emotional range was poor. The episode where he is supposed to be upset about his father cheating, let's just say calling his acting mediocre would be generous.

Martin Starr on the other hand, I felt was the best actor out of the geeks, especially with some of his scenes with Tom Wilson. His emotions are really believable, in particular the scene where he is weeping at the go cart track.

Of course Cardellini was the best actor, she kinda had to be, being the main character but everything else you said doesn't make much sense since most of the ones you criticized had super small roles.

The Weir parents were both very good as well, Im not sure if you deliberately weren't emphasizing the adult actors but I thought they were definitely worth mentioning.

Well, yeah, I sound harsh but I meant mostly the freaks. The geeks are ok because in real life, geeks are odd and off, hehe. So it works for them a lot.

Re shia lebouf: Apparently he had a small part as the school mascot.

I find the OP's assertion "most of them weren't that good actors" (elegantly phrased...ahem...), extraordinary.

The cast is brilliant. Starr, Segel and Ben Foster (in a small part as Eli), we're standouts.

Segel, in particular, was absolutely amazing as Nick - so awkward and almost 'geeky' in his desperation to fit in. Segel showed admirable sensitivity in this portrayal and it's disappointing he hasn't done more complex parts since this role.


Do the P-I-G-E-O-N