What is a differences between good acting and bad acting in TV series and movies? Plus theatre?

Well, a good writer will make it look like a legitimate question, not an effort to get people to do your homework for you. :\

Stories (even re-enactments) are all about some degree of make-believe. Good writers and actors present a believable story, even if the setting, characters, and plot aren’t terribly down-to-earth.—A bad actor won’t portray a believable character. A bad writer won’t tell a believable story. Good story can kinda make up for a bad actor, and a really good actor can, in some cases, make up for a bad story.

Objectivity.

Believability.

@Nullo This is not for homework at all. I’m just asking this question out of curiosity. (Plus some of my friends and I were having a discussion about some TV programs that we have watched earlier.) Plus, I already have some ideas about the two differences since I took theatre last year, I just want to hear more from you guys.

I guess I could’ve rephrase the question a little better to “What is a differences between good acting and bad acting in a TV series, a theatre, or a movie?” instead, but at this point, there is no way that I could make anymore changes to the title.

Nuance. I have seen some wonderful screen actors (Katherine Hepburn, Jack Lemmon) on stage, and they really do change the emotion they need to project.
On the big screen, you can say with a one eye blink what requires a knee jerk on stage.

What makes someone a good human being? It’s impossible to define.