PDA

View Full Version : Prequel Trilogy Actors



Jon
07-20-2004, 07:26 PM
What do people think will become of the main actors from this Star Wars trilogy in comparison with the Old Trilogy? I don't see the actors of this trilogy being typecast very closely with their Star Wars characters like Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher were. Who will go on to have the Harrison Ford type career, or at least be the most successful? I think Ewan has the best chance. What is the fate of Natalie Portman, Hayden Christiansen, Jake Lloyd or others?

derek
07-21-2004, 04:15 PM
none of the prequil actors will be able to fill harrison ford's shoes, box office wise. all have proven they can't generate a big opening weekend for their own films.

ewan will continue to have a steady career, and who knows with portman. i think folks have already move on to the next big thing in keirra knightely or who ever.

hayden probably won't suffer the same fate as hamil, but i can't see him becoming a big star.

Elliejabbapop
07-21-2004, 05:35 PM
I think Ewan already has a great career and, since his performance not just in Star Wars but also in films like Big Fish is Oscar-worthy, I think in time he might become one of those greatly admired actors that stay away from Hollywood (the Sean Penn tipe). Natalie might become a star in her late thirties like Nicole Kidman if she picks the right films (she's already got the right looks I think). As for Hayden, we haven't seen his performance in Ep. III and I dare say it might be good enough for an Oscar nomination. I think he's an excellent actor and it would take him to pair up with one of those directors that are capable of bringing out the best in actors and make them stars. But I believe he's still too young: most of today's great stars started being really successful in their late twenties-early thirties (es. Tom Cruise) and some of them didn't become famous until they reached their late thirties (es. Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe). I'm counting on him to surprise us (Ewan already has, as far as I'm concerned).:) :) :)

Jay86
07-21-2004, 08:26 PM
Ewan McGregor already has established himself as an actor we dont need to doubt. He's been in many a number of movies, more than I can count. He'll easily go far after Episode 3, heck he's already a well known actor.

Natalie Portman - same thing, shes a well established actor who'll continue on with acting most likely. Dunno if she'll be any bigger than she is :confused:

Hayden - probably could be big, then again, George prefers to get actors who arent well known who usually dont end up making it big. He's been in a few movies I think, and I personally think hes a good actor. He's got potential.

Jake Lloyd - I met him this past May at the Star Wars Weekends event in Disney World (Super nice kid by the way, bash his acting all you want, but hes a genuinely nice kid)....lets just say I think he's more worried about his schoolwork than his acting career :)

As for any of these people being "as big as Harrison Ford".....Harrison's one of a kind, and I dont think any of the above peoples personalities are comparable to his. You never know though, comparrisons cant really be made as to who'll go farther, only time will tell.

2-1B
09-12-2005, 02:23 AM
As for the big 3 of Nat, Ewan, and Hayden, I think they will all be fine. No big blockbusters in sight but I don't really care about that.

Ewan - already a proven actor before he landed SW and he's made some cool pictures inbetween as well (Moulin Rouge and Big Fish both delighted me). The Island flopped at the box office with him in the main role of a big budget Bay action film. I haven't seen it so I don't know if it's any good but from what I read, the stars and producers traded a few barbs as to who is at fault ? :confused: Nevertheless, I think Ewan is already out of the SW mold before he ever got locked into it.

Nat - already had some solid work under her belt and continued to as the prequels progressed. She definitely does not seem to me like the big box office type and I don't know how much she desires that . . . then again, she does have V for Vendetta coming up and they seem to be getting ready to make a big push behind that one.

'Den - I don't think he'll ever get as "big" a role as Star Wars but I don't think that will be a problem for his career as he's already proven himself a fine actor. If not in SW as some people say, then still in Shattered Glass which I particularly enjoyed and he's got a few different films already in the pipeline. The Decameron adaptation is already shot (ask Elliejabbapop for her thoughts on that one :D ) and now he's been announced to costar with Jessica Alba in Awake. Sounds like an interesting premise to me. I'll be sure to check that one out.

Jake Lloyd - his movie Madison with Jim Caviezel finally came out, didn't it ? I believe he shot it within a year or two after TPM was released but I could be mistaken. In any case, he's still a young little guy in Madison while he's a teenager now. If he never makes another film in his life, I wouldn't call him a failure or bust or anything like that, I mean the kid needs to experience life and see what he wants to do. It might turn out that he's a terrible actor as an adult and that's not a knock on him because people are much different from childhood to adulthood. We all know the stereotype of child actors so if Jake finds a career interest that he enjoys as he moves on to college and beyond, I say good for him. :)

Sam Jackson, Liam Neeson, and Christopher Lee are all people who were super-mega-well known before they got into SW so I don't feel like they're worth commenting on.

Kidhuman
09-12-2005, 11:29 AM
Caesar, you forgot Ian with a nice career as well.

2-1B
09-12-2005, 01:38 PM
Not in film though, rather stage and some TV work.

JimJamBonds
09-13-2005, 12:43 AM
As its already been said I'll make it short. Nat: I don't really see her as going for huge roles. She seems to like to be a bit picky and not afraid of doing a 'smaller' type movie. ie Garden State.

Ewen: this is the horse to bet on, has shown he can do a lead role in a film, although he has that stinker in The Island to deal with.

Hayden: Again I don't see him going for (or getting) big movies, but I think he can carve out a nice little niche for himself none the less.

Jake Lloyd: still rather young so its hard to say.

As Caesar said Sam Jackson etc. have already estabilished themselves so I won't comment on them.

seanmcfripp
09-14-2005, 02:31 PM
As for Hayden, we haven't seen his performance in Ep. III and I dare say it might be good enough for an Oscar nomination. I think he's an excellent actor and it would take him to pair up with one of those directors that are capable of bringing out the best in actors and make them stars. But I believe he's still too young: most of today's great stars started being really successful in their late twenties-early thirties (es. Tom Cruise) and some of them didn't become famous until they reached their late thirties (es. Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe). I'm counting on him to surprise us (Ewan already has, as far as I'm concerned).:) :) :)

I'm going to use this quote as a springboard for something a little more specific than what was intended in the original thread: For those of you that hold Hayden's acting ability in high regard, are you completely satisfied with his performance in SW? If not, what are some of his weaker moments? If you like 90% of what he does, describe why the other 10% doesn't work for you. I'd like to limit the discussion to what everyone's familiar with (which are the SW movies obviously), so let's leave Life as a House and the like out of it...strictly ATOC and ROTS.

Just so no one thinks I loaded the question, I'll be fair and share my bias. I feel embarassed for Hayden when I see him on screen...that's how weak I think his perfomances have been in SW. But before I go on to support that, I'd like hear from a Hayden supporter first, particularly someone who isn't sold 100%.

Elliejabbapop
09-14-2005, 03:20 PM
If you are really interested in anyone else's opinion, which I doubt very much, I'll tell you mine: I do not by any means think Hayden's acting quality has reached 100%, mainly because I don't think that's possible for anyone, but I do support him because I think he has great potential. Let's forget his other movies as you say (which is only a way to try and prove yourself right isn't it?): I am embarassed for you for thinking he's embarassing.
If you really thought his acting was embarassing you would have also mentioned Natalie wouldn't you?
There were flaws in the prequels, but they were mainly in the script.
I didn't know Hayden before SW so I wasn't a supporter when I entered the movie theatre, but I remember thinking when I came out that he had done a wonderful job in picking up the pieces and trying to find his own character under the shadow of George the Tyrant. As for ROTS, that just blew me away and cancelled any doubts I might have had about him. Now I'm just waiting for him to expand his genres so that I can judge him properly.
As for the details, I'll give you mine when you give me yours. You're asking us to describe in detail but you didn't.

JediTricks
09-14-2005, 09:11 PM
I suspect Jake Lloyd's career will never fully recover from TPM, I saw him act in something else from that era and he was a really good kid actor, but it's my opinion that Lucas as a writer made the character too young for the material and as a director failed to ensure Lloyd was given proper motivation - he was a little kid who couldn't draw on life experience and needed a director to shape his performance, but Lucas has admitted he's not an actor's director. I think Jake may end up doing a few indies but not getting work on a studio film for quite some time - of course, I don't even know if he WANTS to continue acting or not - but he's definitely now stuck with the "Star Wars stigma" that will haunt him in acting and in life I suspect, because it was a defining film for an actor so young to help carry.

Natalie Portman already had a burgeoning career, but her work was more of the intimate type, she was a dramatic actor who "felt" and while she was able to balance this fairly well in TPM in my opinion, AOTC and ROTS felt like performances she missed or let fall off the mark or flat altogether - again, that could be the director's fault, perhaps the casting crew's fault, but Nat's natural talent and experience should have been able to carry her a little further there I think. My guess is that the Prequels won't hamper her career too much since she doesn't go for major studio pictures, but studios won't as likely cast her for those films if she goes for them either. Perhaps coming off detached from Eps 2 and 3 will help her in the public eye, suggesting "well I had to do 'em but I didn't want to" enough for them to look past it, I think only peripherally will she be associated with Star Wars in that way.

Supposedly, Liam Neeson said that working on Ep 1 nearly drove him out of the business, but he's made quite a comeback from that position. I think his performance in TPM was ok but seriously flawed thanks to directing issues and a lack of real elements such as characters and set (these things that actors use to broaden their imaginations off of), yet within a year Liam and Qui-Gon were totally separated in my mind, and especially now that Liam has delivered an outstanding performance in a major studio action film (Batman Begins), I think he will have no problems getting work anywhere he wants and still avoid carrying the "Star Wars stigma". Of all the prequel actors, I think he will come away the cleanest.

I think both Jimmy Smits and Samuel L Jackson have the benefit of catching "Billy Dee Williams syndrome", they were strong secondary characters later in the trilogy and already well-known actors before they joined up, and they did their parts well enough in Star Wars that they can move away from the stigma if they wish OR milk it if they desire, either of which can only help their careers, they get the best of both worlds that way.

Ewan McGregor was already a strong up-and-coming actor when Star Wars called upon his services, yet he hadn't been known for action/adventure pictures, instead mostly for strong deep dramatic acting performances. After a rather flat performance alongside his co-star Liam in TPM (for supposedly the same reasons), Ewan brought more to the 2 sequels giving him more credibility, but because his character had already been heavily established in the OT by another major actor, he never could totally define the role of Obi-Wan as his own, which works both ways. I think because of that, it'll be there in the corner, never 100% out of the way, but it'll never be anything greatly affecting his career, especially because he's taken that career to such diverse places and made a name out of all that with solid talent and generally solid role choices.

Hayden Christensen's career seems doomed to spend its life in the shadow of the prequels I think, perhaps worse even than Jake Lloyd's because Hayden was built up by Lucasfilm and the press during his turns as Anakin more than young Jake was. I haven't seen a single other project Hayden has undertaken before or after the prequels, so I cannot really judge his acting talent outside Star Wars, but I think no matter how good he is, his boyband-style performance in Ep 2 interspersed with out-of-place bursts of moodiness and whiny frustration was too thin and meek to connect with most audiences and critics, it seemed to be directed to play to teenage girls and did work on that level, but that only would further hamper how he is viewed later. I think Hayden does have Lucas the writer to blame for how his AOTC performance was viewed in general (let's face it, it didn't help that the character was written to take a vacation in the middle of the film), and Lucas the director probably didn't help that any, but Hayden himself came off like he was showing something on his own which wasn't really strong enough to present the character of Anakin Skywalker - he didn't bring a sense of wonder or adventure or most importantly weight to the role, yet he was still made the posterboy for the film which put more spotlight on his performance than any other. With ROTS, he brought less boyband to role and was more solid, but still came off less than strong & mature, and I think that was a lot of him as he interpretted the lack of motivations written for him in the screenplay - in my mind, he brought nothing extra to the party, and never really seemed to "grow up" in the role. I think no matter how good an actor he may become, his career will aways be overshadowed by Star Wars despite whatever talent he brings to their casting tables, he won't be seen as a major motion picture actor by the studios, and the indie circuit likely will give him less of a chance based on him being in 2 big films.

seanmcfripp
09-14-2005, 09:49 PM
Oh dear, are you that ugly? Has your wife just left you? Are you 13 and in full "hormonal rage"? Otherwise I can't explain such a childish outburst.

I don't think there's any other way to say this: You can't use that kind of tone in a post. This is what gets threads locked up by the mods. I'll keep it clean and only say this: It wasn't an outburst, and I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the post that could even remotely be construed as an outburst. I'm just gonna throw out a guess here: this topic may have been a touchy subject in the past, and perhaps you think I'm drudging it up again to start an argument.

I actually wasn't sure who this was meant for until I read the entire post. In fact, I'm still kinda confused by it, since it has so little in common with what I initially posted, so if you intended this for one of the other posters, I apologize for thinking it was directed at me.


If you are really interested in anyone else's opinion, which I doubt very much...

I am interested, or I wouldn't have asked. I also tried to make sure I was clear with my intentions by saying that I had a bias. I most certainly didn't want anyone to think I was setting them up, only to knock them down.


Let's forget his other movies as you say (which is only a way to try and prove yourself right isn't it?)

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in the original post. I just wanted to stay away from the "Oh, he was great in this" or "Did you see him in that?" types of arguments. I've never seen Life as a House, and frankly, for the purposes of this kind of a discussion, I don't care how good or bad his performance was in it. People always want to do that with Natalie: "Oh but she was great in The Professional" or "She was great in Garden State", with which I agree (and in fact, I would even say I've never seen her perform badly in anything outside of SW). I just thought maybe we could discuss their abilities as actors based on the merits of what we're all familiar with around here in these parts.

This is a dumb analogy, but I'll use it anyway (sorry to any non-football fans): Mark Brunell is a 3 time Pro-Bowler in the NFL. While that may mean something to a Jacksonville Jaguar fan, it means virtually nothing to me as a Redskins fan. I want to talk about his abilities as a quarterback while he's been with Washington for the past year, and based on what I've scene, I have more than a few questions for powers that be. What on earth does Joe Gibbs see in Brunell that the rest of us can't? If by some chance Joe and I were able to sit down and look at Brunell's performance last year on film, where is he going to be able to show me something positive? Do I ask Joe to a screening of that game film because I want to pick a fight? Is my mind already made up that Mark Brunell is the worst quarterback in the league? Of course not. Joe Gibbs has more than proven his abilities in coaching a football team successfully, so I am faithful that he is steering the ship in the right direction. But what am I to think when Brunell consistently performs badly? I would love to hear Joe explain to me what Brunell is doing correctly on the field, because I want to get behind the direction he's taking the team.

From what I've heard, Hayden is a very good actor with a fair amount of potential, based on what he's done in other films. For the purposes of this discussion though, I was hoping that everyone could just concentrate on what he's done while he's been here with us (team SW, if you will). Being someone from the "Hayden-hater" camp, I just wanted to get perspective from someone that thought he did a good job, but perhaps he could have done better in certain areas. Who knows, maybe some of us are closer to agreement on some of these issues than we think, we just express our overall opinion differently.

I wonder if Joe Gibbs likes SW. I wonder if Lucas likes the 'Skins. So many similarities...


I am embarassed for you for thinking he's embarassing.
If you really thought his acting was embarassing you would have also mentioned Natalie wouldn't you?

I thought we'd concentrate on one before the other. Hayden's acting makes for a more interesting discussion because I think we're a little more evenly split when it comes to our opinions...about half of us seem to like what he's done in SW and the other half doesn't. Nat supporters seem to be pretty few and far between (at least around here), so why start up a discussion where most of us are just going to pile on with the "wooden acting" comments?


As for the details, I'll give you mine when you give me yours. You're asking us to describe in detail but you didn't.

There's a confrontation at every corner of this thing, isn't there? Let me try to re-explain my intentions. Being a fan of almost nothing Hayden did in SW, I thought it'd be interesting to hear a "Hayden-lover" do a little hatin', that's all. Just as I'm sure it'd be interesting for all the "Hayden-lovers" to hear the "Hayden-haters" talk about the few things they do like about his performance, which is actually what I was planning to do at some point in the thread. So maybe I should have phrased it like this:

To all the haters: What did you like about Hayden's performance?
To all the lovers: What did you not like about Hayden's performance?

I don't want to be distracted by Hayden's performance when I watch the movies, so I thought maybe someone could help bring me along a little.

2-1B
09-15-2005, 12:35 AM
I am a fan of HC's work in Es 2 and 3 and I would rate my approval rating at about 96% . . . I really can't think of anything specific that I didn't like about it, I give a 96 because I figure nobody's perfect (well, Ewan is perfect in ROTS but that's a rare exception) anyway nobody's really perfect and if any of his scenes feel odd to me, it's probably because of the huge amount of blue/green screen work. I'll keep this thread in mind the next time I watch 2 and 3, Sean, and I'll come back with any specific criticisms I have. :)

For the record, I am not a teenage girl but rather a 27 year old man who has a healthy sexual interest in the opposite sex (just in case JT wants to expand his theoretical intended demographic to include gay men along with teen girls :D ). And in case anybody thinks I'm joking or being rude on the gay comment, believe me I am not because one of my friends who pretty much hates Hayden teases me for being "gay" for him.

Sean, as for what I like about Hayden, I can't get too in depth right now because Inside the NFL starts in 15 minutes but off hand I love the scene with Padme on the refugee cruiser and also his goodbye scene to Shmi in AOTC. ROTS has tons of good performance scenes as well, and I'm talking about the "talky" stuff. The action scenes go without saying for me, he's a pretty athletic guy so I don't really have any complaints there.

Thanks. :)

2-1B
09-16-2005, 03:55 AM
JT,
have you seen Madison ? It's got little Jakey in it and was shot several years back, it just came out on DVD this week. I'm going to rent it and check it out, partly because Jesus Jim Caviezel is in it and he rocks.

But with Jake being so young in it compared to now, I don't see it giving him a career boost or anything like that. Might be a nice little movie, though. :)

JediTricks
09-16-2005, 03:56 AM
For the record, I am not a teenage girl but rather a 27 year old man who has a healthy sexual interest in the opposite sex (just in case JT wants to expand his theoretical intended demographic to include gay men along with teen girls :D ). And in case anybody thinks I'm joking or being rude on the gay comment, believe me I am not because one of my friends who pretty much hates Hayden teases me for being "gay" for him.Well Caes, as you are the *only* person to comment on my post here, I will return the favor. I did not imply that only teenage girls liked his performance, only that I thought the director was having Hayden play to that audience. I think Hayden's performance is too much of this "moody", "troubled", and - possibly most out of place for Star Wars IMO - "sensitive", stuff you find on late-teen/early-20something nighttime soaps on the WB... just in case you think I didn't, I do know that that there claim is pretty much a cliche at this point in our SW fan universe, but it is how it tracks for me. Hayden doesn't bring weight to the role I think, his presence comes off thin to me, like he's a shy little confused boy trapped in an early-20s body, the kind of role that might work for a post-Beverly Hills 90210 TV audience (c'mon, if AOTC had come out back then, they'd be saying he's like Dylan and Brandon all rolled into one... I feel dirty for remembering both of the characters' names. :p) but it doesn't track for me as a Star Wars character, it's neither larger-than-life nor revealing the bold heavy that is Darth Vader, instead it's a young performance for a character that should be mature for his years. Is all that Hayden's fault? I don't know, but I suspect not, I would share the blame Lucas for writing that stuff which led to casting someone like him, and Lucas for directing him with that performance -- that's me, I don't care for Hayden's performances, anybody else might like those performances yet I think they could say the same things I just said albeit without a negative connotation.



JT,
have you seen Madison ? It's got little Jakey in it and was shot several years back, it just came out on DVD this week. I'm going to rent it and check it out, partly because Jesus Jim Caviezel is in it and he rocks.You posted this as I was typing the above, so I'm adding my response to my post. I haven't seen it, I only heard about it from your other post regarding it. That's not true actually, I just looked up the listing on IMDB and I remember seeing several reviews of it which said it was "good, some problems, kinda obvious" sorts of things. It's the kind of movie I wouldn't likely watch though, I've only seen Caviezel in a few things but I found him a somewhat flat actor and wouldn't go out of my way for, and I don't like "heartwarming" movies or "come from behind to live or die in a sport" movies either... basically, just not my cup of tea. LMK what you think of it and specifically Jake when you see it though.


But with Jake being so young in it compared to now, I don't see it giving him a career boost or anything like that. Yeah, plus I highly doubt it'll get on the radar of enough people to get him any recognition at all.

2-1B
09-16-2005, 04:09 AM
I did not imply that only teenage girls liked his performance, only that I thought the director was having Hayden play to that audience.

I know. :) I did use the phrase "intended demographic" for that reason. :D


(c'mon, if AOTC had come out back then, they'd be saying he's like Dylan and Brandon all rolled into one... I feel dirty for remembering both of the characters' names.:p )

Nope, nope, because Anakin didn't have sideburns. lol lol lol

Seriously though . . . I don't see it. 90210 came out when I was in the 7th grade, I believe, and I watched it religiously with my sister for the first several years (I was glad when that Scott guy shot himself but then kind of bummed because they went too far over the shark by having his buddy nerd character of Brian Austin Green turn ultra-hip and start dating Tori Spelling but anyway I'm going off track, this is more appropriate for the 90210 fan club thread ;) ). I don't see the comparison based on my memories of 90210.

But I respect your opinion on the actor and I'm not sure what else can be said, in the end it comes down to our own personal reactions to the performance. I could bang out a list of dialogue that I thought was well delivered but I don't know if that would be very interesting.

:)

JediTricks
09-16-2005, 04:46 AM
I know. I did use the phrase "intended demographic" for that reason. I wanted to ensure that we were clear, especially to other readers of the thread who might get the wrong idea about what I was saying.


Seriously though . . . I don't see it. 90210 came out when I was in the 7th grade, I believe, and I watched it religiously with my sister for the first several years (I was glad when that Scott guy shot himself but then kind of bummed because they went too far over the shark by having his buddy nerd character of Brian Austin Green turn ultra-hip and start dating Tori Spelling but anyway I'm going off track, this is more appropriate for the 90210 fan club thread ). I don't see the comparison based on my memories of 90210. It came out when I was in the 9th grade, I was forced to watch it by my female friends, it wasn't terrible I suppose once I accepted that it was what it was. My comparison is like how Brandon and Dylan "felt stuff", they did this anguish kinda thing that showed they were emotional but they generally didn't lash out playing bigger mature scenes, instead they continued to "feel stuff" by showing emotional eyes and getting quiet and such, melodramatic rather than small or weighty. Like James Dean or young Brando on the internal side of their feelings but without playing tight, close-to-the-vest stuff, or the swing into the bigger screen presence when they exploded or carried big scenes with all audience eyes on them.

I guess if I knew more about the acting craft, I could express my opinion here with better clarity - that's what frustrates me most when trying to express this.

I just thought of something that might oversimplify my take enough to lead you into my train of thought a little better: Hayden's performance comes off to me like a young, sensitive, frail 14-year-old "boy" rather than a brash, strong, mature 20-year-old "guy".

Elliejabbapop
09-20-2005, 01:08 PM
In all of your statements JT I still can't find a "Hayden fault", I think the ones you're referring to are "George faults", he was the source, Hayden was the intermediary. Often very good actors turn out horrible performances because something at the source is missing. He was an inexperienced actor who just HAD to obey the Boss, and later on in the "George Lucas vision" he just had to keep doing that along with all the other actors, who are not at all better (no, I don't think, like most people do, that Ewan was perfect, at some point you could notice a certain blandness) and therefore I don't see why he should get all the blame (perhaps only because he's the main character? I think it's that). I think his other performances are important to understand it was not his fault and that's why I don't condone any opinion that hasn't gone through his other films first.
As for you Sean, you still haven't given me any details for your "hate" (take example from Caesar ;)).

2-1B
09-21-2005, 03:01 AM
JT,
have you seen Madison ? It's got little Jakey in it and was shot several years back, it just came out on DVD this week. I'm going to rent it and check it out, partly because Jesus Jim Caviezel is in it and he rocks.

But with Jake being so young in it compared to now, I don't see it giving him a career boost or anything like that. Might be a nice little movie, though. :)

I just read an interview with Jake from this spring, the first real interview he did in 6 years, and it sounds like Jake is making a comeback (or at least trying to). He's now 16 of course, and from the interview it sounds like he's got a pretty good head about him. I wish him luck in his auditions. :)

seanmcfripp
09-21-2005, 03:45 PM
I am a fan of HC's work in Es 2 and 3 and I would rate my approval rating at about 96% . . .

Whoa...that's like, just a point less than Geico's customer satisfaction rating. Hayden must be doin' somethin' right!


...off hand I love the scene with Padme on the refugee cruiser and also his goodbye scene to Shmi in AOTC.

These are great examples, and thankfully, they provide a perfect starting point for what hopefully is a healthy debate, because they give someone like me a chance to both rip and praise Hayden, all in the same breath (or two, or three).

I'm totally on the other end of the spectrum with the whole refugee cruiser scene. A little voice in my head that sounds like Krusty the Clown says "Uugggghhhh...man, that was brutal!" when the scene comes up. I think the biggest flaw of that whole passage is that it's hard to know what either character's motivation is. Is Padme giving in to Ani's little crush, or is she just making conversation about the Jedi code? Is Ani opening up to her by talking about love, or is he just putting the moves on her? Ani comes off as just a little too creepy in that scene, and I'm pretty sure that's not what Hayden and Lucas were going for. I think I even saw Ani slip a roofy into Padme's drink. He's cocky, yet bashful, but awkward...all at the same time. Don't mistake that for a compliment. I know there are other acting situations in other movies that may call for that kind of layered, complex performance, and perhaps in those situations, an actor would deserve credit, but I'm of the opinion that those things have no place in SW. We've been dealing with simple, archetypical kinds of characters from day 1, and there's really no reason why Ani's character should be any different. I think the dialogue, while poorly written, is pretty black and white and has one purpose: set up scene later in movie where Ani and Padme get to first base. I think knowing the scene's purpose doesn't necessarily help an actor know how to play the thing out though. I mean, if I were an actor, and I were given a script for that scene, and I had little direction from the writer/director, I'd probably just read through it in dead-pan (which is pretty much what Nat does). I guess Hayden can be given credit for trying. At least he did something. It's what he chose to do with the scene that I don't agree with. We should come away from that scene with the feeling that one of the seeds that will "blossom" into the Ani/Padme love affair has just been sown. Instead, Ani comes off as downright creepy. The worst part is when he says "...so in a way, we are encouraged to love". This is an example Hayden having, as Stilla stated so eloquently before, cotton-mouth. The word "encouraged", with his awkward diction and syllable emphasis, just falls out of his mouth, rather than having been actually spoken. At the end of the line, he flashes a really over-the-top smile, at which point, you can almost see the flash from his teeth and hear the glockenspiel "ding" cue (think Orbitz gum commercials). I just don't know what to make of Ani during the scene. Like I said before, is he just being really cocky, or is he over-compensating because he's really shy and unsure of himself? Is his manner of speaking (poor diction and strange syllable emphasis) awkward because Ani is an awkward character, or is it because Hayden has "cotton-mouth"?

I know I'm throwing in some criticism that should be aimed at the writer/director, but I illustrate the points for this reason: it is most certainly possible for a good actor to make something out of nothing. We got some perfectly enjoyable performances in the OT with dialoque just as bad. I think it goes back to the point I made about SW characters being archetypes. I think the actors from the OT were just seasoned and professional enough to have a decent understanding of this. Harrison Ford probably "got it" most of all, and that's why he seems so natural in playing Han Solo. Han Solo is allowed to be cocky and arrogant in his love scene with Leia because dangit, he's a cocky and arrogant S.O.B., and that's why we love him. Anakin Skywalker being overly cocky and arrogant in a love-ish type scene somehow doesn't work, because he's supposed to be the tragic figure of the story. Maybe I'd care about this couple if they actually had some reason to be in love, but they don't, so I don't. Ani's just puttin' the moves on some chick he thinks is hot, and he's working from the book of Dawson's Creek. Again, you could blame the writer/director for taking Ani down that road, but dangit if Hayden didn't go right down that road with him. He played the scene like Van Der Beek would play Dawson in a space opera. Darth Vaderbeek...maybe he could have put that stupid Joey in her place, and put that dumb Pacey out of our misery. A double force-choke would have been sweet. And yes, along with my brother, I'm a Dawson's Creek fan. :love: But to stay on point: Dawson in Dawson's Creek = good. Dawson in SW = bad.

Now to be fair, I have to admit that I like what Hayden did with Shmi's death scene. Luckily, Pernila August was strapped with most of the bad dialogue, so Hayden really got a chance emote without using his weakest instrument (his cotton-mouth). I can't speak much to the technical aspects of the performance (I'm not an actor, and I've never studied it), but I can say very generally that the scene successfully pushes my buttons like it's supposed to. While I think the music cue is biggest catalyst, I get a little shiver down my spine when he looks up from her dead body with that angry determined look. There is no question about what he's going to do to those sand people, and Hayden deserves some credit for pulling that off. Oddly enough though, I can't help but cringe later on in the film when he recounts to Padme in the garage his slaughtering of the sand people. It's another one of those times when I just don't know what Hayden is trying to get across. I'm pretty sure Ani's supposed to be conflicted by his feelings of anger and remorse, but the whole thing just gets all muddled up as he stumbles through that monologue.

The more I talk through this, the more I come back to the thing that distracts me most about Hayden: his voice and the manner in which he speaks. It's not just the cottonmouth, but it's also the pubescent quality of his voice. He kinda sounds like his voice just broke yesterday, and while some folks may argue for realism (a teenager should have a breaky voice), I tend to go the other route and say that I like my heros and anti-heros to have smooth line delivery, especially if those characters are in a fantasy story. Speaking from my own experience, my voice didn't finally "settle down" until I was about 25. That's not to say that I was walking around like the pimply-faced kid from the Simpson for 10 years of my life, but my voice was somewhat inconsistent for during that time. Vocal range is kind of tricky thing, and at least in terms of singing, I feel like my voice "is what it is" now, and it's been pretty much the same from age 25 and on. Hayden's voice sounds like it's on the edge of a cliff, which I think is perfectly normal. for someone his age.But, a professional actor should be held to a higher standard. It's hard to deliver dialogue with confidence if you still haven't mastered your instrument.


The action scenes go without saying for me, he's a pretty athletic guy so I don't really have any complaints there.

I'll give you that, but this goes along with the point I made just a moment ago about his voice. I think he's "athletic", but in an awkward, teenagerly kind of way. His gait suggests to me someone who is uneasy in his frame. Think about the scene in AOTC where Ani and Obers are talking about dreams, specifically the line where he says something like "the thought of her is intoxicating"...Hayden has this very awkward, child-like walk that he does as he's speaking. He moves that way in both AOTC and ROTS, but that's a scene where it really stands out to me. Some people have said in past threads that Hayden's physicality adds to his "edginess" and perhaps that quality helped him in the casting decision. I couldn't disagree more. I think his gait is far too casual. When I think of someone who casual, I don't necessarily think of someone who is moving with purpose (not to say people who are casual by nature can't do something with purpose...please don't take offense). Think of it this way: Darth Vader has a very specific way of moving. Very direct, commanding, and with purpose. Everyone here knows about "the walk" that David Prose brought to the character. With those things in mind, I can't make the connection between the OT Vader and the PT Ani. How does someone who has an uneasy, teenagerly, almost unbalanced way of moving suddenly develop a brisk, commanding stride later in life? Now I'm sure people will pile on with the "but it's 20 years later, and he has robotic legs!" agruments, but I'm not buyin' it. Vader's movements and gait in the OT set the precedent for how Anakin should move and walk in the PT. In fact, Vader's walk should have been the easiest aspect of the character to bring to the part of Anakin for the PT. Even if it wasn't done in an obvious way, there should have at least been a suggestion of it.


Well Caes, as you are the *only* person to comment on my post here, I will return the favor. I did not imply that only teenage girls liked his performance, only that I thought the director was having Hayden play to that audience. I think Hayden's performance is too much of this "moody", "troubled", and - possibly most out of place for Star Wars IMO - "sensitive", stuff you find on late-teen/early-20something nighttime soaps on the WB... just in case you think I didn't, I do know that that there claim is pretty much a cliche at this point in our SW fan universe, but it is how it tracks for me. Hayden doesn't bring weight to the role I think, his presence comes off thin to me, like he's a shy little confused boy trapped in an early-20s body, the kind of role that might work for a post-Beverly Hills 90210 TV audience (c'mon, if AOTC had come out back then, they'd be saying he's like Dylan and Brandon all rolled into one... I feel dirty for remembering both of the characters' names. ) but it doesn't track for me as a Star Wars character, it's neither larger-than-life nor revealing the bold heavy that is Darth Vader, instead it's a young performance for a character that should be mature for his years. Is all that Hayden's fault? I don't know, but I suspect not, I would share the blame Lucas for writing that stuff which led to casting someone like him, and Lucas for directing him with that performance -- that's me, I don't care for Hayden's performances, anybody else might like those performances yet I think they could say the same things I just said albeit without a negative connotation.

This is the point I was trying to make in a nutshell, only more succinct and much better said. I love me some Dawson, but leave it out of SW. Luke Skywalker in ANH was roughly the same age as Ani in AOTC, but I don't seem to remember anyone comparing Mark Hamill to Jason Priestly on these boards. I think of Luke as a young man. I think of Anakin as a teenager. If they're both supposed to be 19 or 20 years old, why is my impression of them at the same age so different?

This hits the nail right on the head:

I just thought of something that might oversimplify my take enough to lead you into my train of thought a little better: Hayden's performance comes off to me like a young, sensitive, frail 14-year-old "boy" rather than a brash, strong, mature 20-year-old "guy".

Luke seems like a kid right out of WW2 era America. He dreams of flying planes in the war and has an innocent sense of adventure, but we actually believe that he's up to the task. But Ani? Not a chance. How the heck did this guy get to become a Jedi? Can you picture Dawson as a CIA or FBI agent? It's laughable to think of Ani as being in any position of importance.


In all of your statements JT I still can't find a "Hayden fault", I think the ones you're referring to are "George faults", he was the source, Hayden was the intermediary. Often very good actors turn out horrible performances because something at the source is missing. He was an inexperienced actor who just HAD to obey the Boss, and later on in the "George Lucas vision" he just had to keep doing that along with all the other actors, who are not at all better (no, I don't think, like most people do, that Ewan was perfect, at some point you could notice a certain blandness) and therefore I don't see why he should get all the blame (perhaps only because he's the main character? I think it's that).

Just because Hayden was a rookie and had to play under a tyranical coach doesn't mean he doesn't still know how to play the game. Inexperience with the SW movie making machine doesn't give him an excuse fail at his craft. "Faster" and "More intense" wasn't much to go on for the OT actors, yet somehow they managed to get the job done.


I think his other performances are important to understand it was not his fault and that's why I don't condone any opinion that hasn't gone through his other films first.

I've seen Nat do other films, and I've enjoyed her in every one of them. Do those performances have anything to do with my opinion of her perfomances in SW? Nope, not at all. I guess it makes me wonder about Lucas as a director...how is it that he can have a bad performance from a good actor right in front of him and not know it? But ultimately, I hold the actors and actresses (or actoresses) accountable for their own performances. Hayden stunk it up in SW, and nothing else he did or ever does will change that for me. He's a professional, and he's a big boy. I don't need to see him do something "good" to excuse something he did that was "bad".

"I couldn't do my job because my boss is an idiot."

So what? Do your job anyway. Your boss isn't that big of an idiot. I mean, he has a camera, a script, and some other actors with which to act...what else do you need really? Just because he didn't give you much feedback doesn't mean that you're incapable of doing a good job. Maybe you were good at some other jobs in the past, but that doesn't excuse why you sucked at this one.


As for you Sean, you still haven't given me any details for your "hate" (take example from Caesar ).

You want some 'hate", eh? I'm reminded of the "Player Haters Ball" sketch from Chappelles show:

Pitbull: "I'm the biggest hatuh! Arrrrffff!"

Actually, I think I'm supposed to give you examples of what I like, as described from my "hater" perspective, just as I was hoping the "lovers" would talk about what they don't like. Ceasar was honest and said he liked pretty much everything Hayden did in SW, so he answered my question just fine. But I'm still holding out hope for that 4% Ceasar! :pleased:

I think Hayden works better as a proto-Vader than he does as Anakin Skywalker. When he's asked to convey anger or portray Ani's brooding "dark side", I think he does ok, usually because he isn't talking. A specific example: When he's carrying his dead mother's body back to the homestead, his expression says it all. It's one of those moments when it is appropriate for the performance to be layered and complex. Ani looks sad, vindicated, and angry all at the same time. Not only that, but he also looks as if he's scolding the Lars boys for giving up on looking for Shmi...mind you, this is all in the span of a few seconds. A job well done in my opinion. But dangit, I don't get two seconds to appreciate what I've just seen because we're right into the next scene where he's cotton-mouthing his way through "Da shifter bwoke" in the garage.

Aside from the aforementioned awkward gait, I do like his appearence, expecially in ROTS. He's actually very close to what I always pictured Anakin Skywalker to look like. He's handsome, but also masculine. He's brooding, yet sad. In other words, he's got the accessible good looks of leading man, yet he's physically imposing (tall in stature, fit, strong jaw, etc.). For lack of a better term, he looks really "cool" when he's angry, but has a kind of sleepiness to his eyes that suggests a certain sadness. Physically, he seems to have all the right tools to be able to play Anakin: his face seems to be ready-made to convey "sad" and "angry" with ease. I'm not crazy about the stupid Padawan hair-do they came up with (and my feelings are the same for Obers in TPM), and I'm not to crazy about the fake tan they smeared all over him in AOTC, but overall, he pretty much matches up with what I always hoped Anakin would look like.

So where does Hayden go wrong? Cottonmouth aside, I think it's one simple thing: he over does it. I remember reading somewhere that JEJ felt "less is more" when portraying Vader. I think it was in the book (which I believe was called The Story of Darth Vader) that came with the 12 inch Masterpiece Anakin Skywalker figure from Hasbro back in 1997. I'm going from memory, so I'll paraphrase what he said best I can:

James Earl Jones: "The thing we figured out with Vader was to keep it on a narrow band width. At first, we tried to figure out what we did right in ANH and expand on that, but the more I tried, the more I realized that it was easiest just to deliver the line with little emotional inflection and keep it in a narrow bandiwidth. Vader isn't overly emotional, he just kind of puts what he has to say out there and that's it. Vader is someone who never learned about the subtleties of human emotion."

This sort of explains why Vader is a little more "angry" in ANH...JEJ hadn't quite figured out the character yet. He certainly got it right in ESB, and I think most of us consider that performance to be one of the most defining aspects of the character.

With that in mind, I feel like we have to take JEJ's performance and comments into account when considering Hayden's performance. To me, Hayden's Anakin is borderline schizophrenic, so how am I supposed to reconcile that with a Vader "who never learned about the subtleties of human emotion"? I can't, and neither can any of the "haters". To us, it's as though Hayden has no idea who Vader really is.

seanmcfripp
09-22-2005, 09:41 AM
I suspect Jake Lloyd's career will never fully recover from TPM, I saw him act in something else from that era and he was a really good kid actor, but it's my opinion that Lucas as a writer made the character too young for the material and as a director failed to ensure Lloyd was given proper motivation - he was a little kid who couldn't draw on life experience and needed a director to shape his performance, but Lucas has admitted he's not an actor's director. I think Jake may end up doing a few indies but not getting work on a studio film for quite some time - of course, I don't even know if he WANTS to continue acting or not - but he's definitely now stuck with the "Star Wars stigma" that will haunt him in acting and in life I suspect, because it was a defining film for an actor so young to help carry.

I think he's got the "kid actor" thing going against him more than TPM thing. He's one of those kid actors who's pretty much always played in kid actor roles (as far as I know at least). On the other hand, some one like Haley Joel Osmet is one of those kids who's freakishly beyond his years. He was bringing character actor and method acting sensibilities to his roles at age, what...eleven? He's a rare find. Jake Lloyd could easily be doing toy commercials. He's a kid actor simply for the sake of being a kid actor. I don't think "kid acting" skills necessarily help you become a "real actor" down the road.


Natalie Portman already had a burgeoning career, but her work was more of the intimate type, she was a dramatic actor who "felt" and while she was able to balance this fairly well in TPM in my opinion, AOTC and ROTS felt like performances she missed or let fall off the mark or flat altogether - again, that could be the director's fault, perhaps the casting crew's fault, but Nat's natural talent and experience should have been able to carry her a little further there I think. My guess is that the Prequels won't hamper her career too much since she doesn't go for major studio pictures, but studios won't as likely cast her for those films if she goes for them either. Perhaps coming off detached from Eps 2 and 3 will help her in the public eye, suggesting "well I had to do 'em but I didn't want to" enough for them to look past it, I think only peripherally will she be associated with Star Wars in that way.

It's pretty clear to me, just by her performance, that she has the attitude that SW is/was beneath her. You basically said it, but to reiterate: I think the general public sees her in SW and thinks "How the heck did Natalie Portman get roped into doing this?"


Supposedly, Liam Neeson said that working on Ep 1 nearly drove him out of the business, but he's made quite a comeback from that position. I think his performance in TPM was ok but seriously flawed thanks to directing issues and a lack of real elements such as characters and set (these things that actors use to broaden their imaginations off of), yet within a year Liam and Qui-Gon were totally separated in my mind, and especially now that Liam has delivered an outstanding performance in a major studio action film (Batman Begins), I think he will have no problems getting work anywhere he wants and still avoid carrying the "Star Wars stigma". Of all the prequel actors, I think he will come away the cleanest.

He's a good character actor who's always been busy with work, and continues to be so. I think you summed up everything nicely.


Ewan McGregor was already a strong up-and-coming actor when Star Wars called upon his services, yet he hadn't been known for action/adventure pictures, instead mostly for strong deep dramatic acting performances. After a rather flat performance alongside his co-star Liam in TPM (for supposedly the same reasons), Ewan brought more to the 2 sequels giving him more credibility, but because his character had already been heavily established in the OT by another major actor, he never could totally define the role of Obi-Wan as his own, which works both ways. I think because of that, it'll be there in the corner, never 100% out of the way, but it'll never be anything greatly affecting his career, especially because he's taken that career to such diverse places and made a name out of all that with solid talent and generally solid role choices.

He did a great Guiness impression, and that's why he gets a passing grade in my book. I still think back to the trailer for TPM when we first hear Obi-wan speak: "Once those droids take control of the surface, they will take control of you." He nailed the quirky Guiness voice perfectly. It's little things like that which make me think that at least Ewan cared about the part in some ways, at least at the beginning. He'd done too many good things before, and certainly he's too many good things after SW for anyone to think the PT is an embarassment for him.


Hayden Christensen's career seems doomed to spend its life in the shadow of the prequels I think, perhaps worse even than Jake Lloyd's because Hayden was built up by Lucasfilm and the press during his turns as Anakin more than young Jake was. I haven't seen a single other project Hayden has undertaken before or after the prequels, so I cannot really judge his acting talent outside Star Wars, but I think no matter how good he is, his boyband-style performance in Ep 2 interspersed with out-of-place bursts of moodiness and whiny frustration was too thin and meek to connect with most audiences and critics, it seemed to be directed to play to teenage girls and did work on that level, but that only would further hamper how he is viewed later. I think Hayden does have Lucas the writer to blame for how his AOTC performance was viewed in general (let's face it, it didn't help that the character was written to take a vacation in the middle of the film), and Lucas the director probably didn't help that any, but Hayden himself came off like he was showing something on his own which wasn't really strong enough to present the character of Anakin Skywalker - he didn't bring a sense of wonder or adventure or most importantly weight to the role, yet he was still made the posterboy for the film which put more spotlight on his performance than any other. With ROTS, he brought less boyband to role and was more solid, but still came off less than strong & mature, and I think that was a lot of him as he interpretted the lack of motivations written for him in the screenplay - in my mind, he brought nothing extra to the party, and never really seemed to "grow up" in the role. I think no matter how good an actor he may become, his career will aways be overshadowed by Star Wars despite whatever talent he brings to their casting tables, he won't be seen as a major motion picture actor by the studios, and the indie circuit likely will give him less of a chance based on him being in 2 big films.

Ouch, that hurts...but it's so true. I think we were all pulling for the guy to do well, but dangit, if he didn't tumble right into all the pitfalls that all rookies have to overcome. He's like the Ryan Leaf or the Heath Shuler of the acting world.

Again, this is why I don't really care what he did in other things before SW. Those are his college playing days. I only care about what he did in the big leagues. I'd be very surprised if anyone was willing to give him a shot at another mainstream project.

Elliejabbapop
09-22-2005, 01:07 PM
Hayden's voice sounds like it's on the edge of a cliff, which I think is perfectly normal. for someone his age.But, a professional actor should be held to a higher standard. It's hard to deliver dialogue with confidence if you still haven't mastered your instrument.

He's not a professional actor, if by that you mean someone who has attended drama school. Personally, I think that being a good actor doesn't depend on schools, it's a natural element. Hayden is still young and he's slowly making his way through just like most great actors who preceeded him.



Just because Hayden was a rookie and had to play under a tyranical coach doesn't mean he doesn't still know how to play the game. Inexperience with the SW movie making machine doesn't give him an excuse fail at his craft. "Faster" and "More intense" wasn't much to go on for the OT actors, yet somehow they managed to get the job done.

Point one: the OT actors didn't have to work with characters they could not see;
Point two: the script was different, the whole conception was different, which meant a different approach towards the characters.
Point three: I was talking about a general inexperience, I never limited it to the SW movies


I guess it makes me wonder about Lucas as a director...how is it that he can have a bad performance from a good actor right in front of him and not know it? But ultimately, I hold the actors and actresses (or actoresses) accountable for their own performances.

Contradiction alarm :rolleyes:


So what? Do your job anyway.
I mean, he has a camera, a script, and some other actors with which to act...what else do you need really?

That's easy for you to say isn't it Marlon?
To answer your question, how about a motivation?


I think Hayden works better as a proto-Vader than he does as Anakin Skywalker. When he's asked to convey anger or portray Ani's brooding "dark side", I think he does ok, usually because he isn't talking. A specific example: When he's carrying his dead mother's body back to the homestead, his expression says it all. It's one of those moments when it is appropriate for the performance to be layered and complex. Ani looks sad, vindicated, and angry all at the same time. Not only that, but he also looks as if he's scolding the Lars boys for giving up on looking for Shmi...mind you, this is all in the span of a few seconds. A job well done in my opinion. But dangit, I don't get two seconds to appreciate what I've just seen because we're right into the next scene where he's cotton-mouthing his way through "Da shifter bwoke" in the garage.

The scene you mentioned is a good example, however it doesn't contribute to the fact that you hate him. As far as I'm concerned, in your opinion his only real fault is his voice (which I don't see). I could give you a list of amazing actors with horrible voices if you like, they're still great you know.



So where does Hayden go wrong? Cottonmouth aside, I think it's one simple thing: he over does it.

You're still referring to the script, I can't see a breakthrough.


James Earl Jones: "The thing we figured out with Vader was to keep it on a narrow band width. At first, we tried to figure out what we did right in ANH and expand on that, but the more I tried, the more I realized that it was easiest just to deliver the line with little emotional inflection and keep it in a narrow bandiwidth. Vader isn't overly emotional, he just kind of puts what he has to say out there and that's it. Vader is someone who never learned about the subtleties of human emotion."

Point one: Vader is not Anakin, we're talking about a twenty-year span;
Point two: the second line contradicts the whole idea of the prequels, don't you think? Therefore it's not a valid demonstration and once again points the finger towards George, wrongly too, because we knew even then that Vader used to be a "human being". The line is a contradiction in itself.


I can't, and neither can any of the "haters". To us, it's as though Hayden has no idea who Vader really is.

You're talking as if you were part of a sect. "Us"... this looks more like blindfolded hate than a mature attitude.
BTW you've just paid Hayden a great compliment .... he played Anakin Skywalker, the man who came BEFORE Darth Vader, and therefore could not have known who he would become.

JediTricks
09-22-2005, 03:44 PM
I think he's got the "kid actor" thing going against him more than TPM thing. He's one of those kid actors who's pretty much always played in kid actor roles (as far as I know at least). On the other hand, some one like Haley Joel Osmet is one of those kids who's freakishly beyond his years. He was bringing character actor and method acting sensibilities to his roles at age, what...eleven? He's a rare find. Jake Lloyd could easily be doing toy commercials. He's a kid actor simply for the sake of being a kid actor. I don't think "kid acting" skills necessarily help you become a "real actor" down the road. For me, I misspoke when I referred to him as a "kid actor", before I saw the TPM trailer I thought of Jake as a good actor who was a little kid, he did bring some depth in whatever it was I saw him in (I honestly don't remember, stuff on TV doesn't always stick in my mind that way), like Natalie Portman when she did The Professional, but I suspect it helped that I never saw Jake in "Jingle All the Way". After TPM, that's when I started thinking of him as just a "kid actor" the way you describe.


It's pretty clear to me, just by her performance, that she has the attitude that SW is/was beneath her. You basically said it, but to reiterate: I think the general public sees her in SW and thinks "How the heck did Natalie Portman get roped into doing this?"I still think that only came about between TPM and AOTC, her performance in TPM I felt worked well. But that was also her period of saying "I'm quitting movies to go to college and be an architect" phase, perhaps like Liam Neeson the process of making TPM had driven something out of them for a time, she certainly hasn't given up acting in general anymore.


He did a great Guiness impression, and that's why he gets a passing grade in my book. I still think back to the trailer for TPM when we first hear Obi-wan speak: "Once those droids take control of the surface, they will take control of you." He nailed the quirky Guiness voice perfectly. It's little things like that which make me think that at least Ewan cared about the part in some ways, at least at the beginning.Sometimes though, doing an impression of another actor can be terminal to playing a part though, instead of acting he could get caught up in doing his impression of Guiness. Occasionally I felt like that was the case with Ewan in SW.


Ouch, that hurts...but it's so true. I think we were all pulling for the guy to do well, but dangit, if he didn't tumble right into all the pitfalls that all rookies have to overcome. He's like the Ryan Leaf or the Heath Shuler of the acting world. Or perhaps the Mark Hamill of the acting world? :evil:


Again, this is why I don't really care what he did in other things before SW. Those are his college playing days. I only care about what he did in the big leagues. I'd be very surprised if anyone was willing to give him a shot at another mainstream project.For me, when discussing an actor's performance in Star Wars, it doesn't matter to me what credentials they had coming in. Natalie Portman had good credentials coming into AOTC and I feel she fumbled the part there. Hugh Quarshie's credentials weren't very strong perhaps (not for mainstream audiences anyway) but I felt he did fine in TPM even when other fans were mad at him for what he said about doing AOTC.

JimJamBonds
09-23-2005, 01:04 AM
So where does Hayden go wrong? Cottonmouth aside, I think it's one simple thing: he over does it.

So where is this "cottonmouth" again? I just watched the movie a few days ago and there wasn't anything of the sort. Hayden's jaw/mouth movements seem just fine.

2-1B
09-23-2005, 02:41 AM
Maybe they just don't like the cut of his Canadian jib ? :confused:

Hugh Quarshie - interesting choice and I hadn't thought of him before for this thread. He's got that job on the UK show Holby City but I'm not sure if it's still on ? I think he was just average in TPM, he had his moments but his "there are too many of them" is one of the worst delivered lines in the whole movie, I'll even put it up against some of Ric Olie's lines. lol

I haven't seen Hugh in anything other than TPM though, so I really have no opinion on him beyond that film. :)

seanmcfripp
09-23-2005, 05:57 PM
Maybe they just don't like the cut of his Canadian jib ? :confused:

Mmmmm, I dunno about that. I got nothin' against the way Canucks talk. In fact, I rather like it, as I do most things Canadian...stupid hoser.:D

It's a tough call. I guess people either hear the "cottonmouth", or they don't. To me, it just seems pretty obvious that Hayden doesn't have an "above average" ability to deliver speech. Can he talk? Yes. Can I understand his speech? Absolutely. But does he sound as though he's mastered his instrument? I don't think so. Ya' see, that's the defining difference in our perspectives on this thing. I think some of us are willing to excuse (or don't even notice) his mediocre ability to dictate speech because we don't consider that to be a vital aspect of "good" acting. On the other side of that coin, the rest of us probably think the other way. It's like that when defining any artist, really. There's a "chops" component to what they do, and there's a "content" component. I hold actors to a higher standard when it comes to diction and annunciation. I don't want an actor that speaks like the average person.

Hmmm...I think what I'm saying is leading right into this (it might be a long one, so get your swimmin' trunks on kiddies, cuz we're going to be wadin' in it for while):


He's not a professional actor, if by that you mean someone who has attended drama school. Personally, I think that being a good actor doesn't depend on schools, it's a natural element.

By professional, I mean not amateur. He got paid, so he's a pro in my book. Education has nothing to do with it.


Hayden is still young and he's slowly making his way through just like most great actors who preceeded him.

How many "great" actors out there have an ATOC or ROTS type mark early on their resume? Don't even consider my opinion when answering...how many actors have survived getting critically ripped (and man, oh man did the critics rip poor Hayden) in two mega-budget movies early in their careers, then went on to be "great" actors? Maybe there are a few, but I can't think of any at the moment.


Point one: the OT actors didn't have to work with characters they could not see;
Point two: the script was different, the whole conception was different, which meant a different approach towards the characters.
Point three: I was talking about a general inexperience, I never limited it to the SW movies

uno: A cop-out. I'm so sick of hearing that excuse. The folks in Sin City looked pretty engaged, and they had no real elements to work with except each other. This new digital age (which Lucas has really pioneered, for better or worse) is here to stay, so actors had better start looking for other excuses. When Alderaan was blown up, Carrie Fisher had a circle drawn on a piece of paper to "act" with. I dunno, I think she did ok. Mark Hamill managed to "act" with garbage can with a little guy inside. Again, I think he did ok. Not to take anything away from the acting craft (cuz I love movies and love me some good acting), but there is an element of "hey, we're just pretending" to it. I see little kids pretend to talk to imaginary people all the time. It's very convincing. Not to over-simplify, but that's really all acting is when you get right down to it. (If you're an actor and you're reading this, please don't hurt me.)

dos: How different? I'm being serious here...how different is the style of the OT script from the PT script? Not sure what you mean by "conception", but I think I understand what you're getting at. Again, how is the "conception" of the two trilogies different?

tres: You'll have to clarify this point. Maybe this point was meant to clarify something posted earlier, but I just don't see where. Sorry I missed it.


Contradiction alarm

I keep my contradiction alarm right next to the fire alarm on the ceiling. In fact, I check the batteries quite often.

*taps on alarm*

Hmmm...it seems to be in working order, but it's not going off. Maybe the stupid thing is broken. Strange that the fire alarm is going off though. I mean, I guess I can see flames around, but I dunno, they're kinda weak.


That's easy for you to say isn't it Marlon?

That's a first...usually people mistake me for Keenan Ivory or Damon, but never Marlon. But really, I'm just happy anyone thinks I even look like any of the Wayan bros. Good looks, and danged fine actors too.


To answer your question, how about a motivation?

You keep asking the director until he gives you what you need to do your job. If he can't help you (which would make him a truly awful director if that were the case), then I guess you do your best. If what we saw in the PT was Hayden's "best", then I'm sorry, the guy should just find another job. Outside of the pressure of being in the lead role (one that admittidly is and was overly scrutinized), Hayden worked under the same conditions as the principal PT actors . I give them all C's. Hayden gets an F.


The scene you mentioned is a good example, however it doesn't contribute to the fact that you hate him.

Um, I know. I mentioned the scene because I was trying to offer up something that I like about him...that was the whole point of my original post when I said:

"Hey, pro-Hayden folks, tell us what you don't like about Hayden's performance. Now the nay-Hayden folks...what do you like about it?"

I was just holding up to me end of the bargain as a nay-Hayden folk. Not sure why I'm having to explain this though, as I think it was pretty clear the first time.


As far as I'm concerned, in your opinion his only real fault is his voice (which I don't see).

Nope, the mush-mouth thing is just a part of it.


I could give you a list of amazing actors with horrible voices if you like, they're still great you know.

Please do. I'm serious, I'm not egging you on. Of the people on your list, I'll bet that we agree that most on there are probably good actors, but I'll also bet that their style of diction could be a possible point of disagreement, at least in terms of what you think my opinion may or may not be. I'm just throwing out a name here, but maybe we'll end up on the same page:

Marlon Brando

What would you think my opinion of his speech pattern would be?


You're still referring to the script, I can't see a breakthrough.

When I said...

"So where does Hayden go wrong? Cottonmouth aside, I think it's one simple thing: he over does it."

how is that in any way referring to the script? I didn't say the script over does it, I said he over does it. In other words, Hayden misses the mark when he is supposed to be (and I can only guess that this is the "direction" he was given by Lucas) dark and edgy. Instead, he goes overboard and gives us an Ani who is...hmmm...well, I can't use the term "bi-polar" without ruffling some feathers around here, so maybe...I dunno, you get the idea. In other words, I'm of the opinion that a different actor, working with the exact same script and dialogue, could have given us a completely different performance. By your "it's the script's fault" logic, we're to assume that the script defines the character absolutely, and that there is no room for interpretation. From what you're saying, it sounds like Anakin had to be played one way, and one way only. If that's the case, then I guess any actor could have portrayed the part, right? Please, give actors more credit than that. Like I said before, the OT cast got stuck with some horrible dialogue, but dangit, if they didn't find some way to get around it. Hayden, on the other hand, stood out in the middle of the street, and I'm sorry to say, he got run over by it. I have this terrible vision of Hayden getting run over on the highway by George's typewriter.


Point one: Vader is not Anakin, we're talking about a twenty-year span;
Point two: the second line contradicts the whole idea of the prequels, don't you think? Therefore it's not a valid demonstration and once again points the finger towards George, wrongly too, because we knew even then that Vader used to be a "human being". The line is a contradiction in itself.

uno: This is a great point, if not only to demonstrate the rift that goes right down the middle of the fandom's perspective on this issue. I would contend that they are the same person. Vader is Anakin, Anakin is Vader...there is no separating the two. You just gave me an idea for a great thread. This needs to be discussed on its on.

dos: Nope. If anything, the Prequels contradict the sentiment that JEJ was trying to get across. JEJ wasn't trying to say that Vader wasn't human, he was trying to get across that Vader was a man who never learned about what it means to truly be human.


You're talking as if you were part of a sect. "Us"... this looks more like blindfolded hate than a mature attitude.
BTW you've just paid Hayden a great compliment .... he played Anakin Skywalker, the man who came BEFORE Darth Vader, and therefore could not have known who he would become.

I don't hate anything about the guy. I don't like most of his performance in SW, but it pretty much stops there. Believe it or not, I like talking about this stuff because it forces me to re-examine what I like about art. I can assure you that I don't visit these boards for the sake of spouting off hateful things about someone I don't even know.

I've said this to you before: please be careful with your tone. No one is attacking anyone here. There's plenty of food for healthy debate in these threads, so try to stay focused on that.

JediTricks
09-23-2005, 05:59 PM
I saw Quarshie in "Wing Commander" which I saw specifically only because of the TPM trailer... both movies turned out disappointing. :p Seriously though, Wing Commander was dreadful and Quarshie wasn't too great there. I thought Hugh was decent in TPM though, he communicated his convictions pretty clearly IMO without overdramatizing them.

JimJamBonds
09-24-2005, 12:22 AM
It's a tough call. I guess people either hear the "cottonmouth", or they don't. To me, it just seems pretty obvious that Hayden doesn't have an "above average" ability to deliver speech. Can he talk? Yes. Can I understand his speech? Absolutely. But does he sound as though he's mastered his instrument? I don't think so. Ya' see, that's the defining difference in our perspectives on this thing. I think some of us are willing to excuse (or don't even notice) his mediocre ability to dictate speech because we don't consider that to be a vital aspect of "good" acting. On the other side of that coin, the rest of us probably think the other way. It's like that when defining any artist, really. There's a "chops" component to what they do, and there's a "content" component. I hold actors to a higher standard when it comes to diction and annunciation. I don't want an actor that speaks like the average person.

Gotcha, personally I think those are two different beasts. When I hear 'cotton mouth' I take it as meaning Hayden is mumbling which we both agree he is not. Now that we each know the others take I can agree with you that there are times when his vocal performance doesn't come off as the best. Whenever I hear him say "And what about the other Jedi spread across the galaxy?" it just sounds.... off. Perhaps Lucas just settled on using a bad take? I don't know about that but it is a line that always bugs mean when I hear it. I've seen Hayden in a couple of other films and I didn't really get that feeling. I've have to rewatch AOTC but I don't recall any flat lines in there off hand.

2-1B
09-24-2005, 03:02 AM
Mark Hamill managed to "act" with garbage can with a little guy inside. Again, I think he did ok.
I don't. :)

I know it's a Prequel Actors thread but since you mentioned The Ham, I'll say that I think he is downright silly in ANH, with several misdelivered lines. ESB is much better for him, shows some real progress but still has issues, the most obvious being his wretched "Nooooooo noooo ohhhhh oooo" when Vader makes the big reveal. That scene is heralded among many fans as one of the greatest ever, and I agree it is awesome, but The Ham almost ruins it ! :eek: By ROTJ though, I think Hammy was awesome, really nailed it in all respects. So I give the guy tons of credit for really progressing throughout the trilogy. :)

Hey what about Greg Proops ? There's a Prequel Actor who keeps plodding along with his craft, doing standup and appearing on Best Of / List shows. lol lol lol


Instead, he goes overboard and gives us an Ani who is...hmmm...well, I can't use the term "bi-polar" without ruffling some feathers around here, so maybe...I dunno, you get the idea.
I don't know how cute you're trying to be here but I assure you it will take more than that to "ruffle" my proverbial "feathers." :rolleyes: With comments like that, I don't know why I should bother to read your long winded posts. :)


Ya' see, that's the defining difference in our perspectives on this thing. I think some of us are willing to excuse (or don't even notice) his mediocre ability to dictate speech because we don't consider that to be a vital aspect of "good" acting.
Remember what JT said about how things work for different people, let's not go setting it in stone that his dictation is mediocre. ;)

JimJamBonds
09-24-2005, 12:59 PM
I don't. :)

I know it's a Prequel Actors thread but since you mentioned The Ham, I'll say that I think he is downright silly in ANH, with several misdelivered lines. ESB is much better for him, shows some real progress but still has issues...

I think Mark's improved performance in ESB and later ROTJ is do to his role in Corvette Summer. :yes:

seanmcfripp
09-26-2005, 09:27 AM
When I hear 'cotton mouth' I take it as meaning Hayden is mumbling which we both agree he is not. Now that we each know the others take I can agree with you that there are times when his vocal performance doesn't come off as the best.

And in turn, I would concede that "cottonmouth" is perhaps a bit extreme in describing his delivery. But, the term "cottonmouth" is metaphorical by nature (an actor, after all, isn't literally going to have cotton in his/her mouth when speaking...although I think Brando used cotton to develop Dom Corleone's unique voice), so the degree to which we are swayed by its meaning is somewhat subjective.


I know it's a Prequel Actors thread but since you mentioned The Ham, I'll say that I think he is downright silly in ANH, with several misdelivered lines. ESB is much better for him, shows some real progress but still has issues, the most obvious being his wretched "Nooooooo noooo ohhhhh oooo" when Vader makes the big reveal. That scene is heralded among many fans as one of the greatest ever, and I agree it is awesome, but The Ham almost ruins it ! By ROTJ though, I think Hammy was awesome, really nailed it in all respects. So I give the guy tons of credit for really progressing throughout the trilogy.

Oh, but Mark's "Ham" is so delicious! It's so fantastically overwrought, you have no choice but believe him. I got no problem at all with the Ham.


Hey what about Greg Proops ?

If had a nickel for every time someone asked me about Greg Proops...

What happened to WLIIA (the Drew Carey, U.S. version)?


I don't know how cute you're trying to be here but I assure you it will take more than that to "ruffle" my proverbial "feathers." With comments like that, I don't know why I should bother to read your long winded posts.

Hey, don't confuse my propensity to ramble incoherently with long windedness!


Remember what JT said about how things work for different people, let's not go setting it in stone that his dictation is mediocre.

Well, I'm a little more than three fourths of the way done etching an inscription on this stupid thing. Luckily, so far, I only have "HAYDEN'S DICTION IS", so the description we use at the end is still up for grabs. How 'bout "LESS THAN IT COULD BE", would that be ok? For the sake of brevity, I still like "MEDIOCRE" though, because it's much easier to chisel.

2-1B
09-26-2005, 01:33 PM
Oh, but Mark's "Ham" is so delicious! It's so fantastically overwrought, you have no choice but believe him.

you might not, but I do. ;)

I'm more embarrassed for The Ham than you are for The Hayden. lol


What happened to WLIIA (the Drew Carey, U.S. version)?

I loved the UK edition, specifically the ones with Proops, Mochrie, Frost, Slattery, and of course Stiles and a few others. I wasn't a big fan of the Drew version, mainly because of . . . well . . . Drew Carey. I didn't much care for him, but Wayne Brady was the saving grace of that version I guess. UK all the way ! ! !

JimJamBonds
09-26-2005, 01:37 PM
What happened to WLIIA (the Drew Carey, U.S. version)?

Its still on (I think its the ABC Family channel), I don't know if its still in production or not.

Elliejabbapop
10-02-2005, 08:23 AM
I don't want an actor that speaks like the average person.

I suppose you never watch comedies or go to the theatre to watch a contemporary play.



By professional, I mean not amateur. He got paid, so he's a pro in my book. Education has nothing to do with it.

Ok so a butcher who's never gone to medical school and practices an abortion on a woman is a "pro" :rolleyes: .



How many "great" actors out there have an ATOC or ROTS type mark early on their resume? Don't even consider my opinion when answering...how many actors have survived getting critically ripped (and man, oh man did the critics rip poor Hayden) in two mega-budget movies early in their careers, then went on to be "great" actors? Maybe there are a few, but I can't think of any at the moment.

Let's start with Kevin Kline.




uno: A cop-out. I'm so sick of hearing that excuse. The folks in Sin City looked pretty engaged, and they had no real elements to work with except each other.

That's just an opinion not a fact, since I thought it was disgusting. I want facts please, not castles in the air.


I see little kids pretend to talk to imaginary people all the time. It's very convincing. Not to over-simplify, but that's really all acting is when you get right down to it.

Indeed, who needs a professional training? We're all actors :rolleyes: .


dos: How different? I'm being serious here...how different is the style of the OT script from the PT script? Not sure what you mean by "conception", but I think I understand what you're getting at. Again, how is the "conception" of the two trilogies different?

I think the difference in the script is pretty obvious, the PT one is focused more on context whereas the OT one is more focused on dialogue. Again, the PT was concieved as something that at the same time embraced more complex themes than the OT (es. politics and philosophy) and that was also good for little kids, which was in my opinion Lucas' biggest mistake, because the OT was focused on "young people" in general, at the heart it's a coming of age trilogy. If you want to speak of great issues, you can't "simplify" them for a younger audience. I think the actors felt that, and I think it affected their performances.


tres: You'll have to clarify this point. Maybe this point was meant to clarify something posted earlier, but I just don't see where. Sorry I missed it.

Read more carefully, I'm not going to waste time because people are not paying attention.


Hmmm...it seems to be in working order, but it's not going off. Maybe the stupid thing is broken.

That was kind of obvious lol .


That's a first...usually people mistake me for Keenan Ivory or Damon, but never Marlon. But really, I'm just happy anyone thinks I even look like any of the Wayan bros. Good looks, and danged fine actors too.

So lovely to meet you mr. Heep.



I give them all C's. Hayden gets an F.

Why? Still waiting for a good reason.....



Please do. I'm serious, I'm not egging you on. Of the people on your list, I'll bet that we agree that most on there are probably good actors, but I'll also bet that their style of diction could be a possible point of disagreement, at least in terms of what you think my opinion may or may not be.

The worst ones must be Michael Douglas, James Stewart and Clint Eastwood, not to mention (even though they're much better) Tom Cruise, Al Pacino and Robert de Niro. I would go on but I really need to work now.



how is that in any way referring to the script? I didn't say the script over does it, I said he over does it.

Exactly your problem, not to mention unrealistic.


In other words, Hayden misses the mark when he is supposed to be (and I can only guess that this is the "direction" he was given by Lucas) dark and edgy. Instead, he goes overboard and gives us an Ani who is...hmmm...well, I can't use the term "bi-polar" without ruffling some feathers around here, so maybe...I dunno, you get the idea.

Again you mistake him with the director.


In other words, I'm of the opinion that a different actor, working with the exact same script and dialogue, could have given us a completely different performance.

Who?


By your "it's the script's fault" logic, we're to assume that the script defines the character absolutely, and that there is no room for interpretation. From what you're saying, it sounds like Anakin had to be played one way, and one way only.

I never said that, I said that the "Lucas world" is limited. With other directors (not all) interpretation can happen, not here.



uno: This is a great point, if not only to demonstrate the rift that goes right down the middle of the fandom's perspective on this issue. I would contend that they are the same person. Vader is Anakin, Anakin is Vader...there is no separating the two.

In other words a person who is 40 is the same as when he was 10. Please avoid the ridicule.


dos: JEJ wasn't trying to say that Vader wasn't human, he was trying to get across that Vader was a man who never learned about what it means to truly be human.

I disagreed. He has loved, pained and especially doubted. I think doubt is one of the key elements that define human nature, it's stonger than instinct.


I've said this to you before: please be careful with your tone. No one is attacking anyone here. There's plenty of food for healthy debate in these threads, so try to stay focused on that.

Oh you mean like you making fun of my username? At least be honest.
BTW I never attacked you, you're imagining things (or perhaps you want to imagine them, it's convenient eh?)

seanmcfripp
10-10-2005, 03:21 PM
I suppose you never watch comedies or go to the theatre to watch a contemporary play.

I'm not too awfully crazy about places that require me to wear pants, so it's a no go to an evening at the theatre (or theater for those of us who are a little less pretentious).

There's a big difference between a method actor finding the voice of a character who's an "average" person and Hayden getting up there and just talking like himself.


Ok so a butcher who's never gone to medical school and practices an abortion on a woman is a "pro" :rolleyes: .

*DISCLAIMER* When you look around and realize where this has gone, just remember that you're the one who opened the door.

Yeah, he's a pro alright, at least if he's doing it with any regularity. If it's just an odd job here and there, I guess it doesn't really count as "professional" per se, but it's pretty close. I'd like to think there's a certain kind of justice (maybe it's not exactly burning in hell, but I hope it's something close) for someone who sets up a coat hanger shop in an alley, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market setting the price for what you're talking about. And for all you little girls out there who are so eager to fork over $50 for such a "service", you'll get no sympathy from me, nor do I absolve you of your personal responsibility. Beware the buyer, and you get what you pay for...it's as easy as that. I'm not a pro-lifer by any stretch, but the demographic that comprises said market certainly makes one rethink one's position.

And while I'm griping, I should point out that again I'm having to help you with understanding the meaning of a word. When I say the word "professional", your dictionary is burning for a reason. Look it up before you start conjuring these incendiary responses and you can save us all a lot of time.

Now that we've loosely established that alley "butchers", no matter how dispicable, are indeed professionals, I'd like to question your metaphorical usage of the concept. What are you trying to tell us by comparing Hayden to an alley butcher? Make no mistake, that is the parallel you've tossed out there. I stated:


By professional, I mean not amateur. He got paid, so he's a pro in my book.

...and then you go on to question whether alley butchers are professionals. It's a bit disturbing to even think about it this way, but I may see what you're getting at. A few questions though, just so's I'm clear: Is Hayden the alley butcher in this scenario? If so, who or what is the girl supposed to be? Lucas? Maybe the SW francise as a whole? Are you saying that the PT is an under-developed fetus, plucked pre-maturely from the womb of Lucas's mind? Quite frankly, I think that's disgusting and I'm offended that you'd take any discussion on these boards in that direction. The SW PT = an aborted fetus. It's not pretty, but it has a kind of overstated, if not brutal truth to it.


Let's start with Kevin Kline.

Right side of the audience, can I get a:

"WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?"

Ok, now the left side:

"WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?"

Alright, now everyone together:

"WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?"

Did Kevin Kline do some porno back in the day that I don't know about? Do you have something against Phoebe Cates? I'm pretty sure Kevin Kline is the wrong answer to my question. Are you talking about some other Kevin Kline, one we've never heard of?


That's just an opinion not a fact, since I thought it was disgusting. I want facts please, not castles in the air.

Don't make me get the audience involved again. Please, what are you talking about? How does your opinion (your dictionary is getting warm again) that the film Sin City is "disgusting" have any bearing on whether what I stated was opinion or fact? To clarify, I said that the actors were fully engaged in their craft. That's it! I didn't say a word about my overall opinion of the film, not that my opinion would have been in any way relevant to the point I was making. I made a statement of judgement (or opinion, if you want to call it that) about the actors and their abilities based on what I saw when watching the film. So, in turn, if you're going to debate that point, please, only talk about the point itself, not something else entirely. Here's what you did:

Me: I like the red color of apples.
You: I think apples taste disgusting!

Okay, um...weren't we talking about the color of the apple? Does the idea of tasting an apple suddenly blind you to the point where you can't see what color it is? If you didn't like the acting in Sin City, just say so. A "disgusting" movie does not equal bad acting.


Indeed, who needs a professional training? We're all actors :rolleyes: .

Maybe we are. For all the whining that goes on over blue screen work, I encourage any actor who feels so challenged to attend an imaginary tea-party workshop in the back yard of any 6 year old girl. As not to be sexist, I'd also like to offer up the services of any 10 year old boys who'd be happy to have an actor stand in as an under-study while playing "war". Heck, there's always work as a "ghost runner" in 3 vs. 3 baseball. I said it before and I'll say it again: "Blue screen sucks" is a cop-out. Instead of complaining about how hard it is, just suck it up, get in touch with your inner 6 year old, meet the challenge, and earn your danged paycheck!


Read more carefully, I'm not going to waste time because people are not paying attention.

...

What? Huh...oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't listening. No, wait, I meant to say that I wasn't reading. No, wait, that's not it either...I wasn't paying attention while I was reading. Or maybe I wasn't listening while I wasn't paying attention. Now I'm just confused.


The worst ones must be Michael Douglas, James Stewart and Clint Eastwood, not to mention (even though they're much better) Tom Cruise, Al Pacino and Robert de Niro.

Yikes. I dunno, these guys are all pretty good in my book. No cottonmouths in there as far as I can tell. I don't remember anybody asking Dirty Harry to repeat himself after threatening to blow their head "cleeeean off." Nope, Clint nailed that part purty good.


I would go on but I really need to work now.

Don't bother posting if you don't have the time. It leaves us in a heightened state of anxiety...will she come back and finish her post? Gee I dunno, but can I wait that long? I don't think I'm gonna make it!

Just make sure you post on days when you're boss isn't in. That's what I do. If you couldn't already tell, the boss isn't in today.


Exactly your problem, not to mention unrealistic.

I'll defer to the audience on this one. The left side is usually louder, so lean thataway.


Again you mistake him with the director.

Nope, I think I got it straight. Hayden = actor. George = director.


Who?

Anyone else.


I never said that, I said that the "Lucas world" is limited. With other directors (not all) interpretation can happen, not here.

Me: By your "it's the script's fault" logic, we're to assume that the script defines the character absolutely, and that there is no room for interpretation. From what you're saying, it sounds like Anakin had to be played one way, and one way only.

And then you: I never said that, I said that the "Lucas world" is limited. With other directors (not all) interpretation can happen, not here.

I must look like that Aflac duck right about now, bill a' gapin'. I'm confused...I say that Anakin can only be played one way because George is so rigid in his vision. Then you say the exact same thing "with other directors, interpretation can happen, but not here ("here" I'm guessing means SW films, right?)"

We say the same danged thing, and yet you're still dsiagreeing with me? Holy smokes. Why do I even bother?


In other words a person who is 40 is the same as when he was 10. Please avoid the ridicule.

Yeah, I missed that ridicule by a mile. You, on the other hand, fell ***-backwards into it:

http://forums.sirstevesguide.com/showthread.php?t=29923&page=3


I disagreed. He has loved, pained and especially doubted. I think doubt is one of the key elements that define human nature, it's stonger than instinct.

Doubt? That's it? That's what makes the world go 'round? Sheesh, most people go with love or something like that, but doubt? That's a new one, for sure.


Oh you mean like you making fun of my username? At least be honest.
BTW I never attacked you, you're imagining things (or perhaps you want to imagine them, it's convenient eh?)

With a sig like yours, you have to expect a little ribbing now and then. If I call myself Seanmcfripperoress, would that make you feel better, or is that against the rules? I'm a dude, so I think seanmcfripporer would be more appropriate, but yet, the logical feminine version would be seanmcfrippress, so I'm confused...what would seanmcfripperoress be? Is that some kind of hybrid? Or am I too big of a hypocrite to warrant an explanation?

Elliejabbapop
10-19-2005, 12:25 PM
How on earth could I have missed this? How senseless of me.


Yeah, he's a pro alright, at least if he's doing it with any regularity.
By regular you mean murdering the woman who didn't have the money to get a professional one aka done by someone who has at least studied medicine?
This goes for what you wrote afterwords as well.


And while I'm griping, I should point out that again I'm having to help you with understanding the meaning of a word. When I say the word "professional", your dictionary is burning for a reason. Look it up before you start conjuring these incendiary responses and you can save us all a lot of time.
I don't understand why you keep accusing me of misunderstanding when the dictionary completely agrees with me. And no, the dictionary is not Italian. :rolleyes:


Make no mistake, that is the parallel you've tossed out there.
You should make no mistake in thinking I accepted your theory. Being paid does not mean being professional, you should revise your vocabulary, no offence. I never said Hayden was a professional so everything you wrote afterwords is totally useless.


Are you talking about some other Kevin Kline, one we've never heard of?
Nope. Don't get me wrong, I think he's wonderful but his earlier work, like the film in which he starred alongside Sissy Spacek, is atrocious.


How does your opinion (your dictionary is getting warm again) that the film Sin City is "disgusting" have any bearing on whether what I stated was opinion or fact? To clarify, I said that the actors were fully engaged in their craft.
It's just an opinion, which means you cannot pass it as an objective example.


Yikes. I dunno, these guys are all pretty good in my book.
I'm talking about their voices, not exactly a la Jeremy Irons eh?


Nope, I think I got it straight. Hayden = actor. George = director.
:thumbsup:




That's a new one, for sure.
I'm original :thumbsup:


With a sig like yours, you have to expect a little ribbing now and then.
Oh really, does yours mean anything?

El Chuxter
10-19-2005, 01:08 PM
Okay, getting away from the bickering. . . . :)

WLIIA? is gone (at least the new episodes) and some of the cast is on a show on Comedy Central called Drew Carey's Green Screen show. It's improv against a green screen, but is really unfunny because the focus is on what's done on the screen rather than the improv.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose that, though he is usually an incredible actor (even in the other two SW films he's appeared in), Harrison Ford handed in the single worst performance of ANH.

Hey, it happens. Both Natalie and Samuel L sucked hard in ROTS, and I've never seen either of them in any less-than-perfect performance outside SW.

Elliejabbapop
10-19-2005, 02:09 PM
Harrison Ford handed in the single worst performance of ANH.

Ohhh, don't be so hard on him ;) . His performance was constantly swinging between smug and sarcastic, that's true, but the others weren't any better, they were all quite bipolar except perhaps Alec Guinness. The complications came with TESB and in ROTJ the characters became unrecognisable compared to when we had first met them. However, I don't think that's a bad thing because you connect with the characters more when you get to know them gradually.


Both Natalie and Samuel L sucked hard in ROTS

So true.... I loved them in TPM though.


and I've never seen either of them in any less-than-perfect performance outside SW.

That's a bit of an overstatement. Personally I think Natalie Portman is heavily overrated. I can't say the same for Samuel L. Jackson because some of his performances were absolutely amazing. They were not all perfect, still ..... pretty close. :)

El Chuxter
10-19-2005, 02:21 PM
Ohhh, don't be so hard on him ;) . His performance was constantly swinging between smug and sarcastic, that's true, but the others weren't any better, they were all quite bipolar except perhaps Alec Guinness.

I was actually referring to his completely wooden delivery of several key lines. The one that most stands out is the "I'm not in this for you" line, which makes Adam West's work on the old Batman show look Oscar-worthy. The delivery on that bit ranks right down there with Anonymous Q Jones' line from ESB: "Two fahters aygainst a Stah Destroyer?" (I guess Hobbie's supposed to be from Alabama.)


That's a bit of an overstatement. Personally I think Natalie Portman is heavily overrated.

When a kid with no previous experience turns in a performance of the quality of Natalie's in The Professional, I'm impressed. ;)

Elliejabbapop
10-20-2005, 08:25 AM
I was actually referring to his completely wooden delivery of several key lines. The one that most stands out is the "I'm not in this for you" line, which makes Adam West's work on the old Batman show look Oscar-worthy.

Oh come on ..... holy sardines? lol I guess it was Robin who said that but the whole thing, including Adam West, is so trashy that it doesn't even stand at a lightspeed distance from Harrison's Han Solo in ANH. I don't think there was anything wrong with that line.
BTW don't you mess with Hobbie :D :D :D (is that even how his name is spelled? I'm just asking, I really don't know).


When a kid with no previous experience turns in a performance of the quality of Natalie's in The Professional, I'm impressed. ;)

Think about everything else :neutral: .

seanmcfripp
10-21-2005, 11:17 AM
How on earth could I have missed this? How senseless of me.

I know! The dang thread is always on fire, so it's pretty hard to miss.


By regular you mean murdering the woman who didn't have the money to get a professional one aka done by someone who has at least studied medicine?

Any response I give at this point would most certainly cross over into the realms of religion and/or politics. If you're really interested in my opinion, then we can beat it up in the Rancor Pit.


I don't understand why you keep accusing me of misunderstanding when the dictionary completely agrees with me.

Dictionaries are kinda fickle though. If given even just a few moments to work with your dictionary, I'd have it agreeing with ME.

Me: Here little dictionary...
* pulls out a Scooby snack *

Dictionary: Arrf, arrf *pant pant*

Me: Good boy, good boy. Waitaminute...what's that you say?

Dictionary: pro·fes·sion·al adj.

1. a. Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people.
b. Conforming to the standards of a profession: professional behavior.

2. Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer.

3. Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football.

4. Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job

Me: Oh, you are such a good little dictionary! Yes you are, yyyyes you are!

Dictionary: Arf arf! *lick lick*


Being paid does not mean being professional, you should revise your vocabulary, no offence. I never said Hayden was a professional so everything you wrote afterwords is totally useless.

Dictionary: * looks in Ellie's direction * Grrrrrr! Ruff ruff! Grrrrrrrr!

Me: Whoa, down boy! It's ok, it's ok, it'll be over soon. I have another treat if you can help me. Can you do that? Wannanother treat?

Dictionary: Arf arf! *pant pant pant*

Me: Ok, do your trick again, but this time, do it really LOUD.

Dictionary: pro·fes·sion·al adj.

2. Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer.

3. Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football.


Wow, that's a really well trained dictionary you have there. Barbara Woodhouse would be proud.


Don't get me wrong, I think he's wonderful but his earlier work, like the film in which he starred alongside Sissy Spacek, is atrocious.

His earlier work is atrocious?! The Big Chill? Sophie's Choice? Silverado? I would imagine that most people would say that his work in those films is pretty darned NOT atrocious.

Now as far as Violets Are Blue..., I don't know what to tell ya, cuz I've never seen it. But, let's remember what I said originally:


How many "great" actors out there have an ATOC or ROTS type mark early on their resume? Don't even consider my opinion when answering...how many actors have survived getting critically ripped (and man, oh man did the critics rip poor Hayden) in two mega-budget movies early in their careers, then went on to be "great" actors? Maybe there are a few, but I can't think of any at the moment.

Considerring that most of us have probably never even heard of Violets Are Blue..., I think it's safe to say that Kevin Kline wasn't a very good example. Twenty years from now, people aren't going to look back on Hayden's career and go:

"Ah yes, Hayden Christiansen...master thespian. What a body of work! Although, I've heard he had a bit of hiccup early in his career...a pair of low budget, limited release sci-fi films directed by some hack named Greg Lucas (or maybe it was Jim Lucas). Anyway, I don't think those films are even in print anymore, so I guess we'll never know how bad he really was in them."


It's just an opinion, which means you cannot pass it as an objective example.

Well dangit, help me continue the conversation. I said:

"The folks in Sin City looked pretty engaged, and they had no real elements to work with except each other."

So now it's your turn: What did you think of the acting in Sin City? Did they appear to be engaged, yay or nay? Did they appear to be hindered by having to work in front of a blue screen, yay or nay? Remember, we already know that you thought the movie was disgusting, so just try to focus on the acting.


Oh really, does yours mean anything?

It's from a movie that my wife and I really enjoy. I just love the line for some reason. Google it up, and you'll see where it's from.


Hey, it happens. Both Natalie and Samuel L sucked hard in ROTS, and I've never seen either of them in any less-than-perfect performance outside SW.

Juice rocked, as did Deep Blue Sea. Oh, and who can forget Amos and Andrew? lol


Personally I think Natalie Portman is heavily overrated.

I wanna be there when the cat-fight between you and Nat breaks out, cuz it's gonna be the best throw-down evah! She won't even know what hit her.

Elliejabbapop: He's my man! Don't you evah kiss him again!!
* smack, claw *

Natalie Portman: Ahhh, what are you talking about? Ouch!

Elliejabbapop: You ain't gotsta lie, you ain't gotsta ta lie! You evah touch my man again...
* kick to the ribs *

Natalie Portman: Ow, quit it! Sheesh, what gives?

Ellie, are you hot? Cuz that would really make it all the better.


The delivery on that bit ranks right down there with Anonymous Q Jones' line from ESB: "Two fahters aygainst a Stah Destroyer?" (I guess Hobbie's supposed to be from Alabama.)

Isn't Richard Oldfield a Brit? I always thought that line sounded like an English dude doing his best American accent (which more often than not, comes out sounding southern).


Think about everything else.

Heat = Good performance...one of my all time favorite movies

Beautiful Girls = Ok movie, but she really stood out as being something worth remembering. The scenes with Timothy Hutton were fantastic. They managed to successfully walk the line between him legitimately having a "crush" on this girl (or really, he has a crush on the idea of her as a woman some day), and him just being a pedophile. While Timothy Hutton gets a fair amount of credit for pulling that off, Nat really deserves some respect, cuz without her end of it, those scenes don't work at all.

Mars Attacks = I don't even remember her in it

Where the Heart is = Stupid movie that I really liked for some reason...she made a potentially unlikable character completely sympathetic. One of her better performances.

Cold Mountain = Never saw it. I seem to remember hearing that she was ok.

Garden State = Great movie, for what it was. I thought again, she took a character that could have been totally irratating (had it been played by a Brittany Murphy type), and did something enjoyable with it.

Closer = Never saw it, but again, I hear she was great.


...but the others weren't any better, they were all quite bipolar except perhaps Alec Guinness.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Go easy on her, Ceasar.

Elliejabbapop
10-22-2005, 12:20 PM
First of all let me quote from the Collins dictionary, which is objectively the best dictionary on this earth:

Professional [adj]
Relating to a person's work, especially work that requires special training (in our case it's clear that this means attending medical school). Since this is THE meaning (apparently you agree on that), everything that comes afterwords is linked to this one. In other words, earning money is not enough to make you a professional; I'm not going to quote all the other meanings because they're similar and because you agree with me though you don't want to (in the "recieving pay" part your "dictionary" sets a professional footballer as an example, aka someone who was especially trained to do what he is doing).


Considerring that most of us have probably never even heard of Violets Are Blue

A few clever minds are much more valuable than all those unidentified masses out there, don't you think?


What a body of work!

That's not impossible (and I'm not referring to HC alone).


Did they appear to be hindered by having to work in front of a blue screen, yay or nay?

They looked like they were acting, that's the whole point. A good actor never gives the impression he is acting, he makes it real. Some of the actors who acted in that film were really good in other films so I have to suppose the blue screen is a curse for any actor.


Ahhh, what are you talking about?

Sean, what are you talking about? Just face it, she is overrated. She's beautiful, I'll grant you that, but that doesn't make her great....... or perhaps it's enough in Hollywood.


Ellie, are you hot?

So they say, I wouldn't know.

As for Natalie:

Heat = she played Natalie Portman

Beautiful Girls = she played Natalie Portman

Mars Attacks = was she doing anything interesting in that movie?

Where the Heart is = good

Cold Mountain = good, but handling one scene does not compare to handling a whole movie.

Garden State = she played Natalie Portman

Closer = she tried to be a bad girl and all she could put together was a whiney brat, much like she'd done in Anywhere but here, who took her clothes off as an extra. This tiny detail got her an Oscar nomination.

The Phantom Menace = excellent, she really got it.... and lost it in the other two movies.

V for Vendetta = in the trailer she is not very promising.... atrocious rendition of a British accent and once again a little too Natalie to be Evy. However, I'm honestly looking forward to it...


:eek: :eek: :eek:


Too much to cope with huh?