2005 Razzie Nominations

Hayden Christensen is up for Worst supporting actor. He is with Eugene levy, Bob Hoskins, Burt Reynolds and Some other dork. I know this particular award is somewhat of a Joke.


but Should Hayden Christensen even be on that list? I think that is an absolute travesty. Despite what many felt with AOTC (I thought he was great myself)..It was with ROTS that Hayden truly delivered a great performance. He is Anakin. Most reviewers and a lot of people here said his performance in ROTS was far and away better than AOTC. I think this is just so wrong. He is young and his acting ability will get better; and he's already done some fine non-SW work. I'm just so mad about this....

What do you all think?

 

They're just nominating him for the sole purpose of nominating someone from Star Wars.

 

Yeah, Hayden did great in ROTS, in my opinion. I didn't have a huge problem with him in AOTC but I was pleasantly surprised by his better performance in Episode III. Normally this would be the time for me to say, "If only the script were better..." but I didn't have a problem with that either, except for the lack of contractions in the dialogue.

 

I tought Hayden was brillant in Episode II & Episode III , as it was said they just wanted to have someone from Star Wars.

 

He is with Eugene levy, Bob Hoskins, Burt Reynolds and Some other dork. I know this particular award is somewhat of a Joke.

Burt Reynolds should get it easily.

 

This really shows that some childish jerks are out to screw with Star Wars. I mean, I thought AOTC was great, but it wasn't the popular with the critics, so I could kinda sorta accept the razzie mess there. But for Hayden in ROTS? A bit much.

 

He's not on the Razzies because he did a poor job acting. He's on it because people still don't get the character of Anakin Skywalker. It's Anakin they think is cheezy, not Hayden.

Besides, it doesn't help having lines like this:

ANAKIN: You are so beautiful!

PADME: It's only because I'm so in love . . .

ANAKIN: No, it's because I'm so in love with you.

That exchange ALONE is worth a Razzie award. His character is a bit cheezy. I'm sure Luke would be on there as well with his "...but I was going to Tosche Station to pick up some power converters" .

It's the dialogue that makes it Razzie worthy and frankly that's a GOOD thing. It makes it more campy.

Don't take Star Wars too seriously. Remember, it's intended to be nothing more than a 1940's serial style Space Opera. It's always a bit cheezy and worthy of being razzed.

 

This person knows what he is talking about.

 

This was a gratuitous cheap shot, simply because they don't like Hayden and they felt they had to knock something about SW. If you navigate their cheap, crummy website, all it says is "he's supposed to be Darth Vader?!"

Hateful creeps.

--MissPadme

 

I think what it comes down to is by including him in that list they know it will help get more attention for the Razzies since there are alot of Star Wars fans out there. This thread alone is probably making them happy they nominated Hayden.

 

jedimasterbac speaks the truth. I must say I'm surprised they didn't decide to pick on Natalie Portman, though - whether it be for her performance or with her and Hayden in the worst couple category.

 

Christensen did well, I just wish he had a more commanding voice. Not necessarily like James Earl Jones, but something more menacing. I saw Tristan & Isolde, and with his brooding and curly hair, I thought James Franco would've been a good Anakin. I don't have too many complaints about his performance, but to me it kind of sounded like Christensen's voice was cracking sometimes (i.e. "You underestimate my power!"), or could have been at least a little more mature and less post-pubescent.

And on the subject of razzies, I have a feeling brandon routh will be up for this award in 2007 because of superman returns. I hope I'm proven wrong, but I doubt it.

 

Basically, the Razzies are just an attention-getting device for about
700 people with no talent to feel important. Pretty much the whole thing
is a "cheap shot." It's just more fuel for our "being a jerk is cool" culture.

You know what I think? I'll bet most of the people that voted for Hayden didn't even
see the film.

Hayden was great in ROTS, nothing can change that. The film was the # 1
movie in America for 2005, so he didn't do too bad.

 

What a bunch of idiots!!!

I dont know a person around that didnt think ROTS was AWESOME, besides the fact that it swept at the People's Choice Awards winning for both Best Drama and Best Movie.

Clearly this is just a cheap shot. LAME. These people need to get a life. They need to nominate performances that ARE blatently jokes like Rob Schnieder in Duece Bigalow 2, not an intense performance in the biggest of most loved movie of the year.

 

THIS SUCKS

How the hell does he get nominated. He was so much better than in Episode 2 and he was pretty horrible in that movie

Revenge of the Sith was the best Star wars movie. It should not get 1 damn nomination

These are the same idiots who gave War of the Worlds, Fantastic Four, and Batman Begins razzie nominations too.

Ignore them.

 

How utterly typical and completely predictable.

Still, in a way its comforting to know that right out to the bitter end, "Hollywood" continues to treat Star Wars with the contempt its always done - Some things never change.

Why is he up for Supporting actor when clearly he's a lead actor on this film?

 

Well, in some circles it seems to be cool to bash Hayden. Personally, I will never know why. But, I guess these people just jumped on that particular bandwagon. This ruins the credibility of the Razzies...oh wait.

 

Supporting actor? Are they serious. It's bad enough he gets nominated when it's clear his performance greatly improved from AOTC to ROTS, but to say the character of Anakin Skywalker was a supporting role in ROTS? That's complete bull****.

 

Star Wars only got one nomination and it probably won't win. 2005 must have been a really bad year for movies. Star Wars usually leads the pack at the Razzies.

 

Maybe he was nominated because they think as some of us do - he can't act (or didn't act very well in the PT). Why are all of you acting so shocked? You couldn't have missed the fact that his acting was almost universally panned.

 

I very much beg to differ. If you read the reviews at Rottentomatoes, he is almost universally praised for how much better he was in ROTS than AOTC. But those who have their mind already set to hate Hayden from the get go, will do so no matter what.

 

I don't consider Christenson a good actor at all. But, he was better in ROTS than in AOTC. But the razzie this time should go to Portman. I would also not be adverse to a dual award for worst couple.............

 

Oh come on. His acting was NEVER universally praised. Saying he was better in ROTS than in AOTC is not saying much.

 

^^^^^

I never said it WAS much did I?

 

True.