2005 Razzie Nominations

"The films are liked by half the people, they're hated by half the people. You know, it's the same thing with the critics. I mean, all the Star Wars films have been trashed and all the Star Wars films have been praised. So, it's very hard to say, 'Well I'm going to take this group and say, you know, they don't like it therefore I am going to change it.' I mean, I am making the movie that I think is appropriate to what I am doing. It's not market research. I am not like a studio. I do what I want to do. I don't check it with an audience. I say this is the story. This is the story I'm going to tell for very personal reasons and I'm going to go ahead and do that."

--George Lucas, Static Multimedia interview, 2005.


"He (Anakin) lets himself go there...he's spilling his guts out to her (AOTC couch scene). It's intended to be overly dramatic, even operatic... You've got to remember that this whole series of films is based on a
30s genre, The acting style is very much from the 30s,conceptually it's using the influence and the inspiration of the 30s films as its basis, the most central of which are the Saturday matinee serials."-

GEORGE LUCAS on AOTC DVD COMMENTARY

"I wanted to write a love story in a style that was extremely old-fashioned, and frankly I didn't know if I was going to pull it off. In many ways this was much more like a movie that from the 1930s than any of the others had been, with a slightly over-the-top, poeticstyle-and they just don't do that in movies anymore. I was very happy with the way it turned out in the script and in the performances, but I knew people might not buy it. A lot of guys were going to see this movie, and most guys think that kind of flowery, poetic talk is stupid--'Come on, give me a break.' More sophisticated, cynical types also don't buy that stuff. So I didn't know if people would laugh at it and throw things at the screen or they would accept it. Let's face it, their dialogue in that (couch) scene is pretty corny. It is presented very honestly, it isn't tongue-in-cheek at all, and it's really played to the hilt. But it is consistant with the over all Star Wars style. Most people don't understand the style of SW. They don't get that there is an underlying motif that is very much like a 1930s western or Saturday matinee serial. It's in that more romantic period of making movies and adventure films. And this film is even more of a melodrama then the others."

--GEORGE LUCAS "Behind the scenes AOTC" book

 

First of all, people need to quit blaming his bad acting on the directing or writing. Ian and Ewan were able to rise about the material and give great performances.

Second of all, in my opinion, they nominated him for supporting because they're frankly saying that no matter what GL intended, Hayden didn't carry or "lead" the movie.

 

I know Hayden is 3rd bill behind 2 established stars Ewan and Natalie, but is Anakin really a supporting character?

I'd have called him the lead myself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me the razzie organisers don't even know the definitions of lead and supporting.

 

No, he's not a supporting character. Anakin and Obi-Wan are the leads in ROTS. If anything, Padme was just a supporting character.

But I think they did that on purpose as a way of saying that he is no Vader and he didn't carry the film.

 

Well I agree in that I believe Ian McDiarmid was the real glue of the movie, but Anakin is no doubt the lead.

 

No. They did it becaused they have already decided Tom Cruise is getting Worst Actor, and this is the only way they can have a go at Star Wars. If Criuse wasn't in the Worst Actor category, Hayden would be.

Come on, play the game.

 

Well sorry to say Hayden deserves this award, for supporting or lead or both. He did a poor job in these films and wasnt even that great in Shattered Glass. His bad acting really ruined AOTC and damaged the Pt irrevocably. IMO there were only a few scenes where he became the character: when speaking to Sidious at the Opera? thing and when he's challenging Obi-Wan. Every other scene he was tentative, whiney, seemed to lack confidence or belief in the lines. Granted the dialogue is cheesey, but Portman, McGregor and Ian are able to sell it 99% of the time where Hayden only 20% of the time. He's just not that good of an actor, lacks presence on the screen and Anakin/Vader needed to be strong, confident and forceful and Hayden was never that.

 

Frankly I can't understand how anyone can claim to be a fan and agree with this nomination. In fact I thought the previous nominations from TPM & AOTC were total BS and a result of half the people loving George's vision and the other half hating him. I hate discussing Star Wars with people who are convinced George should have the PT their way. I am 27 and I grew up with the OT, I was lucky enough to see ROTJ in the theatres in 1983, and I have always been pleased with the product Mr. Lucas puts out. It really takes a low life to go on the razzie website and pay $20 just to feel like they are sticking it to Lucas or Star Wars fans, I guess it makes little people feel big. That stupid site has ZERO credibility, as witnessed by bitter little liberals who voted George W. Bush as worst actor, did I mention I hate liberals?! Aside from that I say if you are pleased with what Mr. Lucas puts out don't purchase the DVD or any of the merchandise and be quiet and let the fans who enjoy the films talk about them in a constructive manner!

 

I'd put Hayden's acting with this right up there with Ewan's. Ewan was actually better in AOTC, where Hayden was better in ROTS.

 

That would be my take too, Rhonderoo. Not to say Ewan was bad, but there were a few stinkers from him this time - Escpecially the scene where he sees Anakin killing the Younglings, there was just no emotion there on that scene at all.

Mind you, other times Ewan was outstanding - The scene where he confronts Padme saw Ewan on fire. And all of his Mustafar scenes and everything afterwards was great, too.

But for me, Hayden was more consistent throughout.

 

On the bright side, it seems like REVENGE OF THE SITH isn't getting much attention from this whole Razzie/Worst Film business this year. That's certainly an improvement.

 

This is a bunch of bull crap. Hayden did a awesome job in revenge of this sith. I dont understand why he would even be considered of a nomination for an award like this. They just wanted to throw somebody on there from star wars, it's BS if u ask me

 

I have to agree that Hayden does not deserver a razzie for ROTS. I don?t feel he was ?brilliant? by any means but he was much better than he was in AOTC. Anyway, it seems to me that the Razzie folks took it easy on ROTS. Not that I would completely agree with them, but I expected them to nominate it for worst picture, worst director, worst script, and worst screen couple.

 

Thankfully, I think the STAR WARS-bashing trend is over; it's not hip to hate on STAR WARS anymore.

 

Be glad they didn't focus on Sith throughout all the categories.

We're all satisfied with Hayden besides a few lines of stiltedness. As for Ewan, I believe part of that youngling scene was edited down so we probly didn't get the full feeling.

If there is one person to criticize on these movies, its the nutjob editors who trim too much stuff here and there butchering the script and film IMO. Look at AOTC where Obi twirls his body deflecting Jangos blasters in the rain. The shot was in the trailers, why cut that 1 second shot that looked awesome.

In ROTS, the shot of Sidious's ship after it picked up burnt Vader and was entering Coruscant.

Or in TPM when they cut the scene of Qui-Gon smashing the droid in the Mos Espa prompting his and Anakins running back to the ship.

They cut good dialogue out of ROTS too, just read the script. These things contrive the movie, not George or Hayden or anybody else IMO.

 

anybody that can watch ROTS, and can not see how Hayden goes from good to evil effortesly, knows nothing about acting at all. The weakest performance in ROTS was Portman, but even she was not that bad.

 

You want to see weak acting? Check out Adrien Brody in Kong. Woof!

 

I don't really place much value on the Oscars, Golden Globes, Logies anything where these industries fuss about how great they are and pat themselves on the back. However this is all really just further representation of Hollywood jumping on the bandwagon. Bear with me, this is going to be long winded . . .

The original Star Wars came out to huge success which totally bewildered the industry at the time. So at the Academy awards the film was nominated for 8 awards, deservedly winning all the technical ones plus best soundtrack. Now in amongst this Alec Guinness was nominated for best supporting actor. How could he have been nominated. Guinness himself said the role was tiresome and he didn't really have to put too much effort into delivering the lines. Now don't get me wrong, I loved Guinness in Star Wars, he really does wear the part, but I felt Harrison Ford did just as good a job in Empire, where was his nomination for that? You see, Hollywood got all confused and bewildered by the whole phenomenon that was Star Wars - it couldn't work out what everyone loved so much about it so they went and nominated it for everything.

Anyway, after Star Wars, Lucas pretty much makes his feelings known about the whole Hollywood system. They don't like this too much at the Academy. Empire comes around, which critically surpasses the original in most circles, indeed it is classed next to the Godfather PtII as being the best sequel of all time. So where were it's nominations, it won a few technical awards, but where was it's nomination for things like best soundtrack, surely it deserved at least a nomination if the original actually won the award (and remember this is the soundtrack that gave us the Imperial March, Han & Leia's Love theme and was generally much deeper and more mature than Star Wars). Sour grapes on Hollywood's behalf??
Then Jedi, which is admittedly not as goo as its predecessors - though deservedly it does win for the effects.

Then - nothing about Star Wars - Lucas goes on to trash Hollywood and the system more, indeed takes all of his companies (ILM, Skywalker Sound, THX) out to Lucas Valley to start his own film community. Well, isn't George just getting a little too big for his boots.

Jump ahead to the over-hyped Menace - it receives less than favourable reviews, while the hype starts a Star Wars backlash, and doesn't Hollywood just love it. The industry punces. Not only is it snubbed big time at the Oscars, It is nominated for almost all the razzies (including Sofia Coppola as Worst Supporting Actor (WTF)??? I didn't even know she was in the film until I read that - I think you see her for like 5 seconds in the background) and it just continues on from there.

Now we get to Sith which is a very good film, it has flaws, but still there were far worse films, and actors going around this year (the whole cast of House of Wax for starters). Yet still it's, "let's try have a final jab at Lucas and his ridiculous franchise shall we - I mean why not - we're underacheiving tools that can't get our own career going so let's have a go at the big guns, it'll make me feel better about my sad life".

Really, it's all about what's hot & what's not. I mean sure, Christensen isn't the be all and end all of actors but when I'm watching Sith, I feel like I'm watching Anakin - sure I know it's really an actor but he does what actor who is capable does, he allows me to suspend my belief just enough to see the character not the actor - and a bad actor could not let me do that.

But really, who cares, Star Wars is with us forever and every single one of those people who put Star Wars down in the industry I'm sure would secretly give their right bollock to have the following that Lucas has. Lucas' films are pretty much critic-proof as no matter how much rubbish is piled on it from those "in the know" it will still be loved by more & more & more people as time goes on. That is where the success lay, not in some sham award ceremony that 2 weeks later no one will remember any way.

 

And something else - you can bet that Indy IV will get the same treatment in 2008

 

The Razzies is the most ridiculous award show ever. I mean regardless of what anyone says (if Hayden carried the role or not) ANAKIN IS THE LEAD. The story is about him. So The Razzies are flawed to begin with.

Second, Hayden Christensen is a good actor. Anyone who has seen Life as a House or Shattered Glass knows that. he got Oscar buzz for the former. True he had a few stale parts, but the only ones where I had a problem is with Natalie Portman. And that was just GOD AWFUL dialogue.

I agree that the editing in a lot of parts for the PT was awful (Ani and Qui Gon crushing the droid. I was like ok so why are they running?) And some parts like where Anakin says "No I promise you. to Padme. Or scenes where Obi Wan and him fight in the Mustafar chamber, or even dialogue that implied Palps was tricking Anakin into thinking Obi Wan wanted Padme would have helped piece the film together. And how does a character like Qui Gonn Jinn get no run in the last film. Wasn't he important to both Obi and Anakin? I would have loved to have seen it in AOTC and maybe have Anakin question Obi Wan's teaching methods.

Sorry I got on a roll. The point is Hayden was not awful. He improved greatly and hopefully will continue. Razzies are a joke all right. They just don't get that the punchline is themselves.

 

sorry if this has been asked but did Ep's 1 or 2 pick up any Razzies?

 

this is my letter - i was published in the san diego paper yesterday (i'm from michigan):

here's the direct link: http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4017

Anders in quotes


Responding to the quasi-thinks-he-really-knows-enough-to-be-a-critic review of Revenge of the Sith, and George Lucas and Hayden Christensen ["Film," Dec. 28]:


This "review" reveals much, but not about the topic, but rather its author. Anders Wright has only a very superficial understanding of the Star Wars story. His carping criticism of Revenge of the Sith, and Hayden Christensen most specifically, dwells on the whining of Hayden as Anakin that was essentially left behind in the second episode of Star Wars, Attack of the Clones, which was so necessary for the character of Anakin at this point in the saga's timeline (he was a know-it-all, very arrogant teenager and therefore tapped into exactly what George Lucas wanted conveyed?ever been around one of those teenagers, huh?). In Revenge of the Sith, the older Anakin, wonderfully portrayed by Christensen, is subjected to the worst kind of betrayal. The story is there but your "reviewer" (I will not ever dignify him with a journalistic title unless it is within quotation marks, thus implying a fraud) chose not to recognize it. He may say he has been a Star Wars fan in the past, but no fan could possibly be so obtuse as to think the prequels should be essentially the happy-lark-with-a-joking-Han/Leia adventure the original trilogy was. These are dark times; this is a tragedy (ever read Othello?) with no happy ending anywhere except for that candle in the wind when the infant Luke is delivered to his aunt and uncle by Obi Wan?the final shot of Revenge of the Sith.


I hate?I mean, really hate?that those who publish do not have the integrity to formulate their opinions in the realm of learned knowledge of what they choose to trash. Your "critic" stands by himself?no one else condemned this film or this actor as the worst of the year. I certainly respect what Ebert and Roeper and all the true film critics had to say about George Lucas and what his 30-year epic accomplished, which was near-unanimously positive. I will always believe Ian McDiarmid, who consistently and repeatedly praised Hayden Christensen and his "marvelous performance" as this iconoclastic figure that everyone thinks they own. Only Hayden does that. And he does it exceedingly well.


I question Anders' intentions. Perhaps he is seeking his nanosecond of fame?how sad and pathetic, evidence of a shallow well.


Linda Pellerito,
Grand Rapids, Mich.



2/1/06

 

If they really nominated the worst pictures nobody would care, as they'd all be lower budget things few ever heard of.

 

That letter is really no better than any criticism people level against reviewers who have a less than positive opinion about the Prequels. It takes the writer's opinion as fact, that the story is "there," but that is open for debate, as is Star Wars itself being a tragedy. Not even the Prequels are tragedies, since they end with a sense of hope, Luke Skywalker and the remaining Jedi. It's operating on a very superficial idea of what a tragedy is, yet questions the reviewer's understanding of said theme/genre. It's basically a vague rant against an opinion the writer does not agree with; unsubstantiated and, honestly, rather baseless in this poster's mind.

 

Well, it looks like the Paper published it, so they must have thought it had merrit. Just as well your not the editor on that Paper!