Hayden Makes 'Top 10 Coldest Actors' List

Well, if the shoe fits...

Seriously, Hayden is ok but not the best. And George, the best Star Wars movie (ESB) was one YOU didn't direct. Stop being so arrogant. Yeah, it's yours, and you're free to screw it up as much as you want. But we fans brought you here. Think of US.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

And George, the best Star Wars movie (ESB) was one YOU didn't direct

An opinion

Stop being so arrogant

Since when is he arrogant?

Yeah, it's yours, and you're free to screw it up as much as you want. But we fans brought you here. Think of US

When was there was law that stated you had to please everybody one the planet with your work or else you're a lousy filmaker?

 

Solo Jones,
Sorry but I have to diasagree with you on both counts. Hayden did a wonderful job as Anakin. I offer as evidence all the subtle facial gestures, Vader-esque body postures, and the edgy quality befitting the future dark lord of the Sith. And I hardly think GL is arrogant, nor do I think that he "owes" the fans anything. The SW universe is his to share with us. I would never presume to tell any artist how to craft their art!!! The day that the populus determines the scope, function, and form of art is the day that artistic freedom and creative expression is lost!!!

I was really peeved with that list because it just confirms my opinion that there is an active smear campaign beging orchestrated against GL by Hollywood. Hollywood does have a history of trying to ruin careers after all!!! Even now there's buzz that AOTC cannot be considered for Oscars because it's digital not film.

I'm still betting that GL will have the last laugh because he has been and will continue to be recognized as one of the most innovative filmmakers in history!!! As for Hayden, I'm predicting a very successful film career for him and a golden statue to boot!! Talent like his will not go unreognized indefinitely!!

 

I agree that George has no one that he has to please. He should be doing this for himself as a film maker and not having to worry about what the whole world will think. I guess if that makes him arrogant...

And Hayden is going to have an amazing career if he let's himself. (lot's of talk of him wanting to go back to school) I mean, I discovered him from the movie Life as a House and I was BLOWN AWAY! He was so amazing in that movie and it by watchin his performance you just know he is going to make it. And then there was Star Wars to get his name out there, so he is set. I can wait until the day he get's his own little golden man and I get to laugh at all you Hayden Haters!

Chosen to Rise - Destined to Fall

 

I 100% agree. There is no way Hayden just dissapears as an actor like we've seen others do. He has great potential. And ayone who can't see that is crazy!!!

And anyone who has soemthing to say about his acting....Your totally off.....Hayden did an awesome job portraying Anakin...he seriously fit the part in everyway imaginable.

 

Whoo boy. Probably not the best post to have as my first on this board, but I suppose one must start somewhere...

I've got to go with Film Threat on this one. Mind you, I'm no great or consistent fan of theirs (or even of this list as a whole, the Spielberg inclusion is petty given that he eventually recanted and made an unaltered E.T. readily available AND the bandwagon-dissing of Odekerk and "Kung Pow" show just how far Film Threat has fallen from it's post as an alternative cinema-fandom source) But in my opinion they are right on the money with this one.

Firstly, to Christensen. I'm sure he's a very nice guy. I'm even more sure that he look EXACTLY like Lucas pictured his Anakin to look... and thats the problem. Whether or not Hayden is good actor or turns in a good performance (which, imo, he hasn't; AoTC is a wash and "Life As A House" was standard-issue "angsty teen" soapiness) doesn't seem to have been as important as his fulfilling a "look." He may be simply a bad actor (possible) or stunningly miscast (more likely) but in either case he turns in an incredibly inept performance in a film which is supposedly centered entirely around his character's "arc."

He fails (for whatever reason) to convey any sense of menace, despite how hard John Williams' score or the costume department argues to the contrary: I'm sorry, but skulking around in a black version of Sub Zero's ninja-gi from Mortal Kombat while the bass is cranked up doesn't make you interesting OR scary. In this case, it makes him look silly. Even more damaging to the film, there's not a moment of real heat or electricity between Anakin and Padme, ANOTHER major plotline badly conveyed. (And, not to keep harping on the acting, but how can ANYONE be THAT unconvincing when you're stage direction is "Act like you want to sleep with Natalie Portman."??)

It's common, of course, to reply that people who disliked Hayden's performance or thought he was wrong for the part are just jealous of his "prettyboy" status with female fans. This is unfair, and as evidence I point to current "it-boy" Orlando Bloom, also a fantasy-franchise actor and also a definate "prettyboy," but you hear FAR less fanboy griping about him as compared to Hayden. Why? Look to the films. One guy whines and wimpers while the rest of the cast assures us of how "deadly" he is; the other makes it look POSSIBLE to stab a guy in the face with an arrow then shoot someone ELSE with it.

Overall, what's wrong with Hayden as Anakin is what's wrong with AoTC as a whole: both LOOK exactly like "they were envisioned," all glossy and flawless, but theres no soul or humanity behind it. Which brings me to...

Lucas. Look, I'm sorry. I grew up on Star Wars like we all did. I love the OT dearly, as do I Indian Jones and all the rest. But a wonderful earlier track-record doesn't excuse the "fact" (as in "in my opinion, it's a fact,") that the Prequel Trilogy has thus far been (at best) a dissapointment and (at worst) a complete artistic failure; and unless EP3 magically becomes an utter masterpiece... I fear cinema history will recall these films as an "If it ain't broke..." eternal-punchline on the levels of "Exorcist II" or "Godfather III."

But... sigh, it's true. The Prequels, overall, are empty, ultra-slick exercises that play more like ILM demo reels than actual films. It's a cliche, I know, but it holds true nontheless, that Lucas has seemingly become like Tarkin: Far too proud of his own technological terror, ignoring the spiritual and organic forces of his film empire at his own peril.

Yes, the effects are gorgeous. With Hollywood's top FX house using nearly limitless financial resources, the pictures OUGHT to be pretty... but thats all they are: Pretty pictures without meaning or soul. The climactic "war" of AoTC is beautiful, yes, but I felt nothing. Zip. An army of same-looking, too-perfect CGI clonetroopers vs. CGI robots... great idea, but onscreen it plays like what it is a brief CGI cartoon intermission between the "live action" saber duels. Don't even get me started on Digi

 

Whoo boy. Probably not the best post to have as my first on this board, but I suppose one must start somewhere...

Hello, sock.

 

"he turns in an incredibly inept performance in a film which is supposedly centered entirely around his character's 'arc.'"

I disagree. Have you met any teenagers? Do you know what teenagers are like? Perhaps you should hang out with some high-school kids, and then you will realize Christensen was actually doing an admirable job as a teen Vader.

"He fails (for whatever reason) to convey any sense of menace"

I disagree. When he fought Dooku I thought there was plenty of menace. Re-watch the scene (near the end) where there are red and blue lightsaber shadows on Anakin and Dooku's face. There is menace there. You just didn't see it.

"[Hayden] whines and wimpers while the rest of the cast assures us of how "deadly" he is

I disagree. I don't think he whined excessively. He's a teenager for crissakes. Be sure to watch the scene where he slices up the assassin millipedes. Oh, and watch the scene where he fights the powerful Dooku. Btw, have you seen Ep4? Better re-watch that again, and be sure to make notes about Luke.


Like Arnold: "I'll be back."

 

"I'm even more sure that he look EXACTLY like Lucas pictured his Anakin to look... and that's the problem"

[sarcasm]Ok, sooooo.... is it Lucas's or Hayden's fault? Oh...both? Ok. [/sarcasm]


"I'm sorry, but skulking around in a black version of Sub Zero's ninja-gi from Mortal Kombat while the bass is cranked up doesn't make you interesting OR scary. In this case, it makes him look silly."

Wrong. Just plain wrong. Although you perceived it as "Sub Zero's ninja-gi from Mortal Kombat," it's actually a foreshadowing of Vader's garments. Be sure to re-watch the scenes when he's on Tatooine, if you want a specific example.


"there's not a moment of real heat or electricity between Anakin and Padme, ANOTHER major plotline badly conveyed...how can ANYONE be THAT unconvincing when you're stage direction is 'Act like you want to sleep with Natalie Portman.'??)"

[sarcasm] Ok, so it's Lucas' and Christensen's fault, but not Portman's.[/sarcasm]. In fact, not even a mention of Portman's performance. Hmmm. Have a crush do we? Gimme a break pal. If you want to make a serious critique of a movie, then it's critical you examine all parts of a point (in this case: Anakin and Padme's romance) in depth, which... you haven't. It's almost as if you're spin-doctoring on purpose. Anyway, I disagree about Christensen being unconvincing. When Anakin kissed Padme, and then she rejected him, the look on his face is priceless, not to mention good from an acting point of view.


"It's common to reply that people who disliked Hayden's performance or thought he was wrong for the part are just jealous of his "prettyboy" status with female fans...but you hear FAR less fanboy griping about [Bloom] as compared to Hayden. Why? Look to the films. [Christensen] whines and wimpers"

Did Bloom have to follow Jake Lloyd? No, he didn't. Is Bloom the main character in LOTR? No, he isn't. Did Bloom have a lot of lines in LOTR? No, he didn't.
And I would argue that Christensen having to follow Jake Lloyd was a steep uphill-task to begin with. People had strong preconceived notions about what they thought of Anakin before they even stepped in the theater. Lloyd left many with a bad impression, which was transferred to Christensen from the getgo. Basically, Lloyd's performance is tinting people's perceptions of Christensen's. Psychologically speaking, I bet I could prove this to a certain degree.


"the Prequel Trilogy has thus far been (at best) a dissapointment and (at worst) a complete artistic failure"

Inaccurate and wrong. If it's such "a dissapointment" then why did it gross hundreds of millions of dollars? Why is the DVD moving lots of units? Also, by calling it a "complete artistic failure," no matter how passively agressive you said it, you illustrate your lack of understanding of what art is. That phrase also makes clear that you're not really a fair and open-minded person when it comes to reviewing films.


"Lucas has seemingly become like Tarkin: Far too proud of his own technological terror, ignoring the spiritual and organic forces of his film empire at his own peril.

I thought it was Motti. *laughs* Here perhaps is your most valid point. And although I love all SW movies, well... I'll just leave it at that.


"The climactic "war" of AoTC is beautiful, yes, but I felt nothing. Zip. An army of same-looking, too-perfect CGI clonetroopers vs. CGI robots... great idea, but onscreen it plays like what it is a brief CGI cartoon intermission between the "live action" saber duels"

I am confident that many people, including non-SW afficionados, would strongly disagree with you about this. The CGI was awesome. I'm sorry it didn't meet your standards. In my humble opinion, I thought the climax/war was moving, and a stunningly realistic scene to behold.


"Don't even get me started on Digi-Yoda, who YES looks cool in his battle scene but for the rest of the film is a limp, lightweight imitation of a character that, as a puppet was on

 

>>I disagree. Have you met any teenagers? Do you know what teenagers are like?<<

Yes, and yes. And, while I'll agree that Anakin's lines (on paper) are designed to resemble those of an impetuous (and INCREDIBLY melodramatic) teenager, they simply didn't strike me as being especially "in character" compared to what the other actors, backstory, etc., are telling us about him. In a "secular" sense, I found his delivery scattershot and uneven. In an "internal" sense, I'm not buying for a moment that this guy was raised in a military/monastic environment like we're told the Jedi Order is; just based on poise and manner of speech. Unless the Jedi offer Community College "one-week credit" programs... I'm not sure how I'm supposed to buy that this guy was trained in anything but operation of the deep-fryer, to say nothing of ritual combat.

>>When he fought Dooku I thought there was plenty of menace. Re-watch the scene (near the end) where there are red and blue lightsaber shadows on Anakin and Dooku's face. There is menace there. You just didn't see it.<<

I saw plenty of menace in that scene, all right, but only in the face of Christopher Lee. In Christensen I see what, at best, could be described as a "this is my 'moody' face" headshot.

>>Btw, have you seen Ep4? Better re-watch that again, and be sure to make notes about Luke.<<

Now this I've given alot of thought to, the notion that perhaps Anakin's whiny-disposition could be read as foreshadowing to Luke's less-than-macho approach to life in Ep4. BUT, I eventually arrived at the opinion that the difference here is in characters.

Luke Skywalker, in Ep4, is a young farmer. He's not a soldier of any sort, he's living on a planet far away from "the heavy stuff" of the Empire's Reign. Suddenly burdened with the death of his family and dragged (literally) into a brewing war, it's plausibleand sensible why he might be a bit prone to some decidedly un-heroic blubbering.

AoTC's Anakin, though, is another matter. We're told (ad nauseum) by the plot and supporting cast that he's an ESPECIALLY excellent example of a group of warriors who are SO hardcore and proficient that they carry swords in a galaxy where everyone else is packing a laser. But "the chosen one" comes off like a third-stringer, if even that. It just doesn't fit, imo, and the point is made more obvious when we later see how sub-par Hayden's swordsmanship is. (And before anyone asks, I'm NOT a master swordsman myself, but I've seen a great deal of real and cinematic sword duels to make a good guess at who does and doesn't look like they know what their doing.)

>>Wrong. Just plain wrong. Although you perceived it as "Sub Zero's ninja-gi from Mortal Kombat," it's actually a foreshadowing of Vader's garments.<<

I "perceived" it as a Vader foreshadowing, I was attempting a joke.

>>[sarcasm] Ok, so it's Lucas' and Christensen's fault, but not Portman's.[/sarcasm]. In fact, not even a mention of Portman's performance. Hmmm. Have a crush do we? Gimme a break pal. If you want to make a serious critique of a movie, then it's critical you examine all parts of a point (in this case: Anakin and Padme's romance) in depth, which... you haven't.<<

Well, the thread was about Lucas and Christensen appearing on a list, not Portman. But, if you insist that I offer my opinion on her in the film, alright then...

She's a good actress, imo, but in a not-so-hot movie. YES, I enjoyed seeing her in the faux-dominatrix outfit in the laughably overplayed "fireside chat," but she's here saddled with ridiculous lines and film screenplay that requires her to repeat the same "I don't like you THAT way" scene with Anakin over and over until he has a nightmare and remembers that the film has less than an hour to go and he hasn't done anything remotely dramatic or "Vader-ish" yet.

>> Basically, Lloyd's performance is tinting people's perceptions of Christensen's. Psychologically speaking, I bet I could prove this to a certain degree.<<

An interesting theory, but I'd have to disagree based on my view that BOTH in

 

"Let's just say that my "understanding of what art is" is extensive enough that I know that a high box-office gross is not a validation of an art-object's quality.

I think you misinterpreted quite a bit of what I wrote, and I think you did it on purpose. Therefore, there's no point in continuing. I will simply point out that you dodged an explanation of your "complete artistic failure" comment. Instead you tried to spin-doctor your response, conveniently and transparently trying to twist what I said. I will rephrase both points, just for the benefit of the doubt: 1) Ep 2 was/is not a disappointment to a large number of people. Box office receipts and DVD sales are my evidence. 2) Ep2 has many stunning artistic achievements, many not relating to CGI. There is quite a bit of beautiful art in Ep2, both in the canvas- and film- senses.



...imo

 

>>I think you misinterpreted quite a bit of what I wrote, and I think you did it on purpose.<<

I appologize if indeed I've caused offense through misinterpretation, and offer my most sincere assurances that no misinterpreting was done purposefully. I would not, (and do not believe that I have) intentionally mis-represent a response in order to "better" my own.

>>I will simply point out that you dodged an explanation of your "complete artistic failure" comment.<<

Y'know what? Fair enough. Looking over the post, perhaps I did neglect to get around to clarifying. So then, I'll clarify: I found AoTC to be an "artistic failure" in the sense that (imo) it fails to be anything more than an average bit of film art in it's own right. I'm certainly willing to agree that there is some great art on display, especially in the areas of costuming, modelwork and (some) CGI. But these great works of individual art are, here, pieces of a whole film that adds up to far LESS than the sum of it's part. If you take a lousy photo of the Mona Lisa, the Mona Lisa will remain a great painting... but it doesn't make your photo any better

>>Ep 2 was/is not a disappointment to a large number of people. Box office receipts and DVD sales are my evidence.<<

Fair enough. But I would caution, just one internet-poster to another, to rely too heavily or too often on financial data or "the majority of people liked it" to back up claims of artistic value. Though it DOES offer hard numerical data in what is otherwise a discussion of asthetic taste, statistics often don't hold up upon examination or comparison. Example: Britney Spears sold more CDs this year than John Williams... but who's the more talented musician? (Yes, a composer counts as a musician.)

Just something to chew on

 

Y'know what? Fair enough. Looking over the post, perhaps I did neglect to get around to clarifying. So then, I'll clarify: I found AoTC to be an "artistic failure" in the sense that (imo) it fails to be anything more than an average bit of film art in it's own right.

And then you went on to drag in a completely unrelated film series and proclaim that it has taken over the spot as top fantasy series, offering zero proof other than your own opinion and vague assertions.

I'm certainly willing to agree that there is some great art on display, especially in the areas of costuming, modelwork and (some) CGI. But these great works of individual art are, here, pieces of a whole film that adds up to far LESS than the sum of it's part. If you take a lousy photo of the Mona Lisa, the Mona Lisa will remain a great painting... but it doesn't make your photo any better

I disagree that the parts of the film add up to less than the sum of its parts. Yes, there are some weak elements, but you know what? There are weak elements in every movie.

Fair enough. But I would caution, just one internet-poster to another, to rely too heavily or too often on financial data or "the majority of people liked it" to back up claims of artistic value.

He wasn't. He was using the financial data to counter your assertion that the series is in dire shape and everyone doesn't like the prequels. Movies that everyone doesn't like do not gross upwards of $300 or $400 mil.

There are many movies that are artisitically superior to SW. Most of them barely gross any money at all. However, SW, for all its faults, struck a nerve that those artistically superior movies did not.

 

Thanks Shelley.

Well Bob, I enjoyed arguing with you. You didn't offend me. I hope I didn't seem like I was flaming. Anyway, I just always relish the opportunity to defend SW, especially on a SW website. I view SW-related arguments as 'metaphorical mind lightsaber duels.' Anyway, I'm hogging this thread, so I'll step aside...until next time, Bob... (=<


(note: "argue" is in the logic sense of the word, lol)

 

>>And then you went on to drag in a completely unrelated film series and proclaim that it has taken over the spot as top fantasy series<<

It's odd that, when I made reference to a film franchise that MIGHT be poised to usurp SW place in the "pop culture" heirarchy, I didn't even mention it's NAME but EVERYBODY apparently knew what I was talking about... as if it were an instinctual reaction. (Yes, I know I did mention this franchise earlier in the post, but I didn't specifically name it as SW likely usurper.) Think about it: Someone off-handly says something along the lines of "...could/might knock SW off it's throne" and the IMMEDIATE mental response is "Oh, he's talking about you-know-what." Some might call that "telling."

>>He was using the financial data to counter your assertion that the series is in dire shape and everyone doesn't like the prequels.<<

Never, ever said that "everyone" doesn't like the prequels. In fact, I know I place myself in a minority among SW fans when I say that I'm not so fond of them. (Didn't care for the "Special Editions," either.)

>>Movies that everyone doesn't like do not gross upwards of $300 or $400 mil.<<

Again, never said "everyone." And my caution against use of financial statistics was meant merely as advice to a fellow poster.

Among the many inherent flaws in use of financial data in discussions such as these is the fact that you don't ONLY pay for movies you like. You pay on the way in, and if you don't like the movie you don't (usually) get your money back. Also, franchise films like "SW" or "Spider-Man" or "Terminator" can usually garauntee a certain amount of success because of ready-made fans and "____ is back!" word-of-mouth in the media. Though it'd be nice to think (especially if you've invested money in these films) that a big gross means you've made a good, enduring film... it's just not always true. I'd offer the following examples of films and their U.S. grosses:

BATMAN & ROBIN: $187.285 million
GODZILLA (1998): $208.6 million
PEARL HARBOR: $198.539 million

(source: IMDB.com)

Not to say AoTC belongs ranked among THESE particular non-luminaries (TPM is another story altogether) just, once again, something to chew on.

 

Thanks Shelley.

You're welcome.

Don't leave! You're not "hogging the thread."


It's odd that, when I made reference to a film franchise that MIGHT be poised to usurp SW place in the "pop culture" heirarchy, I didn't even mention it's NAME but EVERYBODY apparently knew what I was talking about...as if it were an instinctual reaction. (Yes, I know I did mention this franchise earlier in the post, but I didn't specifically name it as SW likely usurper.)

Nice try. You mentioned it earlier in your post to extol the performance of a bit player at the expense of one of the main players of AOTC. It is not an "instinctual reaction," it is a weary acknowledgement of the barrage of "LOTR is going to kill off SW" crap that has pervaded the media, and this site, for well over a year.

Think about it: Someone off-handly says something along the lines of "...could/might knock SW off it's throne" and the IMMEDIATE mental response is "Oh, he's talking about you-know-what." Some might call that "telling."

Some might call that "wishful thinking."

Never, ever said that "everyone" doesn't like the prequels. In fact, I know I place myself in a minority among SW fans when I say that I'm not so fond of them. (Didn't care for the "Special Editions," either.)

Then why did you generalize like you did? You do not like the SEs or the prequels. That does not mean the series is in dire shape or that another series is primed to take over.

Among the many inherent flaws in use of financial data in discussions such as these is the fact that you don't ONLY pay for movies you like. You pay on the way in, and if you don't like the movie you don't (usually) get your money back. Also, franchise films like "SW" or "Spider-Man" or "Terminator" can usually garauntee a certain amount of success because of ready-made fans and "____ is back!" word-of-mouth in the media.

And if word-of-mouth is bad, the movie may open big but drop very quickly, as has happened with any number of blockbusters. It didn't, however, happen with TPM or AOTC.

Though it'd be nice to think (especially if you've invested money in these films) that a big gross means you've made a good, enduring film... it's just not always true. I'd offer the following examples of films and their U.S. grosses:

BATMAN & ROBIN: $187.285 million
GODZILLA (1998): $208.6 million
PEARL HARBOR: $198.539 million

All of those fall short by $100 million or more of AOTC and TPM. It's not that hard for a hyped-up blockbuster to scare up roughly $200 mil. But unless people like said blockbuster, it's not common for something to gross upwards of $300 or $400 mil. If it was, every blockbuster would.

Not to say AoTC belongs ranked among THESE particular non-luminaries (TPM is another story altogether) just, once again, something to chew on.

Not a whole lot to chew on.

 

>>Nice try. You mentioned it earlier in your post to extol the performance of a bit player at the expense of one of the main players of AOTC.<<

I... believe I indeed pointed that out in the original post. Also, bit-player? I'm not going to elaborate much on this (it's really the wrong thread to do so) except to question that label. The "player" in question has a roughly-equivalent percentage of screen time in his film as Jango Fett does in AoTC.

>>the barrage of "LOTR is going to kill off SW" crap that has pervaded the media, and this site, for well over a year.<<

Film franchises can't "kill" one-another off, no matter what overzealous entertainment writers like to say. They're art-objects, not woodland beasts. Art can only be "killed" by it's creator, whether intentional (R. Crumb and "Fritz The Cat") or through mishandling (Lucas and The Prequels, imo.)

What CAN happen, though, is that a franchises "place" in the collective minds of the pop-culture consuming public can be lost or usurped. Currently, I believe, in the wake of two prequels, one awful (TPM) and one too-little-too-late (AoTC), SW has lost it's place as the unchallenged, unstoppable tip-top of cinematic fantasy. What was once the unassailable, monolithic PROOF of the fantasy genre's legitimacy by movie geeks everywhere has been made weaker, easier to mock, easier to deride. It's becoming "just another franchise, some of it good, some of it not," and it's sad.

Now, whether or not "SW" lost place will be USURPED is another story. Right now, imo, the "throne" at the top of the fantasy-franchise heap is empty for the first time since the 1970s. Right now, imo, it's looking more and more likely that LOTR may soon take it's seat there. If so, so be it. It's (thus far) an utterly glorious set of films... the first films in a long, long while that have reminded me why I started going to films like this in the first place.

BUT, that doesn't mean that, should such happen, I'm in ANY way glad to see SW "fall." Putting aside the personal affection I had for the OT (pre-SE,) "SW" at it's peak MEANT something tremendously important to the world of cinema. Before SW, all major franchises were based on something else, i.e. "the film" of a novel, "the film" of a play, "the film" of a comic strip, TV series, legend, what-have-you.

SW was the FIRST to successfully move in the opposite direction: To be a film FIRST and then to filter off into books, toys, models, TV, comics, etc. "Star Wars" was and is the first Great Legend to be born of the cinema. It was, and is, proof-positive that film is just as viable a place to nurture stories as any other format... and NOTHING, not bad dialogue, not Jar-Jar's shuffle, not "Yippeeee!," not Christensen's spastic bottom lip, not even Lucas' own seeming indifference, can take that away from it.

Will "Star Wars" be overtaken, in the general (and, it must be said, fickle) mindset of the popular culture? Probably, yes, imo. And if it comes to pass, it will do so not because of LOTR fans or the media or anything else... it will do so because, sadly, someone should have left well enough alone. BUT, I also think, that down the road the reputation of the OT will survive the debacle of the prequels, much in the way "The Godfather" survived it's disasterous third installment. Maybe it will even be a "growing up" experience for the franchise-handlers and us fans. Maybe we (and they) "needed" The Prequels as a reminder of "mortality," much in the same way Star Trek probably "needed" Voyager to do the same.

>>You do not like the SEs or the prequels. That does not mean the series is in dire shape or that another series is primed to take over.<<

No, certainly not. It means that *I* think the series is in dire shape. I had assumed that, as this is a board about film discussion, that posters would be given the benefit of the doubt in assuming that they KNOW that what they are posting is all opinion, to begin with.

 

GeekBob,

GL showing Watto test to Oz? Is this on the EP1 DVD? In what doc?

Just curious to see what you are talking about...

And, if I might add a comment of my own:

OT was about emotions and feelings. "Trust your feelings". Stone-Age ewoks defeating Imperials with Blasters. Emotions are good, technology was evil. Clothing was simple.

PT is about technologies. "Don't let your feelings get in the way". Technology is good, emotions are evil. In fact, love is what lead Anakin to the dark side. The Jedi is a heartless order.

What I'm trying to say is that the "wooden" performances and the lack of emotion in the movie perhaps is intentional. The Jedi are supposed to have no emotions. No attachments. The love of a son for his mother is bad. GL says Anakin is selfish because he tries to save his mother when he finds out she is suffering terribly. What kind of normal person wouldn't do so? So is he supposed to "let go", because "dreams pass in time"? No wonder the "arc" didn't work, perhaps the idea didn't made much sense, so there was no way to act it. The problem might not be so much with the acting, but with the overall story. The political part, the plots of Sidious/Palpatine are very cool. But Anakin turning into Vader isn't quite working. He was supposed to be seduced by the dark side. Now he ends up on the dark side because he had too much attachments. It's quite different.

But clothing, however, is fantastic. Good point with the faux dominatrix outfit Portman used on the fireplace scene. In fact, did you know that George Lucas personallu designed that outfit? And that it was incredblu tight? Portman says that herself on the EP2 documentary.

 

I... believe I indeed pointed that out in the original post.

I know you did. And I elaborated on why it is not "telling" to know which film franchise you were talking about -- at least not "telling" in the way you said.

Also, bit-player? I'm not going to elaborate much on this (it's really the wrong thread to do so) except to question that label. The "player" in question has a roughly-equivalent percentage of screen time in his film as Jango Fett does in AoTC.

And Jango Fett was a bit player.

Film franchises can't "kill" one-another off, no matter what overzealous entertainment writers like to say. They're art-objects, not woodland beasts. Art can only be "killed" by it's creator, whether intentional (R. Crumb and "Fritz The Cat") or through mishandling (Lucas and The Prequels, imo.)

What CAN happen, though, is that a franchises "place" in the collective minds of the pop-culture consuming public can be lost or usurped. Currently, I believe, in the wake of two prequels, one awful (TPM) and one too-little-too-late (AoTC), SW has lost it's place as the unchallenged, unstoppable tip-top of cinematic fantasy.

Not really. You'd be surprised at how many people like the prequels. For all the disappointed whining fans who keep claiming they'll leave for another "cooler" series (but never get past talking about it -- I wish they would make good on their word and leave SW to those of us who like it), there are other people who became fans because of the prequels.

What was once the unassailable, monolithic PROOF of the fantasy genre's legitimacy by movie geeks everywhere has been made weaker, easier to mock, easier to deride.

You must be joking. Were you around during the mid- to late-80s? Because that was when SW was considered the least cool thing around, when any mention of it made in the media was to say something derogatory, when if you were a SW fan you had to keep quiet about it because admitting it was tantamount to putting a big "Kick Me" sign on your back.

It's becoming "just another franchise, some of it good, some of it not," and it's sad.

Proof of this?

Now, whether or not "SW" lost place will be USURPED is another story. Right now, imo, the "throne" at the top of the fantasy-franchise heap is empty for the first time since the 1970s. Right now, imo, it's looking more and more likely that LOTR may soon take it's seat there.

I doubt it. FOTR wasn't as universally beloved as you might think, and LOTR was already firmly entrenched as the premier fantasy book series before SW was even a twinkle in Lucas's eye. The movie series is given an undeserved sheen of quality because it is based on the books, which transcended the fantasy genre and are regarded as literature. People are prepared to love it because it is the first live-action adaptation of unfilmable books, and even though I consider it wildly overrated I will say that Jackson, et al did a decent job.

I recall USA Today's assessment of FOTR (it gave it as many stars --three -- as TPM, by the way -- and it also gave both TTT and AOTC three and a half stars), quoting a viewer after it was over: "It bored me, but I thought it was good." The critic said something like, "Contradictory as that sounds, it sums up the movie nicely."

If so, so be it. It's (thus far) an utterly glorious set of films... the first films in a long, long while that have reminded me why I started going to films like this in the first place.

Good for you. There's a site called TheOneRing.net that is designed just for people like you. Why are you hanging out on a site devoted to movies you think are inferior? And I don't believe for one second that you are new. Everything about you screams "sock."

BUT, that doesn't mean that, should such happen, I'm in ANY way glad to see SW "fall."

Sure you aren't.

SW was the FIRST to successfully move in the opposite direction: To be a film FIRST and then to filter off into books, toys, models, TV, comics, etc. "Star Wars" was and is the first Great

 

He is being seduced by the Dark Side. It's obvious he and Palpatine have a relationship that Obi Wan is totally unaware of, and Palpatine has slowly been gaining influence over Anakin. What, exactly, did you want to see?

Obvious? Uware off? It is the concil who tel Anakin to go speak with Palpatine. Anakin don't go seeing people the concil doesn't order him too. He might like Palpatine, but I think that if he had to disobey the Concil he would see Padmé.

 

Obvious? Uware off? It is the concil who tel Anakin to go speak with Palpatine. Anakin don't go seeing people the concil doesn't order him too.

Yes he does.

He might like Palpatine, but I think that if he had to disobey the Concil he would see Padmé.

Their conversation quickly turns from Padme to the personal relationship between Anakin and Palpatine: "So, they've finally given you an assignment. Your patience has paid off." "Your guidance more than my patience."

Palpatine has been guiding Anakin.

Then there's stuff about Anakin being the most gifted Jedi Palpatine has ever met.

 

>>And Jango Fett was a bit player.<<

Fair enough, then.

Although, I'd regard Fett as far more than a bit player; just based on his importance to the story of AoTC and his effect on the plot as a whole. But this, like all else, is all a matter of opinion.

>>Not really. You'd be surprised at how many people like the prequels.<<

Trust me, nothing surprises me more

>>I wish they would make good on their word and leave SW to those of us who like it<<

I'm sorry, I was unaware that this board/site was ONLY for people who unquestioningly and unconditionally love everything related to SW.

I'm just a fan, who happens to be less than thrilled with the current state of things, attempting to engage fellow fans in discussion.

>>You must be joking. Were you around during the mid- to late-80s?<<

It seems our memory of the 1980s differs.

>>Proof of this?<<

Did you SEE the last two films? (JOKING! That was a joke, please stop the flames, folks.) Seriously, though. Anything expressed in these posts is my opinion and mine alone. Artistic value cannot be "proven" or "disproven," so it's all opinion. (And, thus, not something to get SO worked up over.)

>>There's a site called TheOneRing.net that is designed just for people like you.<<

TheOneRing.net is designed for lifelong devoted Star Wars fans who just don't care for much of the PT? Strange... I thought it was all about Tolkien fans

>>Why are you hanging out on a site devoted to movies you think are inferior?<<

Because the site is ALSO devoted to movies I think are SUPERIOR.

>>Everything about you screams "sock."<<

What is a sock? I'm sorry, it may be lingo I'm unfamiliar with. I assure you, with complete sincerity, that I have NEVER posted to these boards before. I HAVE read them before, on occasion, when new SW news stories hit the net, but I never posted until now.

>>Sure you aren't.<<

I'm not. And I've already offered more than enough reasons as to why.

>>What about his "shuffle"?<<

The ridiculous manner in which he walks/moves. If I had this to post over again, I would change this word, as I realize how it could be construed to imply that I buy into the "Jar Jar is racist stereotype" B.S. I want it known that I do not, and find such comparisons to be utterly without base and inane.

>>Oh my gosh! A nine-year-old kid yelling "Yippee!"<<

Oh my gosh! A child actor who can't even sell "glee!"

>>"Spastic bottom lip"?<<

I got sick of calling him "whiny." Seriously, go back and look. This guy's lower lip does more acting than his entire body.

>>Can you give evidence of his "indifference"?<<

I'd generally say that the PT is all the evidence one needs... but that's all "opinion," (like, again, EVERYTHING ELSE.)

>>Then why are you complaining?<<

Not complaining, merely criticizing.

>>And you're basing this on...?<<

...Opinion, just like everything else. I'm just offering an opinion. You disagree. Good! It makes for healthy debate and keeps the mind intellectually sharp.

>>What debacle?<<

I see a debacle. You don't. Both opinions are valid.

>>"We"?<<

As in "Star Wars Fans," (and, for the last time, IMO.)

>>Yet you continue to act as if you speak for everyone, which you most certainly don't.<<

Never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. If that was somehow implied, I do appologize for my (apparent) lack of tact.

 

I'll say one thing about Anakin, people neither like him nor hate him.



Take that as you will.


As for the prequels, it used to be, that every Star Wars movie was good in it's own right. Each movie was worth it, by itself.

Now we're just constantly "Setting up".

In any case, that's in my opinion.

 

::dumbfounded::

I don't think I have ever felt so flabergasted in my entire life!

First I would like to state that after the thrid response from GeekBob, I stopped reading the posts, (time sake...i have a figure skating test to leave for in mintues) but I have read enough.

There are so many thoughts flying through my head right now and so many things I would love to just blurt out, but I am just overwhelmed. Absolutly flabergasted.

After reading everything that Bobby Boy here has said I have one definate question that sticks out in my mind...

Why are you even here? This is a Star Wars FAN site, and all you have done is bashed the actors, the plot, the effects...EVERY FREAKN' ASPECT of the movies! Outragous.

Of course it is all of your opinon and that is for sure cool...but do you have anything good to say? I think if I knew you in person I would quickly become a depressant just listening to you talk.
Oh! That was harsh and I didn't mean it like that...but it's just that everything I love you have destroyed to the bitter end.

Meow.

Chosen to Rise - Destined to Fall

 

Fair enough, then.

Although, I'd regard Fett as far more than a bit player; just based on his importance to the story of AoTC and his effect on the plot as a whole. But this, like all else, is all a matter of opinion.

I'm not sure what it is you're saying here.

Trust me, nothing surprises me more

Because only your opinion is the right one?

I'm sorry, I was unaware that this board/site was ONLY for people who unquestioningly and unconditionally love everything related to SW.

I wondered when you were going to start in on the "unquestioning love" crap. I don't love everything related to SW at all. I hate most of the EU. I dislike parts of the movies. I don't much care for some of the characters in the movies.

I'm just a fan, who happens to be less than thrilled with the current state of things, attempting to engage fellow fans in discussion.

What you're attempting to do is start trouble.

It seems our memory of the 1980s differs.

What is your memory?

Did you SEE the last two films? (JOKING! That was a joke, please stop the flames, folks.) Seriously, though. Anything expressed in these posts is my opinion and mine alone. Artistic value cannot be "proven" or "disproven," so it's all opinion. (And, thus, not something to get SO worked up over.)

TheOneRing.net is designed for lifelong devoted Star Wars fans who just don't care for much of the PT? Strange... I thought it was all about Tolkien fans

You disregarded what I said. You sang the praises of LOTR. I said there is a site out there for you, it's called TheOneRing.net.

Because the site is ALSO devoted to movies I think are SUPERIOR.

Could have fooled me.

What is a sock? I'm sorry, it may be lingo I'm unfamiliar with. I assure you, with complete sincerity, that I have NEVER posted to these boards before.

I very much doubt that. In any case, a sock is another user name someone posts under when they want to say something inflammatory.

I'm not. And I've already offered more than enough reasons as to why.

And the smug way in which you write gives me the impression you are overjoyed that (in your opinion) SW is on the decline.

The ridiculous manner in which he walks/moves.

What's ridiculous about it?

Oh my gosh! A child actor who can't even sell "glee!"

Sell it?

I got sick of calling him "whiny." Seriously, go back and look. This guy's lower lip does more acting than his entire body.

Uh...yeah. His chin shakes when he makes his confession to Padme, but other than that, it isn't his fault his lower lip is noticeably full.

I'd generally say that the PT is all the evidence one needs...

How?

Not complaining, merely criticizing.

You're complaining. You haven't said a single good thing about the prequels, and needlessly dragged in LOTR, a topic you had to know would get a reaction if, as you claim, you never posted here before but just lurked.

Never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. If that was somehow implied, I do appologize for my (apparent) lack of tact.

Apology accepted.