*OFFICIAL THREAD* Acting in Revenge of the Sith

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by DarthSapient, May 19, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: Bazinga'd
  1. anakins_padawan13 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 24, 2005
    star 3
    You're just pissed cause u cant get a girl and anakin beat you to the punch and most likely looks better than you....better yet definatly looks better than you.:mad:
  2. Lars_Muul Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 2, 2000
    star 6
    As always with Star Wars, the actors did a decent job at worse. Noone is bad. It's difficult to say which ones are really good, though. I guess I'd pick Christensen, McGregor, McDiarmid, Oz, Jackson and Smits.
    Then there are a few minor parts that are portrayed really good, like Tion Medon and Ki-Adi-Mundi. And of course easy characters, like Grievous and Dooku, who couldn't really be portrayed any differently. They are simply action characters.

    EDIT: Did someone's posts get deleted?



    Star Wars - it's full of great characters
    /LM
  3. sithrules70 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 28, 2005
    star 4
    more like 10 thumbs up[face_peace][face_peace][face_peace][face_peace]
  4. voodoopuuduu Classic Trilogy Trivia Host

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2004
    star 5
    anakins_padawan13 posted:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    HAYDEN AND NATALIE!! TWO THUMBS UP!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    more like 10 thumbs up



    Theyre not freaks, only 4 thumbs up between them. :p
  5. Obi-Wan-1000 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 11, 2005
    star 4
    Ewan McGregor was good too.[face_peace]
  6. sithrules70 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 28, 2005
    star 4
    ewan was fantastic too of course,how could i forget about him:oops:
  7. vaders_cape Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 23, 2005
    star 1
    I think you're all very charitable. I agree Ewan was good - ably assisted by a more appropriate haircut and beard - but Haydn?? I think he lacked.....oomph. Came across more like a 5 year old throwing a benny rather than a tortured soul. But then again, maybe that's what Anakin was, a kid with way too much talent and not enough maturity...?

    Portman had certainly improved on Phantom, but given that she employed no facial expressions and bizarre pronunciation, improvement was inevitable....surely?

    I think, once again, the Brits (Ewan & McDiarmid) stole the show just as Guinness did in the first.
    :D
  8. sithrules70 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 28, 2005
    star 4
    well.then we just disagree.i liked everybody
  9. Tyranus_the_Hutt Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 14, 2004
    star 4
    I think you're all very charitable. I agree Ewan was good - ably assisted by a more appropriate haircut and beard

    I thought McGregor matured nicely into his role ? the callow apprentice of "Episode I" has developed into a Jedi master whose slightly aged visage indicates a sage, learned figure of considerable esteem. The confidence and affection that Obi-Wan has for his own apprentice, Anakin, is characterized strongly enough in the first act of the film, that when the dour events of the film?s second half begin to unfold, the level of upset that is manifested in Kenobi?s person becomes genuine and moving. Although McGregor does not truly inhabit his role in the manner which typifies 'method' performance, the actor skillfully negotiates the various facets of his character so that a modicum of resonance is brought to Obi-Wan, while in a simultaneous fashion maintaining consistency with the stylized parameters that have been imparted onto the picture.

    - but Haydn?? I think he lacked.....oomph. Came across more like a 5 year old throwing a benny rather than a tortured soul. But then again, maybe that's what Anakin was, a kid with way too much talent and not enough maturity...?

    I guess the latter part of your comment is correct to a certain extent, and yet I thought Christensen effectively combined minute technical aspects of Jake Lloyd?s performance in "Episode I" with some of the more obvious characteristics from his own work in "Attack of the Clones," to craft a relatively interesting portrayal of a gifted, but confused young man. It is often said that Anakin is merely a petulant whiner; true, he is petulant, and does whine, but not merely. These constructs are superficial in nature, and despite the fact that my opinion is squarely in the minority, I tend to feel that Christensen is able to penetrate the aforementioned performance stylization and find the underlying humanity in his character, allowing us to empathize with his suffering. Although Lucas? decision to have his performers draw from a more formal aesthetic is not always conducive to the actors being able to enrich their characters with the sort of texture and complexity that their parts might otherwise demand, Christensen was very effective at isolating very slight bits of nuance in his portrayal that made Anakin seem very much like a compelling human figure. Furthermore, Lucas is successful at contextualizing his protagonist?s struggle, so that Anakin?s behavior seems based in very basic or fundamental human failings, rather than a remote, objectified conflict of some sort. Anakin has greatness within his reach, and yet his own insecurity and fear cause him to manufacture the path to his ultimate demise.

    Portman had certainly improved on Phantom, but given that she employed no facial expressions and bizarre pronunciation, improvement was inevitable....surely?

    While I don?t feel that Portman gave an exceptional performance in any one of the three pictures, her work in "Revenge of the Sith" was much better than her two previous efforts. Her role in "Episode III" is of the "thankless" variety, but despite some awkward dialogue, Portman brought a small amount of humanity to her character, particularly in the film?s last hour when Padme, like Obi-Wan, is forced to come to a very unfortunate realization of sorts. I?m not sure I can defend the artistry of Portman?s acting in this film, but let me just say that I was undeniably affected by her work in several key sequences that occurred in the latter part of the picture, such as her character?s meeting with Obi-Wan, in which he tells her of her husband?s allegiance to the Sith, and the emotionally piercing reunion with Anakin on the Mustafar landing platform, where she begs him to renounce his commitment to evil.

    I think, once again, the Brits (Ewan & McDiarmid) stole the show just as Guinness did in the first.

    After several viewings, I think that McDiarmid unequivocally gives the film?s best performance ? it is a sinewy, complex portraya
  10. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    The acting was of a high calibre all round. There were only a handful of moments that didn't quite work for me: Hayden's excessively monotone delivery of "thank you, my master" to Sidious, his completely unmenacing retort to Obi Wan that "from my point of view, the Jedi are evil!", Padme asking Anakin "what do you mean?" after he says he's "lost" and Obi Wan clutching his beard after telling Padme that Anakin had killed younglings (looked and felt silly). Everything else clicked for me. McDiarmid and Lee, owed to their advanced years and incomparable levels of experience, were clearly on another plane to the other performers, but as far as this extended to the roles they were playing and their characters' relationships to other characters, this worked to the film's favour. Revenge of the Sith could well be the finest acted of any Star Wars picture.

    Acting and Star Wars has always been a contentious issue. While the Lord of the Rings movies may exhibit a more uniform quality to their acting, they don't run as broad a spectrum as Star Wars. As much as I dislike the Academy, I think it's worth pointing out that NONE of the Lord of the Rings pictures, despite their voluminous nominations, ever received a single nomination in the category of acting - Star Wars has. Nothing in the Lord of the Rings pictures reaches the lofty heights of Cushing, Guinness, Neeson or McDiarmid, in my opinion. On the other hand, nothing comes as low as Lloyd or Billy Dee Williams, either (note: I liked aspects of both of these latter performances, but both performers seem terribly self-aware at times). Then again, any colour and extravagance that Orlando Bloom possesses seems to reside solely in his name - not his performance. Apples and oranges, perhaps, but for me, Star Wars is often scoffed at and derided when it deserves higher consideration and merit.
  11. darth_frared Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 24, 2005
    star 5
    Padme asking Anakin "what do you mean?" after he says he's "lost"

    that doesn't work for me either, cryogenic. she seems not understanding of him, like he's talking nonsense, i think it's out of character.
  12. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    That's it. Totally!

    It's a horrible delivery by Portman. Otherwise, her performance in this film is magnificent. One thing I didn't like when I saw Revenge of the Sith at the cinema were pauses between Padme and the other characters (when she's talking to Anakin on the settee, and later, Obi Wan). The pauses felt silly and awkward. But watching these scenes again on DVD, it now seems as if Padme is genuinely "sizing up" the situation and waiting a second or so before divulging her thoughts. Portman's acting - conveyed solely by her eyes - in the short moment in which she touches down on Mustafar and sits despondently in the cockpit should be enough to assuage even her strongest critics.
  13. darth_frared Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 24, 2005
    star 5
    i really like her then, before she speaks with anakin on mustafar. you can see that padme's upset by what has transpired and that she's torn etc. with her limited screen time i think she did enough. or at least she was okay. i can't really say anything about acting... i think an actor is great when i don't notice s/he's acting...

    that said, i love how hayden has changed his voice pitch for after the jedicide. he seems genuinely psychotic. good stuff.
  14. Fat_Bird Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 1, 2005
    star 2
  15. Ewan - great. He totally owns the character of Obi-Wan now. Totally brilliant before, during and after the duel. He and Ian were the only consistently good ones through-out the entire PT.

  16. Ian - great as a villain. Over the top a lot (which only works for a villain like Sidious).

  17. Hayden - horrible. Made the character of Anakin totally unlikable. Absolutely no chemistry with Natalie. I'd believe he were doing Obi-Wan before I'd believe in Anakin and Padme. What was GL thinking in casting him? This guy became the Vader of the OT? Hell no. Bland bland bland.

  18. Natalie- horrible. She barely did much beyond standing around and looking sad though, so it could have been the writing and lack of character depth. Absolutely no chemistry with Hayden.

  19. SLJ - boring. He really sucked at the dueling scenes too. That made it hard to believe that Mace was supposedly so powerful.
  20. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    I thought that Hayden and Natalie had great chemistry. One of the problems many seem to have is that their relationship drew on many of the cliches and tropes of fictionalised romances but was also quite abstract and aloof: it was its own thing. To me, Anakin and Padme's love is far more believable than anything else I've seen in a mainstream film in the past four or five years. But how does one quantify that universal but ephemeral abstraction we call love? I can't really explain why it works for me; it just does.

    And with all due respect, I think that Mace fought slowly - at least in Revenge of the Sith - because Samuel L Jackson was sparring Ian McDiarmid. True, Lucas used a stunt double for many shots of Ian, but I think he had it in his mind that the fight would be slower because Ian was the guy ultimately playing Palpatine. In some senses, it's more a battle of wits than it is of swords. Palpatine seems to be toying with Mace (he certainly fights harder and faster against Yoda) and Mace seems to be deliberately keeping pace instead of doing anything fancy. I think Mace is exceptionally weary of Palpatine and feels he is being tempted, like Palpatine tempts Anakin, into doing his bidding; so Mace drags it out, not wanting to espose himself to a guy who's probably waiting for Mace to do just that, and bides his time. Of course, this in itself actually plays directly into Palpatine's hands and leads to the result we're all familiar with. Aside from Palpatine's silly CG somersault, I loved this fight. But that's off-topic...

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on the acting qualities of performers like Christensen and Portman.
  21. sithrules70 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 28, 2005
    star 4

    =D= =D= =D=
  22. vaders_cape Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 23, 2005
    star 1
    Brilliant summation! Absolutely! On the button, in my not so humble opinion! =D=
    I think the prob with Portman and Christensen is that they're too young and inexperienced as actors - either that or they're just crap.

    I agree with whoever mentioned Christopher Lee - that man is class!
  23. Fat_Bird Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 1, 2005
    star 2
    http://filmthreat.com/index.php?section=features&Id=1643




    FILM THREAT'S FRIGID 50: THE COLDEST PEOPLE IN HOLLYWOOD 2005


    17. Hayden Christensen
    Noooooooooooo! He still can?t act! What the hell did Lucas ever see in him?
    Anti-Freeze: Get edgy and go indie, young man, go indie!

  24. JohnWesleyDowney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2004
    star 5


    Hayden didn't ruin the character by playing him as unlikeable.
    He was playing the character as written. He's a superb actor.

    There is no law in drama, movies or writing that all of the characters
    have to be likeable. But audiences are used to the same trite Hollywood pablum
    over and over again, so they can't process it when someone like Lucas
    tries something fresh and interesting. They can only see it from their
    own prejudices which is perfectly understandable.

    Most people have a very limited view of how things should be done.
    Lucas is not one of them. He understood it was important for the
    PT to be different than the OT, including the characterizations.
    It wouldn't make any dramatic sense whatsoever for a character like
    Vader to have been exactly like Luke in his youth.

    Good job and kudos to both Lucas and Hayden.
  25. Virgilius Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 7, 2004
    star 2
    I think the acting was great. About as good as TPM. Generally speaking, acting in the prequels was at its best in TPM and ROTS. AOTC was the down moment for drama, so to speak.

    As to ROTS, I'd say that Ewan McGregor and Ian McDiarmid were the best actors on set. I didn't think much of Hayden because of all that badly written love-story stuff he had to do in AOTC, but I think that he showed that he's basically a good actor in this film. I can't say much for Natalie Portman. I think she's a good actress, but I think that Padme is a limiting role for her. Padme's usually so serious and professional that we really don't get to know her that well. I think we got to know her better in ROTS because she actually was shown being mostly herself rather than just her politican self.

    I'm not going to say much about Yoda's voice because he's digital. I think Frank Oz basically provides the voice. He really can't add that much to it because Yoda's voice is an absolutely fixed part of his character. Digitally speaking, though, Yoda was great. Certainly, he's a character with mainly subtlity to his facial expressions. However, I think they did a better job animating him in ROTS than in AOTC overall. It just looked totally real. I can't explain it.

    I guess it's because the digital work in AOTC looked so fake compared to TPM's. ROTS isn't as good at TPM's, but it's closer than AOTC's is by a long shot.

    And, yes, I do like TPM and ROTS better than AOTC in terms of acting.
  26. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    Although the voice may be a "fixed part of his character", I think many people take Frank Oz's performance for granted in these films; he slides into the part so effortlessly that his talent sails right over the heads of many. But boy... does he have talent. The scene where Yoda's counselling Anakin alone is a superb piece of voice acting - to say nothing of the rest of his material.
  27. maxwell1234 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2004
    star 1
    You are wrong. Sir Ian McKellen was nominated for an Academy Award in 2001 for Best Supporting Actor as Gandalf in Fellowship of the Ring. I must say that I think Sir Ian McKellen's acting in the whole LOTR trilogy well surpasses that of McDiarmid, Cushing, Neeson, McGregor, Ford, Hamill, Christensen, or any of the other male actors in Star Wars save Alec Guiness. Even then, I'd put Sir Ian McKellen's performance a little above Guiness'.

    I am a huge Star Wars fan, but to even suggest the acting is as good as that as LoTR is utterly ridiculous IMO.
    Hugo Weaving (Elrond), Ian McKellen (Gandalf), Cate Blanchett (Galadriel), Christopher Lee (Saruman), John Rhys-Davies (Gimli), Orlando Bloom (Legolas), Sean Bean (Boromir), Bernard Hill (Theoden), Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn), Elijah Wood (Frodo), Ian Holm (Bilbo), etc all played their parts extremely well and were more convincing than most of the acting done in the Star Wars films. A really great ensemble cast was assembled for the LoTR trilogy.

    I think Revenge of the Sith was very well acted for a Star Wars movie and easily the best of the PT. AOTC was probably the worst acted of the whole saga, though much of that can be attributed to some truly atrocious writing, particularly the dialogue between Anakin and Padme. Few actors could have made that dialogue seem genuine and not a completely transparent, soulless attempt at romance writing.

  28. Virgilius Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 7, 2004
    star 2
    Cryogenic, I didn't mean to put Frank Oz down. I think it's great that he can imitate Yoda's voice. It's amazing that he can do it as well as he does. Yoda sounds almost exactly the same as he did in the OT, which is impressive on Oz's part. What I was trying to say is that Yoda's dialect limits anything being added to his character. I think that Oz did make Yoda sound more lively in the PT. He sounds tired more often than in OT, which makes sense since the character has only has about a year to live.

    While I'm at it, I think it's impressive that Anthony Daniels made 3PO sound just like he did in the OT. I thought it was sad that 3PO had such a small role in the prequels. He and R2 made a good Laurel and Hardy, as it were, in the OT. But, of course, the droids are characters to. Just because they're robots doesn't mean they're the same forever or anything. In ROTS, R2 is learning to be the useful droid we see in the OT. 3PO probably isn't a communications droid yet (as far as we know), until Bail Organa's people re-wired him. In ROTS, 3PO mentions feeling helpless when he can't serve Padme. He's programmed for protocol. I imagine his life is boring as a butler. I imagine he enjoys being a translator more. We allow know that he and R2 will get into that "mess" 20 years later. It's good they had 20 years to "grow up," so to speak. :)
  29. Anakinhot24 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 27, 2005
    star 1
    I completely agree! Hayden was wonderful as Anakin because he incorporated so much nuances of Anakin from TPM and AOTC and Vader from the OT. Hayden made Anakin be a real human being who we could completely understand and empathize with his decisions even though we may not agree with them. :)
  30. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    I stand corrected! I DID look through IMDb's "Awards and Nominations" lists for each film before making my comment - must have overlooked it. :) McKellen was wonderful in the role and I may have overstated my original case; he and Ian Holm are probably equal to Guinness. In no way do I think that ANY of the performers in the trilogy surpass McDiarmid, Cushing, Neeson or Guinness, however.

    Both trilogies had a talented body of actors gracing the proceedings, but what each performer with their respective characters did - or was allowed to do - is highly subjective. For example, as much as I love John Rhys-Davies, I enjoyed him far more and felt he gave better performances as Professor Arturo in Sliders and the holographic Leonardo DaVinci in Star Trek Voyager. I also prefer Hugo Weaving as Agent Smith and Christopher Lee as Dooku to their roles/performances in the LotR trilogy. Sean Astin, Sean Bean, Bernard Hill and Andry Sekis were simply grand, however. Others go back to what I've just said: they've impressed me more in other roles (or, in the unique case of Orlando Bloom, they've never impressed me at all). We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

    I think a lot of it boils down to the nature of the material: Lord of the Rings' acting, as I noted previously, is more uniform and consistent. The source material is psuedo-biblical and the acting both reflects this and the "earthy" nature of the story. But Star Wars is more colourful: as clearly evidenced by stylised lightsabres that glow bright colours versus the dull but realistic metallic swords of the LotR trilogy. The acting is similarly more colourful and stylised.

Moderators: Bazinga'd
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.