Saga Here is my unorthodox Star Wars opinion: change my mind!

To me, Hayden worked better in RotS than in AotC. In the latter, he was less experienced as an actor and I think he and Portman could have benefitted from more help from the Director. Some of the line-delivery worked, others not as much.
In RotS he seems more at ease in his role and he works well with Ewan.
There was still less good bits.

Overall, the problem I had with the character is that I found him grating in AotC. He was too full of himself, too unpleasant and a character that I wanted off the screen.
That is not really Hayden's fault, he played the character as it was written but, to me, he was not a skilled enough actor to convey enough charm and charisma for me to get past all his annoying qualities.

In RotS he works better but he also come off as way too gullible and swallows Palpatine's lines without much thought.

Bye.
Old Stoneface

 

Yeah, if I hated him there would be a sequel where Jar Jar ‘somehow returns’ only to fall back into another trash compactor due to his clumsy nature.

Also, he’s not real. It’s a waste of time and effort hating a bunch of pixels. Typing this is kind of wearing me out.

Edit: I was meant to quote the user who quoted me.

 

That's... Kind of the point.

 

Thus begins a long discussion about exactly what Anakin should be and whether or not he factually is that on screen.

My unorthodox opinion on that: It ultimately doesn't matter what George's intention was or what I thought Anakin was going to be like. What matters is what I actually get out of the character; who he is to me.
I think the portrayal works. I believe that Anakin means well, that he wants to do good, but that he is also selfish - and I find that dichotomy interesting. He was born to be the ultimate hero. That was his destiny. And he turned his back on that, completely betraying himself and everyone around him. Regardless of how I feel about him as a person, that's a tragedy.

Would I have been friends with Anakin if I'd known him? Well, going solely by his behavior in AOTC and ROTS, where he is at his most stressed and miserable, it's hard to tell. Friendly acquaintances, maybe.
Going by everything I know about Anakin, though, I think I probably would have considered him a friend if I'd known him well.

 

It was always going to be difficult for people because Lucas combined two separate characters into one. When Vader was his own man, it was easy to see him as irredeemable because he had to be that way to begin with. It was easy to understand why he would choose to be evil. But by making him a good man who went bad, Lucas was going to face an uphill battle. Even with an excellent screenwriter and a director like Spielberg, it would be an impossible sell.

 

Vader was always a tragic figure, though. He wasn't born evil, he turned to evil while being a Jedi. That was always the core theme of his story along with that of the Empire: corruption. How does a democracy turn into a dictatorship? Why does a good person turn evil? Vader and the Empire were always meant to answer those questions.
Making Anakin "Soon-to-be-Vader" Skywalker a sympathetic character was always going to be a challenge though, there I agree. With non-father Vader, there wouldn't necessarily have been a need for that, as long as we were able to understand his journey. He could have been less likable from the get-go (but having decent opinions that would later be twisted by the dark side).

 

Anakin should have been likeable. Otherwise, it's far less tragic when he turns to the dark side. If Anakin is hard to relate to, empathize with, and the audience finds him annoying/grating/wants him off screen there is no investment and the heartbreak of his downfall is minimized.

Lastly, there are plenty of films/stories where a likeable hero turns evil and it's executed well.

-Harvey Dent
-Michael Coreleone
-Daenerys Targaryen
-Jean Grey

 

-Anakin Skywalker

 

Anakin was likable and relatable before the bad stuff ramped up, that’s why the character is so effective for me.

 

I've heard the opinion expressed (maybe by Kevin Smith, before he turned weasel over the PT) that Ani was played perfectly by Hayden Christensen, in that he played him as a typical 18-20 year-old: whiny, having a big opinion of himself, dissatisfied with his mentors, itching to go off on his own adventures. I can go along with this opinion. He's very much like Luke was at the beginning, though with a dark edge and the burden of being really in love for the first time. These all help keep the characters relatable and familiar, in the midst of all of the otherworldly trappings.
Sure, Ani can be an unlikable pain at times. So was I at his age. So was maybe 99.9999% percent of everybody at that age.

 

I don't disagree. I'm just saying.... if Anakin isn't likeable...something is amiss.

 

The thing with Vader in 76 was that he was motivated by power and fueled by arrogance. Lucas had to keep that while trying to create a reason for his turn. Someone like Harvey Dent is different. Harvey is usually portrayed as a split personality when he becomes Two-Face. In the Nolan films, he was just someone who had deep seated anger that is exploited by the Joker. This is different from Anakin who acts out of fear and anger over losing Padme. Jean Grey's power was too much for her and made her a split personality. Michael Coreleone is still good, he's just ruthless like his father was and only takes charge out of loyalty and not ambition.

 

Agreed! I would say that applies to the Jedi as well. For over a thousand generations the Jedi... We don't really get to see any of that in the PT.

As for the idea that all teenagers are unlikable there are dozens of movies from the 80s that disprove that. John Hughes made a career showing likable teenagers with depth. Heck Lucas did it before in his first hit film. He tried to cheat the viewer by making Anakin a little kid in episode one and I think that made it harder for Hayden the actor to get the audience on his side.

 

Yes. I think of The Breakfast Club. John Hughes started that film showing us a group of teens that were basically each unlikeable in one way or another. By the end of the movie, we loved damn near every one of them.

 

Disagree.

There can be bad guys in fiction that do bad things and are still engaging and interesting to watch.
"Love to Hate" is a common thing with some bad guys.
The new Penguin series is a good example of this. Oz does plenty of bad and yet is interesting to watch.

A character that I do not want to watch, that I want off the screen, that character is not engaging and not interesting. To me.
Ramsay in GoT was such a guy, I did not want to watch him as the character was just loathsome and did such horrible things and there was nothing interesting about him.
I almost stopped watching the series because I disliked that character so much.

Anakin needs to turn bad yes and thus should have dark aspects to him.
Him wanting to say bring criminals to justice or correct wrongs and being frustrated with "due process" that can work.
His fear of loss driving him to do bad things, esp with the loss of his mother. That too can work.

But him being a grand stander, this self-centered, this arrogant and also a bit stupid.
That did not make for a character that is engaging to me and it reduced the tragedy of his fall.

Something similar happened to me with the Jedi. Overall they came across as too distant, too detached and also quite dumb that their fall did not have the dramatic punch to me that I think was intended.

Other examples of characters that had a turn to the Dark Side.
Londo in Babylon 5. He had been the fun, jokey and likable character is season one and part of season two. And he turns in a major way and does a LOT of bad. He was still very watchable.

In Penguin there is a character that has made a turn to become bad. And that worked.

And the character of Anakin worked a bit better in RotS, despite some clunky things.
That he felt being order to spy on Palaptine was a betrayal, that made some sense. Palpatine was a confidant and someone he saw as a friend. So that worked.
Anakin throwing a hissy fit when he was denied the rank of master, that just made him seem petulant.

In closing, likable is perhaps not the best word, engaging is maybe better. That people still want to watch and see what happens with the character. That there is audience investment.
If the audience does not care, something is wrong. If the audience does not to watch the character, again something is not working.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

I think I detested them more at the end.

But I will admit I have a problem with most John Hughes' teens.

 

That's like saying you have a problem with most George Lucas droids.

 

How would you expect Lucas to show the entire history of the Jedi Order in just 3 movies?

In some scenes of the Prequels, Anakin is portrayed as excessively unlikable, and certain scenes centered around him — especially in Attack of the Clones — could benefit from being trimmed down. That being said, I still believe it is appropriate for him to be depicted as an arrogant character. Arrogance is one of his primary flaws, and it is essential to his character. This trait is crucial to understanding his path, as it drives his sense of superiority over others and ultimately contributes to his fall. In my opinion, Anakin's characterization in the Prequels does not need a complete rework, just a bit of refinement in certain scenes. I have made these adjustments in my fan edits, and everyone I have shown them to has said that my version of Anakin is excellent, as it retains the essence of his character from the Prequels, while trimming down certain over-the-top moments where he comes across as overly unlikable.

 

I think the point is: Part of the appeal of the idea of Prequels is that we were (finally) going to see the Jedi in their glorious prime. Before the dark times. Before the Empire. For many, it was a let down...they weren't particular engaging, nor likeable...nor living up to how the OT framed them.

 

it would have been unrealistic to present the Jedi and the Republic as flawless organizations. The phrase "before the Dark Times, before the Empire" does not imply that everything prior to the Empire was perfect until the Empire arrived and single-handedly corrupted it all. This perspective is completely unrealistic. The Empire could not have risen so easily if everything had truly been functioning without fault. Had the Republic been ideal in its structure and leadership, there would have been no fertile ground for the Empire to take root. And sure, Star Wars does not need to be absolutely realistic, but the story still needs to rely on cause and effect. The Republic's transformation into the Empire was not the result of two powerful Dark Side users taking control in isolation; it was a shift affecting an entire galaxy. The fact that so many planets and people supported this transition — even as a few later resisted as the Rebellion — suggests that dissatisfaction and systemic issues existed within the Republic long before Palpatine assumed power. Therefore, the Republic and the Jedi could not have been, and should not have been, portrayed as perfect.

Furthermore, it is worth considering that the phrase "before the Dark Times, before the Empire" could reflect a biased perspective. Obi-Wan, a man who witnessed the fall of everything he held dear, might naturally look back on the past with a sense of nostalgia that colors his judgment. For him, the pre-Empire era represents a time of relative stability and purpose, moments that now feel lost and irretrievable. This nostalgia could easily affect how Obi-Wan recalls and portrays that period, leading him to idealize the past and even overlook or understate the Republic’s flaws. For someone in his position, remembering "the old days" as better and more harmonious is, perhaps, a way of coping with the painful losses and the harsh realities of the present. Therefore, his statement should not be taken literally, because it is less of an objective historical assessment and more of a personal recollection, imbued with the longing of a man who has suffered greatly and yearns for what he perceives as a better time.

 

While the Republic and Jedi Order's flaws made them vulnerable to exploitation, this doesn't necessarily justify how they were portrayed in the prequel trilogy. The core issue isn't whether these institutions were perfect, but rather how their imperfections were depicted.

The original trilogy painted a picture of a fallen golden age through Obi-Wan and Yoda's recollections. This created dramatic tension - something magnificent was lost, making the Empire's evil more profound by contrast. When we finally saw this era in the prequels, we were shown institutions that were not just flawed, but fundamentally broken:

• A Republic so dysfunctional it could barely respond to a simple trade dispute
• A Jedi Council making consistently poor decisions, from accepting a clone army of suspicious origin to their handling of Anakin
• Political corruption so widespread that major systems were openly seceding
• A complete inability to detect a Sith Lord operating at the highest levels of government

These aren't just realistic flaws - they're catastrophic systemic failures that make the Republic and Jedi appear incompetent rather than tragic. The distinction matters because it changes the emotional weight of their fall. If these institutions were deeply good but vulnerable to corruption, their destruction is tragic. If they were already failing catastrophically, their replacement feels more like an inevitability.

More importantly, Obi-Wan's nostalgia needn't be dismissed as pure bias. He could be remembering real virtues while acknowledging flaws. The Republic maintained peace and democracy for a thousand generations - this suggests fundamental strengths alongside its weaknesses. The Jedi, for all their mistakes, were still guardians of justice who helped maintain that peace.

A more nuanced portrayal might have shown institutions that were genuinely admirable but growing complacent, with specific vulnerabilities that Palpatine expertly exploited. This would have made their fall more tragic while still being realistic - not because they were perfect, but because something genuinely worth preserving was lost to carefully orchestrated corruption.

In this interpretation, "before the Dark Times" isn't just nostalgia - it's an acknowledgment that despite its flaws, the Republic era represented something better than Imperial rule. Not perfect, but worthy of the reverence characters like Obi-Wan held for it.

 

1. Arrogant character can be tricky to play without making them off-putting to the audience. And this is esp important if the arrogant character is supposed to be a protagonist.
Tony Stark is quite arrogant but Robert Downey Jr infuses the character with a lot of charm, humor and charisma that makes him enjoyable to watch.
Holmes in the Sherlock series is also very arrogant but Benedict Cumberbatch manages to play him quite well so that he is still engaging and the interplay with Martin Freeman's Watson is also important.

Anakin in the PT is arrogant yes but not played or written anywhere hear enough as well as these two.
To me.

2. Why is arrogance crucial and essential to Anakin?
Why is that the way to explain his fall?
He could be more concerned with the goals and start to think think "the ends justify the means."
At the start his goals are good and noble but as he starts to take short cuts and do questionable things more and more, his goals gets tainted.

Or say he is loosing a fight and taps into the Dark Side for a bit and that enables him to win and save a lot of people. And he gets a taste for that kind of power, still with good goals in mind but the venom of the Dark Side starts to poison his mind.

I would say that selfishness is a major part of Anakin and that plays a big part in his turn.
He wants to become powerful, he wants fame and adulation, he wants the prestige of the title of Jedi Master. And he wants Padme to live, not for her sake but for his. So that he will not loose her.
And he does not care how many others will pay the prize for that.

The turn in RotS was done one way during production and then changed and partially re-shot.
Before Anakin turned due to resentment to the Jedi, feeling they were breaking their oath of loyalty, a desire for order and control and also Padme.
The the turn was about one thing only, Padme. But that other stuff was not all removed and some of the lines that Anakin say makes less sense now. And he comes across as gullible for accepting this "stop death spell." talk from Palpatine. Esp when he learns that Palpatine is a Sith and not to be trusted.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

So... are we discussing a hypothetical scenario?

 

Jar Jar Binks is less of a child-friendly character and more of a slapstick tribute to the silent era actors like Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton.

While he is a goober in certain moments, I find Jar Jar to be a rather heartwarming tribute to those golden age comedy actors that the Lucasfilm creatives may have grew up enjoying on reruns.

 

This has always struck me as an awful defense by people who seemingly have never seen a Chaplin or Keaton film