I don't think he had a bad performance. But I think Anakin was trying to convey innocence moreso, as a character. And I think he didn't quite nail that.
The deal is that Lucas’ first instinct towards a character or casting decision may not always be the right one. When C-3PO was first conceived, Lucas wanted him to sound like a used car salesman and wanted Mel Blanc to voice over Anthony Daniels’ performance with that notion. Blanc ended up convincing Lucas that Daniels own British voice was better suited for the character. The same deal was applied to Han Solo who was supposed to be a sullen hardened space pirate, but Marcia Lucas convinced Lucas that Harrison Ford was more charming and interesting with his character likening himself to be that image. The prequels were all Lucas making his own decisions with no input from others. He got it in his head that it would seem more tragic if Anakin started just a happy little kid, but that is hardly compatible with the whole idea that he is a slave. Devon Michael’s performance in the screen test is really remarkable that he sells that notion of the character, which appears to be apparent in the initial conception of Episode I. Also, Lucas is notorious for not providing the actors adequate direction and largely left the original cast to its own devices. Child actors can’t be treated the same way and a lot of the naturalistic qualities Jake Lloyd brought out as Anakin brought much of the criticism out. I appreciate the efforts of everyone involved with the video. I too was one of those viewers of the initial Episode I DVD and wondered what became of the actor who clearly had a greater grasp on the character than who was ultimately cast. You can really feel for him when he was told he made people in the room cry and ended up not getting it and had to live with the burden of letting a role like this slip by as we were all inundated with the marketing of the movie. In the end, Lucas didn’t have to compromise his vision of Star Wars for the prequels and got exactly what he wanted, for better or worse.
But that doesn't make the choice here poor or even if he got what he wanted there, that it would've been poor. Though I think the used car salesman, depending on what that's supposed to mean, may have seemed sillier in the context, depending on what that would sound like. But Anakin being a slave isn't the whole character and the movie itself never displays him as having been tortured or hurt or abused in that way. I also think that's a cheaper origin and take. That's the fault of those who criticized him. Maybe they should've thought of him as a kid. It's not Lucas' fault that he was mistreated like he was.
It’s impossible to imagine since what we got was so pitch perfect. That’s exactly why Blanc told Lucas that and why someone like C-3PO endures and Jar Jar Binks suffers. Brian Blessed also expressed concerns about the way Jar Jar spoke could conflict with plot points but Lucas wrote the way the character ultimately spoke and thus the criticisms arose. Trace Beaulieu of Mystery Science Theater fame auditioned for the voice of Jar Jar and didn’t consider that a loss due to the way the dialogue was written. If Anakin being a a slave had no relevance, then Lucas should have deleted that aspect of the character. All it did was create an obstacle for the characters not being able to just take what they need. It was also condescending of Lucas to describe young Anakin being “charismatic” an “wise beyond his years” when he just ended up with a typical boy of that age. It’s all summed up in the way each actor said the line “All my life.” When I heard Lloyd say that in the film (which I happened to share his age), I was annoyed by it. When Michael said it in a very matter of fact manner, that sold me. Lucas should have also paid attention to how Portman naturally reacted to that and notice their chemistry together, something that her and Lloyd severely lacked. The idea of Anakin being a slave could have explained his inner rage that led him to the Dark Side. Lucas should have really followed through on the notion that Anakin dreamed that he became a Jedi and freed all of the slaves of his home planet. That sounds more interesting than whatever he came up with before Anakin and Obi-Wan meet Padme again in Episode II. The idea of Anakin being a champion of the oppressed is more satisfying than his whole Chosen One prophecy.
I didn't say it had no relevance. That doesn't mean it's what the character's about as a child, at that point. I think neither line reading is totally on point, but I find Lloyd's performance in the audition, that I saw of, more natural than Michael's. Chemistry is irrelevant to me for this and I think it's weird for that to matter, like that, about that for a child and teen. I think any personal interactions help more to be more emotional and not creepy. I think the interactions between Anakin and Padme in TPM aren't creepy, but more personal. I think that's making Anakin too much of a victim. I think Anakin should be a victim of himself more than anything. I think the slave thing informs his character, but not in that way. Vader's a villain. Not a misunderstood hero. Not a champion of the oppressed. Not some poor sap who was just tricked and he didn't know what he was doing. A villain. I think his ego, power hunger, controlling and possessive nature is what destroys him.
And that is complete nonsense. The kind of insulting stuff that gets thrown around by people who have absolutely no idea what happened during production. Just people making up stuff to explain why they liked something and didn't like a different part, not based on anything that actually happened. Often it is little different than what is happening to Kennedy right now, where she gets blamed for all the "bad" stuff whole everyone else is responsible for the "good" things. Somehow every random person on the OT was essential to make it what it ended up being, "keeping Lucas' impulses in check", while everyone on the prequels somehow was a yes-man who never bothered to give different views. None of that makes any sense. There is countless material out there that directly proves that this sort of comment is completely wrong. It's also really funny when someone tries to take minor snippets from screen tests - which are very far away from showing the entire process - and somehow tries to judge what would have been the best choice to make. I agree. The whole things just fits nicely, and was build up right from the get go. Even as a child he was emotionally attached in a big way, and the loss of those dearest to him (leaving his mother, Qui Gon dying) sort of ripped him away from what he needed, making him cling even harder to those who he grew attached to, to the point that he would do everything to prevent further loss. This being personal, and a demise by his own choice, is more powerful.
Natural as in he’s not even looking at the other actor in the scene and making inappropriate facial gestures? That would be hardly effective for an adult actor and a child actor should not be an exception. You’re thinking of sexual chemistry. I’m speaking of natural chemistry between two actors that coveys what’s coming across. Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor had that going for them in their scenes. Portman and Lloyd just seemed too much like two actors reading lines to each other. This is especially disappointing when you know that this is supposed to evolve into romance. I’m not talking about Vader, I’m talking about Anakin. He was revealed to be tragic character and not a born villain in Return of the Jedi and there was hardly anything redeeming about his character in the prequels when he was portrayed as a young man who was arrogant about his abilities. Lucas conceptualized a very plausible manner of an oppressed character becoming a savior, a characteristic none of the other Jedi could possess and unique one at that. The fact that no one expresses care or concern that there is people in the galaxy being property and forced to work for someone against their will goes completely against the “guardians of peace and justice” ideal that Obi-Wan described them as. The devil’s in the details. Watch all of the behind the scenes footage featured on the DVDs. Lucas is clearly the boss of everyone and nothing is questioned. Meanwhile, there’s lot of calibration with Lucas on the original films. Brian De Palma rewrote Lucas’ confusing initial opening crawl while Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz had to rewrite Lucas’ dialogue to appease the actors who told him “You can type this **** but you can’t say it.” Nobody did those chores for Lucas during Episode I. Love to hear about them if you can point them out.
Natural, as in I don't find his attention and line reading as forced. I feel like the other kid is trying harder to be into it and I think that feels forced, to me, than I think is necessary. I think any chemistry being conveyed between Devon Michaels and Natalie Portman, I think of as leaning into the potential of romance, in your perception of Lucas listening to that. I don't need it and prefer it to be not be the case and find it not that important as a whole, as this child isn't going to be involved in a romance with Padme, so it's pointless. Vader is an extension of Anakin. For the most part, what drove Anakin drives Vader. They aren't different people. They're the same person at different points in their life. I didn't say he was a born villain. I said he's the cause of his own destruction. A child who became a tragic man in that he falls to his own personal issues and power hunger. Tragedy isn't just about being tricked into villainy or whatever. Vader is a villain. A villain with a tragic aspect to him. But he's still a villain. I think he cares about his friends and loved ones, but eventually turns them all against himself because he refuses to accept how powerless he is and does whatever he thinks is necessary to prevent that. Anakin can't be a savior of the oppressed. He has to become Vader. He's going to become a villain. His character is driven towards that goal. To me, this feels like you want his turn to not be developed and come out of nowhere. Guardians of peace and justice doesn't mean they're soldiers who will fight a war in an entire planet. I think to battle others, no matter their goal, wouldn't be in the interest of peace, as they view. I feel like this is trying to villainize the jedi in the interest of propping a potential Anakin idea. This isn't proof of what you claim.
Your judgment of actors is severely stunted with a viewpoint like that. Do you not understand the term fall from grace? I’m not sure if you’re aware that Lucifer was once God‘s favorite angel who descended into Hell. That’s a fitting for a character like Anakin and what Lucas was trying to emulate. No war is necessary for freeing the slaves of Tatooine. Anakin was freed without bloodshed the whole reason Jedi exist is to settle disputes of a manner in favor of the Republic. What you mean to say is that you don’t except them as proof, despite the fact that they are well documented instances.
I can suggest similarly about the viewpoint that you presented. That's not what the Anakin character is in these movies and what you say is fitting for the character isn't what was told in the OT and it doesn't make it fitting. The most we get in the OT was, "cunning warrior, good friend, force was strong with him, much anger in him, great pilot, jedi, seduced by the darkside". That's it. Nothing in those movies said he was a great hero of the oppressed or anything like that. For Anakin's turn to believable in fiction, I think his character as developed makes more sense. No war would be necessary to overturn an entire societal structure and mob ruled underbelly? I don't agree. Anakin was freed through a bet. Even then Watto was unwilling to let more than 1 go. You offer points, this doesn't make your conclusion the correct and/or factual one.
not necessarily Haley Joel Osment comes my mind when I think of: just look at the first Harry Potter film, most of the child actors do it.
I’m not the one who can’t decipher whether natural or convincing performances are better. Neither the hordes of other details about Anakin were unearthed in the prequels. I’m convinced that the details Obi-Wan told Luke were selective so that he could cast in a better light that what he really was. The idea of him being a champion of the oppressed gives him more weight and residents in the story than what we have of him being a frustrated young apprentice who’s only a Jedi because of his midichlorian count. Having all of that talk in Episode I about him freeing the slaves including his mother just seems like an empty statement without any follow through. Watto tried to weasel his way out of fulfilling the bet until Qui-Gon brought up the Hutts. There seems to be hardly a societal structure to upheave. The absolute worst that can happen in the upturn is to make the slaves have their freedom. Now that doesn’t need to stick once the Jedi Council is disbanded. Only because you refuse to accept them because it makes your stance invalid.
You don't decide which one is better. You may prefer that, but that doesn't mean it should be what the story is. I think that line about freeing slaves showcases his innocence and a sense of heroism before he corrupts himself and becomes an oppressor. What does that line have to do with this? I interpreted that as the Hutts keeping in line for those to keep their bets fair. Otherwise they wouldn't have a system of payment and such. I think violence would be a action that would be taken to free slaves. Because you're perception isn't fact.
This video clip was nothing more than a cry for a job to me. I can't believe that so many people took it seriously.
At least I understand both sides instead of just sticking with one and seeing the other is wrong. You’re not bearing in mind about who the real villain of Star Wars truly is. It’s not Vader. It’s Palpatine. He’s the one who manipulates Anakin into becoming his servant. Everything! Watto is fearing that if the Hutts are swayed by the Jedi, then his operation is over. We later learn that when he doesn’t have slaves doing his work for him, he can’t even have a shop anymore. Qui-Gon may not have been able to use his Force persuasion with Watto but he (and safely assuming any Jedi) could persuade the others to follow their way that could have drove Jabba the Hutt into his massive palace and not be as powerful as they once were. Like the Gungans joining the Naboo? Still waiting for you to deliver some instead of just denying mine. I can admit that it does feel a bit heavy handed at times, but it was a great to finally hear from Michael about this truly once in a lifetime experience. Him explaining the whole Macaulay Culkin phenomenon helped placed the mindset of why Lucas made Anakin start out as a child. Also it was remarkable that a kid like Culkin was as famous as he was at that point and that truly did make children feel like they could be on the same level as an adult. However, the reality behind it all was anything but that. Culkin had a very controlling father that made ridiculous demands that killed off his career just as easy as it started and it lacked longevity. Michael’s perspective on Star Wars is truly no different that all of our’s from that age. We all got to see the 1997 rereleases and we too could relate to the Luke looking at the sunset scene, which of course was dressed down by Yoda in the following movie. You can tell he was really into what he thought he was sure to get but had to deal with the reality of the business where you can truly do your best and still lose. It is a bit discerning that he decided to quit acting after he lost that opportunity. The third actor auditioning, Michael Angarano, who was notably the more stiffest of the actors, didn’t quit after that and is still working as an actor to this day. It is a rather empty feeling to feel like you peaked as a child, which I’m sure is a common problem all child actors have to go through. Something I never quite considered until Michael brought it up was his crushing it felt to be one of those kids, like we all were, inundated with all of the merchandising and promotions for Episode I when it first came out. It definitely would be harder to get over that loss with that constant reminder of believing it should been your face on those Pepsi cans and action figures. I’ve talked previously of how I believe Lucas had exactly what he was looking for in front of him in Michael. The whole point of auditioning is to see what someone can do without the director having to work with the actors to see how they can handle the material. Lucas must have decided when he cast Lloyd that he thought a more natural acting kid would be more appropriate for the part but that notion clashed with the initial qualities he set for the character and that stemmed most the criticism. You can’t have a slave child yelling “Yippie!” and not expect a baffled expression from the audience. And lastly there’s the whole issue of how it turned out in the end for Lloyd and whether or not it would have been worth it to have been cast in the first place. I wish there was more explanation to how he was apparently taunted by his peers for appearing in the movie. All I’ve ever heard was that people would make lightsaber noises around him. I remember stuff like that when I was a kid wearing my Star Wars shirts to school and fellow students would do that as well. I’ve since understood that those kids were likely jealous that I was allowed to express my interests more freely than they were allowed to and this was their way of dealing with those frustrations. Same deal can be applied towards Lloyd with children who obviously would’ve loved to of been in his place. Now, if he would say something along the lines of everything you read on the Internet was what I had to hear every day from everyone, that’s another story.
Where did I say that the other was wrong? I think you're the one who stated that Lucas had no input from others, like it was a fact. The real villain may be Palpatine. But I still think that doesn't change what Anakin does. I think Anakin's choices are his irregardless of Palpatine's manipulation. I don't interpret it that way. I interpret it as Watto not wanting to face consequences for not keeping his end of the bet. Not because the Hutts may be swayed by the jedi. Moreso because forcing others to keep their end of bets is something the Hutts do. The gungans and the naboo worked together when their mutual planet was being invaded and after the gungans, I think, were driven out of their underwater city. I think that's not comparable. I don't care to. I think any evidence wouldn't make an opposing conclusion much more factual than you're statement is.
I could never understand the hate towards Jake. Sure, he is not the best child actor but he's not completely wooden either. In fact, I like him more than certain adult actors from that other trilogy He sells Anakin's innocence and that's what matters. If he wasn't playing future Vader nobody would be complaining about him. That said, I sometimes wish Lucas continued with his first idea of Anakin being 12. It's easier to find talented child actors at that age plus his mechanical skills (and interest in Padme) would be more believable.
I've never seen anything wrong with Lloyd's performance, nor Hayden's. I just feel like their performances don't match with what the audience is supposed to be getting from their characters. And I put that blame on Lucas. The slavery angle for instance. Shmi and Anakin are slaves in name only. The fact that they're slaves is for plot convenience (used as a means to make it difficult to get the ship fixed and thus necessitate a pod race) and doesn't inform their characters. This even extends to AOTC where we find that Shmi has been left to wallow in slavery and no one in-universe finds that odd. Lucas never put thought into this, so the characters that he is writing don't pay it any mind either. I don't even understand why they were slaves in the first place. They could have just been down and out, having lost the farm, and forced to work terrible jobs in the city.
That’s because it is. Again, watch all of the documentary footage. Lucas puts his stamp of approval on the designs he wants and colors the storyboards to decide was is practical and digital. The producer, Rick McCallum, is only there to handle the financial situation and no creativity on his part. It has also been cited that the main reason Hayden Christensen was cast was because his daughters thought he looked the best. Again, cast not for his acting but his looks and the results speak for themselves with the criticisms he was met with. You need to watch the films more closely. Palpatine is easily manipulating Anakin by telling exactly what he wants to hear while everyone is trying to work with him and teach him to not be so angry and arrogant. You take Palpatine out of the equation, he might have learned to mellow and not succumb to the Dark Side. Anakin is the victim of the circumstance. Says who? It wasn’t an official bet that dealt with the Hutts beside a low five agreement between the two and a rigged dice roll. This is was a rather botched and lame pay off to the conclusion of the whole Tatoonie section. There’s no other reason for Watto to fear the Hutts other than the more obviously power sway Qui-Gon had over him. You were conveniently leaving out all the details about how Qui-Gon used his powers to sway Boss Nass to change his opinion on the Naboo. Also have you never heard of relief efforts other countries do for others to stop their oppression? Of course, it may not be permanent, but their still should have been some reaction from the guardians of peace and justice to relief those suffering from slavery other than a snobby stay out of their business stance. Once again, Anakin Skywalker could have been the face of this cause, but Lucas decide to ignore it even though he had all the chips in place to pay this off. So you know all, but you don’t care to share it? You must be really good at clearing your arguments with others with that stance. It’s “your,” by the way. The deal is that Lucas is notorious for not being an actor’s director. When working with children, you really need to have that sensibility. Spielberg was great working with child actors because he could get on their level and explain things to them in their terms. Lucas is not that person. He trust his actors to know all facets of their character and to perform their lines in a matter that only extends to “faster and more intense” as direction, if any. All Jake Lloyd could do was play it the way he would naturally do it and Lucas wanted that mop-top kid aspect to to sell it. No natural kid in their life is going to scream out “Yoppee” like he did in the film but Lucas for some reason believe that they did. I’m sure Lloyd expressed these exact concerns but was not listened to. That is another terrible quality to have as a director because they should trust their actors no matter what age. Right on point! I believe the slave angle played more significantly in Lucas‘ original draft that would’ve presented some sort of oppression on the Skywalkers, but Lucas must’ve gotten cold feet about portraying his characters like that. It was definitely a great idea to make these two different from the Lars homestead and makes them more relatable in the sense of many single parents have to raise their children in apartment dwellings in cities rather than homes in the country or suburb. If they were to be “slaves,“ it should’ve been in a figurative sense instead of a literal.
You're making assumptions based on certain things and then calling those assumptions facts. I know all this in the top with what Palpatine is pulling on. It doesn't change that I think of it as Anakin's choice. He's not mindless. He's not tricked into thinking Palpatine's an innocent man. He reaches a point where he knows who and what Palpatine is and goes along with him anyway. Palpatine may know how to press his buttons, but Anakin's the one allowing them to be pressed. I'm telling you how I interpreted it. Not how it is. I think you're take isn't based on what's said, anymore than mine is. I think even Jar Jar in that situation suggests that Boss Nass is setting them up. Him doing that doesn't mean he could to the hutts and it doesn't mean that's what Watto is afraid of in that scene. Anakin can't be the face of this cause. He's becoming a villain. You insist that that it should be payed off, but he doesn't have to and it doesn't have to be a set up for anything other than the notion that Anakin, as a child has heroic desires, but will lose them. In this case, I think it's irrelevant. My stance wouldn't be proven factual with anything. And I think yours isn't with what you present. I think it'd be an assumptions from different sides. I think these 2 statements contradict eachother. I disagree. I think the notion of Anakin being a slave is present even in the movie. Anakin's feelings of resentment is suggest in his line, "I'm a person and my name is Anakin." I think this emotional state isn't the focus of Anakin's character in TPM, but is a set up for the idea and something more thoroughly emotionally present in his older self, in Anakin's desire to insist that people should be forced to do what's right and Anakin's desire for power and importance.
It's establishing slavery for a few key components of Anakin's character (which could have been established using other means) while ignoring the slavery angle on a larger scale. None of the characters pay any mind to the slavery angle in the sequels (even Anakin himself) so the only time it even plays a significant role is in TPM and mostly for plot reasons. If you make Anakin and Shmi poor, having lost the farm and forced to live in a crappy apartment, you can still establish everything you need to about Anakin's mindset without the oddity of no one (including Anakin) caring about his mother being left to live a slaves life for ten years. I understand what Lucas was going for (he's a competent enough filmmaker to at least get his point across) but you can't introduce slavery, then ignore the consequences of slavery, and not expect there to be a disconnect in peoples minds when they're watching your film. Follow me on this. If I was writing a movie about a group of people who have to rob a bank... and I decide I want the robbery to take place at night... so I decide to make them all ghouls that only come out at night... and then after the first act I never mention the fact that they're ghouls again and the movie plays out like any other movie about a bank robbery... the audience is going to be asking why they were ghouls in the first place. And the last thing you want people doing while watching your movie is asking questions about your narrative. They're supposed to be engrossed, not worrying about the mechanics of your filmmaking.
