The Obligatory Special Edition Hate Thread

[a pretty girl is like]

Natalie Portman and Ewan McGregor are both really talented and thier performances aren't much better than Haydens.

Yeah I think that's it, it would be better phrased thus:

I've said it before, if Anakin was a better performance by Hayden, and better written in the first place, people wouldn't have had the big old bitchfest people did when the DVD came out. 

Because while this is hard for many to believe, Hayden can actually turn in a good performance. I've only seen it the once but it was very good.

Which one?  Shattered Glass?   Or Love and Betrayal: The Mia Farrow Story perhaps?

[Dankbuds]

Which one?  Shattered Glass?   Or Love and Betrayal: The Mia Farrow Story perhaps?

I really enjoyed Shattered Glass
mostly because of Rosario Dawson... Mmmmm. But Hayden Christensen's performance was good too

[Tripe]

Yep Shattered Glass, great little performance. 

[bratpop]

Seriously though, all three ghosts are appearing to Luke.  Luke never saw young Anakin, so it makes more sense to me that he'd see a healthier version of the face he actually saw under the mask as opposed to a young man he wouldn't recognize at all.

Well then Luke should write an angry letter to the Force complaining that it's not fair.

Guys, Obi-Wan and Yoda were totally cool with being old bastards. For them to look another age would be arbitray. Anakin reverted to what he looked like the last time he looked in a mirror, the last time he was good, before he sold his soul to the Dark Side. When he was still Anakin, not Darth Vader. That would be exactly how he remembers himself. He'd been in a plastic suit for 20-30 years. Same reason why Obi-Wan still thinks Stormtroopers can shoot, and why Yoda's a senile old frog. You don't even wanna KNOW what Mace Windu is like at the time of ROTJ.

[mearnest]

I, on the other hand, adore Natalie Portman.   One of the many things about the prequels that drives me nuts is that Lucas got so many good actors on board and then gave them almost nothing to work with.

[bratpop]

Like what? Direction? Direction is all they needed to "work with"? They had a rich fantasy universe and historical movies to draw from. It's not the director's job to motivate them. If they weren't motivated by the script and the characters, they're sucky actors. The director's job is to approve the shots and shoot the actors until he gets what he wants. And as far as anybody knows, Lucas got what he wanted. Now, if they signed up without reading any scripts from the guy who hadn't written a script in 17 years and then didn't find anything to "work with" in the scripts, they're the only ones to blame.

The actors in the original trilogy had even less to work with, and they did just fine.

Natalie Portman is cute and little else. End of story.

[Indomitus]

You should spend some time on an actual movie set.

YES, the director drives the whole thing, and can turn a good performance bad or vice-versa.

[Tripe]

There's some truth to that but truly great actors are few and far between, many actors are capable of both wonderful performances and quite quite dire ones.

How they are directed and the quality of the script can be quite significant factors in the quality of their eventual performance.

[bratpop]

Okay, what about stage? Isn't acting based in playing a character your own way? When you hear about theater, you never hear anyone blame the director for bad acting. Acting is acting. True, film fakes it by only choosing the best takes, but I don't think a bad director can ruin an actor's performance itself. Obviously a bad film isn't going to make an actor look great, but you can't MAKE someone act badly through incompetence. Maybe Natalie Portman didn't know why the hell she was speaking in a fake English accent, but it's still FAR more her responsibility than the director's. Otherwise it would mean that George Lucas is RIGHT, that actors are just tools to get the film onscreen, and he's terrible at using tools. Which could be true about him, but you'd have to admit he was right about actors.

Nobody noted my point about the original trilogy. Why aren't those performances to George's credit or his fault, just the shitty prequels? It's only his doing if it's bad? Just because Spielberg can manipulate a baby doesn't mean every director has to trick people into not sucking.

[Tripe]

I don't think you pay attention to theatrical reviews.

Stage plays also have directors, there are some great stage directors and some terrible ones, and the quality of the script can effect the performance there as well.

Whether a performance is in front of a camera or up on the stage the elements i described still apply. However, like you say,  with film we can add another; that of take selection. A theatrical performance is a linear entity while one on film is created in sections, and generally those sections are replicated many time to attempt to find the best version of a given scene.

[Nunyerbiz]

Nobody noted my point about the original trilogy. Why aren't those performances to George's credit or his fault, just the shitty prequels? It's only his doing if it's bad? Just because Spielberg can manipulate a baby doesn't mean every director has to trick people into not sucking.

I think that's a fair point. But I don't think it's all or nothing. I think it's reasonable to think that Lucas was a little better at relating to actors in 1977 then he was twentysome years later when he did the prequels. Even in the bonus features on the DVD set for the OT, Ford and Fisher come right out and basically say that he sucked at directing actors... So let's say that his already weak fastball lost more zip between directing efforts... That can go a long way to explaining why he either didn't get better performances from Christensen/Portman/MacGregor or why he decided to accept the performances he did get.

[bratpop]

I was only trying to debunk the idea that Lucas made the acting in the prequels suck. Don't blame him for the hole in the ozone. Blame him for breathing the oxygen in the air.

Natalie Portman has never been great. Hayden was good in one movie. Sam Jackson was Sam fucking Jackson. Ewan was alright except for the dumb-ass one liners he had. Liam was alright except the movie was silly. Ian McDiarmid is obviously overrated. That's about all there is to it. Okay, Lucas isn't as good at manipulating babies as Spielberg. I'll give you the Lucas-blame for Jake Lloyd. Otherwise, the movies weren't as captivating the second time around, so it was just obvious how stupid they were.

I mean, if you Gus Van Sant-ed Star Wars shot-for-shot, people would think it was a stupid b-movie, because they'd suddenly see it as that without the "classic blinders" they view the original through.

Ultimately, it's always been a pointless argument, as Empire is the only really good, well-made movie in the saga. Two or three chapters worth of material that it is. Go ahead and blame Lucas if you want, but the fact is that most of Star Wars isn't "very good." Hell, most of Star Trek isn't very good. Most of Lord of the Rings isn't very good. Most of film isn't very good. Fuck it. It's bloody spaceships and laser swords. I give up.

[Nunyerbiz]

Ultimately, it's always been a pointless argument, as Empire is the only really good, well-made movie in the saga. Two or three chapters worth of material that it is. Go ahead and blame Lucas if you want, but the fact is that most of Star Wars isn't "very good." Hell, most of Star Trek isn't very good. Most of Lord of the Rings isn't very good. Most of film isn't very good. Fuck it. It's bloody spaceships and laser swords. I give up.

I agree with you 100%... but the point of internet message boards is to have pointless fucking discussions... None of us are feeding crippled Guatemalans or curing cancer or trying to score with trashy chicks... It's about 95% pointless discussion around here... just the way it should be.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I'm with Harryhausen here. The big screen is MEANT for the fantastic. Spaceship and Lazer Swords are what make cinema more than pre-recorded theater performances and Lifetime Original Movies. They provide what Aristotle would call "magnitude".

[MartyS (Gromit)]

I pretty much only enjoy spaceships and laser swords.  What's the point of "serious" film? It's supposed to entertain.

Serious film can still be entertaining.  Heck, even a well made documentary can be entertaining.

But yea, these are "escape" movies, letting you escape with the characters for a while, that's why some of the extra crap added to them hurts so much, worst thing that can happen in these kinds of movies are moments of boredom.  If you are not being pulled into the screen all the time then you sit back and analyze, and none of these movies can stand up to that.