Why did the acting in this movie suck so bad?

[davo]

I honestly don't think there was a single aspect of those movies that didn't suck. Yes, I'm including the lightsaber battles...

my guess is if the first three movies weren't called "star wars" you wouldn't say that.

i think there's plenty to like about them. they just don't live up to the star wars fanboy mythos.  they certainly don't live up to a 2 decade wait.

[6079SmithW]

I honestly don't think there was a single aspect of those movies that didn't suck. Yes, I'm including the lightsaber battles...

my guess is if the first three movies weren't called "star wars" you wouldn't say that.

i think there's plenty to like about them. they just don't live up to the star wars fanboy mythos.  they certainly don't live up to a 2 decade wait.

I think I've watched the original trilogy like once in the last five years. They're decent movies, but they're far from perfect. Other than that, I thought the Jedi Knight games were pretty good. That's all the connection I have.

The prequels sucked, hard, and I can't think of anything particularly likable about any of them.

[Teaflax]

my guess is if the first three movies weren't called "star wars" you wouldn't say that.

My guess is that if the first three movies weren't called "Star Wars" they would have sunk without a trace and almost no one would be defending what minor qualities they might have.

[J-Proof]

my guess is if the first three movies weren't called "star wars" you wouldn't say that.

My guess is that if the first three movies weren't called "Star Wars" they would have sunk without a trace and almost no one would be defending what minor qualities they might have.

I second that

[Road_Element]

Personally im going with Kiera Knightly. Because as annoying as Jake Lloyd might have been. He was only 9 and while Natalie Portman wasnt great. Kiera Knightly lines and way she devilered them were so lame and dull.

[kodiakthejuggler]

Personally im going with Kiera Knightly. Because as annoying as Jake Lloyd might have been. He was only 9 and while Natalie Portman wasnt great. Kiera Knightly lines and way she devilered them were so lame and dull.

Yeah, 'cause she was given the task of mouthing a few important lines about treaties and danger and senates and such that it came across as dull. Plus, she looks nothing like Natalie Portman. I personally don't believe there was a single human being who watched this movie that didn't think there was something very different about "Queen Amidala" from scene to scene. 

[MSTJedi]

Gotta go with Jake Lloyd. I really think they should have gone a little older for the role just for the fact that Lucas apparently directs kids even worse than he does the rest of the cast. As I've said in other forums, Lucas is a great ideas man. He has a firm grip on action and sfx, but he couldn't direct or write himself out of a wet paper bag if it was perforated.

[Tyrant]

   I have to side with the majority. Jake Lloyd was aweful and I, like many here, often wondered why Lucas didn't just go with an older character. C'mon, Luke doesn't even start training until he's almost twice as old and he winds up being one of the greatest Jedi knights ever. The story could have supported an older future Darth Vader. Maybe even one Luke's age so it'd be a cool "coming full circle" arc in the series. Bah.

   Regarding the other actors, though, I think we're forgetting that the acting of the original cast of the original trilogy wasn't exactly Oscar winning either (but props to Sir Alec. He was brilliant in anything he was in). Lucas' goal was never to feature solid acting to tell a story, but rather to tell a story using actors. There's a big difference between those two concepts. I can cut almost everyone in the new trilogy some slack.

Except Jake Lloyd. There's just no excuse for him.

[Pak-Man]

   I have to side with the majority. Jake Lloyd was aweful and I, like many here, often wondered why Lucas didn't just go with an older character. C'mon, Luke doesn't even start training until he's almost twice as old and he winds up being one of the greatest Jedi knights ever. The story could have supported an older future Darth Vader. Maybe even one Luke's age so it'd be a cool "coming full circle" arc in the series. Bah.

   Regarding the other actors, though, I think we're forgetting that the acting of the original cast of the original trilogy wasn't exactly Oscar winning either (but props to Sir Alec. He was brilliant in anything he was in). Lucas' goal was never to feature solid acting to tell a story, but rather to tell a story using actors. There's a big difference between those two concepts. I can cut almost everyone in the new trilogy some slack.

Except Jake Lloyd. There's just no excuse for him.

'Scuze me whilest I geek-out on my wife. ;^) Luke wasn't the greatest Jedi ever. He was sure one of the most IMPORTANT, but he was barely up to snuff by the end of Jedi. That's why Luke isn't jumping around with acrobatics during his light-sabre fights. It's all because he was, in Yoda's words, "Too old to begin the training." Even little Ani was a bit old for the process. Usually they're raised from birth. If he'd been found much later, he wouldn't have made much of a Dark Lord.

[6079SmithW]

   I have to side with the majority. Jake Lloyd was aweful and I, like many here, often wondered why Lucas didn't just go with an older character. C'mon, Luke doesn't even start training until he's almost twice as old and he winds up being one of the greatest Jedi knights ever. The story could have supported an older future Darth Vader. Maybe even one Luke's age so it'd be a cool "coming full circle" arc in the series. Bah.

   Regarding the other actors, though, I think we're forgetting that the acting of the original cast of the original trilogy wasn't exactly Oscar winning either (but props to Sir Alec. He was brilliant in anything he was in). Lucas' goal was never to feature solid acting to tell a story, but rather to tell a story using actors. There's a big difference between those two concepts. I can cut almost everyone in the new trilogy some slack.

Except Jake Lloyd. There's just no excuse for him.

'Scuze me whilest I geek-out on my wife. ;^) Luke wasn't the greatest Jedi ever. He was sure one of the most IMPORTANT, but he was barely up to snuff by the end of Jedi. That's why Luke isn't jumping around with acrobatics during his light-sabre fights. It's all because he was, in Yoda's words, "Too old to begin the training." Even little Ani was a bit old for the process. Usually they're raised from birth. If he'd been found much later, he wouldn't have made much of a Dark Lord.

Allow me to countergeek you: it was never required that he be among the most powerful Jedi, just one of the most powerful Sith. And if I recall correctly, there's no real past due date on being a hugely powerful Sith, since they never really have to learn control.

[kodiakthejuggler]

They don't have to learn control, so much as learn to watch their backs. The Sith are all about absolute power, and knocking over/off anyone who stands in their way. That includes their own Masters.

That being the case, I was very unconvinced with Anakin having Dark Side tendencies. The excuse put forth by defenders of Lucas/Lloyd/Christensen is that the Dark Side can dominate absolutely everyone, and it's so easy to fall into it, yet, I remember something being said that Anakin had an inkling of evil in him, and that he was much more susceptible to the Dark Side's draw.

With Lloyd's performance and Christensen's Ep. 2 performance, I was not seeing it. I was not telling myself that this guy was definitely going to evolve into the evil bastard who killed so many Jedi and tortured the Rebels in the original trilogy. It wasn't until ep. 3 that I began to see the similarities, which is why Christensen was redeemed in my eyes. Nevertheless, it was still quite a drastic change from good to evil.

[Tyrant]

   I have to side with the majority. Jake Lloyd was aweful and I, like many here, often wondered why Lucas didn't just go with an older character. C'mon, Luke doesn't even start training until he's almost twice as old and he winds up being one of the greatest Jedi knights ever. The story could have supported an older future Darth Vader. Maybe even one Luke's age so it'd be a cool "coming full circle" arc in the series. Bah.

   Regarding the other actors, though, I think we're forgetting that the acting of the original cast of the original trilogy wasn't exactly Oscar winning either (but props to Sir Alec. He was brilliant in anything he was in). Lucas' goal was never to feature solid acting to tell a story, but rather to tell a story using actors. There's a big difference between those two concepts. I can cut almost everyone in the new trilogy some slack.

Except Jake Lloyd. There's just no excuse for him.

'Scuze me whilest I geek-out on my wife. ;^) Luke wasn't the greatest Jedi ever. He was sure one of the most IMPORTANT, but he was barely up to snuff by the end of Jedi. That's why Luke isn't jumping around with acrobatics during his light-sabre fights. It's all because he was, in Yoda's words, "Too old to begin the training." Even little Ani was a bit old for the process. Usually they're raised from birth. If he'd been found much later, he wouldn't have made much of a Dark Lord.

  I have to counter-geek you directly now.

  You're looking at the flashy Jedi fighting gimmicks only. Every Jedi is different and every Jedi uses different parts of the Force. Some Jedi are great warriors, some have great knowledge, ect..

  In Luke's case, his destiny was to make sure his father fullfilled his. By choosing the road of compassion instead of combat, Luke emerged as a great Jedi by purposefully not striking down his father when he had the chance. Not only that, but then he had to rebuild the Jedi Order from the ground up after the Empire fell.

  As a fighting class Jedi, Luke may have sucked. But in all other areas of Jedi-dom, he was one of the greatest. Mercy and compassion are far higher attributes than one's ability to wield a lightsaber and do fancy gymnastics.

[gammer]

I voted for "the kid".

Truely, very poor acting.

[6079SmithW]

   I have to side with the majority. Jake Lloyd was aweful and I, like many here, often wondered why Lucas didn't just go with an older character. C'mon, Luke doesn't even start training until he's almost twice as old and he winds up being one of the greatest Jedi knights ever. The story could have supported an older future Darth Vader. Maybe even one Luke's age so it'd be a cool "coming full circle" arc in the series. Bah.

   Regarding the other actors, though, I think we're forgetting that the acting of the original cast of the original trilogy wasn't exactly Oscar winning either (but props to Sir Alec. He was brilliant in anything he was in). Lucas' goal was never to feature solid acting to tell a story, but rather to tell a story using actors. There's a big difference between those two concepts. I can cut almost everyone in the new trilogy some slack.

Except Jake Lloyd. There's just no excuse for him.

'Scuze me whilest I geek-out on my wife. ;^) Luke wasn't the greatest Jedi ever. He was sure one of the most IMPORTANT, but he was barely up to snuff by the end of Jedi. That's why Luke isn't jumping around with acrobatics during his light-sabre fights. It's all because he was, in Yoda's words, "Too old to begin the training." Even little Ani was a bit old for the process. Usually they're raised from birth. If he'd been found much later, he wouldn't have made much of a Dark Lord.

  I have to counter-geek you directly now.

  You're looking at the flashy Jedi fighting gimmicks only. Every Jedi is different and every Jedi uses different parts of the Force. Some Jedi are great warriors, some have great knowledge, ect..

  In Luke's case, his destiny was to make sure his father fullfilled his. By choosing the road of compassion instead of combat, Luke emerged as a great Jedi by purposefully not striking down his father when he had the chance. Not only that, but then he had to rebuild the Jedi Order from the ground up after the Empire fell.

  As a fighting class Jedi, Luke may have sucked. But in all other areas of Jedi-dom, he was one of the greatest. Mercy and compassion are far higher attributes than one's ability to wield a lightsaber and do fancy gymnastics.

I don't think it's fair to use conflate 'great Jedi' and 'good person'. Luke may have been an extremely nice guy, and that would have gotten him pretty far when Jedi was a religion and not a magicianhood, but talented Jedi means good at doing the things only they can do. Anyone can have mercy and compassion.

I haven't read the books since I was twelve, but doesn't he become ridiculously powerful after a brush with the dark side later? It's hardly fair to expect him to be fully developed when he's only been Jedi-ing for a few years, without any proper tutors.

[mrbasehart]

I chuckled to myself during Episode One when Qui Gonn brought Anakin into the council of Jedi and said something to the effect of "I believe he's the one who will bring balance to the force" and I thought "Yeah, by killing every good bugger out there."