logo Sign In

POLL: WORST ACTOR OR ACTRESS IN THE PT? — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: THX
They were all pretty bad. Some actors (Hamill, Fisher, Ford) can handle less direction than others. Lloyd & Christensen were awful. McGregor seemed better by comparison but really wasn't good. Neeson was okay. Ian McDiarmid was the best in TPM & AOTC, but had some major cringe moments in ROTS. Overall, Christopher Lee was my favorite. He would've made a good emperor (in ESB & ROTJ).


But sadly, his was another character that was just underdeveloped. Sure, he was the best developed of the apprentices, but is that really saying a lot? He just sort of pops out of nowhere in AOTC and is introduced as this man of mystery. Is he the bad guy? Or has he found enlightenment? Did he order the clones? So much unexplained about not only his motives but who he really is, other than a former Jedi who traded in his robes for a cape. He could have been so interesting.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape

But sadly, his was another character that was just underdeveloped. Sure, he was the best developed of the apprentices, but is that really saying a lot? He just sort of pops out of nowhere in AOTC and is introduced as this man of mystery. Is he the bad guy? Or has he found enlightenment? Did he order the clones? So much unexplained about not only his motives but who he really is, other than a former Jedi who traded in his robes for a cape. He could have been so interesting.


They really should have gotten rid of the cheesy and dull character that was Darth Maul and had Christopher Lee play Sidious' right hand in all three films, as well as given him more exposure and fleshed out his background a bit more. Then they really should've gotten rid of the embarassing slapstick, romance and political intrigues, and after that, as well as the addition of a plot and story, we just might have been left with films worth watching more than just once. But really, as far as I'm concerned, there are only three Star Wars movies, and there is no backstory (which means that I ignore the PT). The prequel movies are officially Star Wars films, simply because Lucas says so, but that, of course, doesn't change anything for me.
Author
Time
Post link
I would go with Lloyd as the worst case of acting in the prequels. I've found that there are generally two types of child acting. One is comatose. The kid speaks in quiet tones and shows maybe one look throughout each scene (happy, sad, excited, etc). Examples would be the kid from Superman Returns and Daniel Radcliffe from the first Harry Potter. The second, which Lloyd belongs/belonged to suffers from something I've dubbed "school play" syndrome, where the kid has gotten so used to shouting his/her lines that they carry it over to film roles. And that's what Lloyd's performance consists of. He over enunciates words and his only motivation is to make sure everyone hears what he's saying.

The best actors from the Prequel Trilogy were undoubtedly Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, Ian McDiarmid and Christopher Lee. You may have noticed they're all British. Liam brought much of the heart and warmth of The Phantom Menace and he was missed after his departure. Ewan has done a great job at both working Alec Guinness into his performance and also making the role his own. However, I think it shows in Attack of the Clones that he was a tad uncomfortable acting with characters who weren't there. Ian McDiarmid was great as Palpatine. Of course, when he turned Emperor, things got wacky, but I always felt his performance in Return of the Jedi was ridiculously over the top. Christopher Lee was great, but I think his performance had more to do with his commanding presence and voice than anything else.

I guess that leaves Hayden, Natalie, and Samuel L. I bear no hatred for Hayden's performance so I won't say he was awful in the role. I think it has more to do with the lack of direction or perhaps what Lucas wanted for the role. In rewatching Titanic, I noticed that Leonardo DiCaprio's performance was similar in a way. Neither he nor Hayden are particularly great in the respective films. They're both given horribly clunky and stilted dialogue and neither really make them sound convincing. Still, they seem to service the characters and I think they work for the film. I thought Natalie was great in Episode I, but she seemed really stiff in Episode II. Not just the readings of her terrible dialogue, but also in her body language. I felt that she improved in Episode III, but her lines were definitely more of the corny variety. Nevertheless, I think she managed to deliver a heartbreaking performance in the films. Samuel L. Jackson was just Samuel L. Jackson. In Revenge of the Sith, the part just seemed to call for Windu to act bitter and tired most of the time. I guess that's the Clone War for ya. The character never quite worked and Jackson just seemed stiff in the part. Is it Lucas' fault? Perhaps, but Jackson did campaign for the part, so I hoped he would've done more with it.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ShiftyEyes
The best actors from the Prequel Trilogy were undoubtedly Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, Ian McDiarmid and Christopher Lee. You may have noticed they're all British.

Liam Neeson is a full-blooded Irishman - watch it! I agree that he was one of the best actors in the PT - I think he was the best of all of them, actually. I think Christopher Lee COULD have been great......IF he had been given enough dialogue.

George Lucas has made a habit of not giving his actors/characters enough meaningful screen time (Darth Maul comes to mind).

Author
Time
Post link
I think it was good to show Darth Maul very little. It added to the mystique of his character and any explanations Lucas came up with would probably be developed along the lines of Jango Fett or Count Dooku. We would have found out Darth Plagius was Maul's father and that Maul was conceived by Dark Midiclorians which also created another... his good twin.

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time
Post link
I was going to bring up the Terrence Stamp story because that is so indicative of what was wrong with the movies. Ever see the Star Wars auditions? They have different actors in different combinations and it shows why Lucas' new technique doesn't work. When one actor would read his lines intensely, the other actor would ramp up his intensity. When the same actor was with someone else who was reading more lowkey, his performance was more subdued as well. Seems fairly obvious, doesn't it? When actors are acting against a ping pong ball on a stick instead of other actors, the whole movie suffers. Even when actors were together, Lucas would take one actor from one take and another actor from a different take and combine them digitally. To do this, he couldn't have clashing performances so everyone had to act blandly.

I voted all sucked equally. Yeah, it was because of Lucas, but he wasn't an actor in the films.