Originally posted by: vote_for_palpatine
It is interesting that McCallum's tone here is somewhat defiant. This is the first time I've ever heard McCallum sound remotely like he's questioning Lucas.

As for Jake Lloyd, he wasn't great but in his defense:

1) A lot of good actors suffered with GL's dialog and direction
2) Lloyd didn't cast himself
3) You try reacting to a blue screen

If this discussion is Lloyd vs. Jar Jar, give me Lloyd every day.

I'll give you 2 and 3, and number one to an extent. George is a bad director, but all the actors in the films put at least something into thier roles, which made them a little more than unbearable. Lloyd just was awful with no redeeming qualities, and I think George was probably trying to direct him in at least some small way, which Lloyd was not taking to heart. Where the blame falls on Lucas is accepting that preformance. I make no-budget movies, with my friends as actors, and I squeeze the best preformance I can get out of them. Any good director does not take preformences like Lloyd's and keep them in the film.

So basically, I agree with all your points, but something was just "off" with Lloyd, and I think it went furthur then Lucas. The shreds of decency in the preformences of the actors came within themselves, not within Lucas. Lloyd, obviously, had no acting ability inside himself.

WHAT GO-MER-TONIC WILL RESPOND WITH:
watch, I can do it word for word.

I think Lucas is the best director of the last century. The preformences of the actors in the prequels was excellent; Hayden's preformence in ROTS made me weep with emotion. Jake Lloyd has a screen presence rarely seen in an actor, and I'll be dammed if we ever see a preformence like it again from a child star. The prequels were full of emotion and incredibly acting, and the source of it all was George Lucas. And as for Lloyd versus Jar-Jar, I'll take them both.

They're both great. I've never seen such incredible casting on a set of films. Lucas is my hero and I bet we'll never see another filmmaker like him.