STAR WARS PREQUELS - a love/hate relationship

[HAL.9000]

There was no evolution of Vader as a character, and quite frankly I found it hard to accept that Vader at the end of Sith was the former Anakin Skywalker. He just came across as Vader from A new Hope.

Although not a movie and AFAIK not even technically considered Canon, James Luceno's "Dark Lord" novel helps show the transformation from Anakin to the fearsome Sith Lord and Jedi hunter that we see in the OT. It's a good read and also deals a little bit with some Jedi survivors (newly created characters) from Order 66 and how they adapt to the loss of the Order. Matthew Stover's novelization of ROTS also helps flesh out some of the reasoning for Anakin's ultimate betrayal of the Jedi Order and fall to the dark side better than what we see in the movie.

Figures. As always, the book is always better than the movie I'm afraid.

I need to read the book someday. Maybe it will soften my opinion of the movies by filling in the blanks. Still, a movie should stand on its own merits, and if Lucas failed to relay the essential subtleties in the book, then it's his fault for all the criticism concerning the prequels.

Thanks for that bit of info.

 

[Biffette]

I think the reason Attack of the Clones and to a lesser extent Revenge of the Sith were let-downs is due entirely to Natalie Portman's sabotage of an otherwise central and engaging role. Seriously, she did all right in The Phantom Menace, but it seems like in the other two she tried her hardest to suck the air right out of the scenes. After a lot of thought I deduced that that's why I love The Phantom Menace but dislike the other two prequel movies.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I think the reason Attack of the Clones and to a lesser extent Revenge of the Sith were let-downs is due entirely to Natalie Portman's sabotage of an otherwise central and engaging role. Seriously, she did all right in The Phantom Menace, but it seems like in the other two she tried her hardest to suck the air right out of the scenes. After a lot of thought I deduced that that's why I love The Phantom Menace but dislike the other two prequel movies.

Sabotage? Seriously? She purposefully tried to take down the movie? And what was her role in ROTS? "Ani, I'm pregnant." "Ani, what's wrong?" She isn't given ANYTHING to do.

And it's pretty much the same in AOTC. She romps in the grass with Ani. She stays with the guy after he slaughters a bunch of sand people.

She wasn't given compelling material to work with.

 

[HAL.9000]

I think the reason Attack of the Clones and to a lesser extent Revenge of the Sith were let-downs is due entirely to Natalie Portman's sabotage of an otherwise central and engaging role. Seriously, she did all right in The Phantom Menace, but it seems like in the other two she tried her hardest to suck the air right out of the scenes. After a lot of thought I deduced that that's why I love The Phantom Menace but dislike the other two prequel movies.

The only thing I found peculiar about Portman's performance as Queen Amidala is that she uses different speaking accents throughput the movie. Check it out and you'll see what I mean. She starts out with one accent then gradually loses it as if she grew tired of it.

 

[Biffette]

Sabotage? Seriously? She purposefully tried to take down the movie? And what was her role in ROTS? "Ani, I'm pregnant." "Ani, what's wrong?" She isn't given ANYTHING to do.
[. . . .]
She wasn't given compelling material to work with.

She's an actress. It is her job to make the material seem compelling.

 

[HAL.9000]

Sabotage? Seriously? She purposefully tried to take down the movie? And what was her role in ROTS? "Ani, I'm pregnant." "Ani, what's wrong?" She isn't given ANYTHING to do.
[. . . .]
She wasn't given compelling material to work with.

She's an actress. It is her job to make the material seem compelling.

It is the director's job to make the material appear compelling. Actors just play the parts. When it comes to movie making, actors get the biggest credit for doing the least amount of work throughout the production. That's why I feel actors are overrated. The real power in a movie is behind the camera.

 

[lurok]

I think the reason Attack of the Clones and to a lesser extent Revenge of the Sith were let-downs is due entirely to Natalie Portman's sabotage of an otherwise central and engaging role. Seriously, she did all right in The Phantom Menace, but it seems like in the other two she tried her hardest to suck the air right out of the scenes. After a lot of thought I deduced that that's why I love The Phantom Menace but dislike the other two prequel movies.

I think you've hit on something here. McDiarmid and Lee gave it their usual professional all; Sam Jackson has the dedicated fanboy energy; but McGregor and Portman were either just out-of-depth or phoning it in. Still divided on Hayden (only really came alive in RoTS). And Oz as Yoda... But it could also be that the 'bad guys' more interestingly written than Padme, etc. But nice to see someone focus on performance rather than sfx

 

[Biffette]

It is the director's job to make the material appear compelling. Actors just play the parts. When it comes to movie making, actors get the biggest credit for doing the least amount of work throughout the production. That's why I feel actors are overrated. The real power in a movie is behind the camera.

I believe it is the actor's job to bring energy, personality, and believability to the role. She didn't.

I think you've hit on something here. McDiarmid and Lee gave it their usual professional all; Sam Jackson has the dedicated fanboy energy; but McGregor and Portman were either just out-of-depth or phoning it in. Still divided on Hayden (only really came alive in RoTS). And Oz as Yoda... But it could also be that the 'bad guys' more interestingly written than Padme, etc. But nice to see someone focus on performance rather than sfx

Yeah, I figure that maybe after TPM they realized they didn't really enjoy it but were committed to a three-movie contract? But I disagree that the villains had superior writing, I think they just had the superior performers.

 

[JarodRussell]

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=129906
http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=138445

Yawn

 

[HAL.9000]

It is the director's job to make the material appear compelling. Actors just play the parts. When it comes to movie making, actors get the biggest credit for doing the least amount of work throughout the production. That's why I feel actors are overrated. The real power in a movie is behind the camera.

I believe it is the actor's job to bring energy, personality, and believability to the role. She didn't.

OK let's take Samuel L Jackson. His movies are full of energy yet in the SW prequels he was as flat as can be. A waste of a good actor (along with Liam Neesom) only because a good actor is only as good as the direction he gets.

The prequels prove without a shadow of a doubt that you can have great veteran actors look terrible if the direction is poor.

Remember, they are merely "acting" not "producing" the film.

EDIT: Watch the behind the scenes of Kubrick's The Shinning sometime. He was merciless with Shelley Duvall until she gave him what he was looking for. That is what a director does. Not just to be there to shout "Action" and "Cut."

 

[lurok]

Yeah, I figure that maybe after TPM they realized they didn't really enjoy it but were committed to a three-movie contract? But I disagree that the villains had superior writing, I think they just had the superior performers.

Well, we can debate this ad nauseum, but by and large villains usually do get better written parts (lots of Basil exposition and scenery-chewing and dark side stuff). But I like your contract point. Reminds me of that old Hollywood reverse-joke: "who do I have to fuck to get off this movie?". Watching McGregor, I think his problem might have been 'acting' in shadow of Alec McGuinness, who is a legend in Brit theatre/film circles so that may have accounted for why he wanted to play performance close to chest. But Portman has no excuse. Ultimately though, however we cut it, fault lies with Lucas...

 

[Biffette]

ETA: This response was for Hal but can be for lurok as well: Not arguing about the quality of Lucas as a director, but that didn't stop Carrie Fisher from turning in a fine performance as Princess Leia. Natalie Portman did such a poor job that I begin to wonder if all her other successes are due only to the director's skill and not her own.

 

[InklingStar]

ETA: This response was for Hal but can be for lurok as well: Not arguing about the quality of Lucas as a director, but that didn't stop Carrie Fisher from turning in a fine performance as Princess Leia. Natalie Portman did such a poor job that I begin to wonder if all her other successes are due only to the director's skill and not her own.

Did you see Return of the Jedi?

There was no evolution of Vader as a character, and quite frankly I found it hard to accept that Vader at the end of Sith was the former Anakin Skywalker. He just came across as Vader from A new Hope.

Although not a movie and AFAIK not even technically considered Canon, James Luceno's "Dark Lord" novel helps show the transformation from Anakin to the fearsome Sith Lord and Jedi hunter that we see in the OT. It's a good read and also deals a little bit with some Jedi survivors (newly created characters) from Order 66 and how they adapt to the loss of the Order. Matthew Stover's novelization of ROTS also helps flesh out some of the reasoning for Anakin's ultimate betrayal of the Jedi Order and fall to the dark side better than what we see in the movie.

I have not read either yet, but Amazon is having a sale on what they call the Dark Lord Trilogy - http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Tri...5386/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1306003980&sr=8-5

 

[Biffette]

Did you see Return of the Jedi?

Did you see Star Wars/A New Hope?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The only thing I found peculiar about Portman's performance as Queen Amidala is that she uses different speaking accents throughput the movie. Check it out and you'll see what I mean. She starts out with one accent then gradually loses it as if she grew tired of it.

My interpretation of the accent thing is that it helped disguise her identity while in the role of Queen. Her decoy used the same accent. But when in the role of handmaiden, I do not recall that Padmé used that accent.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ She didn't.

 

[lurok]

My interpretation of the accent thing is that it helped disguise her identity while in the role of Queen. Her decoy used the same accent. But when in the role of handmaiden, I do not recall that Padmé used that accent.

Sorry...but this soooo hard to resist. You'll never look at TPM/Amidala same way again...
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZJQo_eB8s8&feature=related[/yt]

 

[Professor Zoom]

Sabotage? Seriously? She purposefully tried to take down the movie? And what was her role in ROTS? "Ani, I'm pregnant." "Ani, what's wrong?" She isn't given ANYTHING to do.
[. . . .]
She wasn't given compelling material to work with.

She's an actress. It is her job to make the material seem compelling.

You can't get blood from stone.

If a character doesn't want or do anything, it's much more challenging for an actor.

And when there's even LESS than that, it's almost impossible.

If you want to blame Portman, I just think you're off the mark.

Sabotage? Seriously? She purposefully tried to take down the movie? And what was her role in ROTS? "Ani, I'm pregnant." "Ani, what's wrong?" She isn't given ANYTHING to do.
[. . . .]
She wasn't given compelling material to work with.

She's an actress. It is her job to make the material seem compelling.

It is the director's job to make the material appear compelling. Actors just play the parts. When it comes to movie making, actors get the biggest credit for doing the least amount of work throughout the production. That's why I feel actors are overrated. The real power in a movie is behind the camera.

I don't agree with that entirely. Actors are a key component and they bust their ass on camera and off (press junkets, etc.)

Film making is a collaborative effort. Writer, directing, acting, etc.

A good director can make a weak script better, but not great.
A good actor can elevate, but can only do so much.
Good writing can make a mediocre actor seem better.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Sorry...but this soooo hard to resist. You'll never look at TPM/Amidala same way again...

Success!

 

[HAL.9000]

Sorry...but this soooo hard to resist. You'll never look at TPM/Amidala same way again...

Success!

"I see."

Funny thing about Padme. I figured she was a 14 year old queen because royalty traditionally has weird stuff like kids running things. But from what I understand, she is an "elected" queen. what kind of stupid people would elect a kid to run things...especially a planet?