COULD DARTH MAUL HAVE BEEN IN THE REST OF THE PREQUELS?

[Batty]

Power droid, ladies!

*gonk* *gonk*

 

[Captain Faramir]

No, but I hope he's improved since then. He could win an academy award for all I care, but that doesn't change his weak performance in the PT. What's done is done at this point.

 

[pixletwin]

No, but I hope he's improved since then. He could win an academy award for all I care, but that doesn't change his weak performance in the PT. What's done is done at this point.

Isn't that kinda the whole point though? In the PT most everyone is a bad actor. Besides, you can't exactly stand behind George's writing skills as exactly inspiring for these people.

If you ask me, Natalie Portman did-by far- a worse job in ROTS. But we all know she is a fine actor.

See Hayden in something other than SW and then we can talk about this.

 

[Captain Faramir]

Hayden may very well be an OK actor, but in the PT he's not. He overacts, he can't deliver lines, and has neither subtlety nor strength. If he were a better actor he could make the lines work. Mace does a fine job. Obi-Wan is usually OK. The experienced actors like Palpatine and Dooku are great. Hayden really isn't good in the SW movies. While he might have done other roles which fit him better, he didn't do well in Star Wars. There are a lot of acting subtleties that he really doesn't grasp at all--restraint, breathing, movement--everything is a gasping attempt to wrest meaning from the words without letting them move in a natural way. He could have helped the poor script, but didn't. Look at Qui-Gon--his lines weren't that great, but a masterful perfomance made them wonderful. Same with Shmi--a beautiful performance that meant something, even though the lines were bad. Hayden never rose above his script. That's what an actor should do. If he's done so in other films, good for him. But to me, he didn't in Star Wars.

 

[nash]

Palpatine great? The guy had some of the most cheesy lines and expressions in the whole saga.

"NO, NO, NOOOOOO"

 

[Darth Rage]

Actually I really disagree. A really fine actor shines through despite a bad director. You can tell with some--Obi-Wan, Dooku, Palpatine, and a few others. However, some actors in the PT just don't have the talent to really break through Lucas' failure to direct--not bad directing, but a bad lack of it at all. Hayden Christenson is just a bad actor. He has terrible technique, is over-the-top, and really is awkward on screen. A good director could level that out a bit, but George didn't. Padme was really bad in some scenes, good in others. Lucas didn't help her to be consistent though. Directors aren't as mighty as people think. They can inhibit actors, but can't restrain them. A real actor knows how to work with what he's got. Hayden, and to a lesser extent Natalie, did not.

I blame George, yeah, but not for everything. Hayden is a very amateur actor with little real talent--at least none that was seen in the PT.

I have to disagree with you here. Hayden is quite a good actor. Go watch "Life as a House" and then come back here and we'll talk.

As far as directors, they can completely restrain actors. They also get to decide which take to use, so while an actor may have delivered the lines exactly as he wanted on take one, he may deliver them exactly how the director wants them in take two, which may be what ultimately ends up in the film.

 

[pixletwin]

I have to disagree with you here. Hayden is quite a good actor. Go watch "Life as a House" and then come back here and we'll talk.

As far as directors, they can completely restrain actors. They also get to decide which take to use, so while an actor may have delivered the lines exactly as he wanted on take one, he may deliver them exactly how the director wants them in take two, which may be what ultimately ends up in the film.

Which is exactly what happened per Hayden's word.

 

[DarkArtist81]

I ask you, my little green friend, have you seen a non-SW movie with Hayden? Hmmmmmmm?

Yeah, he was great in Life as a House and Shattered Glass...or Broken Glass...forget the name. He's really quite a good actor, just hard for any actor to do well in front of a green screen and constantly being held back by Lucas and his inability to direct actors.

 

[MaulFan]

Which is exactly what happened per Hayden's word.

Yup, George was highly involved, at least with Hayden, regarding dialogue, he had a strong vision for how the character should shape through everything, afterall he is the key character of all the films, and so ultimately, what we got for a performance is a combination of Hayden's ability and George's wishes. I think Ian McDiarmid was probably one of few to get much coaching out of George, with his background and the success he had in Jedi, I think George was comfortable with letting him do his thing. Another downfall to Prequel acting was that you could see they all tried harder and were probably more tense and less comfortable with it all. Mark, Carrie and Harrison were just shooting movies, and while they were popular by Empire and Jedi, it still wasn't the massive phenomenon it became by the time Phantom came out, so for Ewan, Hayden and Natalie, there was a feeling of becoming part of something big and a pressure to give the fans and George just what he wanted and in doing that, they probably didn't challenge George as much as they should have about things, and also performed with tension and discomfort and never were able to be loose and just have fun with the roles. Natalie, with the right director, is a very talented actress, and in the wrong role or with the wrong director, can come off as average.

 

[DarkArtist81]

Yup, George was highly involved, at least with Hayden, regarding dialogue, he had a strong vision for how the character should shape through everything, afterall he is the key character of all the films, and so ultimately, what we got for a performance is a combination of Hayden's ability and George's wishes. I think Ian McDiarmid was probably one of few to get much coaching out of George, with his background and the success he had in Jedi, I think George was comfortable with letting him do his thing. Another downfall to Prequel acting was that you could see they all tried harder and were probably more tense and less comfortable with it all. Mark, Carrie and Harrison were just shooting movies, and while they were popular by Empire and Jedi, it still wasn't the massive phenomenon it became by the time Phantom came out, so for Ewan, Hayden and Natalie, there was a feeling of becoming part of something big and a pressure to give the fans and George just what he wanted and in doing that, they probably didn't challenge George as much as they should have about things, and also performed with tension and discomfort and never were able to be loose and just have fun with the roles. Natalie, with the right director, is a very talented actress, and in the wrong role or with the wrong director, can come off as average.

Well said... and summarizes my feelings exactly.....

 

[PosterBoyKelly]

I blame Lucas for the bad acting. You wanna tell me there wasn't 1 ok take? Even as an accident? He probably chose bad takes, he made some bad calls overall in the PT.

 

[pixletwin]

I blame Lucas for the bad acting. You wanna tell me there wasn't 1 ok take? Even as an accident? He probably chose bad takes, he made some bad calls overall in the PT.

The one bad take/edit I hate the most is when Grievous meets Anakin and says "I was expecting someone of your repuation to be OLDER" and Anakin's responce is completely out of rhythm.... That tells me Grievous' line was changed and during pick up shooting they didn't bother to reshoot Anakin's dialogue.

Irks me everytime I watch ROTS, that scene.

 

[PosterBoyKelly]

'YOU WILL TRY!' Is the poorest to me. Sounds like highschool play acting.

 

[LOTRFan]

I didn't bother to read the whole thread o ), but one thing that never really materialized as it should have was the threat of the Seperatists and the Trade Federation. Had Lucas really fleshed out just how bad the prospect was to the galactic democracy then maybe Dooku and Grievous would have been more imposing and villainous. Maul was perfect for Ep I because it was only the beginning of the conflict, he certainly could have grown as the divide did; and that would have made for more of a nuanced story.

So yes, yes he could have. :maul

 

[mfoga]

Hayden may very well be an OK actor, but in the PT he's not. He overacts, he can't deliver lines, and has neither subtlety nor strength. If he were a better actor he could make the lines work. Mace does a fine job. Obi-Wan is usually OK. The experienced actors like Palpatine and Dooku are great. Hayden really isn't good in the SW movies. While he might have done other roles which fit him better, he didn't do well in Star Wars. There are a lot of acting subtleties that he really doesn't grasp at all--restraint, breathing, movement--everything is a gasping attempt to wrest meaning from the words without letting them move in a natural way. He could have helped the poor script, but didn't. Look at Qui-Gon--his lines weren't that great, but a masterful perfomance made them wonderful. Same with Shmi--a beautiful performance that meant something, even though the lines were bad. Hayden never rose above his script. That's what an actor should do. If he's done so in other films, good for him. But to me, he didn't in Star Wars.

Remeber that Mace, Dooku and Palpatine probally have less lines then Anakin combined, maybe even combined thru all three movies compared to Hayden in either movie.

Its much easier to look good with a bad script when you dont say much but if you are the focus you are going to be hurt by the script in the end since there is to much to overcome.