he isnt that bad because the script makes him look good
__________________ There is no emotion, There is peace.
There is no ignorance, There is knowledge.
There is no passion, There is serenity.
There is no death, There is the Force.
Ah.. There's nothing wrong with being a critic.
You don't grow as a person if you think everything is fine that you do for example but this a forum, we aren't here to chat or drool about SW but here to discuss.
I would say that AotC is great movie with some flaws but I wouldn't say Hayden is a great actor. It's that you are all used to him that you have accepted his warped way of acting.
If there had been another instead of him, you would have found that one the bomb.
George Lucas is the only reason for Episode II's suckfullness. Even though Hayden is a douche in my opinion, he actually can act (see Shattered Glass or Life As A House), as can Natalie Portman (see anything she's been in apart from Star Wars). GL is just a terrible actor director and has dumb ideas of what he wants from his actors.
Oh really? I don't think I would have liked Di Caprio or Phillippe in his shoes
First of all I agree that any flaw is: a) George Lucas's fault; b) blue screen's fault. I haven't seen a single movie in which blue or green screen have "bettered" the actor's performance. Think about the Matrix trilogy: I thought the acting was really camp and sometimes it made me want to laugh out loud (in the second and third one mostly, the first one was, for the greater part, good). Even in theatre the best rendition of a play is usually given when there is an actual scenary and when there are actual costumes rather than in the so called "minimalist" environment.
Secondly, I loved AOTC and I don't think it was "spoiled" by anyone if not by some dumb lines in the screenplay. It's not perfect, but no film is. In fact, if we look around us we see that compared to many films that have been hailed as masterpieces (ex. "Traffic") AOTC is to be considered a stroke of genius.
criticising haydens acting abilities on a website is not bashing, but rather expressing one's opinion. regardless of how vague and nonsensical his criticism is, and regardless of how i disagree, i really dont think thats bashing.
bashing is when certain idiots on this site refer to him as "gayden" and express their sick want to commit assault on him (you know who you are child)
bashing is when some obsessed fanboy screams "YOU RUINED STAR WARS!!!!" in his face, forcing him to chase his sorry ass down the block.
Anyway, kid fans would have even defended Di Caprio too if it were him now.
Fans just shouldn't try to defend plot writing, acting skills and directing when they are too biased to even judge properly.
I've never found anything wrong about Hayden's acting. I guess it depends on how much you want to analyze something. I more of a simple person. I like to sit back and enjoy the story, regardless of whether the acting is decent or not.
You are denying the quintessential element that separates life forms from lifeless objects: the ability to distinguish, form an opinion and, consequently, act. Fans are not born fans, they make a choice that comes directly from the makings of the mind, so I believe this dogmatic approach towards fandom comes very close to dementia. I think that unfortunately (I mean it) we all have a different view of the world, so an objective judgement, fan or non-fan, is impossible.
__________________
Last edited by Eleonora on Jan 1st, 2006 at 10:40 PM
Dec 25th, 2005 05:30 PM
