Granted, the written dialogue is horrible, but I think that we all wish he had been in these films instead of Titanic.
For those of you who don't know, he turned down the role because he didn't want to be in another blockbuster after Titanic.
After seeing his excellent performance in Django, yep, he'd make a great Anakin.
shareBe that as it may, I wouldn't have wanted a famous face to portray Anakin.
For those of you who don't know, he turned down the role because he didn't want to be in another blockbuster after Titanic.And this is one of the reason's why I wouldn't want him. share
No, he wouldn't.
The problem with Hayden Christensen's acting is the same as the problem with Liam Neeson's acting, and Natalie Portman's acting, and Samuel L Jackson's acting etc, the problem was the piss-poor directing by George Lucas.
The prequels are filled with good actors who put in lousy performances, and the performances are lousy because the directing was bad. If Leonardo Dicaprio had played Anakin he would have given a bad performance that may have ended his career, the same way it ended Hayden Christensen's.
Lucas repeated so many times that this is a soap opera.
It's interesting how everybody says that SW prequals are badly directed and that the dialogs are awful, but if you think about Lucas's words, than you can understand acting and dialogs.. They fit in soap opera standard quite well.
I think this is the reason the acting was like it was.. It's just what Lucas wanted, and we should respect that. After all, we wach this movies and we talk about them years after they were made. It's not something every film maker achieve.
The story of Anakin Skywalker / Darth Vader is part of our culture. In OT, Darth Vader was evil character in dark suit, and through prequels he became a tragic icon. So it's rather arogant from haters to call this a failure.
And I would never want for Leonardo to be Anakin. I don't think he could play cocky/vain/naive/melodramatic/sensitive at the same time.
Hayden was great for the part, because he was all that. I remember watching casting director for SW prequels saying "there is so much going on in his eyes", and I think that's really true.
It's interesting how everybody says that SW prequals are badly directed and that the dialogs are awful
I always thought that when you love something, you don't want it to be something completely different. It has no sense to me.
There are many parts of OT dialogs that I find funny/naive/childish. There are scenes that are bizzare, inconclusive, incredible and so on.
The same goes for the prequels.
And I like to watch SW over and over again because they are like that. They are just fun to watch, it's escapism from the RL.
In SW, some kid is going to take the Lightsaber and he will take down all the bad guys. Some other kid will dream about a Princess for ten years, and jeopardise everything because of her.
It's a fairy tail. We have heroes and villains and battles between Good and Evil.
And Lucas did it so good, that I can watch this fairy tail so many times.
So for me, complaing about quality of dialogs in context of a fairy tale / soap opera in space / kid's movies (and this is what SW are) ... It's just foolish.
I can understand that someone loves OT more that prequels, but the hate.. The only explanation for me is that it's just popular to say "I hate the prequels".
Because it doesn't have any sense for me that people hate this type of movie :/
And besides, it's kind of wrong for SW fans to fall to the Dark Side ;)
When i make a movie with god aweful dialogue, will i also have idiotic fanboys online defending me simply because i said "but... It was on purpose, my movie is garbage because i wanted it to be garbage, and this makes it good".
This doesnt make any sense and its a terrible excuse from a hack who is complety out of touch with his own Universe.
[deleted]
>The problem with Hayden Christensen's acting is the same as the problem with Liam Neeson's acting, and Natalie Portman's acting, and Samuel L Jackson's acting etc, the problem was the piss-poor directing by George Lucas.
Hayden Christensen's "acting" stands out as the worst in Episodes II and III, by far. It's high school play acting, or local furniture store commercial acting. Even with relatively normal lines his acting is terrible. The acting from everyone else was good enough for the most part; not great, but not blatantly amateur hour either. The only one who challenges Hayden for worst actor of the prequels is Jake Lloyd.
He really wouldn't have. DiCaprio was a pussy back then. He would have made Anakin seem even worse in most people's eyes, plus I doubt he could have done the physical stuff as well as Hayden.
shareTrue. Also, Hayden changes physically in ROTS (literally is bigger) also is strong enough to carry Obi Wan literally in the respective scenes.
The funny thing is that DiCaprio can play a whiny and troubled young man, so the fandom would be unsatisfied again.
No matter who played Anakin in these films, it still would have turned out bad. The problem wasn't Christensen's performance, it was the terrible script and Lucas' poor directing.
"We'll be alive but like a nightmare. You drink blood, you won't wake up from nightmare."
Not just that. There's no way DiCaprio would have believable as being 15 years younger than MacGregor.
shareNo way would have been better. The dialogue in the movie is so bad, not even the great Leo could have saved it. It would have probably destroyed his career. He's a smart cookie for rejecting this piece of *beep*
shareWhile he was considered for the role by Lucasfilm, he never auditioned for it and was never offered it, he did not 'reject' it.
shareLet's just say if he WAS offered the role, it would have been a career killer for sure.
shareHe wouldn't have looked right as adult Anakin. Hayden had the physicality and darkness of the character.
share