Stiff acting in Star Wars prequels...the cause?

[Skulpturen]

Originally Posted by Mad4Busts

my only problem was GL's pick and directing of EP.1 Anakin the HORRIBLE Jake Lloyd.

Aaargh don't mention E1 !

[ashley76]

HC did a very good job in Life as a House. I think that the lack of any real surrounds definately didn't help.

[Crom]

I think if you go back to the original trilogy, the dialouge was very simple, common tounge. As though it was the guy next to you speaking. Han Solo and Luke Skywalker sounded like regular Joe's.

The prequels were all set in a very chivralous, high society arena. The British actors and those with stage backgrounds seemed to have a much easier time with it, probably from years and years of Skakesperean training. Even Ewan was better at it than Natalie and Hayden.

As much as anything, it was easier for the audience to identify with the characters in Episodes 4-6 than 1-3. They were a farm boy, a smuggler (or working stiff) and average people of society. for the most part. Epsiodes 1-3 were royalty and knights. Cool, but harder to relate with.

When you can't relate easily with a character that highlights the weakness of dialouge and plot.

[Wooktroop]

blue/green screens

[Primal]

Originally Posted by Skulpturen

Hayden acted much better in this one than in E2.

Indeed, the older actors are much better. The Sith Lord was the best!

Indeed...This was Ian McDiarmid's (Palpatine's) movie.

[bat_collector]

Who cares, star wars still rules!

[Nightcrawler777]

Originally Posted by ashley76

HC did a very good job in Life as a House. I think that the lack of any real surrounds definately didn't help.

Thats a really good movie...

[JR2]

After all the comments about stiff acting in the Prequels I've gotta say, and this will sound blasphemous, but does anyone really consider the acting from the Original Trilogy to be "great?"

C'mon, the OT had an epic story, better writing, and better character interactions, but the acting was not "great."

Crom made excellent points regarding identifying with the characters in the OT as opposed to the royalty of Ep I-III.

I think the OT rocks , but in no way was the acting "great." (I know no one has actually said it was, but I'm just making my point.)

[DarthBane]

Originally Posted by Gir

Why do you think that some of the acting was so stiff in the prequels?

I was watching the Episode III extras the other day, and I noted how many backgrounds were made up almost entirely of computer graphics. For example, in the concert hall where Palpatine and Anakin discuss Darth Plagus (or whatever his name was), just about the only real objects were the chairs! It was basically two chairs surrounded by blue screens. Wouldn't it be difficult for actors to really get into their roles in that kind of environment?

Most of the actors in the prequels are actually quite good at acting when it comes to conventional films. However, it seems to me that some of them weren't able to adapt to the blue screens as well as others. The older, more mature actors such as Samuel Jackson, Ewan McGregor, and Ian McDiarmid (the Emperor) seemed to fare better than the younger ones such as Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen. I don't believe special effects were used nearly to the same extent in the OT, so it was probably a lot easier for the OT actors to get into their roles and make things believable, regardless of their acting ability.

Other contributing factors...

- Lucas' directing isn't quite what it used to be
- Weak and/or lame dialogue

I think the acting of hayden and natalie were fine. The dialogue of star wars itself it a little unorthodox. This could have added to it.

[Skulpturen]

Originally Posted by bat_collector

Who cares, star wars still rules!

Indeed!

(with exception of Episode 1)