Star Wars Episodes 1, 2, & 3

[WindupAtheist]

Gee, it's a good thing I wasn't responding to you then.

Edit: Also, yes someone did.

[LK]

How far back am I looking to verify that?

[Sir T]

Hayden's just starting out but moving on from it better than Hamill did

Yeah, Plinket himself said the guy is a fine actor, just saddled with a totally shit director.

In his favour, the movies will have him as such a bland ashole non character that people will struggle to even remember him in the films anyway, so it probably won't harm his career once he has a few meaty roles under his belt.

[Ironwood]

I hate to be dragged back into this, but :

I've seen a few more Haydn movies since and, frankly, No, he's NOT a fine actor.  He's a SHIT actor.  Please for the love of God, can someone tell me a movie he was decent in ?  Because I'd like to verify this fact that people keep throwing about.

[DraconianOne]

I've seen a few more Haydn movies since and, frankly, No, he's NOT a fine actor.  He's a SHIT actor.  Please for the love of God, can someone tell me a movie he was decent in ?  Because I'd like to verify this fact that people keep throwing about.

"Life as a House" and "Shattered Glass"

[Arthur_Parker]

I think we need a new term for "fine actor" in that type of movie, Laurence Olivier might have been crap in a blue box.  Ok, maybe not, but it's not normal acting if you can't see what you are acting with.

[Ratman_tf]

I think we need a new term for "fine actor" in that type of movie, Laurence Olivier might have been crap in a blue box.  Ok, maybe not, but it's not normal acting if you can't see what you are acting with.

[DraconianOne]

I think we need a new term for "fine actor" in that type of movie, Laurence Olivier might have been crap in a blue box.  Ok, maybe not, but it's not normal acting if you can't see what you are acting with.

Lawrence Olivier out acted Jude Law in "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" and he was dead at the time.

[Arthur_Parker]

I was complaining more about the backgrounds than the imaginary aliens whatever, that's difficult yeah but not new, most of the backgrounds in the new star wars movies looked fake to me. 

Edit, watch Plinkett's review of Star Trek 2009 to see the difference.

[Ironwood]

I've seen a few more Haydn movies since and, frankly, No, he's NOT a fine actor.  He's a SHIT actor.  Please for the love of God, can someone tell me a movie he was decent in ?  Because I'd like to verify this fact that people keep throwing about.

"Life as a House" and "Shattered Glass"

Really ?  You thought he was good in Shattered Glass ?

I'm starting to wonder if it's just me that's crazy.

[DraconianOne]

I've seen a few more Haydn movies since and, frankly, No, he's NOT a fine actor.  He's a SHIT actor.  Please for the love of God, can someone tell me a movie he was decent in ?  Because I'd like to verify this fact that people keep throwing about.

"Life as a House" and "Shattered Glass"

Really ?  You thought he was good in Shattered Glass ?

I'm starting to wonder if it's just me that's crazy.

In honesty, haven't seen "Shattered Glass" and I didn't really rate "Life as a House" as a film either so don't recall his performance. Those are just the two films that got him awards and SAG/Golden Globe nominations.

[Sir T]

And to be fair I haven't seen him in anything else. I was giving the guy the benefit of the doubt.

[Oban]

In honesty, haven't seen "Shattered Glass" and I didn't really rate "Life as a House" as a film either so don't recall his performance. Those are just the two films that got him awards and SAG/Golden Globe nominations.

According to that logic Gabourey Sidibe is a good actress.

[DraconianOne]

In honesty, haven't seen "Shattered Glass" and I didn't really rate "Life as a House" as a film either so don't recall his performance. Those are just the two films that got him awards and SAG/Golden Globe nominations.

According to that logic Gabourey Sidibe is a good actress.

 

Straw man.

[Merusk]

I think we need a new term for "fine actor" in that type of movie, Laurence Olivier might have been crap in a blue box.  Ok, maybe not, but it's not normal acting if you can't see what you are acting with.

There's an ILM special playing on one of the movie channels right now. (Showtime I think.)  They're interviewing Samuel Jacking and he has this to say on the matter; "I was working with some of these guys and they were complaining they didn't have anything to act to. I just looked at them funny and said, "Man, what did you do as a kid? Don't you have any imagination!?" 

From my view of things that's all they do is get played to make-believe. It's their job and if they can't summon up the same inner emotions staring at a guy holing a pencil to a point of focus as an actor standing at that same point, aren't they just bad at it?

[HaemishM]

I hate to be dragged back into this, but :

I've seen a few more Haydn movies since and, frankly, No, he's NOT a fine actor.  He's a SHIT actor.  Please for the love of God, can someone tell me a movie he was decent in ?  Because I'd like to verify this fact that people keep throwing about.

This. He was NOT fine in Shattered Glass, he was whiny Anakin all over again. Jumper suffered from his mere presence. He's not a good actor.

[Ironwood]

Don't talk about Jumper.  Jumper was awful. 

[Khaldun]

I thought he was ok in Shattered Glass: he was supposed to play a callow young asshole trying desperately to suck up to easily flattered editors. May not have been a big reach for him.

[WindupAtheist]

"I was working with some of these guys and they were complaining they didn't have anything to act to. I just looked at them funny and said, "Man, what did you do as a kid? Don't you have any imagination!?" 

From my view of things that's all they do is get played to make-believe. It's their job and if they can't summon up the same inner emotions staring at a guy holing a pencil to a point of focus as an actor standing at that same point, aren't they just bad at it?

This. Quit bawwing about the bluescreen, you're an actor, you're supposed to be able to stand by yourself on a wooden stage with a few shitty props and make me think you're in bustling Ancient Rome or something.

[Arthur_Parker]

Well it was only an idea, it was the only thing I could think of to in some way explain why the acting in the three new films was so wooden.  But you're right, acting is one of the oldest professions there is, there really is no excuse for shitty acting.

[Ratman_tf]

Well it was only an idea, it was the only thing I could think of to in some way explain why the acting in the three new films was so wooden.  But you're right, acting is one of the oldest professions there is, there really is no excuse for shitty acting.

Shitty directing. Lucas' sad little mantra "It's good enough" when it's really not. Sometimes an actor can overcome a shitty director (Ian McDiarmond as Palpatine) but it can drag down less experienced actors.

[Sir T]

Liam Neeson did a fairly good job in the Fandom Menace too.

[Ratman_tf]

Liam Neeson did a fairly good job in the Fandom Menace too.

Things like that are why I like the prequels even though I know they're crap. I can glimpse what could have been if Lucas had pulled his head out of his ass and put a little more effort in.

[Quinton]

"I was working with some of these guys and they were complaining they didn't have anything to act to. I just looked at them funny and said, "Man, what did you do as a kid? Don't you have any imagination!?" 

From my view of things that's all they do is get played to make-believe. It's their job and if they can't summon up the same inner emotions staring at a guy holing a pencil to a point of focus as an actor standing at that same point, aren't they just bad at it?

This. Quit bawwing about the bluescreen, you're an actor, you're supposed to be able to stand by yourself on a wooden stage with a few shitty props and make me think you're in bustling Ancient Rome or something.

I don't blame the crappy acting on bluescreens.

I do blame the plasticy look of the new trilogy on it -- there's something about practical sets that still looks a bit more real to me.

[pxib]

Light and dirt. They still can't make the light look completely realistic, and computer models just don't have the number of flaws that real sets do. Everything looks completely planned because it is. Also computer sets tend to be very large... much larger than real spaces. It makes them look empty.

[Khaldun]

The irony here being that one of the amazing visual aspects of the original Star Wars that it made a space-fantasy world look used and lived in rather than the shiny "futuristic" look most of us had previously been accustomed to in visual SF. But arguably the prequels, whatever their other many flaws, ought to have had a more "flawless" look as this is the good old days before the Empire etc.

[pxib]

Well sure, but there's a fine line between "the good old days" and "flawless". Compare the palace on Naboo to, say, the palace at Versailles. Flaws are part of the essence of beauty. Perfection is boring.

[Jeff Kelly]

Unfortunately Lucas is not alone in his love for computer generated imaginery. Only yesterday I read an interview James Cameron gave to a German magazine where he promoted his own technology that he last used for Avatar (which basically was filmed entirely in front of green screens) and he got really pissed when the interviewer suggested that actors complained about the lack of immersion having a negative influence on their performances (because of the missing set). Basically going so far as to suggesting that a set is exactly as fake as a room full of green screens, that it therefore makes no difference for an actor if he's on a set or in a green room, that all his actors really liked the experience and that everybody who says otherwise must be an incompetent actor because a good one should be able to work entirely from his imagination.

Unfortunately the interviewer never got into the argument about realism or naturalistic looks which might have been a better angle.

It might be that a set placed somewhere in the general area of L.A. is not that much better than a sound stage full of green screens. I happen to remember however that every actor involved in episode 1 criticized the green screen experience because they had problems acting with subjects that might not even be there. Jar Jar Binks for example was just a plastic stand in, basically a pole with plastic eyes so that the actors at least knew which way they'd needed to face.

But I am positive that the better you are able to emulate the setting the better the actors will be (either consciously or unconsciously) and that it will create a more believable experience for the viewers. There's a difference between actually filming in the Moroccan desert with 'real' buildings or pretending to be there on a hollywood soundstage. We are also deep in the uncanny valley with all of the CGI, it just looks too bright, too clean, too aseptic, subconsciously at least we notice the difference between pure CGI and models and sets and it will stay that way for quite some time.

[edit] edited for spelling

[Quinton]

I can totally see where greenscreen being annoying to work in or not would depend on what you're shooting.

Interacting with characters that you can't see at all or that are being represented with some static placeholder sounds like a pain.

Having the background not exist off behind you would seem less problematic.

I'd imagine you'd miss having sets more for interior scenes than exterior, and you'd miss having sets for locations where you're supposed to be interacting with the scenery.

[Malakili]

We are also deep in the uncanny valley with all of the CGI, it just looks to bright, to clean, to aseptic, subconsciously at least we notice the difference between pure CGI and models and sets and it will stay that way for quite some time.

I'd say for me its very conscious.  I'd say that it does look "clean" but even dirty things have that "clean" look to them, so I'm not sure clean is really the right word.  Its like things lack realistic wear/use or something.   One of the reasons Lord of the Rings worked for me better than Star Wars, I think, was the extensive use of modeling and other traditional forms of special effects in combination with CGI.

I realize that the Lord of the Rings movies were newer and probably had a bit better CGI tech on their side, but I don't think thats it.

[HaemishM]

Plastic. Plastic is the word you're looking for. The models in Lord of the Rings worked very well. The CGI in the prequel movies were absolutely unconvincing. There were way too many scenes of people walking 10 feet down these immense hallways that looked so fake, it took you right out of the movie. Imagine the interiors of Cloud City done like the Coruscant scenes in the prequels. It would have looked horrible.

It's amazing that movies using ILM for their effects that aren't directed by Lucas look better than the movies Lucas himself directed.

[bhodi]

I realize that the Lord of the Rings movies were newer and probably had a bit better CGI tech on their side, but I don't think thats it.

It's not. The tech is pretty much the same; what LotR brought to the table graphics wise was a new suite of tools/plugins to create armies of people with slight but definite variances in things like limb size and gait. That's pretty much the only technical advantage; they were both done in maya/lightwave, albeit by different studios with different individual modelers.

[Morat20]

, beating any Star Trek Book ever, including Imzadi).

How Much for Just the Planet and Final Reflection wants to have a word with you, out back. :) The former might not be to your humor, but the latter is so well written that I keep thinking someone made a crappy Sci-Fi show off a great book.

[pxib]

Also, if you watch the making of material, the effects team for LotR built some enormous models, enormous sets, and found epic locations. Basically the way Lucas had to do his original trilogy. The number of "everything is computer generated except actors in front of a green screen" scenes in all three LotR moves could probably be counted on two hands.

[Ironwood]

I liked the Stanger Vampire books.  Security Chief on the Enterprise and clear wankathon for the author.

Yeah, How Much was good.  In honesty, the first 30 were ok - except Spocks Son, which made sense, but was again clearly an author doing Gusset Typing - so don't think I'm not aware of where you're coming from.

Shorthand - I've read every bit of trash ever.  :D

BUT IMZADI WAS SOOoooOoOOoOooOo BAD !!!