Topic: Who would do better?

Who do you think would be a better Anakin Skywalker for episodes II and III?

Stuart Townsend (Queen of the Damned, League of Extraordinary Gentleman)

or

Hayden Christensen (Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith)

Stuart Townsend.

Billy Crystal would have made a better Anakin than Hayden Christianson. He is by far the worst actor in all of Star Wars history. So my choice is easily seen.

Even Ashton Kutcher would have made a better Anakin.

Mr. T should play every role in every movie, with the exeption of "Monster Dog Movie."

Mr.T should've been Jango.

If that was the case, the light-saber would just bounce off of his gold.

If that was the case Sam Jackson would've been slaughtered. I pity the fool.

I could just imagine him running around punking the other Jedi.

"You thought I turned to the Dark Side? You just got PUNK'D!"

Ha that just reminded me that my Film Analysis teacher's phone went off wednesday and it yelled, "I pity the foo who don't pick up his phone!!"

And it seems I am not the only one who agrees that Christianson was a terrible casting choice. "I'm in charge of security here..."

I agree, Stuart Townsend definitely would have made a better Anakin. If you've seen Queen of the Damned, him being the vampire Lestat (sure the movie didn't have squat to do with the book, but it still kicks ass!) is awesome. Did anyone see the ROTS parody with Jimmy Fallon?

I'll go with Sean Canaray.  Incorrect spelling, of course.

I did.  That was some funny crap.  'A-flippyflippyflippyflippy-lavalavalavalava!'

lol, they had some good puns too.

"What am I, chopped lava? Thank you."

Hayden

Does his mean you think he did a good job?  Or somethings else?  It's kind of hard to understand what your point is when you only use one word.

lol  now that I've seen Hayden as Anakin,I can't think of anyone else fitting in the role.And why does everyone think that he was bad?I didn't find him so bad...

I agree. He may not be the best actor but he is not that bad either.

See I have to disagree with the two of you and say that he did in fact do a bad job. Compare his acting with Ewan Mcgregor's and there is a huuuuge gap. Now am I saying that he should have been as good as him? No, I'm just giving a way to compare his acting to other Star Wars characters. (And a Ford comparison wouldn't have been fair =P)

I think it was mostly in the fact that his anger just seemed so forced. It didn't flow like it should from an actor, instead it looked like he was saying to himself, "I need to look as angry as possible." And his lines were all so choppy, like a crappy soap opera star. "You..... underestimate my... power"

I agree with you about that Fetterthanyou. He is defiantly not in the same league as Ewan McGregor. He is such a funky actor and he was wonderful as Obi Wan Kenobi.

I understand the points that you have made and I do agree with you. I think he could have dome a better job than what he did but I can still enjoy the films and I think he could have been a lot worse.

Hehe though you could always compare him to some of the really bad actors out there and he looks brilliant ;) (I am going to have a think and edit in some when I remember some of the really dire acting that I have seen)

we can't just judge Hayden Christensen like this, as Star Wars are really the only films he's done. Maybe if he were more like Orlando Bloom and tried out for more movies (btw Orlando Bloom is quite a good actor), we could judge on a fairer basis.

"monster dog movie" explain urself. you wouldnt be refering the cinematic masterpiece known
as "CUJO"? you know when the film studio puts an entirely different dog on the dvd box than is in the movie,
that sort of attention to detail means the movie has got to be good!

No, Monster Dog is a low budget B-horror movie staring Alice Cooper. In the movie, he uses the name Vincent, which is his birth name. Alice is quite an actor.

ah, i c. didnt think you were...
i should have known this involved Alice in some way. as for his acting- im not hip to his body of
work outside of waynes world and that creepy decapitation excerp you dropped in the chat room.

back on topic though- i dont think hayden is a bad actor(he was good in "life as a house") -but i think lucas grossly miscalculated his range. he plays whiny well. and i think that all the actors in the prequels were dogged by having to act infront of green screens the whole time.

Well I think he was ok.  Then again I may be slightly biased because Hayden is a fellow Vancouver-ite. :P If he wasn't I'd probably be in agreement with most of you people.

Yeah, actually, I think you have a point.  The fact that GL is a special FX whore, must have had something to do with it.  I mean, come on.  Every clone trooper in the new trilogy was digital. Every one.  They had zero armor made for the films.  Someone needs to punch that man in the throat.

lol.

You know, I just watched Queen of the Damned a few night ago, and I was thiking "Lestat looks a lot like Anakin!" XD
But anyways, I could see Stuart in the role as Anakin, but just because he looks like Hayden. Quite honestly, I wasn't that impressed with his acting either (or the movie, Queen of the Damned).

Lestat probably would have been better. Hayden's anger was forced. and he just seemed so...bitchy. He just didnt look or act or talk like the person who would eventually become Darth Vader.

any body but haden PLEASE just not Nicolas Cage please (i hate him)

From the way you say it,I can assume that you don't like that Lucas is a special FX "whore".But let me say something.Why not be?I mean,SW is a science fiction series that surely needs to hold its reputation,and that reputation is only achieved through S.FX.Compared to other movies that use special FX,from Chronicles of Riddick to LOTR,I understand that Lucas MUST use special FX in order to continue selling SW.If he didn't,I'm sure we would say that he is outdated and must use the new technology....

what he means by Lucas being a SFX whore is that, if you watch Episodes II and III, 75-90% of the entire film is CGI.

Hayden did a good job. Man it would have been cool if the clones were of Mr.T.

Exactly.  Lucas started off great.  The entire trilogy was first made with about 15-20% CGI.  They used minitures alot, which is a much better way to do it.  Lord of the rings used mostly prosthetics and minitures, and it looked great.  Then he redid them again and again, with more and more SFX, and made them worse.  See where I'm going with this?

I do not mind the amount of CGI that George Lucas uses or the stuff that has been re-edited into episodes 4-6 (well apart from the scene with Han and Greedo)

I think that is a bit harsh though. Sometimes I think it is a little wasteful to make so much armour to get so little use out of it.

I also think that Lord of the rings was able to get away without using a lot of CGI because there was not much technology used in the books.

yea, LOTR had a lot of stuff that really couldn't happen well without CGI.

the effects in LotR r entirely different. and if you recall they filmed in new zealand, not a sound studio lined with green plastic. in space battles i say the more effects the better...but when shooting a scene with people and places, i think you have to be real...or mostly real.

i was watching the old trilogy this weekend and, yeah alot of the effects r dated but it did not distract me from the story. what did distract me was a beak on the sarlacc. (btw still annoyed with fetts rediculous demise)

special effects enhance a movie but should never be asked to carry it. LotR had a strong cast and a visionary director...sadly the same cannot be said for the new trilogy. in an odd sidenote, ive heard lucas wanted others to direct- ron howard and speilberg but they would not.

ps- you can't hear an explosion in space.

Oh I see your point now.But in my opinion,I can't find the new trilogy worse.I like them both the same.

I understand what you mean. It would have been funkier for him to have filmed on location and then added affects in. But I suppose he did what was easier to do, and it is a lot easier to work from a studio from his point of view.

I also think though that if he would have had more special effects in the original trilogy if he could have.

Fett II, you also would not see huge explosions in space due to the lack of oxygen.

I agree with Darth Maul Clone. I like episodes 1-3 just as much as episodes 4-6. They are different but just as enjoyable.

I am actually going off LOTR. It looks funky and there is a great cast but after reading the books to my eldest son I have started to realise how much he has got wrong with the film. It is not so much the things he has missed out (which is understandable) but it is the fact he has changed how events happen in the book and even changed the ending that really annoyed. I do not want to go too much into the portrayal of the Ents but it is really, really annoying and when I have seen the film I really want to forward past those parts.

I think it was so load it was not able to.

poor Tom Bombadil... and Saruman's death was incorrect. yeah, i was a bit ticked too with the ending, but the movies were still really good (sorry I saw before I read, but I've noticed the major differences as well)

Okay I l absolutely love LotR.  Trying to get my hands on that new one Christopher published.  I have to say LotR was one of the most accurate books turned movies I have ever seen.  And it was still lacking but they did the best they could.  The timeline was a bit off in terms of where things happened in the movies eg Death of Boromir in Fellowship when it should have been in Two Towers and Shelob in Return when it should have been in Two Towers.

eh, there were a lot of changes Sev.

But it was still one of the most accurate movie to book translation I have seen.  Comparing to the most recent one I've seen (Eragon) it was amazing.

There were changes to LotR.  I really was annoyed when they skipped certain parts, especially some I was looking forward to seeing.  BUT, in my humble opinion, it is still the best book turned movie I have EVER seen.  Eragon is an okay action flick, despite its fast pace, but it is NOTHING compared to LotR's book-movie conversion.  Heck, it wasnt even close to the book it was based off of, save for the characters' names.  And, besides, imagine what the actors, and directors, and other cast members had to go through for LotR.  It was one of the most well-known, and most well-loved fantasy books ever.  The pressure to turn it into a respectable movie would be astronomical.  Considering all this, the movie trilogy exceeded themselves.  I say hats off to them.

agreed. After all, Return of the King did win everything it was nominated for.

I think that Return of the king won the awards as they were all saved up for that, as the other films did not do so well.

I am afraid I seem to dislike the films more and more every time I see it. I just seem to find new things with it that are not done right and it is really beginning to annoy now sadly.

Also another thing that really gets me is that while I understand why things get missed out I do not like seeing things added in that were not in the book. In my opinion if the scenes that were not in the book were not in the films then there would be more space for things that were missed out that were in the book.

I do not think it is the best film adaptation for the reasons that I have stated. I do still enjoy it but not as much as I did before I re-read the lord of the rings.

I dident Like haden in episode II,but i think he did a exallent job in episode III, he realley chaught the dark side of anikin

Yeah I agree!