lukeiamyourdad Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 I think we can get pissed by anything. Look at Anakin. All the time I thought he was supposed to be this really strong Jedi. Now I just think he was a whiny teenager who got angry and started killing everyone... The way Jango Fett died...I was pissed and so were a lot of people. The way Maul died... The way Qui-Gon died... We'll forever be pissed by something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 First, I'd like to say Hi because I've never posted on these boards before. I'm a regular on the Galactic Battles.com board with Lukeiamyourdad and pbguy1211. But I thought I'd branch out a bit. Now let me start by saying I'm glad people are moving away from the Sifo-Dyas = Darth Sidious theory. I think this is wrong for reasons already stated in this thread. I don't mind the Qui-Gon theory, though it is flawed. But now, I'll reveal my theory, which I've thought long and hard about. Sifo-Dyas = Darth Maul Here's my reasons (though first you must unlearn what you have learned from EU, it can be and often is wrong): 1) We know very little about Maul's past, but chances are he was once a Jedi like Dooku, who was corrupted by Sidious. 2) When Maul wanted to leave the Jedi Order to fully serve Sidious, he probably faked his death - it would have created much less attention than Dooku's exit did. This is why everyone believes Sifo-Dyas dead. 3) Since Sifo-Dyas can't be Sidious or Dooku (I'm assuming they didn't just use Sifo-Dyas' name, which would be a really lame plot twist) because other Jedi know who Sifo-Dyas is, there must be a third Sith-accomplice in the mix. It was Tyranus (Dooku) who hired Jango for the Clones, but he didn't order them from the Kaminoans; it makes sense that someone with that task is a Sith Lord, and not just an underling like Nute Gunray. 4) Here's my only EU-based argument: I always wondered why they said Maul's body-markings were tattoos rather than his natural skin pattern. If it was his natural skin pattern it's much scarier, I thought. Please don't bring up the argument here that he got it because of his commitment to the Dark Side - if that is the case why don't Sidious and Dooku, who are both more powerful than Maul, have their own tattoos? Well, it makes sense to me that Maul got the tattoos to disguise himself from the Jedi. Sifo-Dyas had no such tattoos, and he would be barely recognisable to any of the Jedi painted all black and red. 5) My final point I feel is the strongest: it also seemed strange that Darth Maul had in the end such a minor part in Star Wars. It's been rumoured Qui-Gon yet has a part to play, and I believe Maul does too. He was too much of a cool character to be of no consequence. He was also really under-developed in TPM, which I believe will all be changed in Episode 3. Besides, it's much more creative than simply "Dooku/Sidious told the Kaminoans he was Sifo-Dyas". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 Originally posted by Admiral Vostok 1) We know very little about Maul's past, but chances are he was once a Jedi like Dooku, who was corrupted by Sidious. 2) When Maul wanted to leave the Jedi Order to fully serve Sidious, he probably faked his death - it would have created much less attention than Dooku's exit did. This is why everyone believes Sifo-Dyas dead. 3) Since Sifo-Dyas can't be Sidious or Dooku (I'm assuming they didn't just use Sifo-Dyas' name, which would be a really lame plot twist) because other Jedi know who Sifo-Dyas is, there must be a third Sith-accomplice in the mix. It was Tyranus (Dooku) who hired Jango for the Clones, but he didn't order them from the Kaminoans; it makes sense that someone with that task is a Sith Lord, and not just an underling like Nute Gunray. 4) Here's my only EU-based argument: I always wondered why they said Maul's body-markings were tattoos rather than his natural skin pattern. If it was his natural skin pattern it's much scarier, I thought. Please don't bring up the argument here that he got it because of his commitment to the Dark Side - if that is the case why don't Sidious and Dooku, who are both more powerful than Maul, have their own tattoos? Well, it makes sense to me that Maul got the tattoos to disguise himself from the Jedi. Sifo-Dyas had no such tattoos, and he would be barely recognisable to any of the Jedi painted all black and red. 5) My final point I feel is the strongest: it also seemed strange that Darth Maul had in the end such a minor part in Star Wars. It's been rumoured Qui-Gon yet has a part to play, and I believe Maul does too. He was too much of a cool character to be of no consequence. He was also really under-developed in TPM, which I believe will all be changed in Episode 3. Besides, it's much more creative than simply "Dooku/Sidious told the Kaminoans he was Sifo-Dyas". I doubt it... 1. they would have recognized him. and Qui Gon didn't. 3. they said there will be only 2 Sith. 5. you wish he had more of a backstory! wishful thinking is all that will be, friend. Besides, the Kaminoans didn't know any of the Jedi as obvious by how they didn't know who Kenobi was. I just think it'll end up being "some dude" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Well I guess it would be better being some dude than Sidious or Dooku. Man that would suck... okay nothing in a Star Wars movie could ever suck, but that would come close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Originally posted by Admiral Vostok okay nothing in a Star Wars movie could ever suck, but that would come close. So you liked the idea of Jar Jar and thought Hayden and Portman were great actors so far??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeedii_zaarinn Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 hey guys i got the journal of darth maul. it gives a complete history of him. he wasn't a jedi, sidious just captured him and trained him in the dark side ever since he was little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 pbguy: Jar Jar is my fourth favourite character (after Obi-Wan, R2-D2 and Yoda). I thought Haycen Christensen was perfect for the role and I can't fault Natalie Portman either. Answer your questions? Jeedii_zaarinn: I said you must unlearn what EU has taught you. Similar publications said the Battle Droids were made in the image of Neimoidian skeletons, but now we know they were modelled after Geonosians. You need to learn to disregard it, George Lucas certainly does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeedii_zaarinn Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 well there were diffrent kinds of battle droids. the nemodians had their own and the geonosis had their own. its like the orcs in lord of the rings: you got the mordor orcs and the isrengard orcs. both look totally diffrent. i think they look a little like the nemodians because the battle droids have the pointy chin like thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 I never thought someone would name himself Zaarin...sorry. Both Hayden and Portman were bad. If you saw other Portman movies you would know. Go rent "The Professionnal"(also called "Leon") with Jean Reno, Gary Oldman and Natalie Portman. You'll see that she can do a lot better. As for Hayden...he's just ugly I hate him for no reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Christensen and Portman weren't any worse than Mark Hamill or Carrie Fisher. Even Alec Guinness, one of the greatest film actors ever, had trouble giving a good performance. I think acting in a Star Wars movie is a pretty hard thing to do. Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, Samuel L Jackson, and Natalie Portman have all been critically acclaimed for their acting in other movies, but in Star Wars they just aren't that good. But I don't mind it at all. As for Christensen, I think he was the perfect person for the role. You can see both elements of Jake Lloyd* and Darth Vader in him. I can't think of anyone who would have done better. *Okay he's a bad actor, but I still don't mind, he was better in the role than anyone I can think of - can you imagine Hayley Joel Osment as Anakin? Sheesh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 I'm surprised that Portman and Sam L. are this bad, but I guess it has a lot to do with the blue screen. Ewan isn't awful... but he isn't great either. He's got a bunch of other movies I like. Trainspotting was awesome... the best quote from that was towards the end when he says something to the effect of: "Why do I do the bad things I do? It's simple. I'm a bad person." Classic!!!! And Sam L. has some GREAT sh*t out there! Pulp... Long Kiss... etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 pbguy- My favorite caracter in Pulp Fiction is Jules...long live Jules! Vostok-Yeah well I guess...Perhaps the acting is bad but a lot of people don't mind and that's true. Although the acting could be better and thus make the movie even better! Christensen was supposed to give Portman some other look. While he was looking at her, I did not see that he loved her but rather his eyes said:"I'm gonna rape her and kill her after". It's just something only I see... *Hayley Joel Osment is waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too young for Portman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soromonu Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 bad acting stims from bad direction...how many of the original trilogy did Lucas direct?.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeedii_zaarinn Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 and dont forget about unbreakable with sam. L as the comic book terrorist guy. i would never have fought the comic book guy was the terrorist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Oscar-caliber acting from any character other than Yoda would be out-of-place in a Star Wars movies. Besides, the acting style is modeled after old serials, just like the action. It's based in melodrama and isn't the most realistic acting style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 Soromonu - Lucas only directed A New Hope, which I think possibly had the worst acting in it. Much worse than anything in TPM or AotC, though most people will say it is a far better movie... As a side note I thought I'd add that Sam Jackson was my favourite actor before he was in Star Wars, so when I found out he was in Star Wars I was ecstatic. However I'll be the first to say Star Wars is not his best work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_trooper Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 Thats true, if the acting is too good, itll become the focus of the movie thus taking attention away from the story which is in my opinion more important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimDan Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Originally posted by GrimDan no ...ahuh i hate posts like that Anywayz, it's not a case of bad acting it's a case of inexperienced actors. They did their best and they do better then any of us could ever do lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro The Hutt Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I agree with that, but a director is usually the one that has to guide the actor and get the best that they have out of them. But hearing things like Lucas giving advice to actors like "Alright, that was good, do it again now, but better this time." Even the best actor would be baffled on what to do. And in Hayden's defense, I recently saw "Life as a House" which was shot before AotC, and I have to admit, he actually gave a good acting performance in there. So he has the talent, but he probably needs a good director to get it out of him due to his relative inexperience compared to the powerhouses like Mcdiarmid and Samuel L. Jackson and a few other names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darth small Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I think he is just a dead jedi whose name dooku used. though the maul agruement is interesting and i think possibly the most realistic of all the theories(i.e. Dias being palpatine or qui-gon) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.