StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Star Wars duo 'least convincing'

The pair played Senator Padme Amidala and Anakin Skywalker
Star Wars couple Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen have been voted as having the least plausible on-screen chemistry by film fans.
The pair beat Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez for their performance in Gigli into second place, which was made when they were a real life couple.

Former duo Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman also made the list with Eyes Wide Shut.

British pairing Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom were thought "too stiff upper lip" in Pirates of the Caribbean.

The 3,000 movie-goers who were surveyed for Pearl and Dean said their screen relationship was punctuated with too much old-fashioned romance and "not enough lust".

Catherine Zeta Jones and Sir Sean Connery's performance opposite one another in 1999's Entrapment landed in fifth place.

There was a 39-year age difference between the couple.

Affleck landed inside the top 10 for a second time, with his chemistry with Kate Beckinsale in Pearl Harbor failing to convince audiences.

Hugh Grant and Andie MacDowell's relationship in romantic comedy Four Weddings and A Funeral finished sixth in the list.

The gay romance between Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal in Brokeback Mountain was more convincing, with only 5% of respondents saying it failed to win them over.

Madonna also featured highly in the poll, with her dramatic relationship with Italian actor Adriano Giannini in Swept Away not managing to draw in viewers.

The pop star made the 2002 film with director husband Guy Richie, with the release proving to be a box office flop

LEAST CONVINCING SCREEN PARTNERSHIPS
1 Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen - Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones
2 Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez - Gigli
3 Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom - Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy
4 Madonna and Adriano Giannini - Swept Away
5 Catherine Zeta Jones and Sir Sean Connery - Entrapment
Source: Pearl and Dean

The 3,000 movie-goers who were surveyed for Pearl and Dean said their screen relationship was punctuated with too much of how people acted back in the late 17th-early 18th centuries and "not enough anachronistic behavior".

Civil War Man wrote:As a comment on the criticism of the Elizabeth/Will relationship in POTC...

The 3,000 movie-goers who were surveyed for Pearl and Dean said their screen relationship was punctuated with too much of how people acted back in the late 17th-early 18th centuries and "not enough anachronistic behavior".

Corrected. :P

Sidewinder wrote:How did people act during the late 17th-early 18th centuries, anyways? Do they actually act as if the object of their affections was a prized horse they intended to buy? (I admit I'm not very knowledgeable about that period in history.)

Darth Tanner wrote:I would be interesting in hearing your thoughts on why it rates so poorly, was it the result of poor actors or was it bad writing?

Stormbringer wrote:

Darth Tanner wrote:I would be interesting in hearing your thoughts on why it rates so poorly, was it the result of poor actors or was it bad writing?

Horrible writing.

Galvatron wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:

Darth Tanner wrote:I would be interesting in hearing your thoughts on why it rates so poorly, was it the result of poor actors or was it bad writing?

Horrible writing.

And directing. Before TPM, the man hadn't directed a damn thing for more than 20 years. And even then he admitted he was uncomfortable with "mushy stuff."

Galvatron wrote:And directing. Before TPM, the man hadn't directed a damn thing for more than 20 years. And even then he admitted he was uncomfortable with "mushy stuff."

Stormbringer wrote:Horrible writing.

The Spartan wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:Horrible writing.

In fact, wasn't there a quote attributed to Harrison Ford telling Lucas, "You can write this shit, you just can't say it," or something to that effect?

Elfdart wrote:I thought Anakin and Padme were pretty convincing, since teenagers in love tend to be cringeworthy and embarassing. So much so that later in life, they try to keep out of their minds how pathetic teenagers in love usually are by constructing an emotional facade combined with a personal myth they keep telling themselves over and over:

"I was cool when I was that age. So cool that I never made a fool out of myself with a girl [or boy]. I was clever, glib, knew my place... "

In fact, the more pathetic the teenager, the more they pretend to have been to have been one of the Kewl Kids as a teenager -with permavirgins pretending to be young Cary Grants (when they're not trying to be Neo).


Besides, any movie with Tom Cruise or Keanu Reeves and a female love interest is bound to be less convincing than the ones on this list.

Darth Wong wrote:Ever heard the phrase "life is stranger than fiction"? What's "convincing" onscreen is not necessarily what actually happens in real-life. Watch real teenaged guys and girls together and it's absolutely intolerable. You would never put a typical shopping-mall scene with a bunch of teenagers into a movie in unaltered form because nobody could stand it.

Darth Massacrus wrote:

Elfdart wrote:I thought Anakin and Padme were pretty convincing, since teenagers in love tend to be cringeworthy and embarassing. So much so that later in life, they try to keep out of their minds how pathetic teenagers in love usually are by constructing an emotional facade combined with a personal myth they keep telling themselves over and over:

"I was cool when I was that age. So cool that I never made a fool out of myself with a girl [or boy]. I was clever, glib, knew my place... "

In fact, the more pathetic the teenager, the more they pretend to have been to have been one of the Kewl Kids as a teenager -with permavirgins pretending to be young Cary Grants (when they're not trying to be Neo).


Besides, any movie with Tom Cruise or Keanu Reeves and a female love interest is bound to be less convincing than the ones on this list.

actually, at the time of AOTC, Anakin was 21 and Padme was either 26 or 27. So they werent exactly teenagers in terms of years. Still, you'd think that having grown up on Tatooine Anakin would at least be somewhat familiar with, at the very least, better pickup lines and ways to get a girl. And when he was in the Jedi Temple, you'd at least think that there'd be SOMETHING, anything, about that sort of stuff somewhere in the Jedi Archives. And I think that, in Padme's case, she would have had at least a few talks with her Handmaidens about stuff like this.

Elfdart wrote:So much for the "he can't write or direct" bullshit.

Elfdart wrote:

The Spartan wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:Horrible writing.

In fact, wasn't there a quote attributed to Harrison Ford telling Lucas, "You can write this shit, you just can't say it," or something to that effect?

The dialogue Ford was complaining about was the bit about hyperspace and the navi-computer, not the corniness of the lines. Anyway, that just happens to be the screenplay that got Lucas a nomination for Best Original Screenplay to go with his nomination for Best Director -his second nomination in both categories. So much for the "he can't write or direct" bullshit.

The Spartan wrote:Really? Odd. I always thought that bit was convincing, if I'm remembering the right part.

Darth Massacrus wrote:Still, you'd think that having grown up on Tatooine Anakin would at least be somewhat familiar with, at the very least, better pickup lines and ways to get a girl.

And when he was in the Jedi Temple, you'd at least think that there'd be SOMETHING, anything, about that sort of stuff somewhere in the Jedi Archives.

Stormbringer wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Ever heard the phrase "life is stranger than fiction"? What's "convincing" onscreen is not necessarily what actually happens in real-life. Watch real teenaged guys and girls together and it's absolutely intolerable. You would never put a typical shopping-mall scene with a bunch of teenagers into a movie in unaltered form because nobody could stand it.

So in other words George Lucas made a lousy movie intentionally because it would be more realistic?

I rather doubt that that was his actual intention in no small part because the awkward, ham-handed dialogue is not confined to the romance plots. If he really wanted to do awkward teenage infatuation you can do that with out making it so bad it's hard to watch. It's certainly possible to do.

Stormbringer wrote:So in other words George Lucas made a lousy movie intentionally because it would be more realistic? I rather doubt that that was his actual intention in no small part because the awkward, ham-handed dialogue is not confined to the romance plots. If he really wanted to do awkward teenage infatuation you can do that with out making it so bad it's hard to watch. It's certainly possible to do.

And what it really comes down to is that even if he intended to be real teenagers at their most awkward, so be it. It still made large chunks of the prequels barely watchable and that's not a good movie-making decision.

Darth Wong wrote: Not exactly. He intended it to be a SW version of Romeo and Juliet.

Actually, the teen infatuation scenes came off as quite natural to me. It was the scenes when they were trying to discuss important things which made me cringe.