Anakin romance worst ever - now official

[Darth Tanner]

[url=ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6953790.stm]BBC linky[/url]

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

I can't say I'm surprised at the result it was cringingly bad, and that was when you were awake to watch it! (Does anyone not press skip chapter on those bits?)

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?

I can't say I was impressed with either of their acting abilities but they were hardly helped by the cheesy dialogue and the overall silliness of the concept in the first place.

[Lisa]

it rates poorly because the acting was poor, they didn't seem to even like each other, never mind love each other and it was worse in ROTS

mean while in epsode 1 I could easily believe Queen Amidala had a fondness for Anakin even if it was as one would love a brother.


I don't like the way Hayden played Anakin, he was just too whiney emo, I can't even believe that Anakin became Darth Vador.

[Civil War Man]

I blame the lack of chemistry between Anakin and Amidala on neither of the characters being particularly mature. Anakin was raised in a cloistered monastic order, and Amidala's a politician (insert canned laughter).

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.

[Sidewinder]

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

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.)

[Civil War Man]

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.)

It was more true in the upper class, where reputation and pedigree were considered more important. Weddings were arranged to consolidate the influence of two families (or seal a deal between them), and extramarital affairs were pretty commonplace (sometimes condoned). Oftentimes the bride would be viewed as if she were a prized horse, because in aristocratic families she often ended up as little more than an ornament/brood mare.

This may be more true of Victorian relationships, but marrying for genuine affection is still a relatively recent phenomenon nonetheless.

[Elfdart]

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.

[Stormbringer]

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. I've seen a lot of excuses and rationalization but what it comes down to is that George Lucas can't write dialogue and inter-personal stuff very well. The Anakin-Padme love scenes are hardly the only stuff that comes off as corny, in the prequels or the originals, and a lot of that has to be laid at Lucas' doorstep.

It probably didn't help that he had decent but still largely young actors in the roles. Guys like Christopher Lee, Liam Neeson, and Ian McDiarmind could hold their own against the material by dint of decades of experience. That let them get away with acting out and saying things that are pretty corny objectively speaking.

[Galvatron]

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."

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

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."

Indeed. I'm not exactly a Theatre major (amateur experience masquerading as expert opinion FTW!), but from the few 5-second snippets of Lucas directing dialogue that's on a few docs (mostly on the DVD), his direction seems really heavy-handed and clumsy.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

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."

I still thought his directing for ANH was terrible. Certainly he had great special effects for that time, but otherwise, the acting and script could do with polishing.

[The Spartan]

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?

[Ghost Rider]

Then someone is looking through some very murky glasses. Anakin and Amidala is nothing spectacular, but AOTC worst ever? Are they really not taking the Matrix shit into account, ANY Batman, and a slew of others? And it rates HIGHER then Gigli?!. I call bullshit on the account they weren't watching one of these films.

AOTC was never my fave and not what I'd even take as inspiration of romance, but to say it's worse then Gigli, PoTC, or any of that list is really just hating SW for hating SW. And even then, there are a few worst then what's on that list.

[Mange]

While the romance scenes on Naboo are a bit cheesy, I think that the "I love you" scene on Geonosis more than makes up for it together with the small scenes during the battle (e.g. Padmé kisses Anakin). I've seen worse.

And the romance being cheesy, well, Anakin had practically grown up in a monastery and Padmé wasn't very experienced herself.

[Elfdart]

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.

[Darth Wong]

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.

It kind of reminds me of the people who thought that the footage of the planes crashing into the towers on 9/11 looked unconvincing, because it didn't look like the way it looks in movies when they do the same thing. Like it or not, what's "convincing" in a movie has nothing to do with realism, and everything to do with convention. The Anakin/Amidala relationship could have been made more "convincing" if Lucas simply farmed their lovey-dovey dialogue off to some third-rate sitcom writer who knows how to stick to well-worn genre conventions.

[Darth Massacrus]

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.

[Stormbringer]

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.

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.

[Archon]

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.

Anakin Skywalker was 19 in AotC.

[Galvatron]

The Han/Leia romance in TESB wasn't particularly realistic, but it worked. I'd rather have something like that than an intentionally horrid romance for the sake of "authenticity."

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

I think it's fair to say that he can't write or direct romance for shit.

[The Spartan]

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.

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

Well, I stand corrected then.

[Drooling Iguana]

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

Apparently it took quite a few takes to get the convincing delivery of the line. Although, as I understand it, the problem wasn't that the line was unrealistic so much as it was long, filled with technobabble and Ford was expected to somehow deliver it quickly and with great urgency.

[Jim Raynor]

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.

The hell? Anakin "grew up on Tatooine" for all of 9 years. And Tatooine is supposed to be the total ass-end of the galaxy.

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.

The Jedi Order, which is celibate, would keep records on pick-up lines?

[Darth Wong]

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?

Not exactly. He intended it to be a SW version of Romeo and Juliet. I'm just pointing out that all movie romance dialogue is unrealistic; Lucas' great sin is being unrealistic in a different way than most movies are. And the dialogue is 100% as convincing as anything in Romeo and Juliet, which is to say "not at all". But if you'd put perfectly normal rigidly conventional romance dialogue in that movie, I honestly think it would not feel like Star Wars at all.

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.

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.

[Erik von Nein]

The infatuation parts could be coming from Lucas drawing on the same experiences that he used to write American Graffiti. He pretty much wrote all that from what he used to do when he was that age. Which probably accounts for why it's not as horrible as other parts of the movie.

[Elfdart]

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.

This is the same George Lucas who wrote and directed American Grafitti, which had corny dialogue and was shot like a documentary.

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.

The hokey romance is also to offset the more serious parts of the movie. In The Searchers (which much of Star Wars is based on), the courtship of Martin and Laurie is even more cringeworthy -to the point where you don't know whether to laugh with them or at them. Funny thing is, when other filmmakers crib from John Ford's classic, they leave the goofy stuff out and only copy the bleak and sinister parts (like in Taxi Driver and The Missing) and the movies are a huge downer.

Not exactly. He intended it to be a SW version of Romeo and Juliet.

The love theme's opening notes are very similar to Nino Rota's score for Zefferelli's version of Romeo & Juliet, as is the arrangement.

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.

The whole idea of teenagers being put in charge of a government is cringe inducing. Teenagers who try to be serious are almost always embarassing.