Jake Lloyd 10 Years Later

[Jim Raynor]

I saw an article on Yahoo today about an interview that Jake Lloyd (young Anakin in TPM) recently did. The link includes a YouTube video of the interview.

The Force is Not With Him: Anakin Skywalker 10 Years Later
by Claudine Zap    July 24, 2009

The plucky kid with the pod racer from "Star Wars: Episode I" is not a kid anymore. And Jake Lloyd wants you to know that having a major role in a George Lucas film really put a damper on things when he was growing up.

OK, fine: The guy doesn't really deserve our pity, but think of it from his point of view. Ten years old, getting blamed for ruining the Star Wars series. (Well, that was mainly the fault of George Lucas, but the kid was there, wasn't he?) And people just won't let it go. The Sci-Fi Australia blog caught up with the glum "Star Wars" alum Down Under, who sounds more Eeyore than "Episode One."

While every word drips with sarcasm (he is 20, after all) the Anakin actor also can still speak geek. On college: "You'll never find more intelligent, charming people than the drunk students of the college world." 'Nuff said.

Hey, Jake, don't worry: We know how you feel. Jar Jar Binks pretty much ruined the whole Star Wars thing for us, too.

Here's the video of the interview.

Overall, I think the article paints a much more negative picture than what was actually apparent in the video (to be fair the video was obviously edited so there could have been some more stuff). He implied that he got some crap in high school, but that's not surprising for a child star. The article's wording makes it out as if TPM ruined his life, although he looked fine in the video and was able to joke about things. Jake admits to being a geek who read some SW books and played the rpg, but he came across as an okay guy.

He seemed to have a pretty balanced view of things, saying that he enjoyed watching TPM himself when he was a kid and understood that it was for younger audiences and the fans. He seems to "get it" more than all the cynical aging fanboys who bitched about how TPM was the worst movie ever and "raped their childhoods." Jake did say that going back to the movie now as a 20 year-old seemed a bit "creepy" though, which I don't get. The movie has its childish parts but I always saw it as for all-ages (that political stuff in the Senate which was also criticized by people who said that they couldn't understand it). At the end of the interview he says that he doesn't regret being in the movie.

The nerd-rage exaggerations are still annoying, especially when they're hypocrital. The Transformers movies were embraced, and they had just as much CGI and even more plot holes and bad writing than the prequels did. But those movies had cursing and Megan Fox being hawt so I guess they were totally different. Just for the record I enjoyed the first TF movie and thought RotF was okay; I'm just pointing out the inconsistency with people's attitudes.

The SW prequel bashers (who apparently appear in disproportionate numbers in the media) really do seem to live in an alternate universe. The movies made a lot of money, and Jake himself said that he's seen a lot of young children at conventions who loved them. I remember when ROTS actually silenced the criticism for a couple years (and I have no doubt that was in part because it had the most death and gore, regardless of its superior quality). But then the anti-Lucas bandwagon started up again with the new Indiana Jones (which was also a big hit despite fanboy claims of childhood raping) and fully resurrected with the animated Clone Wars movie (which was clearly made more for kids). It's such a fluctuating band wagon.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Sometimes I would have thought there are some people who have better things to do, then to go mock people, but hey... seems that can't get on with life.

[Ghost Rider]

TPM gets bashed by a crowd who are much like the ST fans who scream that JJ Abrams raped their childhood. The idea is that there is no choice except to love or hate the entire material presented from a single creator or liscence. I believe there are loads of complaints that are logical towards TPM and the prequel trilogy but to place that he raped a childhood is the mark of a sheep and fanatic. In the end, the media plays up on these because they are still vocal because if they stop they realize how fucking empty their shouts are at this point and time.

And it's been 10 years? Wow.

[Covenant]

Who in their right mind thinks the little kid from TPM was the problem with that movie? Qui-Gon, Anakin and Palpatine were the only ones in that move who didn't deserve ire. While Anakin had a few idiotic lines, he's supposed to be a proto-hero, while there's absolutely nothing to excuse the dumbassedry from the rest of the cast, including Obi-Wan's whining and Jar Jar.

[Ghost Rider]

Who in their right mind thinks the little kid from TPM was the problem with that movie? Qui-Gon, Anakin and Palpatine were the only ones in that move who didn't deserve ire. While Anakin had a few idiotic lines, he's supposed to be a proto-hero, while there's absolutely nothing to excuse the dumbassedry from the rest of the cast, including Obi-Wan's whining and Jar Jar.

Because with Jar-Jar he's easily the most visual of what people believe is wrong with TPM. Think about how people work with needing a specific target and it's easily seen that both him and Jar-Jar are seen as the primaries of what went wrong. Nevermind the dialogue, general plot and the other sundries that were to blame which places blame on Lucas.

Though the other thing is public perception and hype. This movie had no shot in hell to ever live up to 19 years of iconic lusting that fans harbored.

[JME2]

Though the other thing is public perception and hype. This movie had no shot in hell to ever live up to 19 years of iconic lusting that fans harbored.

Yeah; while it didn't happen with me and the prequels, I'll acknowledge I had to resist succumbing to that mentality with Indy 4 and not viewing it as the second coming.

I still think TPM is an alright film, but nowhere near as bad as some of the complaints I've heard over the years.

[Themightytom]

I don't understand how the guy gets ripped on in film school for landing a sweet gig at such a young age, and getting to work with Ewan mcgregor Liam Nieson and George Lucas. If he played his cards right he could have been the toast of the town, I think his atitude shaped his treatment more than fan criticism, but he could be all negative and bitterness NOW because of how he's been treated over the past 10 yrs too.

[Elfdart]

I don't understand how the guy gets ripped on in film school for landing a sweet gig at such a young age, and getting to work with Ewan mcgregor Liam Nieson and George Lucas.

Envy.

[Havok]

The sad thing is that Lloyd acted in TPM like *GASP* a 9 year old. Fanboy jerkoffs wanted some bad ass Darth Vader lite mini me thing going on and when they didn't get that, along with the movie maybe not being as good as Star Wars and certainly not living up to 20 years of excitement, they took it out on him. And Jar Jar.

What is worse for me, is that I thought he did a good job holding his own against Nieson and McGregor and I had zero problems with him. Now Portman on the other hand... and the nobodies, like the random pilots Captain Panaka... they fucking sucked and they are what stand out to me in the acting of the movie as what sucked. That and GL being in a completely different place and frame of mind then when he did Star Wars.

[Vympel]

I didn't like Jake Lloyd because I thought he was a bad actor. His delivery was shite, sorry to say. Everytime he spoke it pulled me right out of the movie. It was as if he was reading from cue cards or something.

Anakin's manner was a deliberate choice made in the casting process, and I can see why many people hated Lloyd's casting, because 10 years ago before the film came out there was an extensive making of special, featuring screen tests of various Anakin 'finalists', specifically in the scene where he meets Padme for the first time. IMO, Lloyd was easily the worst of the bunch (there were three or four, and 3/4 were bad), and I felt so at the time. Then I watched the movie and it confirmed what I thought. He was awful.

[Vympel]

Actually here it is

My memory wasn't exactly on point, since Jake Lloyd clearly wasn't the worst, but the kid at 3:10 is the best of them. Jake Lloyd's Anakin was simply not believable - his entire manner (and he acts in this screen test the exact same way he does in the movie) was not consistent with a boy who had known nothing but slavery on a shit-hole planet. The kid at 3:10 is dead on for what a child like Anakin should have been.

Of course, Lucas could've simply directed Jake Lloyd in a different fashion, and maybe the result would've been better, but he obviously liked what he saw. To the film's detriment, IMO.

[Havok]

his entire manner (and he acts in this screen test the exact same way he does in the movie) was not consistent with a boy who had known nothing but slavery on a shit-hole planet.

Sure it was. The 'slavery' we see on screen is not the 'slavery' we have here. He lived with his mother in a pretty large apartment. Had his own room stocked with toys. Friends that he could go play with and enough free time to build a pod racer and a droid from spare parts that he stole, without Watto ever 'noticing'.

From what we see on screen 'slavery' on Tattooine under Watto basically means you have a job that you can't quit. His life was pretty damn good compared to a lot of people living in inner cities today with no slavery. His acting, personality and demeanor reflected that.

[Elfdart]

Since much of TPM is a knock-off of Shane, it's kind of obvious that Lucas wanted a kid to be just like the tow-headed farm boy from George Stevens' classic film. And that's exactly what Lucas got, down to the haircut.

[18-Till-I-Die]

I had no problem with TPM or the prequels. Really, unless you have NEVER seen the original movies since the 70s, they're exactly the same but with better special effects. The acting is ass save for like two guys...just like the acting in the OT was ass except for Han Solo. The battles were awesome, just like the battles in the OT were awesome (the big showdown at the end of AOTC and the Battle of Hoth are still my two favorite scifi movie battles). The special effects are better, but the originals still hold up fine. Jake Loyd's acting is shitty as hell, no argument here. But he neither "ruined" the movie nor did the movie "ruin" the series. And you know what, the fact that like EVERY one of them was a gargantuan hit kind of proves that this "vocal minority" is more vocal than a minority...since they probably comprise about .01% of the people who saw it. But don't tell THEM that, they'll write mean blogs about you! You know it's really fascinating, these are probably the same people who think Transformers was RUINED FOREVER!!! because of the Michael Bay movies.

The way the nerd rage advocates talk you'd think the PT dives out of the movie screen and rapes your mother on live television. In fact the term "raped my childhood" gets thrown around so much I really wonder if George Lucas is responsible for something I'm not aware of. Maybe he has a record as a sexual predator and I'm just the last to know . "Raped my childhood", literal or metaphorical!? I like to think that I'm unphased by the nerd rage from the fandom because I'm smarter than them...but really, I know it's just because I have more realistic standards than 90% of nerds, prolly because of the fact I watch most of these movies with my (non-nerd) girlfriends who act to frequently remind me it's a FUCKING MOVIE about SPACE WIZARDS WITH LASER SWORDS and I have to stay grounded not to end up like...well like the nerd ragers.

Thankfully, not being a virgin, I've managed to dodge the hardcore nerd bullet pretty well so far...so far...

But God help them if they fuck up the Avengers movie.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Jake did say that going back to the movie now as a 20 year-old seemed a bit "creepy" though, which I don't get. The movie has its childish parts but I always saw it as for all-ages (that political stuff in the Senate which was also criticized by people who said that they couldn't understand it).

Dude, I think he was saying its "creepy" because he was IN the movie, so he sees himself as a kid in it, not because the movie itself is childish or what have you.

[Elfdart]

But God help them if they fuck up the Avengers movie.

It was terrible. Uma Thurman in a leather bodysuit couldn't save that movie.




Lloyd's attitude is understandable: Youths in their late teens/early twenties want no part of their own baby pictures or home movies of them as kids. It reminds them that only a few years earlier, they were children -not something young adults want or need to be reminded of. To know that everyone else has seen your "home movies" would creep out anyone.


As for the "raped childhood" crowd, I think the nerd rage is mostly from 30-something males with zero social life (and some younger permavirgins who can't wait for another decade to pass them by without them ever kissing a girl) who think the series should have aged with them. How dare George Lucas make more films aimed at 10-year-old boys! Surely the prequels were supposed to appeal to males in their thirties, right?

These Comic Store Guys are about the same age my dad was when he took me to watch Star Wars (mid-thirties). I remember how he rolled his eyes and snickered during scenes that my grade schooler mind thought were not the least bit funny. He told the other grownups how corny it was, but what the hell -the kids sat still the whole time.* He realized that Star Wars was a matinee-style movie for kids, and didn't bitch about how it should have appealed to him. He was an adult, not a case study in arrested development.

* Mom was different matter because she, like most women her age, had a thing for Harrison Ford. So she didn't mind taking the kids back to watch The Han Solo Movie again.

[Swindle1984]

Could be worse; he could have gotten the full Wesley Crusher treatment.

[Stofsk]

I had no problem with TPM or the prequels. Really, unless you have NEVER seen the original movies since the 70s, they're exactly the same but with better special effects. The acting is ass save for like two guys...just like the acting in the OT was ass except for Han Solo. The battles were awesome, just like the battles in the OT were awesome (the big showdown at the end of AOTC and the Battle of Hoth are still my two favorite scifi movie battles). The special effects are better, but the originals still hold up fine. Jake Loyd's acting is shitty as hell, no argument here. But he neither "ruined" the movie nor did the movie "ruin" the series. And you know what, the fact that like EVERY one of them was a gargantuan hit kind of proves that this "vocal minority" is more vocal than a minority...since they probably comprise about .01% of the people who saw it. But don't tell THEM that, they'll write mean blogs about you! You know it's really fascinating, these are probably the same people who think Transformers was RUINED FOREVER!!! because of the Michael Bay movies.

Defenders of the prequels always puzzle me with their chosen form of defence: financial success and "You know, the OT wasn't that great either..."

All financial success means is simply that; it was a financial success. It has nothing to do with the writing, acting, special effects, themes of the plot or any number of qualitative factors you could look at. It's only benefit is that it's an objective measure for the films success. Ok, fair enough, but that doesn't mean the films didn't have problems. It doesn't mean those problems couldn't have been solved before release. And it doesn't mean the films couldn't have been better as a result of tighter scripting or better directing or what-have-you.

As for the other one, "The OT wasn't that great either..." um, bullshit. There wouldn't be a PT if not for the OT. Now, I do think that criticisms of the PT over its acting (for example) are warranted and could be directed at the OT as well, but surprise surprise, the critics of the time did precisely that. There's a reason why Harrison Ford's career took off while Mark Hamil and Carrie Fisher's... didn't (Carrie Fisher in particular couldn't act out of a wet paper bag if her life depended upon it... don't do drugs, kids). I personally don't have much of a problem with the acting in the PT (though Jake Lloyd probably wasn't the best choice for young Anakin that Lucas could have made), but I think the idea that you have you hate the OT for things you hated in the PT isn't very logical. The PT were made later, so logically if there were things the OT were deficient in, the makers of the PT should have been aware of those deficiencies and thus improve upon them.

The way the nerd rage advocates talk you'd think the PT dives out of the movie screen and rapes your mother on live television. In fact the term "raped my childhood" gets thrown around so much I really wonder if George Lucas is responsible for something I'm not aware of. Maybe he has a record as a sexual predator and I'm just the last to know . "Raped my childhood", literal or metaphorical!? I like to think that I'm unphased by the nerd rage from the fandom because I'm smarter than them...but really, I know it's just because I have more realistic standards than 90% of nerds, prolly because of the fact I watch most of these movies with my (non-nerd) girlfriends who act to frequently remind me it's a FUCKING MOVIE about SPACE WIZARDS WITH LASER SWORDS and I have to stay grounded not to end up like...well like the nerd ragers.

Internet forum posters engage in hyperbole, who knew?

But God help them if they fuck up the Avengers movie.

Why, because it would have raped your childhood?

[Darth Hoth]

I honestly think that Ep I is worse and, yes, more childish than any of the original films. Lucas fanboys can go on however long they like about how ten-year-olds love it or how ANH or TESB were not really that serious or mature, it changes not an iota. Silly robots, Gungans, podracers, the very aesthetic of the decor - the OT had none of this. While the plots were matiné, they were still something an older viewer could enjoy as light entertainment; they were not in any way as obviously targeted at children and at selling merchandise. I cannot agree that disliking this, or feeling that it is not a proper continuation of the original films, is mindless "bashing". Nor would it be such to point out other disappointments, such as the Clone War(s) or Anakin's portrayal in general - these are things that a casual viewer can latch onto, not just the fans who have collected every WEG sourcebook and Marvel comic.

I did not (in my own judgement, at least) have huge expectations on Ep I, and found it to be rather meh - not as bad as some "bashers" would have it, but a worthy sequel it is not.

[Darth Hoth]

his entire manner (and he acts in this screen test the exact same way he does in the movie) was not consistent with a boy who had known nothing but slavery on a shit-hole planet.

Sure it was. The 'slavery' we see on screen is not the 'slavery' we have here. He lived with his mother in a pretty large apartment. Had his own room stocked with toys. Friends that he could go play with and enough free time to build a pod racer and a droid from spare parts that he stole, without Watto ever 'noticing'.

From what we see on screen 'slavery' on Tattooine under Watto basically means you have a job that you can't quit. His life was pretty damn good compared to a lot of people living in inner cities today with no slavery. His acting, personality and demeanor reflected that.

Adjusted for a lower technological level, this would be true for many slaves in ancient Greece or Rome as well. All this shows is that they have a higher standard of living than we are used to, with less work and more comforts, which is logical given that Star Wars overall demonstrates this to be true for everyone. It does not change the fact that they are unfree, or that they lack control of their own lives.

From the film, Anakin has:

*No education, instead child labour.

*Routine work in a profession/sport known to carry a high fatality rate.

*Implanted bombs that can be detonated at any moment.


And if you are a slave, logically your owner has been entrusted with the authority to level the punishments for disobedience necessary to keep you working. He cannot very well fire you, now? That we do not see such punishments inflicted does not mean that the threat of their use is not there.

At that, the very knowing that you are property and subject to the whims of another should profoundly affect you.

Slavery is not a cakewalk, even in the galaxy far, far away.

[Elfdart]

Defenders of the prequels always puzzle me with their chosen form of defence: financial success and "You know, the OT wasn't that great either..."

Why not? Both are valid points.

All financial success means is simply that; it was a financial success. It has nothing to do with the writing, acting, special effects, themes of the plot or any number of qualitative factors you could look at. It's only benefit is that it's an objective measure for the films success. Ok, fair enough, but that doesn't mean the films didn't have problems. It doesn't mean those problems couldn't have been solved before release. And it doesn't mean the films couldn't have been better as a result of tighter scripting or better directing or what-have-you.

That applies in spades to the OT. Everything from Carrie Fisher's temporary British accent in ANH to the constant, repetitive use of "Prepare to..." in TESB to just about everything in ROTJ -anyone who doesn't look at the old movies with rose-colored glasses can come up with a very long list of things that are "wrong" with them. Personally, I think these "flaws" add a kind of goofy, tongue-in-cheek charm to the movies.

As for the other one, "The OT wasn't that great either..." um, bullshit. There wouldn't be a PT if not for the OT. Now, I do think that criticisms of the PT over its acting (for example) are warranted and could be directed at the OT as well, but surprise surprise, the critics of the time did precisely that. There's a reason why Harrison Ford's career took off while Mark Hamil and Carrie Fisher's... didn't (Carrie Fisher in particular couldn't act out of a wet paper bag if her life depended upon it... don't do drugs, kids). I personally don't have much of a problem with the acting in the PT (though Jake Lloyd probably wasn't the best choice for young Anakin that Lucas could have made), but I think the idea that you have you hate the OT for things you hated in the PT isn't very logical. The PT were made later, so logically if there were things the OT were deficient in, the makers of the PT should have been aware of those deficiencies and thus improve upon them.

Why would they? People loved the old movies in spite of (and in many cases because of ) the corny dialogue and Mexican soap opera-style acting. If you think those things could have been fixed but weren't, then the only logical conclusion is that George Lucas wanted them that way.

[Stofsk]

Defenders of the prequels always puzzle me with their chosen form of defence: financial success and "You know, the OT wasn't that great either..."

Why not? Both are valid points.

No they're not. To point out the PT's financial success would amount to an appeal to popularity, unless what was being debated was the PT's financial success - in which case, the numbers would actually be relevant. If I were to think the PT wasn't very good for a number of reasons that had nothing to do with how well-received they were at the box office, how would addressing any criticisms by pointing out the figures... well, address any criticism?

And pointing out "...but the OT was flawed too!" is a red herring. Nobody (least of all me) is saying the OT was without flaws; for me, the films succeed despite their flaws. But criticising the OT in response to criticism of the PT isn't addressing said criticism. It simply obfuscates any reasonable debate over the matter.

That applies in spades to the OT. Everything from Carrie Fisher's temporary British accent in ANH to the constant, repetitive use of "Prepare to..." in TESB to just about everything in ROTJ -anyone who doesn't look at the old movies with rose-colored glasses can come up with a very long list of things that are "wrong" with them. Personally, I think these "flaws" add a kind of goofy, tongue-in-cheek charm to the movies.

Perhaps. Although what you cite as flaws in the above are things that have never registered to me.

Why would they? People loved the old movies in spite of (and in many cases because of ) the corny dialogue and Mexican soap opera-style acting. If you think those things could have been fixed but weren't, then the only logical conclusion is that George Lucas wanted them that way.

Fair enough, although I don't have to like it.

[Vympel]

I honestly think that Ep I is worse and, yes, more childish than any of the original films. Lucas fanboys can go on however long they like about how ten-year-olds love it or how ANH or TESB were not really that serious or mature, it changes not an iota. Silly robots, Gungans, podracers, the very aesthetic of the decor - the OT had none of this. While the plots were matiné, they were still something an older viewer could enjoy as light entertainment; they were not in any way as obviously targeted at children and at selling merchandise. I cannot agree that disliking this, or feeling that it is not a proper continuation of the original films, is mindless "bashing". Nor would it be such to point out other disappointments, such as the Clone War(s) or Anakin's portrayal in general - these are things that a casual viewer can latch onto, not just the fans who have collected every WEG sourcebook and Marvel comic.

I did not (in my own judgement, at least) have huge expectations on Ep I, and found it to be rather meh - not as bad as some "bashers" would have it, but a worthy sequel it is not.

Anakin's portrayal needs more elaboration. Unfortunately, in AotC and RotS, he's mostly an unlikeable character. I still like the idea of the character, and have no problems with Hayden Christensen (especially in RotS, where he performs the role well and he's just an awesome presence, especially after he becomes Vader) but it says a lot that you need The Clone Wars cartoon to actually portray Anakin as a likeable war hero.

[Stofsk]

That's a good point. I was really pleasantly surprised at how the Clone Wars cartoon makes Anakin quite a likeable character and makes him heroic. Like you, I have nothing against Hayden Christensen's performance in either film, I think he's a pretty good actor. For whatever reason, and there are likely several, he just came across as a prat and I didn't like it as a result.

[TC Pilot]

To me, the problem with TPM isn't so much the quality of the movie (AOTC was worse), but rather the fact that it was (supposedly) the first of a new trilogy that covers Anakin's fall to evil, the Clone Wars, the rise of the Empire, and the fall of the Jedi Order. TPM barely touches on the rise of the Empire and merely introduces Anakin, meaning everything has to be crammed into two movies, and it shows; as good as ROTS is compared to the rest of the prequels, the story's rushed.

TPM is, bizarrely, a stand-alone movie when it was supposed to be the first part of a trilogy. It's as if Lucas thought it was 1977 again and a Star Wars movie might bomb at the box office.