Originally Posted By HokieSkipper Yes, she is indeed. And she's a fantastic actress. For the life of me, I can't understand what happened in those movies.
Originally Posted By MPierce This just goes to show you, if people will sit around in 2010, nerding out on 6 episodes shot over such a long period of time, and are ancient history when it comes to filmdom, Star Tours 2.0 will generate excitement.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> Yes, she is indeed. And she's a fantastic actress. For the life of me, I can't understand what happened in those movies. << Bad casting, and no chemistry between actors.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb She was "phoning it in" as they say. Or it may be more a case of bad directing than bad acting. 3rd possibility, she was playing against such a hack that the bad acting rubbed off on her or she chose to match acting styles.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 I would guess bad directing. Lucas isn't an actors director. He got some good acting from Harrison Ford because Ford is a dynamic actor, and American Graffiti was blessed with an amazing cast. I seem to recall the actors of Star Wars commenting that Lucas didn't give very good direction to the actors.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Funny, I like the prequals and the 4th Indy. In fact, Revenge of the Sith is my fav SW movie after a New Hope and certainly better than Return of the Jedi IMHO.<<< As do I. Love RotJ, though.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>> ST 2.0 will be huge. I can see EPCOT Explore, and Hokie Skipper waiting in a 90 minute stand by queue to ride it. <<< You bet!
Originally Posted By leobloom >> She was "phoning it in" as they say. Or it may be more a case of bad directing than bad acting. 3rd possibility, she was playing against such a hack that the bad acting rubbed off on her or she chose to match acting styles. << Probably not accustomed to performing an entire role against a green screen.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Like Star Wars, I love the Indy films. I will overlook a lot, just to watch another episode.<<< Sounds like my relationship with Disney. Hate what they are doing now, love the fact that it's Disney, I still go. Heheh. >>Portman is easy on the eyes though! << Indeed she is.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 At # 68 a green screen can actually enhance the actors performance by freeing it up. Watch the making of documentary for Sin City to see what I mean. I still think any bad acting in a Lucas film is more than likely the fault of the director. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Manfried Dusting crops ain't like jumping into hyperspace boy... Time for the second verse of the singalong. I can't wait to see the new one in 3D. It will be in your face and stick out from the screen. It will have multiple stories so you won't get the same ride twice. It will be the ride it should have been some decades agooooo. Repeat first verse.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> At # 68 a green screen can actually enhance the actors performance by freeing it up. Watch the making of documentary for Sin City to see what I mean. << I've seen Sin City, and I can see what you mean, but I also think the entire stylized look of that film is almost opposed to the kind of realism Lucas was going for with his use of CG and green screen. Actually Sin City's a really good comparison, because it shows that it's not the technology that was the problem. The problem was with HOW the technology was used. (Not to mention the entire CG look of the prequels clashes with the real sets and character makeup of the originals.)
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ Yeah I get your point about realism versus noir as far as the look of the film, but the actors in Sin City managed some very strong naturalism in their acting, in particular Bruce Willis and (I forget the British actors name right now). If anything a green screen movie really highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the actors and director, since it's up to the actor to supply the appropriate emotion and it's up to the director to guide it and shape it. If a performance is flat, the director takes a good deal of blame. IIRC Carrie Fisher said the only direction Lucas gave on the set of Star Wars was "faster" or "slower" and the joke was the cast thought he should buy a horn and honk it once for faster and twice for slower since he never gave them any other direction. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 I am a bit apathetic about this because we were sold on changes coming to ST when it first debutted in 1987 at DL and a few years later in FLA. I am sure I'll enjoy it, but it's VERY late in happening. As an aside, I recently saw a presentation with kinda/sorta/Imagineer Gary Landrum on my Disney cruise and he ended a 'What's Next' presentation (one that was incredibly weak and focused on his personal love/droolfest for the castle suite at WDW and the dream suite at DL ... year old stuff now)with a teaser for ST 2.0 that came directly from D23. The crowd roared. I yawned and wondered why I wasn't in the pool or at the spa.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> The crowd roared. I yawned and wondered why I wasn't in the pool or at the spa. << Being surrounded by Fanbois 24/7 must have been a thrill for you.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>The crowd roared. I yawned and wondered why I wasn't in the pool or at the spa.<<< That's because the marketing for it sucks.
Originally Posted By brotherdave >>I am a bit apathetic about this because we were sold on changes coming to ST when it first debutted in 1987 at DL and a few years later in FLA. I am sure I'll enjoy it, but it's VERY late in happening.<< Just like the prequels and that latest Indiana Jones movie. Must be how Lucas works...
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Don't be too harsh on Lucas. There's plenty of blame for everyone. How many *decades* has it taken Disney to make a TRON sequel? Yup. Plenty to go around.
Originally Posted By brotherdave Sorry, I was trying to be funny. But, yes, you are correct, Disney is as much at fault in the delay as Lucas, if not more so.
