Burn, Hollywood, Burn

[lazypadawan]

The Razzies, in a last cheap shot at the PT, gave Hayden worst supporting actor for ROTS. Aside from the fact Hayden was a lead actor, not a supporting one in ROTS, they know he's not in the same league as Paris Hilton. He got mostly positive reviews for ROTS and if I had the time and inclination, I'd photocopy a nice big stack of them and mail them to every Razzie "member" along with a rotten egg. No, this was aimed squarely at trying to hurt his career especially since he's not someone with a particularly long resume. And it's all because he wasn't what they expected as Anakin and the PT wasn't what they expected. If they can't get back at George Lucas, they can at least take down his "discovery" and blame it on some alleged SW curse. I'm also convinced they are as much a part of the Hollywood machinery as the Oscars are with the pretense of being outsiders. For instance, I don't have anything against Keira Knightley, but she starred in a dog called Domino last year that got almost unanimously bad reviews and failed at the box office. Yet the Razzies completely ignored the film. Why? She's hot stuff right now, an Oscar nominee and a cover girl. They're not going to touch her. The nominations for Tom Cruise weren't because of his performance in WOTW, they were because they don't like his public antics. I don't either, but I'm also aware Hollywood tolerates Tom only because his movies make a lot of money. Otherwise, they'd kicked him to the curb a long time ago.

The trouble is, Darth Media pays attention to this sort of thing and it's going to be hard for Hayden to shake the "bad actor" label for a long time to come. We'll keep seeing reviews that say things like "who knew he could act" and when he inevitably has the misfortune of being in a genuinely bad film, they'll say "no wonder he won a Razzie." And I'm sure the Razzie people will give him another just to reinforce that he is a "bad actor."

I've pointed this out on the HaydenOver21 list and there were replies that he is continuing to get work, which is true. On the other hand, if enough people say something enough times, everyone will believe it's true. Being branded a bad actor might keep him from getting the kind of roles that will ensure he stays around and if he does well in a movie, it'll be considered a fluke. I don't wish to sound dire about this, but I've seen what has happened to SW fandom. After 29 years of the bad acting/bad dialogue/bad directing/it's only special effects mantra repeated over and over in the press and by critics, about half of SW fandom now believes it.

It's a shame.

Comments

[may-child.livejournal.com]

Katie Holmes' miscasting aside, Batman Begins was a decent movie, but hardly worthy of the ecstatic, gushing praise it received (much of which was couched in subtle or not-so-subtle bashes of ROTS and the PT in general -- in fact, some reviews seemed to be as much about ROTS as about BB).

Receiving attention is what the Razzies are all about, so of course they're going to aim their barbs at high-profile, "safe" targets -- targets that have already received a lot of derision, so no one will seriously speak out against their inclusion.

[foodsthatcan.livejournal.com]

I thought Batman Begins was very good. Not the Best! Movie! EVAHHH!!, but when taken in context of the Batman film franchise, it's not surprising the fanboys fell all over themselves praising it. The last Batman movie was Batman and Robin in 1997, and, well, you know. To have a movie that returned to the gothic roots of the character and had a well-cast, respectable actor playing Bruce Wayne (and a pretty prestigious supporting cast), and was not obviously a "comic book movie" was probably an ecstatic dream come true for the faithful.

I just can't get too worked up over Hayden's Razzie. As may_child pointed out (great post, btw), the Razzies are just a publicity stunt by self-important geeks with too much time on their hands, and also, it's far more likely that "Golden Globe nominee" will precede Hayden's name in the press (and particularly in any future ad campaigns) than "Razzie winner," especially if his next projects have commercial success and/or critical favor. I can't think of anyone's career being seriously hurt by a Razzie unless the person actually deserved it and their career was going nowhere, anyway.

[may-child.livejournal.com]

I thought Batman Begins was very good. Not the Best! Movie! EVAHHH!!, but when taken in context of the Batman film franchise, it's not surprising the fanboys fell all over themselves praising it.

Well, I wasn't talking about the fanboys so much as the critics. The fanboys gushing all over it was no surprise.

The last Batman movie was Batman and Robin in 1997, and, well, you know. To have a movie that returned to the gothic roots of the character and had a well-cast, respectable actor playing Bruce Wayne (and a pretty prestigious supporting cast), and was not obviously a "comic book movie" was probably an ecstatic dream come true for the faithful.

Oh, it was definitely a welcome "reboot" after B&R all but ran the series into the ground.

I just can't get too worked up over Hayden's Razzie. As may_child pointed out (great post, btw),

Thanks. :-)

the Razzies are just a publicity stunt by self-important geeks with too much time on their hands, and also, it's far more likely that "Golden Globe nominee" will precede Hayden's name in the press (and particularly in any future ad campaigns) than "Razzie winner," especially if his next projects have commercial success and/or critical favor. I can't think of anyone's career being seriously hurt by a Razzie unless the person actually deserved it and their career was going nowhere, anyway.

Well said. Plus Hayden's already gotten some independent movie awards for "Shattered Glass," which are arguably more prestigious than the Globes or the Oscars, at least in some circles.

I think he'll be fine. The nasty, jealous fanboys will want him to fail out of sheer spite, and will crow over any misstep he makes (although of course they immediately forgive/excuse any misstep that, say, Natalie makes), but that says a lot more about them than it does about Hayden. He seems to just take it in stride, as something that goes with the territory of playing an iconic character whose nature, personality, motivations, etc. had been speculated upon and written about for the better part of two decades.

Anakin was a character that fanboyz felt they owned, and thus were furious when Lucas didn't follow their exact desires, mutually contradictory though they often were, of Anakin being a great guy, a pillar of righteousness who was also completely badass and practically Vader from the outset.

Currently, their main bitch is that Anakin's turn to the Dark Side was "dumb, naive and immature." Uh...yeah, that's the point! He's turning to the Dark Side. To evil. To what brings about his destruction and the destruction of everything he cares about. Did these fanboys want his turn to the Dark Side to be an intelligent, well-thought-out, mature decision? One he carefully weighed and debated out to himself? Evidently so.

Good LORD. I find that disturbing, on a number of levels.

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

It's disturbing all right.

Otherwise, I hope you are right.