Review: _Revenge of the Sith_

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Randy McDonald

unread,
May 30, 2005, 10:44:42 PM5/30/05
to
When I got the phone call Thursday evening, I was sitting on the patio
of Volo Caffè in Toronto, enjoying the still-bright sunshine and a
couple of beers. Drinking modestly on patios in the bright evening
sunshine of late spring and summer is apparently a Torontonian tradition
of note; far be it for me to disrespect local customs.

What would have been a pleasant and mildly productive evening all on its
own shifted gears slightly just after eight o'clock, when a friend
phoned me up with the suggestion that I join him and another for a
showing of the latest _Star Wars_ film, _Revenge of the Sith_. The rest
of the evening was rather fun, though in a bit of an unexpected way.

Have I ever mentioned that although fiskings are fun to write the are
also frustrating on so many levels?

Matthew Stover's novelization had led me to believe that the movie would
be stellar. Three years ago, I thought that I detected in _Attack of the
Clones_ Lucas' construction of a compelling framework of life for his
audience: this is the Republic, this is how it works, this is what it
means to its citizens. Too, the story that Stover described about was
authentically powerful, the occasionally purple prose aside. I was
looking forward to a reasonably dignified conclusion to the <i>Star
Wars</i> movie cycle, something to leave me feeling satisfied.

But then, reality intervened.

The quality of the acting deserves special note. All of the stars of
_Revenge of the Sith_ are reasonably good actors. Hayden Christiansen
has gotten good reviews in _Shattered Glass_. Natalie Portman has
received glowing reviews for, among other movies, _Garden State_. Samuel
L. Jackson is a man with a well-deserved reputation. Ewan MacGregor is,
well, Ewan MacGregor. And yet, under George Lucas' direction, they all
become stiff mannekins. Even Yoda's dialogue was unnaturally stiff. Ian
McDiarmid was the only actor to resist this trend, perhaps, as Andrew
suggested today, because he is an experienced stage actor who can safely
ignore a bad director's commands and emerge all the stronger for it.
Watching the movie, I felt as if I was watching bears waltz at a formal
ballroom dance.

The Padmé-Anakin romance is something that has always baffled me. In
what ranks as a minor historical irony, I caught _Attack of the Clones_
on the same day that I came out to my parents, and throughout the entire
run of the movie I found myself wondering what was attractive about
Anakin Skywalker. He sulks; he's aggressive; he's arrogant; he's
approaching someone who played a maternal role in his early life; he
confesses to Padmé that he exterminated an entire tribe, specifically
mentioning that, yes, he killed the women and children, too. What,
exactly, made Padmé interested in reciprocating Anakin's creepy desire
for her? Yes, there are women who write love letters to serial killers,
but Padmé never struck me as having that sort of personality.

Things got worse in _Revenge of the Sith_. Their romantic dialogue was
risible; it's never good when a movie's audience reacts to serious lines
with laughter. Likely because of Lucas' direction, I never really got a
sense that they cared for each other. This is a critical failure of the
movie since, after all, Anakin goes over to the dark side in order to
protect his beloved wife from death. This--abandoning everything that
you hold dear for the one you love, only to find that your abandonment
makes you contemptible in your loved one's eyes--is a powerful theme. If
it had been properly developed, the movie would have flourished
accordingly. But it wasn't, like so many other items of back story (why
are Anakin and Palpatine such intimate friends, again?). And so, we are
left to witness as one minute Anakin professes his love for Padmé and
the next he is choking her to death via the Force, wonder why we don't
care that much, and mourn at the loss of dramatic potential. It takes a
horrible writer to ruin such a classic theme.

The other major plot line that was sorely underdeveloped was the end of
the Republic. The movie's best line was delivered by Padmé, who observed
Palpatine's declaration of the First Galactic Empire in the hall of the
Galactic Senate, sitting next to Senator Bail Organa of Alderaan with
tears in her eyes: "So, this is how liberty dies; with thunderous
applause." The transition from even an ill-managed democracy to tyranny
is something potentially quite moving. Lucas, as expected, completely
failed to make his audience understand why Padmé was so upset, or why
anyone should care, or indeed, why people shouldn't welcome Emperor
Palpatine simply because a Galactic Emperor is cool.

The special effects are fantastic. The space battle above Coruscant that
opened the movie briefly inspired me with an excess of hope. The movie,
though, is empty of any content. One friend said afterwards that this
movie was written like fan fiction; I'd add that it was _bad_ fan
fiction, self-indulgent and poorly edited and not at all worthwhile to
read. (There is some good fan fiction out there, of course.) Andrew
yesterday suggested that this movie shows Lucas to be an 11-year-old
boy, fearful of girl's cooties and liking big explosions and wanting to
show off real human emotions but failing badly. This makes sense.

I may be too harsh. Perhaps I should be more tolerant towards the
failings of popular culture; perhaps I expect too much of _Star Wars_
and Lucas and the vast industry of ill-composed space opera that has
sprung up since 1977. I don't think that I should, though I do think
that if we as consumers don't object to materials which insult our
intelligence we deserve whatever we sit down to watch. With luck, the
fan edits will be better. Just don't expect me to watch any of these.

--
R.F. McDonald
r_f_mc...@yahoo.ca
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rfmcdpei/

"What! call a Turk, a Jew, and a Siamese, my brother? Yes, of course;
for are we all not children of the same father, and the creatures of
the same God?"

- Voltaire, from _Treatise on Tolerance,_ 1763

William December Starr

unread,
May 31, 2005, 1:49:26 AM5/31/05
to
In article <429BCF...@sympatico.ca>,
rfmcd...@sympatico.ca said:

> Have I ever mentioned that although fiskings are fun to write the
> are also frustrating on so many levels?

Fiskings? [*] (I'm seeing elements of both "filk" and "Mist" in
there, but I'm not certain that either applies.)

--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>

Gloria Carr

unread,
May 31, 2005, 2:44:19 AM5/31/05
to

"Randy McDonald" <rfmcd...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:429BCF...@sympatico.ca...

> When I got the phone call Thursday evening, I was sitting on the patio
> of Volo Caffè in Toronto, enjoying the still-bright sunshine and a
> couple of beers. Drinking modestly on patios in the bright evening
> sunshine of late spring and summer is apparently a Torontonian tradition
> of note; far be it for me to disrespect local customs.
>
snip to save bandwidth

Ha, yes. I finally watched it today, and found myself falling asleep in
certain parts. The guy next to me was definitely dozing, I could hear him
snoring. The interaction between Anikin and Pademe was so wooden and empty
of chemistry that it felt like they were bored of each other. There were
some good parts, I loved it when the Jedi were slaughtered, I could almost
feel their shock as the troops go from helping them to betraying them in a
heartbeat. And the scene in which Anikin slaughters the Jedi kiddies was
nicely done.

I really hated the way that Bail Organa was simply dropped into the plot
like that. At first when he was trying to enter the Jedi's tower I didn't
know who he was, and in fact I thought he looked like one of the clones, and
that was why they didn't fire on him! It would have been nice if he had a
larger role right from the start of the movie, or better yet from the start
of Attack of the Clones. Instead we don't get to see much of his motivation
at all...as far as I can tell the only reason why he adopted Leia was
because he and his wife wanted a daughter, not because he was trying to help
a friend or wanted to do something to restore the Republic or something that
made his presence in the movie make sense.

Right at the end, when Darth Vader is being suited up for the first time and
the table tilted up, I found myself saying "Its alive, its alive!" a la
_Young Frankenstein_. I got a laugh at the guy next to me (who woke up in
time for the lightsaber battle). That was probably not the reaction Lucas
was going for in that scene.


Gloria


Ted Nolan <tednolan>

unread,
May 31, 2005, 3:02:58 AM5/31/05
to
In article <d7gtt6$d94$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

It's a blog term; the thread starter apparently came from the poster's
blog.

The etymology is a reference to the fiercely anti-American British
reporter Robert Fisk, and refers to a form of blog posting where a
news report is laid out with the blogger's refutary commentary
between individual lines or paragraphs as was often done to stories
by Fisk.

"Fisking" a movie is stretching the term a bit (though you could do
it to the script), but I suppose you could describe "Mystery Since
Theater 3000" as fisking in that medium.


Ted

Mark Atwood

unread,
May 31, 2005, 3:14:08 AM5/31/05
to
"Gloria Carr" <plated...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> I really hated the way that Bail Organa was simply dropped into the plot
> like that.

Apparently, he and the other Senators who formulate the Rebellion were
more extensively present in the script, but they got edited out.

I should find a copy of the novelization and read it.

--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus

David Cowie

unread,
May 31, 2005, 6:49:07 AM5/31/05
to
On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:44:42 -0400, Randy McDonald wrote:

> I may be too harsh. Perhaps I should be more tolerant towards the
> failings of popular culture; perhaps I expect too much of _Star Wars_
> and Lucas and the vast industry of ill-composed space opera that has
> sprung up since 1977. I don't think that I should, though I do think
> that if we as consumers don't object to materials which insult our
> intelligence we deserve whatever we sit down to watch.

But you didn't object to it. You went out and paid cash money for it,
despite your reservations about the two films before it.

--
David Cowie

Containment Failure + 13530:11

how...@brazee.net

unread,
May 31, 2005, 8:01:07 AM5/31/05
to

On 31-May-2005, "Gloria Carr" <plated...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Right at the end, when Darth Vader is being suited up for the first time
> and
> the table tilted up, I found myself saying "Its alive, its alive!" a la
> _Young Frankenstein_. I got a laugh at the guy next to me (who woke up in
> time for the lightsaber battle). That was probably not the reaction Lucas
> was going for in that scene.

Only if you are referring to _Young Frankenstein_. The earlier
Frankenstein movies are definitely part of what Lucas was recalling.

Frank

unread,
May 31, 2005, 1:10:19 PM5/31/05
to
I took my wife and kids to a matinee showing on Monday. $30 to get in,
another $20 for popcorn and soda...and I left very disappointed. The
acting was wooden, as observed above, and the dialogue was atrocious.
The special effects were, of course, wonderful, but that's like trying
to make a meal out of cotton candy.

I do agree, though, that the line "So this is how Liberty ends..." was
a gem. And while the whole Young Frankenstein thing with Vader wasn't
great, I did get a small thrill out of hearing James Earl Jones's voice
boom out of the mask, "Yes, my master."

Overall, though, I hope Lucas doesn't make any more Star Wars
movies...let someone else, while he focuses on the special effects.
It's no fluke that the best Star Wars movie of all is The Empire
Strikes Back...not directed by Lucas.

Richard R. Hershberger

unread,
May 31, 2005, 1:40:45 PM5/31/05
to

Quite so. I think it is interesting to compare the Star Wars prequels
with the painful demise of the Star Trek movies. I haven't really
developed this idea, but it is striking how many of us, and I include
myself in this, have laid out our ten bucks for Star Wars despite every
expectation of disappointment. But we have collectively refused to do
this anymore with Star Trek. Perhaps it is because there was an end in
sight with Star Wars? The prospect of endless Trek movies striving to
rise to mediocrity overcame us with ennui. But we were willing to
watch Episode 3 because we knew we had already seen Episode 4.

Richard R. Hershberger

Niall McAuley

unread,
May 31, 2005, 3:23:12 PM5/31/05
to
"Richard R. Hershberger" <rrh...@acme.com> wrote in message
news:1117561245.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Quite so. I think it is interesting to compare the Star Wars prequels
> with the painful demise of the Star Trek movies.

Who says they're dead? Star Wars "rested" between 1983 and 1999,
longer than the gap between Star Trek the TV series in 1968 and The
Motionless Picture in 1979. According to the imdb, there was apparently
a Trek movie as recently as 2002, so I think it's a bit early to announce
the
demise of the series.
--
Niall [real address ends in net, not ten.invalid]


David Cowie

unread,
May 31, 2005, 3:27:41 PM5/31/05
to
On Tue, 31 May 2005 20:23:12 +0100, Niall McAuley wrote:


> Who says they're dead? Star Wars "rested" between 1983 and 1999, longer
> than the gap between Star Trek the TV series in 1968 and The Motionless
> Picture in 1979. According to the imdb, there was apparently a Trek
> movie as recently as 2002, so I think it's a bit early to announce the
> demise of the series.

There may be another Trek movie in 2 or 3 years.
http://www.trektoday.com/news/280505_01.shtml

--
David Cowie

Containment Failure + 13538:51

Mark Atwood

unread,
May 31, 2005, 4:18:17 PM5/31/05
to
David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> writes:
>
> But you didn't object to it. You went out and paid cash money for it,
> despite your reservations about the two films before it.

I didn't.

My employer paid for me to see it as a company junket. (It really
helps that our sugar daddy also owns the very best big-screen
digital-projector ginormous restored classic theater in the city, if
not the region.)

stre...@rohan.sdsu.edu

unread,
May 31, 2005, 4:52:02 PM5/31/05
to
begin quoting Richard R. Hershberger <rrh...@acme.com> :
> David Cowie wrote:
[snip]

>> But you didn't object to it. You went out and paid cash money for it,
>> despite your reservations about the two films before it.
>
> Quite so. I think it is interesting to compare the Star Wars prequels
> with the painful demise of the Star Trek movies. I haven't really
> developed this idea, but it is striking how many of us, and I include
> myself in this, have laid out our ten bucks for Star Wars despite every
> expectation of disappointment.

That's basically the corporate definition of a "fan", isn't it?

"Will pay money despite every expectation of disappointment."

> But we have collectively refused to do
> this anymore with Star Trek. Perhaps it is because there was an end in
> sight with Star Wars? The prospect of endless Trek movies striving to
> rise to mediocrity overcame us with ennui.

The tribbles of the soul, eh?

> But we were willing to
> watch Episode 3 because we knew we had already seen Episode 4.

Well, _some_ were. I haven't seen Episode 2, and thus have far less
motivation to see Episode 3. So far, I've resisted my completist
instincts -- and I must say, having TWO episodes instead of just
one makes it easier, not harder, to resist.

--
Stewart Stremler stre...@rohan.sdsu.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus was an incorrigable punster.
-- Peter da Silva (February 2000)

lclough

unread,
May 31, 2005, 5:57:22 PM5/31/05
to
Gloria Carr wrote:

>
> I really hated the way that Bail Organa was simply dropped into the plot
> like that. At first when he was trying to enter the Jedi's tower I didn't
> know who he was, and in fact I thought he looked like one of the clones, and
> that was why they didn't fire on him! It would have been nice if he had a
> larger role right from the start of the movie, or better yet from the start
> of Attack of the Clones.
>
>


I asked my son, Star Wars ubergeek, about this. He says that
Bail Organa was actually mentioned during one of the earlier
films as one of the contenders for whatever post it is that
Senator Palpatine actually got. Of course Organa had no screen
time and no lines worth mentioning, so nobody remembers this.

Brenda


--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/

Recent short fiction: PARADOX, Autumn 2003
http://home.nyc.rr.com/paradoxmag//index.html

Upcoming short fiction in FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html

jere7my tho?rpe

unread,
May 31, 2005, 8:55:03 PM5/31/05
to
In article <655ne.6228$vK5.1657@trnddc03>, lclough <clo...@erols.com>
wrote:

> I asked my son, Star Wars ubergeek, about this. He says that
> Bail Organa was actually mentioned during one of the earlier
> films as one of the contenders for whatever post it is that
> Senator Palpatine actually got. Of course Organa had no screen
> time and no lines worth mentioning, so nobody remembers this.

Yes, we wouldn't want to reward close attention, would we? ;)

(Jimmy Smits is a big enough name that I imagine many people remembered
his appearance in Episode II, anyway.)

----j7y

--
jere7my tho?rpe | "The land knows whom it sent out;
(440) 775-1522 | In the place of human beings
jere...@oberlin.net | Their ashes in urns
http://www.livejournal.com/~jere7my | Come back to each man's house."
--- Aeschylus, The Agamemnon

Jason Maxwell

unread,
May 31, 2005, 8:58:44 PM5/31/05
to
"Mark Atwood" <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote in message
news:m2zmub1...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com...

> David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> writes:
> >
> > But you didn't object to it. You went out and paid cash money for it,
> > despite your reservations about the two films before it.
>
> I didn't.
>
> My employer paid for me to see it as a company junket. (It really
> helps that our sugar daddy also owns the very best big-screen
> digital-projector ginormous restored classic theater in the city, if
> not the region.)
>
I believe you live in the Seattle area, so you must work for Paul Allen and
you must be talking about the Cinerama. Episode 3 is the only one I haven't
seen there, since I moved to Phoenix 2 years go...

Jason


how...@brazee.net

unread,
May 31, 2005, 9:41:00 PM5/31/05
to

On 31-May-2005, David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> > Who says they're dead? Star Wars "rested" between 1983 and 1999, longer
> > than the gap between Star Trek the TV series in 1968 and The Motionless
> > Picture in 1979. According to the imdb, there was apparently a Trek
> > movie as recently as 2002, so I think it's a bit early to announce the
> > demise of the series.
>
> There may be another Trek movie in 2 or 3 years.
> http://www.trektoday.com/news/280505_01.shtml

But does anybody care?

Randy McDonald

unread,
May 31, 2005, 9:38:35 PM5/31/05
to

That's quite true.

Until now, I've thought of myself as a reasonably critical and selective
consumer of popular culture, evaluating myself as quite competent to
deal with science fiction since I'd exposed myself to so much of it. I
only became familiar with the Star Wars Expanded Universe after I saw
the movie and wanted to figure out what was going on, I refrained from
seeing _The Phantom Menace_ in theatres because the reviews were so
uniformly badly, and I dropped _Enterprise_ after the first season not
because they didn't tell us whether Andor orbiting Epsilon Indi or
Procyon but rather because the writers too frequently neglected to
compose good stories. And yes, in case you're wondering, I live a
thousand kilometers from my parents' basement, and while it is true that
I have not yet kissed a girl I do have, um, legitimate excuses.

Why did I go see it? I thought myself well-briefed on the plot of
_Revenge of the Sith,_ and I was excited. Love, betrayal, grand
political drama: This, I thought excitedly, could bring _Star Wars_
close(r) to the level of Greek tragedy. Although the first of the new
films mainly made me marvel at its impressive number of offensive ethnic
stereotypes and the second struck me as half-sketched, I thought that
the third could be different. _A New Hope_ and _The Empire Strikes Back_
were each good films for their time, and I think that they continue to
stand up well now. The first two movies, I'd reasoned, were flawed
because they were of necessity open-ended. Surely the third movie, which
had to end with the situation we witnessed in the first trilogy, would
be better? I underestimated George Lucas' talent for making bad movies.

You could say that seeing _Revenge of the Sith_ last Thursday was a
waste of time, in the sense that I could have been doing something else
for the two hours and change that I spent watching that film. I wouldn't
want to say that, though. Whatever the film's cinematic failings, it
ably served a variety of useful social roles. I got to do something
other than poison my liver; I got to hang out to interesting friends; I
got to partake on the final chapter of what is still a major cultural
icon. _Star Wars_ might not be a very good collection of movies, after
all, but it's certainly an important one. It's rather depressing that
something better hasn't taken _Star Wars_' position in global popular
culture, true. Does it really matter that much so long as we remain
aware of this?

One thing that I will do in the future, mind, is find movie reviewers I
trust. I've no idea what George Lucas paid or threatened to do to the
reviewers who said the film was decent, but hopefully there are some
critics out there who can't be bought.

> --
> David Cowie
>
> Containment Failure + 13530:11

--

William December Starr

unread,
May 31, 2005, 10:33:40 PM5/31/05
to
In article <m2psv7l...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com>,
Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> said:

> Apparently, he and the other Senators who formulate the
> Rebellion were more extensively present in the script,
> but they got edited out.
>
> I should find a copy of the novelization and read it.

I don't think I've ever read anything by Matthew Stover
(the novelizer). Is he generally any good?

Randy McDonald

unread,
May 31, 2005, 10:52:09 PM5/31/05
to
jere7my tho?rpe wrote:
>
> In article <655ne.6228$vK5.1657@trnddc03>, lclough <clo...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I asked my son, Star Wars ubergeek, about this. He says that
> > Bail Organa was actually mentioned during one of the earlier
> > films as one of the contenders for whatever post it is that
> > Senator Palpatine actually got. Of course Organa had no screen
> > time and no lines worth mentioning, so nobody remembers this.
>
> Yes, we wouldn't want to reward close attention, would we? ;)
>
> (Jimmy Smits is a big enough name that I imagine many people remembered
> his appearance in Episode II, anyway.)

Having crucial plot points make sense only if you get fleeting glimpses
of just the right thing is bad storytelling.

> ----j7y
>
> --
> jere7my tho?rpe | "The land knows whom it sent out;
> (440) 775-1522 | In the place of human beings
> jere...@oberlin.net | Their ashes in urns
> http://www.livejournal.com/~jere7my | Come back to each man's house."
> --- Aeschylus, The Agamemnon

--

Gloria Carr

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 2:18:55 AM6/1/05
to

"lclough" <clo...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:655ne.6228$vK5.1657@trnddc03...

> Gloria Carr wrote:
>
>>
>> I really hated the way that Bail Organa was simply dropped into the plot
>> like that. At first when he was trying to enter the Jedi's tower I didn't
>> know who he was, and in fact I thought he looked like one of the clones,
>> and that was why they didn't fire on him! It would have been nice if he
>> had a larger role right from the start of the movie, or better yet from
>> the start of Attack of the Clones.
>
>
> I asked my son, Star Wars ubergeek, about this. He says that Bail Organa
> was actually mentioned during one of the earlier films as one of the
> contenders for whatever post it is that Senator Palpatine actually got.
> Of course Organa had no screen time and no lines worth mentioning, so
> nobody remembers this.
>
> Brenda

I vaguely remember that. It would have been MUCH better if he had been
included as one of the major characters earilier on... but then I had a lot
of gripes about the movies. (for example making Anakin so young, surely I
wasn't the only one who was a bit grossed out by Padame hooking up with
someone significantly younger then she was? I don't see why Lucas couldn't
have made them the same age...and that would have solved the problem of why
Ani was such a good pilot)

Ah well.

Gloria


jere7my tho?rpe

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 2:24:40 AM6/1/05
to
In article <429D22...@sympatico.ca>,
Randy McDonald <rfmcd...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> jere7my tho?rpe wrote:
> >
> > In article <655ne.6228$vK5.1657@trnddc03>, lclough <clo...@erols.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I asked my son, Star Wars ubergeek, about this. He says that
> > > Bail Organa was actually mentioned during one of the earlier
> > > films as one of the contenders for whatever post it is that
> > > Senator Palpatine actually got. Of course Organa had no screen
> > > time and no lines worth mentioning, so nobody remembers this.
> >
> > Yes, we wouldn't want to reward close attention, would we? ;)
> >
> > (Jimmy Smits is a big enough name that I imagine many people remembered
> > his appearance in Episode II, anyway.)
>
> Having crucial plot points make sense only if you get fleeting glimpses
> of just the right thing is bad storytelling.

Do you think so? I think Gene Wolfe would disagree. I'm a big fan of
the sort of story that rewards close attention to detail, even if it
means I'll need to read/watch it two or three times to put it all
together. You're welcome to disagree, but I think it's a bit harsh to
call it "bad storytelling".

That said, Smits's appearance in Episode II was more than a "fleeting
glimpse", and I'm not at all sure what would have failed to make sense
in Episode III even if you'd forgotten it.

Christopher Adams

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 2:33:25 AM6/1/05
to
Gloria Carr wrote:
>
> I vaguely remember that. It would have been MUCH better if he had been
> included as one of the major characters earilier on... but then I had a
> lot of gripes about the movies. (for example making Anakin so young,
> surely I wasn't the only one who was a bit grossed out by Padame hooking
> up with someone significantly younger then she was?

Five years? You realise that, in "The Phantom Menace", Anakin is nine years old
and Padme Amidala fourteen?

Cf. American high school drama casting actors and actresses in their mid-to-late
twenties as teenagers.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same in any country.


Mark Atwood

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 2:34:37 AM6/1/05
to
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) writes:
> In article <m2psv7l...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com>,
> Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> said:
>
> > Apparently, he and the other Senators who formulate the
> > Rebellion were more extensively present in the script,
> > but they got edited out.
> >
> > I should find a copy of the novelization and read it.
>
> I don't think I've ever read anything by Matthew Stover
> (the novelizer). Is he generally any good?

I do not know.

Apparently, the shooting script is also somewhat available, and got read
by at least a few of the more geekish reviewers. It is reading one such
review, that I read that the scenes of a few of the Senators plotting
the Rebellion were scripted, but got edited away.

jere7my tho?rpe

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 2:51:29 AM6/1/05
to
In article <jrcne.3521$s64...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Gloria Carr" <plated...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I vaguely remember that. It would have been MUCH better if he had been
> included as one of the major characters earilier on... but then I had a lot
> of gripes about the movies. (for example making Anakin so young, surely I
> wasn't the only one who was a bit grossed out by Padame hooking up with
> someone significantly younger then she was?

Grossed out, really? They're, what, 23 and 18 when they get together?
Hookups like that happen between college students and recent grads all
the time, in my experience.

Damien Neil

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 2:35:17 AM6/1/05
to
In article <1117561245.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

"Richard R. Hershberger" <rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
> Quite so. I think it is interesting to compare the Star Wars prequels
> with the painful demise of the Star Trek movies. I haven't really
> developed this idea, but it is striking how many of us, and I include
> myself in this, have laid out our ten bucks for Star Wars despite every
> expectation of disappointment. But we have collectively refused to do
> this anymore with Star Trek. Perhaps it is because there was an end in
> sight with Star Wars? The prospect of endless Trek movies striving to
> rise to mediocrity overcame us with ennui. But we were willing to
> watch Episode 3 because we knew we had already seen Episode 4.

Speaking for myself, as a person who watched Episode 3 but none of the
recent Trek movies:

As you say, having the end in sight helped. I watched Ep 3, said,
"well, that's that, then", and walked out of the theater. It's done,
it's over, and Lucas can't screw it up any more for me.

More importantly, Star Wars hadn't reached the saturation point for me
yet. Trek has had Next Gen, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise...each new
incarnation further hammering the nails into the coffin of my interest.
If I'm not watching the TV show, why go see the movie done by the same
people? The Star Wars franchise delivered three movies that I liked,
and my interest coasted along through three lousy films.

And, finally, I expected more from ep 3. Some reviews were not entirely
bad. Ep 2 rose occasionally to mediocrity. And I figured there would
be at least some nice space battlers. I was, of course, disappointed:
Episode 3 is pure garbage.

- Damien

Keith Morrison

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 8:25:32 AM6/1/05
to
"Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:

>> I vaguely remember that. It would have been MUCH better if he had been
>> included as one of the major characters earilier on... but then I had a
>> lot of gripes about the movies. (for example making Anakin so young,
>> surely I wasn't the only one who was a bit grossed out by Padame hooking
>> up with someone significantly younger then she was?
>
>Five years? You realise that, in "The Phantom Menace", Anakin is nine years old
>and Padme Amidala fourteen?

And, what, 18/19 and 24/25 when they finally hook up. That sort of
age difference is hardly rare.

>Cf. American high school drama casting actors and actresses in their mid-to-late
>twenties as teenagers.

"Buffy" as an example. Season 3, which was the high school graduation
season, aired in 1999.

Sarah Michelle Geller - 22
Nicholas Brendon - 28
Alyson Hannigan - 25
Charisma Carpenter - 29
Seth Green - 25
Eliza Dushku - 19

So not too far out on the Slayers, but the rest were pretty bad.

Surprisingly, one of the better American shows for this was "Beverly
Hills 90210". Debuted in 1990, and despite the fact that among the
high school students was Gabrielle Carteris (29) and Ian Ziering (26),
you had Shannon Doherty (19), Jason Priestly (22), Jennie Garth (18),
Brian Austin Green (17), and Tori Spelling (17).

Which is surprisingly good for an American TV show set in high school.

--
Keith

Richard R. Hershberger

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 9:01:56 AM6/1/05
to

Keith Morrison wrote:
> "Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> >Cf. American high school drama casting actors and actresses in their mid-to-late
> >twenties as teenagers.
>
> "Buffy" as an example. Season 3, which was the high school graduation
> season, aired in 1999.
>
> Sarah Michelle Geller - 22
> Nicholas Brendon - 28
> Alyson Hannigan - 25
> Charisma Carpenter - 29
> Seth Green - 25
> Eliza Dushku - 19
>
> So not too far out on the Slayers, but the rest were pretty bad.
>
> Surprisingly, one of the better American shows for this was "Beverly
> Hills 90210". Debuted in 1990, and despite the fact that among the
> high school students was Gabrielle Carteris (29) and Ian Ziering (26),
> you had Shannon Doherty (19), Jason Priestly (22), Jennie Garth (18),
> Brian Austin Green (17), and Tori Spelling (17).
>
> Which is surprisingly good for an American TV show set in high school.

The problem is finding real teenagers who can actually act: such a
thing is not unheard of, but it is rare. I am told that there is a
saying in theater that by the time an actress has learned enough to
play Juliet they are casting her as the nurse.

Richard R. Hershberger

Randy McDonald

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 8:48:16 AM6/1/05
to
jere7my tho?rpe wrote:
>
> In article <429D22...@sympatico.ca>,
> Randy McDonald <rfmcd...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > jere7my tho?rpe wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <655ne.6228$vK5.1657@trnddc03>, lclough <clo...@erols.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I asked my son, Star Wars ubergeek, about this. He says that
> > > > Bail Organa was actually mentioned during one of the earlier
> > > > films as one of the contenders for whatever post it is that
> > > > Senator Palpatine actually got. Of course Organa had no screen
> > > > time and no lines worth mentioning, so nobody remembers this.
> > >
> > > Yes, we wouldn't want to reward close attention, would we? ;)
> > >
> > > (Jimmy Smits is a big enough name that I imagine many people remembered
> > > his appearance in Episode II, anyway.)
> >
> > Having crucial plot points make sense only if you get fleeting glimpses
> > of just the right thing is bad storytelling.
>
> Do you think so? I think Gene Wolfe would disagree.

I'm equivocal about Gene Wolfe, though a friend has recommended his
titles to me. It's the same friend, incidentally, who was laughing next
to me.

Willful obscurity can work if it's carried out competently. Lucas has
_not_ done so. That is bad storytelling.

> [deletia]


>
> ----j7y
>
> --
> jere7my tho?rpe | "The land knows whom it sent out;
> (440) 775-1522 | In the place of human beings
> jere...@oberlin.net | Their ashes in urns
> http://www.livejournal.com/~jere7my | Come back to each man's house."
> --- Aeschylus, The Agamemnon

--

jere7my tho?rpe

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 11:58:38 AM6/1/05
to
In article <429DAE...@sympatico.ca>,
Randy McDonald <rfmcd...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> jere7my tho?rpe wrote:
> >
> > In article <429D22...@sympatico.ca>,
> > Randy McDonald <rfmcd...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > jere7my tho?rpe wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <655ne.6228$vK5.1657@trnddc03>, lclough <clo...@erols.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I asked my son, Star Wars ubergeek, about this. He says that
> > > > > Bail Organa was actually mentioned during one of the earlier
> > > > > films as one of the contenders for whatever post it is that
> > > > > Senator Palpatine actually got. Of course Organa had no screen
> > > > > time and no lines worth mentioning, so nobody remembers this.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, we wouldn't want to reward close attention, would we? ;)
> > > >
> > > > (Jimmy Smits is a big enough name that I imagine many people remembered
> > > > his appearance in Episode II, anyway.)
> > >
> > > Having crucial plot points make sense only if you get fleeting glimpses
> > > of just the right thing is bad storytelling.
> >
> > Do you think so? I think Gene Wolfe would disagree.
>
> I'm equivocal about Gene Wolfe, though a friend has recommended his
> titles to me. It's the same friend, incidentally, who was laughing next
> to me.
>
> Willful obscurity can work if it's carried out competently. Lucas has
> _not_ done so. That is bad storytelling.

*shrug* Opinions differ. I thought the fact that the prequels gave one
the chance to pay attention was a big mark in the plus column; the main
action plot made perfect sense without the background details, but
someone who paid attention got a lot more out of the movies. I also
thought most people didn't feel they ought to _have_ to for a "silly
Star Wars movie", so a lot of details went whooshing past their heads.
But there are plenty of Star Wars fans who had no trouble penetrating
the "obscurity", as Brenda's son and I demonstrate, so clearly it was
possible.

There's a lot to complain about in the prequels, but I don't have a lot
of sympathy for "Wait, I had to _remember_ what happened?" And I detect
a double standard here for movies, as there are plenty of very
well-received SF books that require similar attention to detail to fully
understand (like, say, Pham Nuwen in AFutD and ADitS).

I'm still trying to figure out which "crucial plot point" failed to make
sense because Jimmy Smits's presence was insufficiently explained,
though. He's a senator, he's a good guy, the clones don't kill him
because they've been ordered to kill Jedi and he's not one. What's
complicated?

-dsr-

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 12:23:27 PM6/1/05
to
On 2005-06-01, William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <m2psv7l...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com>,
> Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> said:
>> I should find a copy of the novelization and read it.
>
> I don't think I've ever read anything by Matthew Stover
> (the novelizer). Is he generally any good?

As an independent author? Yes, he does respectably well.

His first two, _Iron Dawn_ and _Jericho Moon_, were swashbuckling Bronze
Age adventures set around Greece/Middle East/Egypt. Some nice
characterization, decent plots, and he can wrap up a story with an
actual ending. After that he wrote _Heroes Die_ and _The Blade of
Tyshalle_. _Heroes_ is a contender for Highest Bodycount by a Single
Combatant Using Melee Weapons, as well as being a great mix of fantasy
and SF. Recommended, but not for the squeamish. _Blade_ is a sequel with
more politics and less bloodshed, and again a good ending.

-dsr-

Mark Atwood

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 2:21:26 PM6/1/05
to
"Gloria Carr" <plated...@earthlink.net> writes:
> of gripes about the movies. (for example making Anakin so young, surely I
> wasn't the only one who was a bit grossed out by Padame hooking up with
> someone significantly younger then she was?

"Significantly younger?"

I know some couples in the real world who love each other dearly,
enthusiastically, and often, who are seperated by more than five
years.

Gloria Carr

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 2:27:17 PM6/1/05
to

"jere7my tho?rpe" <jere...@oberlin.net> wrote in message
news:jere7my2-F194EC...@corp.supernews.com...

> In article <jrcne.3521$s64...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Gloria Carr" <plated...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I vaguely remember that. It would have been MUCH better if he had been
>> included as one of the major characters earilier on... but then I had a
>> lot
>> of gripes about the movies. (for example making Anakin so young, surely I
>> wasn't the only one who was a bit grossed out by Padame hooking up with
>> someone significantly younger then she was?
>
> Grossed out, really? They're, what, 23 and 18 when they get together?
> Hookups like that happen between college students and recent grads all
> the time, in my experience.
>

Yes, but they first meet when Anakin is nine. That's when they bond and
possibly start to fall in love. Meeting someone at a later date and falling
in love is different in my mind. My parents met each other in college and
have a seven year split, but they never knew each other as kids!

Maybe my problem with Anakin is that he very strongly reminds me of a whiny
younger cousin of mine.

Although I have the wonder about the sanity of a people who elected a 14
year old to be their Queen.

Gloria


Mike Schilling

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 2:45:52 PM6/1/05
to

"Mark Atwood" <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote in message
news:m2wtpeo...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com...

> "Gloria Carr" <plated...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> of gripes about the movies. (for example making Anakin so young, surely I
>> wasn't the only one who was a bit grossed out by Padame hooking up with
>> someone significantly younger then she was?
>
> "Significantly younger?"
>
> I know some couples in the real world who love each other dearly,
> enthusiastically, and often, who are seperated by more than five
> years.

And even that distance is told, not shown: Hayden Christiansen is a
month-and-a-half older than Natalie Portman.


Mike Schilling

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 2:48:08 PM6/1/05
to

"Gloria Carr" <plated...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:96nne.701$W77...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>
> Although I have the wonder about the sanity of a people who elected a 14
> year old to be their Queen.

Bad timing: the election for Queen was on the same day as the Junior Miss
Naboo pageant.


James Nicoll

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 2:52:05 PM6/1/05
to
In article <Ipnne.23541$J12....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,

It could be like the HRE: election from a limited pool of
candidates. There's some evidence that that assassination is part
of the Naboo way of life (all those doubles*) so the pool may have
suffered an abrupt decline in members shortly before the election.

* I wonder what the Naboonians thought about the clone army?

--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll

Beowulf Bolt

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 2:58:47 PM6/1/05
to
William December Starr wrote:
>
> I don't think I've ever read anything by Matthew Stover
> (the novelizer). Is he generally any good?

His novel _Heroes Die_ is bloody good (but also bloody bloody). His
other works, including the sequel to that one aren't quite as good.

One might be somewhat amused, however, by his depiction of Jehovah as
rather a wanker (in the proudest Old Testament sense) in his
pseudo-historical sword & sorcery duology _Iron Dawn_ and _Jericho
Moon_. Not recommended for the fundamental at heart.

Biff

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------

John Schilling

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 3:05:19 PM6/1/05
to
In article <7f9r915bpg74p6j4o...@4ax.com>, Keith Morrison says...

>"Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:

>>> I vaguely remember that. It would have been MUCH better if he had been
>>> included as one of the major characters earilier on... but then I had a
>>> lot of gripes about the movies. (for example making Anakin so young,
>>> surely I wasn't the only one who was a bit grossed out by Padame hooking
>>> up with someone significantly younger then she was?

>>Five years? You realise that, in "The Phantom Menace", Anakin is nine
>>years old and Padme Amidala fourteen?

>And, what, 18/19 and 24/25 when they finally hook up. That sort of
>age difference is hardly rare.


It's not so much the quantitative age difference, but the qualitative
problem of Anakin being a prepubescent child and Amidala a functional
adult when they first meet.

Relationships between adults and prepubescent children are expected to
be of a kind that absolutely preclude lustful thoughts ever, and usually
are, but the exceptions do tend to gross people out. Even when, as in
this case, they are both plausible and reasonable.

One of several reasons the entire prequel trilogy would have been greatly
improved by making Anakin an older teenager from the start. That and
hiring a professional screenwriter could have saved the whole mess, IMO.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

jere7my tho?rpe

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 3:57:30 PM6/1/05
to
In article <d7l0t...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:

> In article <7f9r915bpg74p6j4o...@4ax.com>, Keith Morrison
> says...
>
> >"Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>> I vaguely remember that. It would have been MUCH better if he had been
> >>> included as one of the major characters earilier on... but then I had a
> >>> lot of gripes about the movies. (for example making Anakin so young,
> >>> surely I wasn't the only one who was a bit grossed out by Padame hooking
> >>> up with someone significantly younger then she was?
>
> >>Five years? You realise that, in "The Phantom Menace", Anakin is nine
> >>years old and Padme Amidala fourteen?
>
> >And, what, 18/19 and 24/25 when they finally hook up. That sort of
> >age difference is hardly rare.
>
> It's not so much the quantitative age difference, but the qualitative
> problem of Anakin being a prepubescent child and Amidala a functional
> adult when they first meet.
>
> Relationships between adults and prepubescent children are expected to
> be of a kind that absolutely preclude lustful thoughts ever, and usually
> are, but the exceptions do tend to gross people out. Even when, as in
> this case, they are both plausible and reasonable.

Anakin clearly has a crush on Amidala in TPM, which I don't have any
problem with; I certainly had crushes on my babysitters when I was
little. And it's made explicit that Amidala has no lustful thoughts
whatsoever until she sees Anakin for the first time in AotC -- she does
a double-take, and Anakin has his gloaming about the way she still
thinks of him as a child. It seems to me that a nine-year gap between
the time they see each other should be enough to cleanse the
lust-palate, so to speak, and eliminate any lingering ickiness on the
part of the audience. But people have all sorts of hangups; this one
just surprised me.

I wonder if this is relatively recent. People living in small towns
fifty years ago didn't move around as much as they do today, so of
_course_ everybody knew everybody else when they were nine. It'd be
hard to matchmake if what you speak of were an issue.

Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 4:32:24 PM6/1/05
to
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote in
news:d7l0t...@drn.newsguy.com:
>...

> It's not so much the quantitative age difference, but the
> qualitative problem of Anakin being a prepubescent child and
> Amidala a functional adult when they first meet.

> Relationships between adults and prepubescent children are
> expected to be of a kind that absolutely preclude lustful
> thoughts ever, and usually are, but the exceptions do tend to
> gross people out. Even when, as in this case, they are both
> plausible and reasonable.

> One of several reasons the entire prequel trilogy would have
> been greatly improved by making Anakin an older teenager from
> the start. That and hiring a professional screenwriter could
> have saved the whole mess, IMO.

The latter could even have made the age situation relevant to the
plot. E.g., by emphasizing the childhood wish-fulfillment of
Anakin's relationship with Padme, having that feed into his crossing
the line into unhealthy obsession that pushed him over to the dark
side. And maybe some hint that Amidala's interest, so clearly
against anyone's better judgment, may have had something to do with
proximity to the most powerful Force nexus in generations. (That
theory occcurred to lots of people anyway, but I didn't see any sign
of a payoff for it in the most recent movie.)

I agree that the first movie would have been better with an older
Anakin for any number of reasons. But I think the story would still
have been salvageable, and that it would have been possible to make
use of what was there, given a writer and director with the
necessary talent and interest.

Mike

--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu

Mike Schilling

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 4:34:11 PM6/1/05
to

"John Schilling" <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:d7l0t...@drn.newsguy.com...

>
> Relationships between adults and prepubescent children are expected to
> be of a kind that absolutely preclude lustful thoughts ever, and usually
> are, but the exceptions do tend to gross people out.

obSF way too obvious to mention.


Mark Atwood

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 4:51:37 PM6/1/05
to
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> writes:
>
> Relationships between adults and prepubescent children are expected to
> be of a kind that absolutely preclude lustful thoughts ever, and usually
> are, but the exceptions do tend to gross people out.

Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau got married a few weeks ago, just
down the road from me.

ObWritten: If you read a novel of a romance like theirs, and it
ended on that note, would you throw the book at the wall?

ObSF: _The Door into Summer_

Mike Schilling

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 4:59:36 PM6/1/05
to

"Mark Atwood" <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote in message
news:m2k6ldl...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com...

> John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> writes:
>>
>> Relationships between adults and prepubescent children are expected to
>> be of a kind that absolutely preclude lustful thoughts ever, and usually
>> are, but the exceptions do tend to gross people out.
>
> Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau got married a few weeks ago, just
> down the road from me.

He wasn't pre-pubescent, was he?


htn963

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 5:40:04 PM6/1/05
to

Jason Maxwell wrote:
> "Mark Atwood" <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote in message

> news:m2zmub1...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com...
> > David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> writes:
> > >
> > > But you didn't object to it. You went out and paid cash money for it,
> > > despite your reservations about the two films before it.
> >
> > I didn't.
> >
> > My employer paid for me to see it as a company junket. (It really
> > helps that our sugar daddy also owns the very best big-screen
> > digital-projector ginormous restored classic theater in the city, if
> > not the region.)
> >
> I believe you live in the Seattle area, so you must work for Paul Allen and
> you must be talking about the Cinerama. Episode 3 is the only one I haven't
> seen there, since I moved to Phoenix 2 years go...

If it is the Seattle CINERAMA then it has substantially upgraded
over the years. The Cinerama was infamous for technical problems. I
still recall its first showing of _Dune_ where the projector broke
down and 5-10 minutes worth of film was lost to the audience.

A Star Wars buff recently told me that the best theater in
Washington State -- at least for seeing special-effects laden movies
like ROTS -- is the GALAXY in Monroe, reputedly the only one in this
region equipped with Lucasfilms' own patented audio-video system,
whatever that is. Not enough to make me go see ROTS again, unless in an
edited version without the human actors -- but I'll keep in mind for
the next interesting blow-up fest.

--
Ht

Mike Schilling

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 5:46:32 PM6/1/05
to

"htn963" <htn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1117662004....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> If it is the Seattle CINERAMA then it has substantially upgraded
> over the years. The Cinerama was infamous for technical problems. I
> still recall its first showing of _Dune_ where the projector broke
> down and 5-10 minutes worth of film was lost to the audience.

That's a damned shame (that it wasn't an hour or so, I mean.)


Pete McCutchen

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 5:53:46 PM6/1/05
to
On 1 Jun 2005 06:01:56 -0700, "Richard R. Hershberger"
<rrh...@acme.com> wrote:

>>
>> "Buffy" as an example. Season 3, which was the high school graduation
>> season, aired in 1999.
>>
>> Sarah Michelle Geller - 22
>> Nicholas Brendon - 28
>> Alyson Hannigan - 25
>> Charisma Carpenter - 29
>> Seth Green - 25
>> Eliza Dushku - 19
>>
>> So not too far out on the Slayers, but the rest were pretty bad.
>>
>> Surprisingly, one of the better American shows for this was "Beverly
>> Hills 90210". Debuted in 1990, and despite the fact that among the
>> high school students was Gabrielle Carteris (29) and Ian Ziering (26),
>> you had Shannon Doherty (19), Jason Priestly (22), Jennie Garth