It doesn't matter how many people vote for Hayden... he wasn't a supporting actor in the first place.

You are all STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID!

Just want to say that Hayden did a lot better in EP III as opposed to II. So I can't cast my vote for him. Mine went to Reynolds because the Dukes movie was an abomination of the TV show, no matter how you look at it (Jackass and Stiffler as the Dukes? GIVE ME A BREAK!)Everyone involved ought to be run over by the General Lee!

My 2c

Well, actually by the criteria I used, Toto would be considered a prop for about ninety percent of his onscreen time.  Plus, you do have to contend with the fact that ultimately, Toto didn't cause anything to happen.  It was Dorothy's decisions which placed her in harm's way, and it was a natural disaster which found her transported to Oz.  Toto didn't have anything to do with that.  Toto also didn't have anything to do with the inciting events of the plot, nor with the prime events of it as it unfolded, so Toto was of very minor importance to the plot.

As for the point of Revenge of the Sith, George Lucas has said ad nauseum it's about Anakin's turning to the dark side (the documentary entitled "The Chosen One" on disc two of the DVD release is probably the easiest place to find him saying it).  I'll grant you the creation of the Empire was part of it, but Anakin didn't turn because the Empire was created.  The Empire was created because Anakin turned.

I had originally addressed the issue of billing in my previous reply, but thought including it pushed past thorough and straight into excessive, so I cut it out.  It seems I should not have done so.

To be honest, I can think of quite a few examples where billing order doesn't reflect the importance of someone's role in the cast (especially in cases where younger, more inexperienced actors are paired with older and more proven ones), but if you want examples where a lead actor or actress received third billing in a movie, that's cool.

Linda Hamilton received third billing in The Terminator, and Edward Furlong gets third billing in T2. Natalie Portman received third billing in The Professional, Ewan McGregor received third billing in Shallow Grave, Orlando Bloom received third billing in Pirates of the Caribbean, Ashley Laurence received third billing for Hellraiser, Sandra Bullock gets third billing in Speed, Bill Pullman received fourth billing in Spaceballs, and the one to probably trump them all:

Christopher Reeve received third billing in Superman.

LOL, I wasn't really serious about that.  However I still can't believe Tom Cruise got enough votes to be nominated as worst actor.  I fully believe it was because of problems people have with his personality. In my opinion, Tom Cruise is a very good actor who has had many powerful performances.  How do you feel on this matter, HeadRAZZBerry.

You've stated that you feel Tom cruise hasn't had a good performance in recent years.  Did you not feel that his work in Collateral, Vanilla Sky, Minority Report, Eyes Wide Shut and The Last Samurai was effective?

As for his work in the nominated film, I thought it was OK.  It certainly wasn't great, but I don't think anyone else would have been nominated for such a performance.  So much has been said on this subject, HeadRAZZBerry, and I'd like to hear your opinion.  Do you really think Cruise's performance was Razzie worthy? Or is it just fun to?

Reply from HeadRAZZberry: I personally have never been a big fan of Tom Cruise, though I'd hardly say I have it out for him. I just rarely find him compelling or in any sense "deep" -- To me, he's the male equivalent of a blonde bimbo, someone who's been trading on his looks for years, almost never putting genuine emotion or effort into his performances. As for his getting enough votes to be a Worst Actor contender for 2005, Tom came in a strong third among the five finalists, handily ahead of both Will Ferrell and The Rock. There has alwaze been an element of "Zeitgeist" to the RAZZIES, and anyone who didn't sleep through 2005 would have to admit, Cruise seriously damaged himself in the public's eye with 97% of his behavior last year...

Besides screen time, we also consider billing -- How far down the cast list someone's name appears in paid advertising. This is usually an indicator of the film maker's own attitude regarding the importance of each performer's role in the overall film. Here's a LINK to check out the POSTER: Billing for SWIII was not alphabetical, yet Christensen was listed THIRD, after Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman (and just above Ian McDiarmid) -- Meaning Lucas considered Hayden to be "less important" than the two listed above him. Name me any film in which "the lead actor" has THIRD billing, and I'll name you an actor who should immediately fire his agent!

As for "brandon" implying that we demoted Hayden to this category to "make room for Tom Cruise" ... LOL!! Even if Christensen had been listed alongside Cruise in Worst Actor, each got enough votes so that BOTH would have ended up nominated.

Can we call this discussion closed now??