Why More 'Star Wars' Actors Don't Become Stars 360
HughPickens.com writes: When you become an actor, landing a role in a movie as big as Star Wars may seem like a dream come true. But Tatiana Siegel and Borys Kit report at The Hollywood Reporter that six movies in, the Star Wars franchise has only spawned one megastar: Harrison Ford, unusual for a series of this magnitude. Neither Ewan McGregor nor Liam Neeson was helped by the franchise and the list of acting careers that never took off is even longer, from original stars Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher to Jake Lloyd (young Anakin Skywalker) and most notably Hayden Christensen, whose star was on the rise when he nabbed 2002's Attack of the Clones. Even Natalie Portman, who already had a hot career before Episodes I-III, admitted she struggled after the exposure. "Everyone thought I was a horrible actress," says Portman. "I was in the biggest-grossing movie of the decade, and no director wanted to work with me."
So what's the problem? "When you sign up for this, you're signing your life away, and you're keeping yourself from any other franchises out there," says an agent whose client is one of the stars of Episode VII. "They will not let you be in another franchise. They're going to be cranking out a new movie every year. These actors never get to read the script before signing on. They don't even know which [subsequent] one they are in. And then they become known for that role, and it's hard to see them in [another] kind of movie." Still, agents keep pursuing roles in the upcoming films even though newcomers can only command a meager $65,000 to $125,000 for Episode VII. "It secures all involved a place in film history," says agent Sarah Fargo, "and guarantees a huge global audience, enhancing an actor's marketability."
So what's the problem? "When you sign up for this, you're signing your life away, and you're keeping yourself from any other franchises out there," says an agent whose client is one of the stars of Episode VII. "They will not let you be in another franchise. They're going to be cranking out a new movie every year. These actors never get to read the script before signing on. They don't even know which [subsequent] one they are in. And then they become known for that role, and it's hard to see them in [another] kind of movie." Still, agents keep pursuing roles in the upcoming films even though newcomers can only command a meager $65,000 to $125,000 for Episode VII. "It secures all involved a place in film history," says agent Sarah Fargo, "and guarantees a huge global audience, enhancing an actor's marketability."
Contradiction in article summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Contradiction in article summary (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not a contradiction at all. The agent works for the agent's benefit primarily. The vast, vast majority of actors never land a role where the agent can take a significant cut. So, to them, it's like a "bird in the hand vs. two in the bush" type of thing. They can get a few bucks out of the actor, who cares if their long-term prospects are stunted. Fact is, they most likely wouldn't get anywhere anyway. Remember, the agent works for the agent. There is always another good-looking young actor coming along to represent.
To say Mark Hamill (for instance) would have been more successful without being in Star Wars is ridiculous. While he didn't hit it big like Harrison Ford, he certainly had a career that was more successful than 99% of people who try to act.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Contradiction in article summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I guess its a contradiction from a certain point of view.
I gotta disagree with you on Hamill. Every person I personally know who tried acting got a comercial or a traveling stage show or something a few times but ended up quitting after 5 years or less and now has a different job.
Mark Hamill did a lot better than just sign autographs. He had a good number of small roles in the 80s and 90s (check imdb) and most actors would kill to have a bit part on a few shows. He is also a pretty successful voice actor.
His career is in the top 1% of people who try to be actors. Harrison Ford's career is in the top 0.00001%. That's the difference, in my opinion.
Re:Contradiction in article summary (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it's The Joker.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Contradiction in article summary (Score:4, Informative)
Mark Hamil has had a renowned career as a voice actor. Among other roles, his work as the voice of the Joker in the DCAU in the 90's has received universal praise over the years.
He also has a warehouse somewhere... (Score:5, Interesting)
...full of Star Wars toys.
That guy he plays in that Amazing Stories episode [imdb.com] - that's him in real life + acting career. 268 credits on imdb.
Anyway... It was mentioned in one of Kevin Smith's "Fatman on Batman" podcasts.
Hamill asked if he could have one of every toys they were going to make. He thought it would be kinda cool.
Imagine that, you know. You're in a movie, and they make a toy that's you in a movie... Crazy, I know!
Nobody gave it a second thought, so they included that bit in his contract.
One of every Star Wars toys. Ever.
Re:Contradiction in article summary (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the alternative to being Mark Hamill?
Statistically speaking it's being the guy who drives the tractor in scene 13. Seriously.
My sister is a fairly serious actress in the theatre. She's good enough that she had sufficient paid work to get her union card in NYC. She's considered moving to LA, because most of her acquaintances in the craft in LA actually act as their primary gig; but they don't actually get to do the shit she considers acting (ie: develop characters). They are extras, and on a really good day they get a line and become a glorified extra. They have the talent to be better then most movie stars, but that's really common in LA. To get the good roles you need somebody whose important in the business to tell all his other important buddies you aren't slightly-above-replacement-level-talent, you;re an amazing actor who just needs a good break.
So if you have a photogenic, somewhat talented (but not great), client with few of the connections that would allow him to grab a really great role; you damn well get him to take six figures to act in Star Wars. He's likely to not have a career after that unless he's got a great contact in the business whose willing to vouch for him to directors, but he wasn't likely to get any roles at all without that contact anyway.
Re:Contradiction in article summary (Score:4, Insightful)
They have the talent to be better then most movie stars, but that's really common in LA.
I don't believe it. I believe they think they are more talented than movie stars, but that thinking is common in LA. It's the actor version of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Re:Contradiction in article summary (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it harms willing suspension of disbelief when watching US shows. I sit there thinking 'really, everyone in this low-income school has a personal trainer and stylist? And these people manage to have perfect hair as soon as they wake up or after running through the mud?' Actually, the UK isn't immune from the last part: Sean Bean in Shape has magic hair that is immune to mud, gunsmoke, and everything else the napoleonic wars can throw at him. No matter how dirty his face and uniform get, his hair always looks as if he's just come from the hairdresser.
Re:Contradiction in article summary (Score:4, Funny)
What's the alternative to being Mark Hamill?
I don't know... Being John Malkovich?
Re: (Score:3)
You're missing the point because you're ignoring the context.
The question is whether it's better an actor to take the Mark Hamill/Hayden Christiansen role from a career standpoint. And the answer is almost certainly yes, because even the paid work of a couple blockbuster SciFi films at peanuts ($100k a pop) is more paid work then most actors get over a decade.
Now yes, there's plenty of unpaid work, and the unpaid work can theoretically become paid if you get the right exposure; but a) there are issues you a
Re: (Score:2)
the vast VAST majority of actors and actresses never make anything. You could pick a whole range of big budget movies where the actors and actresses have never gone on to anything else of significance. Any person that would throw away such a massive opportunity in a movie because it "might" stunt there future prospects had better already be famous and making a fortune as most likely they won't actually have any future opportunities.
Re: (Score:2)
Those narcissistic muppets can whine about it all they want but it is not coming back.
Hey! I like Miss Piggy!
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. Don't you need help holding that immensely broad brush?
There is such a thing as acting talent. Not everyone can play Hamlet and excel in the role. Not everyone can play the Doctor and excel in the role. Of course, most likely just about anyone could play soap opera stars and be passable in the role. That's a nugget of truth to what you say.
Another nugget is that many big-name stars (say, Tom Cruise) are ditzes extraordinaire with very little talent. But you can't really blame the industry for tha
Re:Contradiction in article summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Another nugget is that many big-name stars (say, Tom Cruise) are ditzes extraordinaire with very little talent.
The hell he's not talented. I actuallt realised this watching the credits of "tropic thunder" and saw his name and it took me a while to figure out who it was. If an actor can hide his presence when he's right in front of you (it was not a tiny role), then they have talent. He also has excellent comic timing.
Don't confuse "bad films", "roles I don't like" and "IRL personality I don't like (seriously he's batshit)" with "bad actor".
Re:Contradiction in article summary (Score:4, Insightful)
A talented actor doesn't guarantee a movie will be good. On the other hand a bad or mediocre movie doesn't mean the actors are bad. For instance, on seemed to realise that Jean Claude van-Damme could act until he did JCVD. Evidence says he can act, even if he only ever got case in poe-faced bet-em-up roles.
Re:Contradiction in article summary (Score:4, Informative)
Natalie Portman and (by most accounts) Hayden Christenson are actually good actors, but you wouldn't know it from the Star Wars prequels. When you have direction that lousy and a script/dialog that lousy, even the most talented actor is going to look bad. According to TFS, Portman even complained that after the Prequels, everyone thought she was a bad actress.
You can't judge an actor by a single movie. Cruise really is a good actor, that's one reason he's had such a long career. Too bad he's also badshit insane with that Scientology crap.
Re: (Score:3)
According to TFS, Portman even complained that after the Prequels, everyone thought she was a bad actress
George Lucas has killed or nearly killed many a career. His bad direction (which is worse than lack of direction) makes nearly every actor look bad. Harrison Ford somehow had the balls to rewrite his lines and got away with it, both in Star Wars and in Raiders of the Lost Ark. And other people in this article have said that acting quality doesn't matter, not realizing what a good actor can actually bring to a role.
It took a long time after Titanic for people to take Leonardo DiCaprio seriously as an actor,
Re:Contradiction in article summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Actors only appear as good as the writers write them,
Explain "the Patrick Stewart show" er, I mean ST:TNG. There was some pretty ropey writing in there at times. I mean really pretty ropey indeed. Patrick Stewart was much, much more capable in carrying even terribly writing than any of his co-stars.
He crtainly acted far better than the writing in some episodes, but nonetheless despite the writing he was still able to carry the role.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe because the movies were not that good? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not sure abou the origional 3.
The second triogy was weak at best.
The material gave the actors little to work with. There performances like the movies are forgettable.
The animated series has more drama and passion.
Re:Maybe because the movies were not that good? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think the summary is right either....what actor launched their career from Harry Potter? What actor launched their career from Twilight? What actor launched a career from Transformers? It seems like blockbuster movie series normally don't launch huge acting careers, so how is Star Wars really different? Maybe because Carrie Fischer wrote a book about how her career didn't take off?
Really though, #firstWorldProblems. Actors have trouble becoming 'stars,' have trouble making millions. This is so sad I'm about to cry.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the summary is right either....what actor launched their career from Harry Potter?
Robert Pattinson (see also Twilight)
Emma Watson
Daniel Radcliffe
That's just off the top of my head. It's possible there are more.
What actor launched their career from Twilight? What actor launched a career from Transformers? It seems like blockbuster movie series normally don't launch huge acting careers, so how is Star Wars really different? Maybe because Carrie Fischer wrote a book about how her career didn't take off?
Never seen the other two series, thankfully :)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The harry potter kids are still making in-roads. The twilight guy made his break from Harry potter ironically. Who knows what's coming for the rest. Shay la bouf or whatever was a tool before transformers and he was a tool afterwards. Although well known before Titanic, Leonardo certainly became a household name from the movie. Kate Winslet is a good actress, but nobody would've known her if it wasn't for the movie. Practically the entire cast of Saving Private Ryan became significantly more marketable afte
Franchise Movies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Both Harry and Hermione have gotten pretty good careers out of Harry Potter. Twilight's stars KStew and that Patkison guy have also had careers. Granted they haven't won Oscars, but they're getting decent parts in major flicks. Stewart actually almost had her own franchise, until she got fired for sleeping with the director. Who kept his job.
The Stars Wars actors haven't. I suspect in the second trilogy it's because Lucas's direction sucked. It's supposed to be a love story about a dutiful young woman falli
Re: (Score:3)
Harrison Ford can't act. He's a one trick pony, but it's a great trick.
Seriously, compare Han Solo to Indiana Jones to Deckard to the Fugitive guy. It's all just harrison ford being harrison ford.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That was excellent acting.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. John Wayne made a career like that.
Re:Maybe because the movies were not that good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Harrison Ford: he was in a league above everyone else in Star Wars 4-6.
I think you underestimate Sir Alec Guinness, Peter Cushing and James Earl Jones. They were certainly top league.
Re: (Score:2)
And Anthony Daniels (Score:5, Interesting)
He really deserves a lot of credit - look at Jar Jar.
That could EASILY have been how C3P0 went if it were not for Daniels understanding how to play a comedic role properly.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think the summary is right either....what actor launched their career from Harry Potter? What actor launched their career from Twilight? What actor launched a career from Transformers?
I guess that's the thing with series or franchises. Take Star Trek, for example. Except Shattner, who of that cast was able to make an actual career that was not somehow Trek-connected? Nimoy probably relized that he was burnt for anything else when he wrote "I'm not Spock" and had the perspective of hosting mall store openings (and more like stores in a mall, not the mall itself...). Luckily it turned out for him and everyone else on the cast that Star Trek, while destroying even the idea of another career
Re: (Score:3)
You're both right. Shatner certainly had a number of varied roles before Star Trek, but he had successful roles in TV afterwards, like T.J. "He's a good cop!" Hooker. Later on, people wanted to hire Shatner so he would be Bill Shatner (Invasion USA, Shit my Dad Says, Priceline commercials, etc). Nimoy had a number of decent roles, Takei managed to make a bit of a name for himself. Nichelle Nichols and James Doohan were much less successful. DeForest Kelley had a great career, especially in westerns, pre-Sta
Re: (Score:3)
what actor launched their career from Harry Potter?
Harry Potter is a different subject, because there were two entirely different classes of actors in that series. You had the child actors and the adults. The child actors weren't well cast for the most part. I thought their acting and the direction of the movies sucked all the joy, humor, and spontaneity out of the books.
On the other hand, you had the adults who were all well-established mostly-British character actors. They excelled magnificently, and were the prime reason to watch the series in the first
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ford is intelligent, and it shows.
Who else could have been the big star of the film? Hamill played the idiot-savant of the Force, and it was clear that his actual personality was not far from his character's. Fisher's character was royalty (not something an audience is likely to be sympathetic to) and Fisher was not as suitable to an action film as a Sandahl Bergman or a Sybil Danning. Her role limited her to a position which was not critical in the big battle. She was too passive when Cushing had his hand
Re:Maybe because the movies were not that good? (Score:4, Informative)
Agreed. Crappy movies. I personally think 5 and 6 weren't as good as 4 (and I seriously hate giving them those numbers because the first one was never intended to be episode 4 at the start).
Harrison Ford basically got lucky be being put into Raiders not long after. Carrie Fisher had some personal issues that derailed things for awhile. Mark Hamill was ok, but honestly he wasn't all that great an actor in Star Wars. James Earl Jones already had a decent name and Star Wars didn't hurt it any. Alec Guinness was already big before this movie, at least in the UK.
A big snag is that the Star Wars movies aren't great for showcasing talent. Too many characters, everone's basically part of an ensemble and can't stand out from the crowd, it's action oriented rather than oriented towards good dialogue or situations that might highlight good acting. Raiders did so much more for Harrison Ford because he was clearly the star and got all the good lines.
Re:Maybe because the movies were not that good? (Score:5, Informative)
Alec Guinness was already big before this movie, at least in the UK.
Seriously? Lawrence of Arabia? The Bridge on the River Kwai? Doctor Zivago? Great Expectations? Our man in Havana? I think Sir Alec was big all over the place, even before Star Wars. He just offered to help, because he was their only hope.
Re:Maybe because the movies were not that good? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, 4-6 were good popcorn movies. They weren't high art by any means, but they were far better than the Prequels which were trash. The reason is simple: in 4-6, other people were able to cover for George's inability. The prequels suffered for bad direction and horrible dialog (/script). In 4, his (now ex-)wife edited the script. If it weren't for her, 4 would have the same utterly horrible dialog as the prequels, and 5 and 6 might not have happened. George was also a better director back then, because his ego wasn't as big. 5 was great because it had different writers (Brackett/Kasdan) and a different director (Kershner). 6 was OK because it too had a different writer (Kasdan/Lucas) and a different director (Marquand).
With the Prequels, Lucas did everything, and no one wanted to say anything to him because his ego was so big and he had put himself in charge of everything, so the results are predictably bad. Lucas was never much good at writing a script or even directing actors, but he refuses to admit it.
Re: (Score:3)
This cannot be overstated enough. Go watch the 'making of' featurettes for Phantom Menace. You'll see Lucas saying things like "I liked Liam's forth take, but I liked Ewan's thirteenth take." Seeing as how they're greenscreened, he'd simply take the left half of take four, the right half of take thirteen, paste them together, and put in the background.
Which means you have both actors looking at, responding to, and acting against a person who wasn't there.
And that's
Re:Maybe because the movies were not that good? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, that's about it. Too bad George didn't keep him (or other decent directors) for all the other movies he made.
And I'm not saying that episodes 4-6 were utterly fantastic movies in every way; obviously they had a good bit of camp (esp. #4), but that was part of the charm I think. They were never meant to be ultra-serious, "deep" movies with Oscar-winning performances (not that the Oscars are good indicators of performance quality these days anyway), they were meant to be visual feasts that were fun to watch while eating popcorn and watching it on a big screen. They had mildly interesting plots, decent characters, good comedic relief (thanks C3PO!), they weren't "dark" or "gritty", all in all they were great escapist entertainment, and while again not having top-of-the-line acting and script, what they had served the movies well.
That all changed with the Prequels. The plots weren't that bad and the characters might have been OK, the visuals were certainly great for the time (though too fake-looking, but lots of high-CGI movies of that era suffered the same problems), but the horrible acting and dialog really ruined it all, they broke the suspension of disbelief. (The obvious racist stereotypes in Ep.1 didn't help.) I've seen better acting on fan-made Star Trek episodes. And at least with the fan-made Star Trek stuff, you know going into it that this is what you're going to be watching. I don't expect to see amateurish acting in a $100M+ movie. And also, my expectations are much higher: I'm not forgiving of seeing a highly-paid professional actor deliver amateurish acting, while I am forgiving of an unpaid truly amateur actor deliver amateurish acting.
Don't worry actors (Score:5, Insightful)
Lucas isn't writing the screenplay anymore. You're all safe.
"Anakin, make love to me like you did by the lake on planet Wumpumpsefukit!" (or whatever the hell the actual line from Episode 2 was)
With lines like that, no wonder a world-class actress like Natalie Portman ended up looking like a wooden talentless hack. But actually the only talentless hack here was Lucas.
Well ok that's a bit harsh. Lucas has talent but not when it comes to writing dialogue that doesn't completely suck ass.
Re:Don't worry actors (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not too harsh at all. He made Ewan McGregor look like a high-school drama geek. "Wooden Talentless Hack" is a great way to put it. Those scenes on Kamino were so bad I actually hurt for poor Ewan. He must cringe whenever anyone brings up Star Wars. For God's Sake, this is Ewan McGregor we're talking about. Ever see him in Trainspotting? He was absolutely brilliant.
To my mind, the difference is clear. It's Lucas.
Re:Don't worry actors (Score:5, Interesting)
Lucas was fantastic at world building, but absolutely horrible at directing actors, and even worse at writing emotionally engaging characters. He happened to luck out with Harrison Ford, who pretty much carried the weight of the series through his own gravitas and made everyone else look good as well. There were also other places he lucked out, like with Anthony Daniels. C3PO was originally envisioned as a smooth-talking, oily (not literally), used-car-salesman type character, but Daniels had an enormous influence on the character that he fundamentally changed the role.
If you listen to some "behind the scenes" from Star Wars, you'll hear the actors talking about how Lucas never really understood how to motivate or even talk to actors. He'd give them the lines, tell them where to stand, and just expect them to "do their thing". What's painfully obvious is that he couldn't really tell good dialogue from bad, or good character writing from bad. It's really too bad he didn't collaborate with and trust someone to override some of the worst aspects of the first trilogy - mainly the awkward love affair and the questionable motivations of Anakin. Critically, he ended up breaking that fundamental maxim of movies time after time in terms of character development: "Show, don't tell."
Re: (Score:2)
i think you can really see lucas' attitude toward the craft of acting when you consider how many actors he put behind costumes or even took away any lines.
hidden behind costumes:
* darth vader
* yoda
* c3po
* jabba and many more
no lines:
* darth maul
costume AND no lines:
* r2
* chewie
* that bounty hunter guy whose name escapes me
* ewoks
CNG, fuck the actors cuz who needs them:
* jar jar
* basically everybody from the latter movies except for the main actors and samuel jackson.
it's clear, lucas has a disdain for actor
Re:Don't worry actors (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure if I agree with your reasoning that putting people in costumes means disdain for actors. That would mean indicting Peter Jackson for his work on Lord of the Rings, which put many people in costumes as well.
I think it's rather that Lucas communicated very poorly with them, as well as probably lacking empathy or understanding about what actors do and how they go about doing it. I get the feeling that Lucas just really isn't much of a people person, which possibly leads to problems when trying to direct actors or writing meaningful human drama.
Beside which, I'd take issue with the notion that a wonderful character can't be created without a human body or face being seen on screen. Would Darth Vader have been quite so memorable if his face hadn't been hidden behind that terrifying-looking mask? And consider how incredible a performance Anthony Daniels gave as C3P0 even while wearing a restrictive costume and a face that displayed no emotion at all. Chewbacca is a sidekick, yet is a beloved character even though he's never spoken a single intelligible line of dialogue and has no obvious human traits at all.
Even the world of CGI has seen breakout characters and performances, such as Andy Serkis's portrayal of Gollum in Lord of the Rings. His work was instrumental in helping filmmakers to understand that digital performance capture and voice work can be every bit as important as animation in helping to bring a CGI character to life.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
-1 disagree. a costume isn't a problem, but blocking the face is a problem. the face is how an actor expresses emotion, and if you block the face then it might as well be cgi.
who has their face occluded in LOTR? I can't think of a single major character with the exception of gollum.
Re: (Score:3)
That movie was so bad - it seemed to me like most of the actors were just reading their lines for the first time, and then George Lucas goes "CUT! OK that's good, let's go make more dresses for Amidala".
It's like someone doing a presentation for the first time and reading what's written on it line by line vs someone doing it for the 100th time and going "fuck the slide, now let me tell you a story". It takes a while for actors to fig
Re: (Score:3)
Darth Maul actually had 2 lines. There was "Tatooine is sparsely populated. If the homing trace is correct, I will find them quickly, Master." and then "At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last we will have revenge."
Re:Don't worry actors (Score:4, Informative)
True enough. Famously, "I love you"-"I know" was ad-libbed by Ford. There was also an occasion where Ford said to Lucas, "George, you can type this shit but you sure can't say it!"
Also in the original movies (Score:3)
He had a lot of people he was answerable to. Sure he wrote the script for the first one (other screenwriters did the second and third) but it wasn't the Lucas show. The producers worked for the studio, not him, he had others who would question his decisions, make changes, etc. He was in charge only in so far as being the director, who does have a good deal of control, but still plenty of limits.
Not the case for the new three. It was an all-Lucas team. He was in charge, surrounded by yes men and did whateve
Re: (Score:2)
To my mind, the difference is clear. It's Lucas.
I agree. I felt so sorry for Natalie Portman in Episode III. "Oh Ani! YOU'RE BREAKING MY HEART!" Seriously. I cringe. That is no one but the director.
Watch Natalie Portman in Black Swan. She is utterly brilliant.
Not that I hate Star Wars. Far from it. The broad story arcs echo many ancient myths and stories. George Lucas has said that he read Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces" which surveys many ancient myths for commonality. The idea of a young boy escaping his mundane life to find
Re: (Score:2)
To my mind, the difference is clear. It's Lucas.
I agree. I felt so sorry for Natalie Portman in Episode III. "Oh Ani! YOU'RE BREAKING MY HEART!" Seriously. I cringe. That is no one but the director.
Watch Natalie Portman in Black Swan. She is utterly brilliant.
Not that I hate Star Wars. Far from it. The broad story arcs echo many ancient myths and stories. George Lucas has said that he read Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces" which surveys many ancient myths for commonality. The idea of a young boy escaping his mundane life to find his "hero's journey" is primal, as is the story of a son of facing the sins of his father. In my mind these things elevate Star Wars into the pantheon of cinema, in spite of the horrific dialog.
http://redlettermedia.com/plin... [redlettermedia.com]
Re:Don't worry actors (Score:4, Interesting)
In general Ewan seemed much more appropriate for the role of teenage Anakin than Hayden. Hayden was just cardboard. And no I have not been impressed by him in any other roles either. Whereas some of Ewan's earlier work are spot on for the kind of character Anakin needed to be in the prequels.
Bad acting due to bad direction and horrible writing aggravated by casting that was also bad.
The prequel had too much George in it.
Re:Don't worry actors (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem isn't just the lines. It's the delivery. She does not sound like a woman who is looking forward to an encounter with a lover, she sounds like a woman who is reading her grocery list out loud. And since Portman can actually emote pretty damn well, that means the problem was the director told her to tone down the emoting to the point she sounds more like a PA announcer then a human being.
Lucas remembered the big things that made Star Wars special (ie: massive cool universe, great special effects, and a powerful storyline), but he forgot to take care of the little things that would make it a good movie. So dialogue and characterization sucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the delivery is awful, but that is still the responsibility of the director. If the actor delivers poorly, you get them to do it again. And again. And again until they get it right. And if they still don't get it right, you take the time to weave a landscape in which they can place their character. And if they still don't get it, you consider getting directorial assistance, to help communicate what is needed. And if that doesn't work, you consider getting a different actor.
But what you don't do is
Re: (Score:2)
If you listen to the directory's commentary in Attack of the Clones, Lucas explains that he purposely designed the love scene lines to be stilted and formal and wanted them delivered that way. He wasn't going for realism. You can disagree, but he's made billions his way.
original used non-union actors (Score:5, Interesting)
So the rest of the industry informally blacklisted the actors. The only actor to survive the blacklist was Harrison Ford because Spielberg also used him in Indiana Jones, and the industry wasn't going to balk at a guy that could bring in hundreds of millions for every movie he was involved in. Even Billy Dee Williams, who already had made a rather big name for himself, couldn't survive the blacklist.
Re:original used non-union actors (Score:5, Informative)
It's true that George Lucas was forced to pay a fine over this, but basically your post is nonsense. To quote Wikipedia, that infallible source of wisdom:
Many major American motion pictures have done away with opening credits, with many films, such as Van Helsing in 2004 and Batman Begins in 2005, not even displaying the film title until the closing credits begin. Similarly, Welles's Touch of Evil originally waited until the end to display the title as well as the credits; however, Universal Studios took the film out of his hands, and his vision was not restored until 1998. Had Universal not wrangled Touch of Evil away from Orson Welles, it might very well have been the first film to follow this practice.
George Lucas is credited with popularizing this with his Star Wars films which display only the film's title at the start.[1] His decision to omit opening credits in his films Star Wars (1977) and The Empire Strikes Back (1980) led him to resign from the Directors Guild of America after being fined $250,000 for not crediting the director during the opening title sequence.[2] However, Hollywood had been releasing films without opening credits for many years before Lucas came along, most notably Citizen Kane, West Side Story, 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Godfather.
Re: (Score:2)
Well similarly, nothing in your post disproved the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun.
It's fairly common practice with action movies. Godfather, Lord of the Rings, Matrix, Batmans, all did not have opening credits.
Re: (Score:2)
I have several teapots in my cupboard, which I am fairly certain is currently orbiting the sun.
Russell made more stipulations than that of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you typed words in your post.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I'm pretty sure spielburg wasn't involved in star wars in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It works everytime.
Two horrible articles in a row . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, this would be a perfect thread for somebody to tell us about the many and wondrous benefits of using hostfiles instead of some insane and newfangled name service thingie.
Re: (Score:2)
"Your father's HOSTS file. This is the weapon of a Jedi Knight admin. Not as clumsy or random as a DNS server; an elegant weapon for a more civilized age."
Don't conflate the prequels... (Score:2)
... with the originals. The prequels were shit which is why people had a hard time getting a job.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the entire premise of the article is dumb.
Still... the prequels sucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Empire strikes back is solid. Come on.
Also, it has one of the best sound tracks of any movie ever... and it is generally a fun movie. It has lasted this long for a reason.
You know want to know something that didn't last?... Dark star... I think is what it was called. It came out after starwars from warner brothers as a me too movie. And it died and no one remembers it.
Re: (Score:2)
... with the originals. The prequels were shit which is why people had a hard time getting a job.
That statement makes almost no sense. Of the actors from the original series, how many went on to become well know actors? Basically you have Harrison Ford and James Earl Jones.
Given that the cast was relatively unknown to being with how many well known actors do you expect?
If anything it's an indication that if you throw a dozen reasonable actors into a major movie then one of them will turn out to be star.
let's be realistic (Score:5, Insightful)
One could say that Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson have done ok since then. Whatever one might think of Natalie Portman's acting chops [1] she has a fairly impressive body of work. Mark Hamill has been extremely busy since Star Wars, albeit often voicework. Carrie pretty much destroyed her career with drugs and alcohol, but managed to come back. As far as Hayden and Jake, enh. I think they both struggled as actors, so no surprise there.
[1] I submit that a lot of the woodenness in the prequels was directly linked to Lucas as a director, and not necessarily reflective of the actors themselves. A good director can get amazing performances out of a poor actor (Stanley Kubrick directing Ryan O'Neal in Barry Lyndon) and a poor director can get a leaden performance out of any actor. (Lucas directing pretty much anyone in any star wars film.) Portman was terrible in all the Star Wars films, but so was pretty much everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
One could say that Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson have done ok since then.
Christopher Lee also did okay - even in a franchise.
Re: (Score:2)
> Look at that stupid guy from that vampire series and his girlfriend. It was the only role they had that was any good. Anything they've done since has sucked.
I see what you did there.
But seriously, "since"? I only saw the first two sparkly vampire films, but it seems to me that either of the two principles could have been replaced with a lump of teak.
Is no one blaming Lucas? (Score:3)
Star Wars is his brainchild. A half-formed, empty, vegetative brainchild. He conceived it, wrote it, and insisted on directing (the one of the six he didn't direct was by far the the best film of the lot).
The prequels were complete and utter garbage in every way. If any actual director afterward didn't think Natalie Portman could act, then that speaks to the colossal failure of directing by Lucas.
The real test will be if the Disney+Abrams films live up to the originals, but the prequels have probably cast their immutable shadow over the entire franchise.
Re: (Score:3)
The real test will be if the Disney+Abrams films live up to the originals, but the prequels have probably cast their immutable shadow over the entire franchise.
Fortunately, the Abrams 'Star Wars' time-travels into an alternate timeline where the prequels never existed, and Tatooine is destroyed by a rogue band of Ewoks.
Re: (Score:2)
(George Lucas stumbles across the shielded containment room to press up against the glass in a strained effort where an emotional JJ Abrams is on his knees looking inward. A single tear streaks down the left side of his face, clinging to his chin)
George Lucas (wheezing, seeming exhausted): Franchise ... out of danger...?
Re: (Score:2)
Lucas didn't direct "Return of the Jedi" either - that was Richard Marquand.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree, the original Star Wars was the best of the lot. It was stand alone, and the story made sense; a solid beginning and a solid ending. Even Vader careening off into space was more an homage to space opera than foreshadowing of a sequel. Empire Strikes back is jumbled; no real beginning or end. Even the "I am your father" thing was a last minute script change that painted Lucas into a corner later on. Of course, compared to the last three movies even Return of the Jedi is a masterpiece.
What about poor Ahmed Best? (Score:2)
Oops, there went a promising young career.
Re: (Score:2)
crap direction (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:crap direction (Score:5, Funny)
"Hand me my lightsaber."
"Which one is it?"
"It's the one that says 'Bad Mother Fucker" on it."
Re: (Score:2)
Talent lacking in some candidates (Score:2)
One thing people seem to constantly forget is that most of the people in star wars films - especially ep1 - 3, are fucking terrible actors. The very few that weren't were already well known.
Hayden Christensen's career... (Score:2)
If we're going to start speculating on the reasons that Hayden Christensen's career has "stalled" I think we should wait until Slashdot updates their storage capacity because there's gonna be a LOT of words exchanged on that one.
Short version: he's just a horrible actor who even dragged Natalie Portman down to his level.
Lucas gave them a lot of money (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Natalie Portman was great in "Closer" and "Black Swan", of the those you group her with, she's probably the best actress.
I don't think Scarlett is all that good, her initial success in "Lost in Translation" seems like a fluke. But she's mostly managed to turn herself into an action babe, so I'd guess she's realized that drama isn't her thing.
Mila Kunis, good or bad, is something of a curiosity. She was a sitcom bimbo but has had a turn of fairly decent acting with Portman in "Black Swan" but then took a t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One has to assume that Carrie Fisher might have had more a career if not for her mental health and drug issues.
Alec Guinness of course was only doing it for his pension.
Everyone is prequel who was not already an established commodity was crap. I do not blame the actors, it is just that there was no way to do a good job with such a script.
Re: (Score:2)
... It didn't require great actors any more than good 1950's SF required great characters. (Go on, test it: Of that genre, do you remember the stories or the characters?)...
Forbidden Planet. Robbie the Robot. Prototype CD player.
Re: (Score:2)
In anything, I've never seen so much of Liam Neeson since Star Wars.
Ewan has dialled back but I'm pretty sure it's nothing to do with Star Wars and to do with his theatre and TV career instead.
And that's fucking SIR Ewan McGregor and SIR Liam Neeson. For services to drama. They were fucking knighted for it. You don't get much higher than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Talk about picking the wrong forum.
Unless you're interested in starving geeks, love, you've come to the wrong place.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm out of my element here, but isn't this true for other smash mega movie series? How many megastars have the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings series produced?
A number of the kids from the Potter movies have actually gone on to get work, and meanwhile pretty much everyone else in both movies was famous before they were in either picture.