Does anyone else get rankled hearing the PT actors disparage the trilogy?

zombie,

The only, small problem with the actual scripts were parts of the dialogue. The plotting of the Prequels is not the issue, at all.

It's partly directing, partly the amount of blue screen work, and partly the actors. As Ford said on the "Empire of Dreams" documentary, Lucas' mentality (which I partly agree with) is "it's on the page. Just do what's on the page." But, as Harrsion put it, "some times, you can't just do that on the page. You have to find it and that takes time."

 

Thats an opinion, and one that the objectors in discussion dont at all necessarily share. If we use the negative critic reaction as a parallel then it seems many people felt the plotting was clunky, undramatic, and convoluted as well.

 

Its actually strange that anyone would want to risk there careers on Star Wars in the first place if you think about it. Just look at Mark Hamill in the OT for a good example.

 

True, but then look at Harrison Ford.

 

Ford played a cool character, doesn't count.

 

I disagree. The dialogue is awful, but so is the plotting. There wasn't enough plot in TPM, which Lucas freely admits, and can be found in Zombie's the Secret History of Star Wars. Also IMHO, the same thing is wrong with AotC, and RotS had some much going on that some it it could have found it's way into AotC. The pace was off, I think. Lucas isn't a good writer, or even an average one. He's awful. It's much more than just the dialogue.

The only reason anyone knows about Mark Hamill is because of Star Wars, what makes you think that we would have heard of him if he hadn't done Star Wars? The only thing you can argue about Star Wars is that's probably going to be the role your remembered for. With the exception of Harrison Ford who's role of Indiana Jones would rival (maybe surpass even) the role of Han Solo, these actors with firstly be associated with Star Wars. From the pt, I think Ewan Mcgregor, and Natalie Portman have the opportunity to have enough quality roles to the point where you say there names and the first thing isn't "Obiwan" or "Padme". Since Liam Neeson was only in TPM, I don't think Star Wars is going to stick with him that bad. But I think Hayden Christensen is screwed big time. He might be the next Mark Hamill. He's starred in a few other movies, and he's a pretty good actor, but personally, I'm always going to see that guy as Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars is a double edged sword. It can give you a boast as a young actor, but you can easily be consumed by that role (carrie fisher, mark hamill, ian mcdirmid).

 

I hardly consider Mark Hamill's career a bad one given that while his face is immediately associated with Luke Skywalker, he's done a lot of voice-acting work. It doesn't give the same exposure, but from everything I've heard he's happy doing that with his life.

 

Mark and Carrie got pigeon-holed because of Star Wars. He can say what he wants, but what have they done film wise since then? Nada. Zip. He may be happy and content w/ his life, but I bet the truth about his career is deeper than that.

***

EDIT:
I agree, LordVader66... Lucas couldn't write a "thank you" card, let alone a script and the dialogue that goes with.

 

That just isn't true. You may consider Fisher and Hammil's projects since ROTJ to be worthless, but they have certainly had work in film. Just off the top of my head, Fisher has been in The Suburbs and The Man with One Red Shoe, both with Tom Hanks, and also Woody Allen's Hannah and Her Sisters, not to mention writing the book that became the excellent Postcards from the Edge. Hammil was in Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back and did the voice of the Joker in Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, among other television projects which have gained him quite a bit of notoriety beyond STAR WARS.

 

Well, Fisher and Hamill are very successful--but there validity in the criticism. They are not successful as actors. Yeah, Fisher did some small roles and cameos, and Hamill did that stupid Guyver and a bunch of voice-roles--but these are concessions. This is not what they planned or necessarily wanted, simply the best that they could get--in 1977 they had much grander ambitions to continue acting in major roles in major films and being successful as actors, but that goal was never realised, and the reason they drifted elsewhere was because by the mid-80's it was pretty clear that their film career as actors was pretty much over. But Fisher's a great writer, and Hamill's had all kinds of cool stuff, from his comic book to his voice-work, so its not like its bad, but when people say "their careers bombed", thats exactly what happened--the stuff they did since then is, in a very real sense, a different career.

 

Carrie Fisher definitely is doing an entirely different career, though she's been very successful at it. Mark's on the other hand isn't all that different other than in terms of exposure. The craft of it isn't horribly different and given that he apparently physically acts out much of the stuff while he records the voice overs he's using largely the same skills. I'm not saying that back in '77 he didn't want to become a massive star, just that I think saying his career bombed isn't quite accurate as at least imo that depicts his career as being as over as Gary Coleman's when he's still getting work on a regular basis.

I can see your point though, he didn't become the massive movie star he could have been.

 

Bingo. I love them both, but neither has done anything of merit when it comes to staring in a different motion-picture. Hence, my comment about them getting pigeon-holed. Carrie washed out of hollywood, save for the cameos and became a writer. As for Mark? His career in the comic industry has been great, but it ain't the movies either.

I didn't say they were worthless, I said that their career's didn't turn out how they intended, despite what they have said. The Joker wouldn't be the Joker without Hamill... I'd call that successful, but it ain't the same as staring in a movie.

 

And what did he mess up?


Ewan may have been disappointed with the finished films and process of making them, but this short clip really raised my spirits. http://youtube.com/watch?v=sPXd2kEu1FU

 

This one is even better, hah ! It's called ''Ewan McGregor learns the title of Star Wars Ep II'':

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iwL8wlBMflA

 

Yes, I've seen that one, haha. But who wouldn't react that way?

 

Well on BBC Ewan said he loved being in Star Wars, so he likely just didn't like having to do stuff that was fake - which can be tedious. Anyway Star Wars made him very popular. When my friends and I speak of him in other movies, we always say, 'oh, Obi-Wan is in that' - none of us call him by his proper name. To be honest, I am not certain that all of my friends would know who I was talking about if I called him Ewan McGregor.

 

I definitely wouldn't put "PT actors disparaging the trilogy" on par with testicular cancer or starvation in the Sudan... But then my love for Star Wars has grown beyond what other people think. I mean, so what? How many people do you know don't have some negative things to say about old jobs? If we really care about these actors as human beings we should be willing to hear the good AND the bad that comes out of their mouth.

 

Haha. Though they didn't have the moment he actually found out, which was captured on camera a few minutes earlier while walking the red carpet outside--"Is that it?? Thats a terrible, terrible title."

 

The only reason anyone knows about Mark Hamill is because of Star Wars, what makes you think that we would have heard of him if he hadn't done Star Wars? The only thing you can argue about Star Wars is that's probably going to be the role your remembered for.

With the exception of Harrison Ford who's role of Indiana Jones would rival (maybe surpass even) the role of Han Solo, these actors with firstly be associated with Star Wars. From the pt, I think Ewan Mcgregor, and Natalie Portman have the opportunity to have enough quality roles to the point where you say there names and the first thing isn't "Obiwan" or "Padme".

Since Liam Neeson was only in TPM, I don't think Star Wars is going to stick with him that bad. But I think Hayden Christensen is screwed big time. He might be the next Mark Hamill. He's starred in a few other movies, and he's a pretty good actor, but personally, I'm always going to see that guy as Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars is a double edged sword. It can give you a boast as a young actor, but you can easily be consumed by that role (carrie fisher, mark hamill, ian mcdirmid).

I'm a little late to the thread, but I remember Mark Hamill BEFORE (gasp) Star Wars as a sought after acter in many TV series (guest starring roles). I thought he was very good and then he was in Star Wars - and then he got typecast.

He did do several films after Star Wars - one a war movie I can't think of the name of that he got good reviews in (no, I'm not thinking of Black Hawk Down with Ewan McGregor).

He was critically acclaimed in The Elephant Man - but stage actors don't get the attention that those in TV or movies get.

Now why exactly he shifted to voice overs and writing may be choice or lack of roles, but I think with the exception of certain actors like Harrison Ford, many of those acters are either type-cast and thus "disappear" from the more visible media, or chose to pursue something else where they are not typecast.

Yes, Hayden may be the "next Mark Hamill," maybe not. I didn't particularly like his Anakin, so I won't search out anything he's in, personally. With no exposure to Ewan McGregor (heh!) before Star Wars, I was sufficiently impressed after ROTS to look for his movies - and oh my (fans self) he's shown () a lot of versatility in his roles.

As to the subject of the thread, I think an honest assessment of the experience of making these movies is not "bashing." If one says "reacting to a green screen is tough," while in "XYZ movie" I really enjoyed acting opposite "someone" is not bashing.

Saying Star Wars "sucked" but it paid well - that would be bashing. IMHO.

 

Exactly. Regardless if he didn't like making them, it's clear he's proud to be a part of it, even if he wasn't completely satisfied with I and II. He seemed very enthusiastic in that interview. I think it's unfair of people to label him as "ungrateful" and "not worthy".

 

I believe that was The Big Red. It pretty much bombed. Most of his films did poorly--Harrison Ford even moreso. He tried to take as varied roles as he could in order to avoid typecast but somehow Ford just couldn't find good material. And this wasn't just in 77 and 78, this went on all the way until after ESB was out. Then he got a starring role in 1981--Raiders of the Lost Ark. Thats when everything changed--thats really when he became the Harrison Ford we remember. Star Wars and ESB actually did absolutely nothing for him, career wise, and its possible that if it weren't for Raiders he would have had the same fate as Hamill and Fisher. Mark Hamill never got the lead role in a Steven Spielberg action film, and thats really the only point of departure with Ford up until 1981.

As for McGregor--indeed he does find the prequels poorly made. He was on Top Gear last year and though he wasn't rude about it he did say that he was unimpressed with the films he was in--he loves Star Wars, but thats because he loves the OT. "For me, the thing about Star Wars is I'll alwats hold the first three from the 70's in just huge regard, and the ones I did--as the ones I did." The host presses him that they can't be as bad as McGregor makes them out to be, and finally McGregor admits: "I liked the third one. The third one was good." [ROTS]. Which is basically what he's said elsewhere and what most critics say--the first two were bad but the third one was pretty good.

 

Actually Hayden's last movie, Jumper, while not gaining great acclaim, had world wide box offices grosses of $182,354,679 after 5 weeks. With production costs at $85,000,000, that is called a success. Hayden's moviegoer draw was at an estimated 55%, with Samuel Jackson and Jamie Bell also having draw percentages in a lesser amount. So at least for now, he seems to be doing okay post Star Wars. McGregor did Cassandra's Dream with Colin Farrell and that one grossed only $18,071,779 after 5 weeks - production costs unlisted. McGregor has 4 new movies in the works and Hayden has 2 that are known about.

I would say the Star Wars exposure helped them both out.

Seeing as Ewan and Hayden have both indicated they enjoyed being in Star Wars (Loved was actually the term used), I don't think that complaints about green screens and unmoving ships are anything more than discussing the limitations of the movie making process. I agree it would have been great to shoot the movies in outer space, so I can understand that sentiment.

 

Hayden was fantastic in Life As A House, shot after he did AOTC.

 

He was great in Shattered Glass, too.

 

The only one who should be lamenting their horrible acting is Portman. Although her recent endeavors have been much better, I also saw her live in a performance of "The Seagull" and she was even worse than in the trilogy. She shouldn't only blame Lucas...she should take responsibilty for doing a horrible job.