ST Luke Skywalker/Mark Hamill Discussion Thread [SEE WARNING ON PAGE 134]

The reality is that 70 year old Mark Hamill can no longer physically portray mid 20s Luke Skywalker again. A body double is needed for that kind of work, even for non-action scenes. Inevitably you will always arrive at the Frankenstein Skywalker of The Mandalorian.

 

I think it's a given that Hamill's involvement will be to bring whatever authenticity he can bring, whether it's the voice before they alter it, the acting mannerisms before they alter his face, the soul and the spirit of the character. But yes, it will definitely always be a Frankenstein Skywalker in that sense. But IMO, seeing them use technology to as closely replicate the character as possible is actually entertaining both because its cool to see amazing tech and also because we know it's Hamill underneath.

 

Luke didn't look very good, truth be told.

Recast is a better option I guess. TLJ Luke was Alec Guinness; this would be about finding Ewan McGregor.

1)TPM Anakin (10)>Ben (11) is sent to Luke (35)

2)AOTC Anakin (19)>teenage Ben (he was 17 when little Rey was left behind. Luke was 41).

3)ROTS Vader (22/23)>Kylo (23). The temple is destroyed. Luke was 47.

3) means Hamill now. I guess those last years would be told last in a hypothetical prequel film or tv show. So this McGregor guy would have to be cast for 1 first, and the he would age with the character.

As an example, Sebastian Stan is 38, between 1) and 2), and would fit these requirements.

 

Stand-ins for fighting scenes has long been done by Hollywood, including for Christopher Lee as Dooku.

Folks just making up reasons now for no Mark.

 

Thing is that Lukes mouth movements honestly don't look like they are over an actors face, normally when you de-age its just smoothing over an actors face... while with Luke it looks like its a replica of someone's face. so really its the uncanny vally thing. many won't want to be taken out of it by quite clearly seeing its CGI. but we ain't that far ahead effects-wise that it could be done flawlessly.

Then of course, the reason why its limited is because the amount of work it takes to create a convincing CGI luke. and the even more amount of work it takes to make him look real.

I wouldn't say this is "making up reasons". this is likely a real scenario.

 

I thought it was epic, all things considered, definitely one of my favorite Luke moments now

even with the slightly off cgi face

 

I still think the best de-aged double was actually the TROS flashback of Luke and Leia, but that had the benefit of only being a single shot with no dialogue.

 

Maybe LFL is going off old intel then? But presumably they used deep-fake tech instead of de-aging and some other guy’s voice because they couldn’t just de-age Mark or convincingly alter his voice (although it didn’t sound much like young Luke anyway imo).

(I also know of no technology that can make a 70-80-year-old actor gain the silhouette of or move like a man half his age.)

At some point, yes. My guess is they want one or two brief Luke cameos before then, and that’s why they hired that guy - to work on those. I seriously doubt they currently have anything (live-action, at least) in any stage of development that would feature young Luke in a reoccurring or starting role.

The Luke we got as a cameo in Mando s2 would be a bizarre choice over just doing competent recasting. There’s no reason to do it except for thr few fans obsessed with the idea that the Luke they see is in *some way* Mark Hamill even if there are major trade-offs and it’d impossible to discern in what way the franken-being onscreen is Mark.

I don’t know what about the idea of recasting is hard to understand. It’s inevitable for long-running franchises and cheaper and more convincing than CGI franken-creations.

Hate to tell my fellow OT fans but Harrison, Mark, and Carrie don’t own those roles and Disney certainly doesn’t think they do.

I think you may have missed the excitement surrounding TFA.

I also heavily disagree with “the best thing” being tied with “the fans.” TFA brought in kids who were finally able to see themselves in the new SW protagonists (excitement that TLJ largely squashed). While the Luke cameo made fans who hated TLJ and were very upset with how Luke had been treated cheery for a brief bit. They’re just not comparable and I don’t consider making an OT oldtimer like myself happy for a bit nearly on the same level as a little Black boy or girl feeling like they too can be a Jedi. Nope.

Look at what they have coming up. Mando s3 won’t have Grogu, who is cute but is more of a memeable sexy lamp than character who has a shelf life. If we see another Luke deepfake soon it will be another cameo and I doubt fans will be in hysterics *every time* they see Luke onscreen.

And there’s everything else.

I wouldn’t presume to guess that we have all of the information DLF uses to make their decisions. Did anyone call Rogue Squadron as the next SW movie? No. Because these decisions are kinds more complicated than “X seems popular so next movie!” (I mean, some entertainment media decisions are made that way but I wouldn’t bank on it.)

I agree. But if they decide he can be, when it comes to production schedules, Mark will be pushing 80 by the time filming starts. Technology aside, the idea of revolving a show around such an old actor, propped up by tons of CGI and extra stunt doubles due to decreased mobility when they could just, like, hire a young unknown who looks and sounds eerily like young Mark would be very strange, especially after the abrupt loss of the much younger Carrie.

The much cheaper, easier, versatile method of just recasting? Disney execs really don’t squeal with glee every time Mark, Harrison, or Carrie appear onscreen. They don’t care. Most of the audience they’re aiming for aren’t fundamentally attached to those actors.

It doesn’t really count if one can’t tell Mark is playing the character. It doesn’t count if the character onscreen clearly doesn’t have Mark’s face or his voice. Sure, it did this one time. But it was also the first time fans had seen “the real Luke” onscreen since RotJ and it wasn’t that it was Mark - it was that this Luke looked and sounded (in terms of what he said) like the old familiar Luke.

They can just hire a young guy and boast that Mark gave him a bunch of “How to Be Luke” tips.

A recast wouldn’t “imitate” young Luke - he’d be young Luke. Luke is a character who can be played by any number of actors. Disney really really doesn’t care if some fans are super-attached to Mark as Luke and will boycott the franchise if the character is recast even with Mark’s blessing.

Bottom Line: Luke’s value rests mostly in how he is written, not who he is played by. Battlefront II Luke is far superior to TLJ Luke despite not being played by Mark Hamill for that reason.

 

This is why I'm a fan of resurrected Luke (though I acknowledge the issues with that). I would like to see MH play the character as he is now, not a digitally re-created performance (even one with MH's heavy involvement). Plus, with resurrected Luke, the future of the character has infinite possibilities. With young digitally altered Luke, his future is just TLJ. I know this isn't necessarily a popular opinion and I get that resurrecting characters has problems, but this is undoubtedly my preferred course of action while MH is still around and willing to play the character.

 

I personally prefer this option too. I certainly don’t begrudge other fans young Luke, knowing how it will end will always prevent me from enjoying those stories. I would rather see old Luke as he should be, played by his original actor without tons of CGI stuff.

 

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Fans don't think these actors OWN the roles. Fans LOVE these actors, they LOVE the particular way these actors play the characters, and they would much prefer that continuity continue for as long as possible. You're trying to imply that we think we owe Mark Hamill the opportunity, or that he is entitled to the part and that's that. I don't think anyone feels that way at all, so you're characterization is false. I think most OT fans associate the characters for the most part with the actors, and the fact that where the actor begins and where the character ends is hard to pinpoint. Han Solo would have been a different Han Solo without Harrison Ford, and he was a different character when played by Alden. I think the Obi Wan situation is completely different, because we didn't have a vision of what Obi Wan would have been like as a young man, so Ewan was able to become that. But we know what a young Luke, Han and Leia looked like, and its pretty reasonable to expect them to look the same.

 

Luke: *appears briefly with a CG face that to some isn't convincing*

Some: "CG face Luke will never, EVER, under any circumstances, work "

 

I think Disney's approach would depend heavily on what they want to do with the character and how much they plan to use him. A cameo here and there, maybe even an extended scene? Sure, that can be done via de-aging if they work harder on it.

Now if they wanted to do an entire show with "young" Luke, then CGI wouldn't be the answer. What budget and what time would be supposed to go into that when you still can never get the nuance and excitement an actual actor can bring to a role without the performance be overwritten on some level by CGI. And every action scene with a stand-in where you can never immerse yourself with an actor visibly doing some of the stunts themselves.

Of course you can botch re-casting badly as well and dooming a project before it even gets started.

They could also bypass all of it and go the animation route but that would feel like a demotion in the face of characters from animation being transitioned into live action.

In the end I guess it depends on how much worth LFL and Disney still see in the character in terms of getting mileage out of him. And what overall plans they have. And even if you don't ever "re-imagine" the ST, you could still say screw it and have a Luke show where he acts heroic, smart and capable and say "well, TLJ is years away, he is still like this now".

 

I don't think anyone is saying it isn't convincing. its very much that thing of people want Luke to look like Hamill so the only choice is to do it CGI. but obviously the uncanny vally effect is either something you can look past, or you will struggle with it.

I think its limited purely because it requires the effects team to be able to pull off a CGI Luke that won't at any point suddenly look terrible and low graded, and that works best when you don't try and do too much with it. for example in the Mandalorian, Luke barely moved, so it was easier to add the effect and keep it stable. the moment there is more movement, thats likely more time and money to make it work. its constant touching up of the face for every second he is on film.

 

I’m saying that characters =/= their actors and characters can and do exist beyond the time when the actors originating them are able to play them.

Some fans are willing to sacrifice a character looking human or sounding like the original if it means the original actor being directly involved somehow. I am not. I’d rather a Luke who looks human and delivers lines authentically, even if it means Mark’s involvement is limited to giving input on casting and coaching the actor. Writing is what makes a character for me, not the actor.

Some fans absolutely believe that ONLY the original actor can play (or “play”) a particular character, or think that the original actor playing the character is paramount, even at the expense of other aspects of the character. I do not. I would not, for example, want Mark to voice an animated Luke series if Luke were in his 20s in the series, because Mark can’t do a young Luke voice anymore.

I’ve been a Luke stan for over 20 years but knew nothing about Mark or the other SW actors until 4 years ago. Mark is awesome, but knowing he’s onscreen despite not being able to see or hear him really isn’t worth the tradeoff to me. I’d much rather see him as Old Luke but with competent writing and appropriate characterization.

No I’m not. And I’m sure Mark would be involved in some way in any recasting.

No, I’m not. I don’t think Mark thinks he’s entitled to the part. But I do think that there are some fans who think *they* are entitled to forever see Mark
as Luke. Or who insist that a charavter onscreen simply isn’t Luke unless it’s Mark in the role.

No because I’ve absolutely seen people say these things and - more commonly - act like they hold those opinions.

I find it extremely easy to pinpoint. But that is exactly the issue here imo - fans equating Mark with Luke on some level and thinking no one but Mark could ever play Luke (except for ofc something like little kid Luke).

The OT3 were written by various authors for years yet no one complained that Harrison, Mark, and Carrie weren’t involved and just accepted that those were Han, Luke, and Leia on the page.

Personally, I stopped reading Legends mostly because I felt the character writing was extremely inconstant and not very good. And I think we all learned that Mark playing Luke but horribly written is worse than a CGI frankenLuke who sounds and acts at least vaguely familiar. Obviously those who don’t want Luke recast also want good writing! I’m just saying that what makes Luke Luke is primarily his writing, not who plays him.

We did - Alec Guinness as a young man. But, crucially, he was dead, and even more crucially, GL wasn’t going to let that - or AG’s age had he been alive - get in the way of the story he wanted to tell. And GL was not above recasting the OT3 for a sequel trilogy had any of the actors been unavailable.

Not really. If the original actor has aged to the point of requiring a hardcore deepfake, which itself doesn’t look much like him, I’d rather a recast who’s a close approximation to the original who at least looks human.

It’s entirely possible to recast a role without disrespecting the original actor. I’m certain Mark doesn’t begrudge recasting. I’m also sure that if he were given the opportunity to play old Luke as he should have been, he’d love to do so. And I really really hope that happens.

 

You keep bragging about what you didn't know. I knew who Mark Hamill was in 1977 when I was four years old. So did every other kid I was friends with at the time. We were in kindergarten. Nearly everyone else who loves Star Wars has always known who Mark Hamill is... What is your point? Ignorance is bliss.

Each incarnation will get better. They just hired the person who showed he could do better than they did. Within a year or two, this technology will be much better. A few years after that, it will be fool proof. This is like complaining about the first Brachiosaurus in Jurassic and saying we should stop doing CGI dinosaurs. In five years, actors will routinely be playing themselves at different ages. Your fear of the technology is misguided.

 

It's been said several times in this thread. By you in the post I just quoted, for instance. You say there's an uncanny valley effect that we either look past or struggle with, which means it's not entirely convincing.

When he asked Mark and Carrie if they wanted to be part of it, he told them he'd just write them out if they'd say no.

 

Leia in RO looked a little strange, but it was only for a few seconds. I wasn't a fan of the video game cut scene Tarkin either, although I really liked RO. It took me out of the movie a little bit.

 

I judge it by level of success. Luke in The Mandalorian is impressive. and id say it was convincing. mostly when he doesn't move too much.

 

I have to say, DLF have killed off all the Skywalkers....then bring Luke back in Mando.
I really don't get it, sorry.

 

What exactly do you not get?

It's unlikely that they'll put young Luke front and center in a live action show anytime soon, yeah.
He's already had his own great adventure anyway, so...

 

They didn't "bring him back" at all. They are in a time period where he is still around. And thus can appear.

It would be no different if kid!Luke (or kid!Leia) were shown in the Obi Wan show.

Bringing someone back means un-doing their death to me, not them still being around in their lifetime.

 

Luke probably will appear in someone else's story.

For example, if he was Col.Kurtz, who was Willard/Martin Sheen? Willard destroyed Kurtz's compund: and we know Ben didn't destroy the temple. It was an air strike, as shown in the comic, and that's how Kurtz's compound was destroyed.

Two weeks before TLJ was released we were informed about Snoke having trained 'at least one other apprentice'. Luke spoke about Ben vanishing with a 'handful of my students'. In the comic, there were 3 of them. That's less than a handful, I guess. The rest were 'slaughtered', a bit like those padawans in ROTS...and that wasn't Ben either.

Willard was told to infiltrate Kurtz's compound in Apocalypse Now.

That film is in fact a flashback; Willard telling his own story.

 

Abrams said he wanted to move forward with new characters during the promos for TFA; it's why he decided to remove Anakin's banner from Maz's castle courtyard.

He also made a big point about the 'Skywalker saga ending with TROS.'

DLF backed this.

Mando is a spin off in its own universe....yet they bring the most famous Skywalkers of all in for a cameo appearance. There was absolutely no need.

I honestly don't know what DLF are thinking of these days!