Slashdot Mirror


Why More 'Star Wars' Actors Don't Become Stars

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."

22 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. Contradiction in article summary by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The first section of the summary states that actors have trouble finding other roles after staring in the Star Wars franchise but then concludes with an agent saying actors should accept the low-paying Star Wars roles because it "...guarantees a huge global audience, enhancing an actor's marketability."

    1. Re:Contradiction in article summary by crgrace · · 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.

    2. Re:Contradiction in article summary by crgrace · · 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.

    3. Re:Contradiction in article summary by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, 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.

    4. Re:Contradiction in article summary by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's the alternative to being Mark Hamill?

      I don't know... Being John Malkovich?

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
    5. Re:Contradiction in article summary by serviscope_minor · · 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.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Contradiction in article summary by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It's not just the teeth. You particularly notice this if you compare US and UK TV. I find it really hard to tell the actors on US TV apart, particularly the female ones who seem to mostly conform to 2-3 stereotypical appearances. The same is true for the young male ones, though at least there are some older male roles that have distinctive appearances. There are very few ugly actors. Compare this with a BBC drama, where there will be a whole range of physiques.

      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  2. Maybe because the movies were not that good? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Maybe because the movies were not that good? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More specifically, the actors weren't so great. Hot grits are happy to note that Natalie Portman has had plenty of roles in movies since then, but she was one of the best actors in the series (not great, but still). Same with Harrison Ford: he was in a league above everyone else in Star Wars 4-6.

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Maybe because the movies were not that good? by arth1 · · 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.

    3. Re:Maybe because the movies were not that good? by Buchenskjoll · · 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.

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
    4. Re:Maybe because the movies were not that good? by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, 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.

  3. Don't worry actors by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Don't worry actors by crgrace · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:Don't worry actors by Dutch+Gun · · 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."

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  4. original used non-union actors by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lucas and Spielberg made the decision to use non-union actors in the first movie because the union demanded certain types of intro-credits which was believed would spoil the feel of the movie.

    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.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
    1. Re:original used non-union actors by kamapuaa · · 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.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  5. let's be realistic by roc97007 · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  6. crap direction by dryo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem here is not the franchise, but the director. George Lucas has an uncanny ability to get the worst possible performances out of good actors. Look no further than Samuel L. Jackson, who's a talented individual, but came off as stiff and wooden in the Star Wars movies. It's well known that George Lucas doesn't direct actors at all, and often shoots just a single take of the performance. Then he invests massive time and energy into the visual effects, making the CG artists re-do their work multiple times for questionable reasons. He's more of a technology evangelist than a filmmaker.

    1. Re:crap direction by NormalVisual · · Score: 5, Funny

      Look no further than Samuel L. Jackson, who's a talented individual, but came off as stiff and wooden in the Star Wars movies.

      "Hand me my lightsaber."
      "Which one is it?"
      "It's the one that says 'Bad Mother Fucker" on it."

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  7. He also has a warehouse somewhere... by denzacar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...full of Star Wars toys.

    That guy he plays in that Amazing Stories episode - 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.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  8. And Anthony Daniels by SuperKendall · · 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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley