She is proven a good enough actor for a well written role.

Carrie wasn't pushed very far in ANH but she was memorable in a way that none of the female characters in the PT or even the Raiders sequels were.

Around that time there were three big blockbusters with brunette lead actresses and Carrie more than held her own and delivered a performances comparable with Karen Allen and Margot Kidder.

She was great in ESB and not so in ROTJ, the difference being one was a sequel written by people with something to prove (that the first film wasn't a flash in the pan one hit wonder) and the other was a contractual obligation piece captained by a depressed man who cared only about the money.

In OT she was memorable purely because of the well written character and greatness of the films themselves. Her performance did very little to add anything significant to the character.

Consequently, that were her first and the last big films in her career.

The point is the story suggests to me an arc to the character of Leia who is played by Carrie Fisher who has a proven record of playing characters well when they are written well and directed well.

Natalie Portman has a similar track record and she was a plank in three badly written badly directed Star Wars films.

Bingowings said:

The point is the story suggests to me an arc to the character of Leia who is played by Carrie Fisher who has a proven record of playing characters well when they are written well and directed well.

Natalie Portman has a similar track record and she was a plank in three badly written badly directed Star Wars films.

"Playing characters well" is your opinion. In my opinion, her performance was average, considering the potential the well written character offered. As I said, that is most likely the reason why OT were her first and the last big films in her career (luckily for her it was a trilogy so she automatically starred in two subsequent, otherwise I would be talking in singular instead of plural). I mean if you can't shine in such character then it is bound you won't get another important role.

So her track record is a complete opposite to that of Portman. Fisher record include (effectively) one big film with average performance. Portman was great in every character that was at least decently written. And her record include many big films, of variety genre and of different producers/directors.

imperialscum said:

"Played well" is your opinion. In my opinion, her performance was average, considering the potential the well written character offered. As I said, that is most likely the reason why OT were her first and the last big films in her career (luckily for her it was a trilogy so she automatically starred in two subsequent, otherwise I would be talking in singular instead of plural). I mean if you can't shine in such character then it is bound you won't get another important role.

So her track record is a complete opposite to that of Portman. Fisher record include (effectively) one big film with average performance. Portman was great in every character that was at least decently written. And her record include many big films, of variety genre and of different producers/directors.

Naturally I will only give you my opinion.

Portman has been in more films. She has been good in some, okay in some and awful in some.

The difference with Portman is she wasn't as identified with the role as much as Fisher.

Leia is a more memorable character and the OT was a popular cultural phenomena.

The PT met with a largely a negative cultural impact and Padme was a forgettable part of it.

It's understandable that a talented actress wouldn't be typecast in a unmemorable performance in three disappointing films.

It's understandable that a talented actress would be typecast in a memorable role in three films with large popular appeal.

Mark is a talented actor too and he suffered much the same typecasting and was cast in similar films after Star Wars.

Harrison was lucky (and it was as much luck as getting the Han role) to be cast as Indiana Jones so while people remember Han fondly, his identity as an actor isn't focused entirely on one role. This allowed for him to be cast in roles like Witness and Mosquito Coast roles that wouldn't be offered to someone like Carrie and Mark but would be offered to someone like Portman.

Leonardo said:

Yeah, I loved her in that. She looked like a psycho!

bkev said:

Yep. That's the look of a woman who's done a shit tone of cocaine.

No. I've been around women who do shit tons of cocaine and this is how they wish they looked. Hell, this is how most sober women wish they looked!  I'm not saying Carrie wasn't riding the white horse, but she never looked coked-out on screen.

...maybe a bit here and there on Jedi....

I liked Mark Hamill as The Joker in Batman The Animated Series.

Typecast may be a decent reason (along with car accident) for reasonably talented Hamill, while in case of average Fishier it is a pure excuse.

Bingowings said:

Naturally I will only give you my opinion.

Well we exchanged our opinions. We don't agree, as usually. And I don't think we will convince each other either, so I will stop at this point. :)

FWIW, I never thought any of them (Fisher, Hamil, Ford) were very good actors.  But what they did have is on-screen chemistry - they weren't great individually, but they were fantastic together.  It takes more than a good script to achieve that.

Objectively, the only really great actors in the OT, in my opinion, were Guiness and Cushing.  Every time they were on screen they lit it up.  And Yoda, but I'm not sure what that means.

Carrie is a good as Mark and Harrison in the first two films.

Her role in such classics of awfulness as Time Guardian matches Mark's in Slipstream etc (both try their best regardless of the production).

I personally don't see Sir Alec as a great actor either.

The only time I actually saw him act as anyone other than himself was in Little Dorrit and in The Ladykillers where he as playing Alastair Sim.

Not that I mind because he has even after death an agreeable screen presence which is what you want from a film star.

Cushing on the other hand actually played characters where you couldn't see Cushing from time to time.

*ahem*

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

the only really great actors in the OT, in my opinion, were Guiness and Cushing.

Personally, I would add McDiarmid to the list.

Ryan McAvoy said:

*ahem*

Exactly... all of them are Sir Alec playing himself in a different costume.

imperialscum said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

the only really great actors in the OT, in my opinion, were Guiness and Cushing.

Personally, I would add McDiarmid to the list.

Absolutely agree with you there.

JEJ is a great actor too.

Others like Kenneth Colley, Julian Glover, Caroline Blakinston, Seb Shaw are really good actors but don't really get a chance to shine in the OT.

And Billy Dee is just as good as everyone else in ESB.

Only Ian gets to be great in both the OT and the PT and he has to suffer humiliations in the writing of the PT scripts too.

A good actor is reliant on good material and a supportive director.

A great actor can turn in a good performance regardless of how bad the material and director are.

"Ahem" part2...

Ryan McAvoy said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Imagine the love scene with Carrie Fisher and William Shatner...

TV's Frink said:

imperialscum said:

In OT she was memorable purely because of the well written character and greatness of the films themselves. Her performance did very little to add anything significant to the character.

Consequently, that were her first and the last big films in her career.

I guess you've never seen Austin Powers.

Mr.... Ehville?

DominicCobb said:

...I can't see a single reason why she should be the villain, other than it would give her something interesting to do.

There has to be something interesting happening with Leia or there is no point in making her "the other", Luke' sister, Annikin's daughter, ect. That plot thread was started in ESB, expanded upon in ROTJ, shown in ROTS, but never came to anything. In my mind, it's one of the only reasons for a sequel to ROTJ to exist. It's the only loose end when the credits roll on Jedi.

Chewbacca should be the villain.

Leia as villain would be too much I think. In my view, she would never have become a Jedi. Maybe that disappointed Luke. She would be a great leader in the Republic. Sister of the greatest Jedi Luke. I hope the story is interesting and that all characters play a meaningful role even if not wielding sabers.

As for Carrie Fisher's other successes: "When Harry Met Sally" and "The Burbs" stand out.

Bingowings said:

[Carrie] was great in ESB and not so in ROTJ...

Look Bingo, I think you may be alone in this.  Carrie was great* in RotJ, it's probably her best performance in the trilogy.

*And by great, I mean hawwwwwwwt.