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.