Hayden Christensen vs. Mark Hamill

I've always liked Hayden. Let's hope he has success much like Harrison did after the trilogy.

Mark Hamill, if only because he will always be Luke Skywalker, and Luke kicks Anakin's bitch ass all over that galaxay far, far away.

I think with proper directing and coaching he is a promising talent. It all depends, I mean Hamill I think was a bit jaded by all the publicity by the time it got to ROTJ.

I think both of them will go farther than all of us.

Um, in Life as a House, Christensen rose above some real cheese in the exact way he didn't in the AOTC "I hate sand" scenes. He's fine, maybe better than Hamill. But it's very possible that his main image in the public consciousness will always be as a Skywalker, which isn't such a bad fate. He could have a rich career as a character or B-movie actor, if he ends up typecast.

I believe with Hamill's case, as it was explained in his A + E Biography, was that following the trilogy, he focused mainly on acting on Broadway and that after a few years, he tried returning to film work, but found out that he wasn't in any real demand as a film actor. Hamill's interesting because he did do Corvette Summer but he also did The Big Red One, so I think in terms of career choices, there was at least the potential that he could have gone on to some interesting film work.

I think with Christensen, is that if he continues to do more independent films, he could continue with some degree of success since genuine acting talent is more important than box office clout. If he were to do some big budget Hollywood star vehicle and it was not to be a success, then the business would assume that nobody's interested in seeing him do anything outside Star Wars and all his clout would diminish. With independent films, there's more room for failure and if he does good work in them, then he'd probably continue to get work, regardless of whether they're box office successes or not.

You're forgetting the genius that is 'Slipstream'.
Hamill is a royal bad-ass in this film.
(The film is utter pants, otherwise.)

But, traditionally, for an actor to be indelibly linked to a character, don't they have to do a good job playing the character in the first place? When I think of actors who've been typecast, they've all been iconic performances.

It seems to me that Hayden Christensen is definitely a better actor and I'm pretty sure he'll be doing plenty of good stuff after Star wars. He was doing good stuff before or in between. I've only heard good things about him in Life as a House and Shattered Glass. I could care less about the House movie (sounds kind of depressing in concept) but I really want to see Shattered Glass. I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Mark Hamil definitely seems to be enjoying himself with what he does. Sure, he may not be an A-list type guy, but I don't think it makes any difference to him, and I think that's the only thing that really matters. I really need to see those Batman cartoons again with Hamil as the Joker. The last thing I saw Mark Hamil in was Comic Book the movie, and as silly as it was I have to admit that I enjoyed it.

And just for arguments sake I think that young Jedi Anakin would beat the snot out of young Jedi Luke. Luke was just a whiny little bitch. Anakin was more of a whiny little psycho bitch. Psycho is always a safe bet as far as I'm concerned.

Christiansen isn't exclusively associated with his character the way Hammil was.

I heard he was good in Shattered Glass. He was not good in Life as a House and he was not good in AOTC.

What BobClark said, only with the names properly spelled Christensen and Hamill.

It's possible that Hayden may be identified more exclusively as Anakin after ROTS comes out, but so far, that hasn't happened. I think he can have a decent film career if he makes wise choices, although I don't think he's the next Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford (of the '80s through mid-'90s), or Tom Hanks. Hayden's a little too good-looking to be the buddy or the sidekick (IMO), so it'll be interesting to see what kind of stuff comes his way. He was all right in Shattered Glass, but I thought his looks worked against him, and Peter Sarsgaard completely out-acted him.

As for Hamill, I'm glad that he's still able to find work that doesn't involve going on Celebrity Mole or The Surreal Life.

Mark Hamill had a bad car accident right after Star Wars that ruined his looks. Considering how Hollywood values looks, he's lucky to have worked at all. (The accident also got him out of his "Eight is Enough" contract. See, when you're old, you remember useless stuff).

I think Hayden's received a lot of undeserved bashing over his prequel roles. He seemed to play a similar character in Life as a House (conflicted and angry and petulant). I really enjoyed his performance in Shattered Glass.

Anyway, I never really saw Hamill in much beyond Star Wars, Big Red One and some previews for Corvette Summer. So I'll go with Hayden.

I thought this was a joke at first, it looks like Simon Pegg's on the front cover...

Simon (I'm sure) would love you for that.(as THAT'S Hamill)
Christ, has no one seriously seen this here? It's iconic!!!

Hayden is a far better actor than Hamill, but Hamill was far better in Star Wars. That could change with RotS, however. The prequels haven't captured the imagination of the world like the originals so I don't think Hayden has to worry about being typecast as Anakin Skywalker.

Don't player hate





Mark Hamill is a GREAT voice actor