Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Who performed better Hayden or Hammil

Hamill. By miles.

If Luke skywalker was supposed to be a whiny wimp, then Hammil hit it right on the mark. Either way, Hamil is much better than Hayden

Hayden. Flame me, I don't care.

Hamill by lightyears.

As much as the character of Anakin is far better, Hamill acted Luke way better then Hayden acted Anakin...

Hamill

WORD

Hamill had a much stronger performance than Hayden, but apart from ROTJ, Hayden played the lead throughout two movies as opposed to Hamill's three, so the character development is that much stronger in Luke. I'm much more drawn towards Anakin as a character, and Hayden - i believe, filled in the best parts of that character, but when you think Star Wars, you almost emediately think 'Luke Skywalker' - and Hamill, single-handedly made him an icon

^ Yep. Luke is the face of Star Wars.

It's strange, the PT is fresh in my mind yet when I think "Star Wars" it's all OT related stuff.

Hamill...barely. They were both horrrible in my opinion.

Yup, but Hamill at least achieved anger and disbelief better than Hayden's mere glare. It all looked the same. Angry, sad, fustrated. Then happy, excited, and scared looked the same also. He has three faces. Negative, Positive, and Neutral. Just three

I actually thought Hayden was better. I mean Anakin was much more complex than Luke, and he did it very well IMO.

Originally posted by spencerspider
I actually thought Hayden was better. I mean Anakin was much more complex than Luke, and he did it very well IMO.

I agree with you completely

As do I.


Hayden is a far better actor.

He played the character EXACTLY the way Lucas told him too, and was believable against all the blue screen stuff. (He may have been a whiny brat in 2, but you all belived in him in those places and situations being whiny.)

Unlike Portman, who sometimes looked like she was in a school play, fumbling through her performance.


It's a close call though.

Hamill's peformance is straightforward and honest, just simply expressing the appropriate emotion for whatever scene he's in, and he does it very well.

Hayden's is more sublte, alot about his confusion and motives.

Plus, he had to pattern his speech off of Hamills And Darth Vaders, to effect the slow pronounciation of some of his dialogue.... to give you the impression that its HIS voice in the suit in IV-VI.

Hayden was awesome, he played the evil anakin really well too.

I liked Mark's acting better. I also liked his character better (call me a loser, but it's my opinion). The part where Luke chose the Light Side over the Dark Side was just too cool. Anakin was pretty cool, Hayden did a good job, but the way Mark became Luke was just too good.

gOOOOoooO HAMILL!

I thought they were about the same.

Like father like son

i dunno... both? *either sucked or did good...*

I think they did... um.. well...

To me this is the hardest of all these polls so far. I just can't choose between the child bedazzled by the sudden arrival of the OT and the young woman overjoyed by the "comeback" of the PT. However, I remember being in love with Han Solo rather than Luke, so perhaps Hayden had a different effect on me altogether, although Mark's performance managed to give us a wonderfully dramatic evolution of the character. I think the film critic in me would choose Mark Hamill, but the woman would definitely choose Hayden Christensen. Perhaps OB1 already spoke for me.

I preferred Hayden over Hamill his acting was much better everyone says he was an arrogant little jerk in Ep II but that was what he was written as Hayden just played the character as he was told i wasnt impressed with Hamill at all and btw when people say Star Wars i dont think Luke Skywalker i think Darth Vader immediately he is the true icon from the trilogy

Yep, Darth Vader IS SW

Plus, he had to pattern his speech off of Hamills And Darth Vaders, to effect the slow pronounciation of some of his dialogue.... to give you the impression that its HIS voice in the suit in IV-VI

Indeed. I still thought of Hammil as the superior actor giving the superior performace.

I think Hamil did a better job, but I think Hayden had some great faces in ROTS. Some of his stuff was great, especially the deepset eyes.

i look in anakins eyes and just get drawn in

vampire Hamill, hayden was just not showing any emotion as anakin, well except when he helps the emperor kill mace and the anger he shows before he fights obi wan. And Hamill showed emotion as luke happy,sad, upset,in pain but then again so did hayden as anakin when he was being burnt alive on mustafar

I find Anakin as a wimpy and he was too adicted to Padme and he really didnt do it well anyway where Hamill wasnt busy with love which makes hamill better

Some parts were attrocious.

You are beautiful like the sand

I hate sand.

lol! "You are beautful like sand"!


Lol. Sandpeople

vampire Luke only had relantionships in the expanded universe and eventually did marry and have a child after the fighting against the empire was over.

i say equal and if you think about it this is a bad thread because they both did their job, however i like hamill because he was in a family guy that made me laugh, lets see hayden do that, predator rocks!

Originally posted by aj_vader
i look in anakins eyes and just get drawn in
if youre not a girl........

Originally posted by DePWNZOR
Yep, Darth Vader IS SW christian was never vader
i dont care what anyone says he was never vader

No, but he was very.......


Vader-....ish.

Vader-like.

Yeah, he was Vader-like.

Hayden *RAWR*

Hamill. Easy.

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
As much as the character of Anakin is far better, Hamill acted Luke way better then Hayden acted Anakin...



ACTED Anikan? Hayden was acting?

In EpIII the only decent acting came from Nute Gunray,Mace and Yoda.

Hamill because he was being directed by Lucas when Lucas was actually good at directing unlike now...

Hayden...it's like people said...Anakin's character is much more complex and he had to show different sides of him. Good, bad, wimpy lol...His permormance is exactly as Lucas told him...so don't give me that bad actor shit...To play a good guy and a villain at the same time is not easy, but Hayden played it well. Don't get me wrong. I liked Hamill's performance too, but it was easier to perform than Hayden's. And everybody is calling Hayden an whiner while Hamill was just doing the same...No it's just because the OT is sacred and the PT "sucks" that they come up with that excuse.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
ACTED Anikan? Hayden was acting?

In EpIII the only decent acting came from Nute Gunray,Mace and Yoda.

First off its Spelled Anakin...

Second...Nute Gunray?? wtf he had like 2 lines...

and Yoda was CG...lol and Mace's acting sucked.

Hayden wins
Mark hammill looks stupid and old

you fool, first off you should be booted from this forum, second umm.... i have zero defense of anything....

Originally posted by aj_vader
Who performed better Hayden or Hammil

Mark--I actually bought all 400+ lines he had in the OT.

Hayden seemed like he was reading off a cue card. When he killed the sand people in AOTC, was best his acting in the entire PT. (probably because crying comes so natural to him)

Hayden easily. His character was much more complex and had the toughest possible decision to make : Jedi or Sith/Padme.

Luke never even debated turning to the Darkside of the force.

Hayden could have done better but he was only chosen for his looks of course, Hamill seemed much more natural and convincing but then again, ANAKIN HAD SUCH HARD CHOICES!! HE HAD TO SEDUCE THE PRINCESS, IMPREGNATE HER, KILL THE SITH, JOIN THE SITH!! Such a hard life of trying to give in to as many seductions as possible..

Hamill kicked butt.

He rocked in Ep. 4

Fighting his fear of Vader during the sabre fight was awesome.

Mark Hamill. Simple.

While both are good actors. I would have to say Mark Hamill. Hayden fit his role fine, but he had a better idea of what he had to work with at that time. He had seen all of the star wars movies and knew what people expected. The upset and angry scenes he did real well. But the happy scenes were not done so well. In paticuler was Episode 2.

Mark Hamill on the other hand performs his part perfectly. It actualy makes me believe that he is actualy Luke Skywalker. No matter the situation the acting is perfect. His acting was perfect in every situation.

With Hayden we see that he can realy only act the realy angry and upset roles. Which is impressive. But Mark on the other hand, we have seen act the upset, angry, happy, sad, serious and a whole bunch of other emotions that Luke goes through. He does them all real well.

really, sw both the ot and the pt aren't really known for the actors/actresses, coz they aren't really that good. hayden seemed like he was acting and wasn't really into his role hamill did a much better job at being luke

Mark Hamill was better..of course...but Hayden was good too....We have to remember~ Even tho I know George Lucas is a genius~ The deep dialogue is not his strongest strength....I think they both did great with what they had....Im madly in love with them both.....

Acting - Mark (good stuff)
Stunts - Hayden (he packed on like 12 lbs)
Saber - Hayden (a sith badass)
Dialouge - Mark (too many good ones, but background music helped)
Breakthrough - Hayden (he realy conviced me his fall to the dark side)

I think there was no way Hayden could f*ck up for some people.
Maybe it's a lack of imagination or knowledge about of what is considered convincing..

emp DIRP!

Originally posted by overlord
I think there was no way Hayden could f*ck up for some people.
Maybe it's a lack of imagination or knowledge about of what is considered convincing..

emp DIRP!

hold up, you calling me stupid homie?

at least Hayden is still gettin work. Hammil needs to retire.

Then again, Hayden is in his 20's, and Hamill is in his 40's or 50's.

Hamill was big 20 years ago.

Go figure.

Hamill because he didnt give in to the dark side like his pussy father did.

let them go at it in a celebrity death match to determine the best lightsaber fighter

Hamill. He was just so natural and I never felt inclined to scrutise his acting. I know that when I find myself scrutinising an actor's performance they are generally bad actors. Hayden just couldn't convince me.
I always invisioned Anakin as a much more serious and mature person and FAR more frightening - with a sort of air about him of I don't know what. I always thought in ep.2 he and Padme would keep their relationship TOTALLY business like until they just snap and ... dam Hayden really messed up...sobs...

Exactly.

The character wasn't who you thought he should be, he was who George Lucas thought he should be:

A petualant teenager who gets pissed when things don't go his way, and who is far too emotional and attatched to what he wants for his own good.

Hayden played the part perfectly, just as he was told to do.

This has been confirmed by Lucas, McCallum, even Ian McDiarmid (a fine actor if there ever was one) who said in Premier "He appears petulant. Movie critics were looking for their next big hero and that's not what he is."

Plus, you add the fact that he studied James Earl Jones speech patterns, and to a lesser extent Hammils, and you see what Hayden was up against.

(go back and listen to some of his lines with your eyes closed, then see if his inflection, tone, and the speed of his delivery don't match up with Jones's portrayals of Vader in the suit.)

Hayden is a far better actor, plus Hammil is a closeted homosexual.

(watch him on the docs for the OT, or on the AFI Life Achievement award given to Lucas, he's a flamer.)

Just kidding, but more points go to Hayden for bagging Natalie Portman.

hmm okay this is the easiest choice. HAMMIL okay . ill state my reasons.

ep1:jake lloyd was a complete arse.. he played the role like some little shit. i can't even believe that was anakin when he was just a child

ep2:the movie was FULL OF SHIT. not anakin's act. but the movie. the movie was horrible. Anakin looked like a robot like he didn't want to do what he was doing. basicallyhe wasnt convincing.

ep3:haydens best acting. goes with the story.. but he turns to the darkside too fast. like... one moment he tells mace that palps is a sith . 5mins later he pledges himself to palps.. so like .. other than that the acting was great except that glare of his :@:@:@:@ OMGGG THE GLARE AND THE YELLOW EYES.ewan played amazingly though in ep3. probably the best acting in star wars. other than han solo. that would be a toughie. THe no at the end sucked also.. unlike luke's ep5 and obi's ep1

ep4:A-M-A-Z-I-N-G acting by all cast. Especially Hamill... he played the role so perfectly.. so amazingly done. in that movie we felt that hamill gave it his all and was into his role.

ep5:i shouldn't say anything about this. i think everyone knows how amazing hamill was in this one.

ep6erfect. luke became a badass jedi he found out his sister was leia. he confronted the darkside. enough said

Hamill wins

Hamill... easily...

HAMILL! all the way

id go with hayden over luke. the main reson is that the third film saved anakin from being a whiny brat to a confused, scared jedi who couldn't seek help from anyone other than palp'. he plays the charactor well, especially when he turns to the darkside.

mark was a very good actor but he didn't convince me, he had two faces and emotions, happy and sad. even in ep6, at the start when he enters jabbas palace, he didn't convince me he was a jedi, just too stupid to walk in with out a lightsaber. he used his sad face for that scene.

overall, IMO, hyden played the actor better than mark because he could act, having more emotions and hitting the nail on the head (in ep3).

Who was a better Luke, Hamill, or the baby in ROTS? baby

(Whoever he is, he's not even listed in the credits!)