VanPersie
Well-Known Member
Think he’s currently too busy losing money hand over fist with X.
Lets talk all things Star Wars
- Status
That must be every single trooper from this scene.....(besides that it was a painting....)
Also, I didn't see it mentioned, but maybe just missed it, but seeing that Episode I will be back in theaters for the 25th anniversary....which is crazy to think about.
It get a lot of hate, and the hype back then ended up being better than the film itself....but, AT LEAST George had an idea where he was going with the story, even if it wasn't executed as well. Pod race, mainly the sounds are still really good, along with that last lightsaber battle.
It's worth going just for the podrace and end battle. Taking bets on ticket sales? will it bomb....bad...meesa bombbad?
I would love to take my nephew to go see it since he wasn't born until 2003. However I don't want to give Disney any money...
I know the feeling. Maybe we can just mail George some money and he'll tell the theater to let us in....lol
A great listen…1980 press interviews for The Empire Strikes Back.
These are some of the best interviews that I have ever heard, from the cast—especially Harrison Ford. None of his purported disdain for the Han Solo character is heard, here (he even talks about plans to do Episodes 7 - 9 at “age 53”…).
Mark also covers his famous auto accident (January 11th. 1977, apparently) in detail, including the extent of his injuries:
These are some of the best interviews that I have ever heard, from the cast—especially Harrison Ford. None of his purported disdain for the Han Solo character is heard, here (he even talks about plans to do Episodes 7 - 9 at “age 53”…).
Mark also covers his famous auto accident (January 11th. 1977, apparently) in detail, including the extent of his injuries:
Last edited:
Early in the first clip, when Mark is talking about the release of the Empire Strikes Back and he says “I’m really excited about it. It’s not something you can muster up. If you’re disappointed… It will come out “
Then I think about all the interviews he did for The Last Jedi.
He was prescient years before it actually happened to him.
Then I think about all the interviews he did for The Last Jedi.
He was prescient years before it actually happened to him.
Last edited:
So, I know we have several people here on the forum that have been involved in the entertainment industry for a while and have met these actors behind the scenes, have seen them at conventions, etc. You wonder how walking around being famous affect your psyche overtime?
As much as I enjoyed Mark’s role as Luke Skywalker, he does this thing now that just irritates me. When he’s introduced at a con, or a TV show, etc. and everybody applauds and cheers, he acts surprised, points to himself and mouths the words “who, me?
Then he waves his hand as if to say “aw, come on guys, stop it… I don’t deserve it!”
Maybe he is really being humble, maybe he’s saying “ I appreciate it, but I don’t deserve it. “ Possibly. But you see him do it a couple of times, and it comes across to me that he’s gone into acting mode, and is portraying a humble person.
I’m sure he’s a nice guy, but he’s a real person just like any of the rest of us with all the foibles, irritations, frustrations of day-to-day life, as well as the issue of fans who won’t give him any peace. Like any other celebrity, he probably has canned responses, actions, spontaneous things he says, or does during an interview, that are actually not spontaneous anymore because he’s done them dozens of times over the years.
See what you think:
As much as I enjoyed Mark’s role as Luke Skywalker, he does this thing now that just irritates me. When he’s introduced at a con, or a TV show, etc. and everybody applauds and cheers, he acts surprised, points to himself and mouths the words “who, me?
Then he waves his hand as if to say “aw, come on guys, stop it… I don’t deserve it!”
Maybe he is really being humble, maybe he’s saying “ I appreciate it, but I don’t deserve it. “ Possibly. But you see him do it a couple of times, and it comes across to me that he’s gone into acting mode, and is portraying a humble person.
I’m sure he’s a nice guy, but he’s a real person just like any of the rest of us with all the foibles, irritations, frustrations of day-to-day life, as well as the issue of fans who won’t give him any peace. Like any other celebrity, he probably has canned responses, actions, spontaneous things he says, or does during an interview, that are actually not spontaneous anymore because he’s done them dozens of times over the years.
See what you think:
Last edited:
I love how this is a whole guideline of how to hire "underrepresented" groups and then at the very bottom is the fine print about being prohibited about asking what their "underrepresented" group is. The absurdity on display here is phenomenal.
How anyone can have any faith in modern Disney handling their beloved franchise is beyond me at this point.
I'm sure Mark is a nice guy one on one but he doesn't seem like a happy person to me. He always looks miserable. Judging by his social media, he's a little wacky on top of it.
The thing with being in a famous position like Mark, is that you really cannot have a spontaneous reaction to ANYTHING after a few years of it. It's effectively impossible because of the sheer chronic exposure.
It's like meeting a guy who is 7 feet tall - What ice-breaking comment could you say (about his height) that he hasn't heard before? It's not just that he's already heard your first comment, it's that he's heard your first 20 comments. Dozens/hundreds of times. He already knows your question. He already has a habitual answer for it. He may be able to guess the followup question that his answer will provoke. He's so practiced that this that he can probably steer the direction/tone of the conversation while he's at it.
Look at Tom Wilson. He wrote a whole song about the standard set of 'Back to the Future' questions that people ask him.
Mark Hamill? He got dressed up in a really convincing Luke Skywalker costume back in 1977. And then he stayed in the costume every, all day, for the rest of his life.
It's like meeting a guy who is 7 feet tall - What ice-breaking comment could you say (about his height) that he hasn't heard before? It's not just that he's already heard your first comment, it's that he's heard your first 20 comments. Dozens/hundreds of times. He already knows your question. He already has a habitual answer for it. He may be able to guess the followup question that his answer will provoke. He's so practiced that this that he can probably steer the direction/tone of the conversation while he's at it.
Look at Tom Wilson. He wrote a whole song about the standard set of 'Back to the Future' questions that people ask him.
Mark Hamill? He got dressed up in a really convincing Luke Skywalker costume back in 1977. And then he stayed in the costume every, all day, for the rest of his life.
Last edited:
I remember in the late 1980s, Hamill was DONE with Star Wars. He did a stint on Broadway, tried his hand at a graphic novel "The Black Pearl" in 1996, which he has tried to make into a feature film for over 25 years, and he eventually ended up voice acting, mainly as The Joker for the animated Batman series. He had a brief appearance as The Trickster for The Flash TV show, and did scattered cameos here and there (Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Just Shoot Me, The Big Bang Theory, etc).
For QUITE some time, you would only ever see Hamill wearing black. I mean, it was an OBVIOUS fashion choice. Like he was going through some midlife issue.
But Hamill performed more as The Joker than he did Luke Skywalker. And I think he's been "tired" of Luke for a long time, but still loves his Joker persona.
Maybe Hamill still receives substantial royalties for his work as Luke.... but I doubt it. I would GUESS that at some point he resented the fact that he never became the star that Harrison did.
It's more like a fraction of a point.
But that, and the ESB & ROTJ paychecks, the ongoing merch royalties, the event appearances . . . The Star Wars OT didn't make him stupid-wealthy but it gave him decent financial security for life.
The internet estimates his net worth at $18-20m.
I dunno how much of that came from Disney-Wars and Batman work.
And let's not forget 'Corvette Summer.'
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
It depends. And a LOT depends on state law.
First, it depends on the nature of the online conduct itself. It may be that there are state laws that generally protect employees from employer regulation of certain conduct. There are certainly federal laws that do in some limited instances (e.g., the National Labor Relations Act protects employees engaged in "concerted activity" which is where more than one employee talks about working conditions and such. That's been extended to social media activity by the National Labor Relations Board in the past, but usually when you're complaining about things like "They don't pay us enough for this s***" or whathaveyou. It's really fact-dependent, though.
State laws may go beyond that.
Then there's the question of, ok, you've got a law on the books that says an employer can't prohibit an employee from doing X, but can an employee willingly contract that away? That's a question that's usually resolved by state caselaw where past court cases interpret the meaning of statutory/regulatory language and apply it to specific fact patterns. Most of the time when a law says "employers can't do X," there's a public policy basis for courts to say "They passed this law for XYZ reason, so you can't just allow employees to contract that away," but that's not always the case.
And separate from all of that, of course, is the Federal Arbitration Act which will kick a lot of stuff to arbitration (and out of the public eye) if you signed an arbitration clause, except in very limited circumstances (I think only when the conduct in question falls outside of the scope of the contract itself). As has been mentioned, Disney almost certainly had a conduct clause (regardless of whether it's enforceable), which would mean this probably falls under the scope of the contract and therefore gets roped into arbitration.
That'd be....surprising.
There's a concept in the law called the "statute of frauds" which generally means that most verbal agreements are nonbinding. Typically stuff dealing with real estate or anything else worth more than, like, $500 falls into that. Of course, that all depends on state law application of general contract law concepts, but by and large, that's what you learn in 1st year of law school: verbal contracts ain't worth the paper they're printed on.
Especially for something like this, if they told Carano "Yeah, yeah, we'll give you a show later," it's unlikely that that'd count as a verbal contract that's enforceable. I mean, I had a law school professor who called California "Crazyland" for their various state laws, but I'd be very surprised to learn that, in the home of the entertainment industry, mere verbal statements of "We'll do a movie together" could somehow be legally binding.
This last part here is the meat of the case, yeah, but just looking at the statutes on their face doesn't really tell you a ton without knowing how California courts actually interpret and apply those concepts.
So, for example, the portion about "participating in politics." What actually counts? Presumably it'd be a slam-dunk if Carano was fired for, for example, supporting XYZ candidate's campaign by contributing money and/or volunteering to knock doors for them. But does that extend to just BSing online? I don't know. You'd figure there'd be caselaw on this, but maybe not.
Second, what does "adopting a course or line of political action" actually mean as interpreted by courts? Does that include general social media activity? Would it include, say, poking fun at XYZ group? Like, if Carano had said something overtly, unquestionably racist, is that "political action"? Again, I dunno, and it depends on existing caselaw.
My point in all of this is that while it might seem obvious that she can say what she wants on her own time....that's not necessarily the case (A) if there's a conduct clause in her contract, and (B) the conduct in question doesn't otherwise fall within the scope of those statutory protections. And I wouldn't bet that it does, depending on which posts we're talking about.
Separate from that, I don't know how CA law interprets this stuff when you aren't talking about salaried work, but rather are talking about "gig" work (so to speak). Like, they hired her to do a discrete job. She did that. They'd talked about doing something else, then said "Nah, we don't like how you comport yourself online. We're done."
Does that entitle her to relief? That's a much more thorny question than an employee who, say, works for Hobby Lobby as a full-time employee, volunteers for a trans political candidate, and is fired because of it.
Yeah, if she said that...she apparently has changed her tune.
Literally the first thing she asks for in her lawsuit is: "Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendants to reinstate Carano to her prior position with no loss of pay or benefits."
Maybe that means something different in CA employment law, but it sure sounds to me like "Give me back my old role."
I think just from skimming some stuff that CA law actually does provide for reinstatement in certain circumstances, but what I'm not sure is what their caselaw says about whether an employee can contract away the protections provided by those laws. CA tends to be pretty protective of "the little guy" so it may be that their laws trump whatever's in a contract, but if they don't...then I'd bet this will turn on the simple contractual issue itself.
All that said, I gotta be honest, this isn't the Orwellian nightmare scenario you describe. This is a private employer deciding they don't like the behavior of an employee and terminating them. In most circumstances, it's utterly non-controversial that an employer can fire an employee over, say, spouting off bigoted remarks, if the employee's continued association with the employer might harm the employer's reputation or whathaveyou.
And that, of course, relies upon that being the actual reason that the relationship ended. What if it can be proven that Rangers of the New Republic had already been shelved before this incident, and Disney's public statements only came after? That'd pretty much put an end to the argument of "They fired her for her tweets."
At the end of the day, though, I still suspect we'll never know the specifics of this circumstance, because I'm betting it's headed to arbitration.
Not sure if they're still making stuff re: the character, but I was able to buy a set of Star Wars Mission Fleet figures that includes Cara Dune prior to this Xmas, and that set came out...in 2021 or so? Maybe '22? I can't remember. Anyway, it was still readily available on Amazon, as compared to other items in that toy line that are no longer available. Not sure if this just means it's an "overstock" situation and the items themselves weren't that popular or what.
I'd figure they probably won't make much more merch featuring the character...but that's just as much because the character herself may not be all that popular and because they aren't featuring the character in anything anymore.
I think, in practice, what this probably means is not necessarily specific performance to reinstate her and then make a movie or show with her, but rather that they can't fire her and instead have to terminate the agreement in a manner that forces them to pay her lots of money in damages.
- Status
Similar threads
