The kid was in other films and did fine. Sometimes it ain't the acting, but the screenplay and directing that destroys a performance.
Specifically, in the case of the Star Wars movies -- the only one that's really a good movie in its own right is Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. Why? Because it's the only one that Lucas neither directed nor wrote the screenplay for.
With the exception of Harrison Ford, the original Star Wars (Episode IV) was horribly acted, very wooden. Lucas directed and was the sole screenplay writer.
Return of The Jedi wasn't horrible (replace the Ewoks with Wookies like they were originally supposed to be...) -- but Lucas was only co-wrtier of the screenplay there, and didn't direct either.
The "prequel" trilogy has Lucas' prints all over them (co-screenplay writer for Episode II, but otherwise all Lucas in writing and directing) and they can easily be characterized as cartoonish stories with bad acting.
Boy , I’m with you 100% re. Lucas. I’ve always said that the original idea for SW came THRU GL not from him. The man ASPIRES to have one dimension! He’s a perpetual juvenile and thinks his audience is too.
Re. the acting in the original films- I have to agree with Shadowstrike, a few posts up.
Ford has ONE schtick- like Jim Carrey. Brooding, mumbling. He was his most animated in ANH- later the old pot-head that he is dominated. What other great films has he made outside of the Lucas/Spielberg umbrella?
Hamill, IMO, is a 100% more versatile actor. He has range- as evidenced by his Broadway work and his current voice work as the Joker. Not my cup of tea, that, but versatile and talented he is.
He was also a helluva lot easier on the eyes than Ford, IMO.
As for those in the ‘new’ SW films. All I can say is- will ANY of them be talked about 30 years from now, as the original actors are? I think not.
My vote for the worst ‘actor’ ,EVER, is William Shatner. Cringingly bad in everything.