| Author |
 Topic  |
|
jackspencerjr
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
262 Posts |
 Posted - 06/25/2006 : 06:00:07 AM
|
[url="http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/376/376873p4.html"]An interview with Gary Kurtz[/url] reveals what went wrong with Star Wars starting with Jedi. It was Raiders of the Lost Ark.
quote:
IGNFF: Well what were the original outlines for the prequels? Since they can be compared and contrasted now that the first one's out there, and the second one's soon to be out there. Were there major differences from what you saw, from the original outlines of prequel ideas?
KURTZ: Well a lot of the prequel ideas were very, very vague. It's really difficult to say. I can't remember much about that at all, except dealing with the Clone Wars and the formation of the Jedi Knights in the first place – that was supposed to be one of the keys of Episode I, was going to be how the Jedi Knights came to be. But all of those notes were abandoned completely. One of the reasons Jedi came out the way it did was because the story outline of how Jedi was going to be seemed to get tossed out, and one of the reasons I was really unhappy was the fact that all of the carefully constructed story structure of characters and things that we did in Empire was going to carry over into Jedi. The resolution of that film was going to be quite bittersweet, with Han Solo being killed, and the princess having to take over as queen of what remained of her people, leaving everybody else. In effect, Luke was left on his own. None of that happened, of course.
IGNFF: So it would have been less of a fairy-tale ending?
KURTZ: Much, much less. It would have been quite sad, and poignant and upbeat at the same time, because they would have won a battle. But the idea of another attack on another Death Star wasn't there at all ... it was a rehash of Star Wars, with better visual effects. And there were no Ewoks ... it was just entirely different. It was much more adult and straightforward, the story. This idea that the roller-coaster ride was all the audience was interested in, and the story doesn't have to be very adult or interesting, seemed to come up because of what happened with Raiders of the Lost Ark and the Indiana Jones films – and the fact that that seemed to make a lot of money and it didn't matter whether there was a really good story or not – that wasn't what this kind of film was about. We had serious differences about a lot of that.
quote:
(KURTZ: ) There's a lot of undercurrent in Star Wars that, if you take it on the surface, a four-year-old can really enjoy it – but there's a lot else going on, under there. In that sense it's multi-layered, and Empire is as well. That's the thing that bothered me a bit about Jedi and certainly about Episode I, is that those layers, those subtexts – they're all gone. They're not there. You accept what's there on the screen – it either works for you as a surface adventure, or it doesn't. But that's all there is. There's nothing to ponder.
quote:
KURTZ: I think probably for better. But, I don't know, because as I said, he had gotten into this mode of saying that the audience is interested in the rollercoaster ride and that he could make just as much money, and it doesn't have to be complicated, doesn't have to have as difficult a story. There are a lot of other people who do that all the time – that's they're kind of movie making philosophy, the sort of Jerry Bruckheimer approach to movies. A lot of Hollywood movies have been based on the idea that the story is the subtext of the action, so that's certainly nothing new. But it's not very satisfying, I don't think, personally. But, you can make a lot of money, and if that's what you want to do, then you do it that way.
I find this all rather interesting. First of all, who'd've thought it was Indiana Jones that ruined Star Wars and to be honest, I thought Raiders had that undercurrent Kurtz speaks of. Maybe it wasn't as deep, but it was there, so why the hell Lucas thought it wasn't important baffles me. |
|
|
Sardu
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1126 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2006 : 11:40:30 AM
|
Interesting stuff. Of course, it could be a certain amount of sour rapes on his part but, as they say, the proof is in the pudding; with Kurtz as producer SW was great and with Rick Mcallum... we know how that turned out. So there must be something to it.
Also, being devil's advocate for a quick reality check: Lucas was right. No matter how much all we fogies bitch the prequels made huge obscene piles of cash and most young fans love them.
Coming soon-
Eraserhead: The Musical!! |
Edited by - Sardu on 06/25/2006 11:48:46 AM |
 |
|
|
Dirk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
237 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2006 : 12:20:18 PM
|
| "Jedi" was always my favorite Star Wars movie, and I don't understand why people find it so disappointing. How can you pass up Jabba the Hutt, Darth Vader, AND the Emperor - probably one of the greatest villain combos in movie history? |
|
|
|
jackspencerjr
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
262 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2006 : 3:22:29 PM
|
quote:
Also, being devil's advocate for a quick reality check: Lucas was right. No matter how much all we fogies bitch the prequels made huge obscene piles of cash and most young fans love them.
This is true, but I am reminded of what my high school English teacher said about the fireside poets and Stephen king and what Stephen King said about the novel Valley of the Dolls. Certain stories, be it in print or film or what-have-you, gain a certain amount of popularity in its day and only in its day. Star Wars is an odd duck in this, but probably because of the first two movies which were so strong in their emotional pull that we can overlook the flaws in ROTJ and even lump it in with the other two and it also help make the prequels successful, but will they continue to be? In 30 years, will Phantom Menace be as well remembered, or will it be like the Super Friends where I watch them now and wonder just what I ever saw in it.
In other words, if all you're interested in is making a big pile of money right now, then sure the hollow effects flick will do it. If you have desires to do more than just have a good opening weekend, then you have to give the audience something more. And if you do, you will be rewarded with people still talking about your movie thirty years after the initial release and you can even release a bunch of crappy latter-day sequels that will still make money.
And Dirk, I always felt something was missing from Jedi. I don't know what, but it sure wasn't Jabba, Vader and the Emperor. |
Edited by - jackspencerjr on 06/25/2006 3:34:33 PM |
|
|
|
Kit Rex
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
294 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2006 : 7:42:07 PM
|
All very interesting, and it's obvious to me that the effects from Lucas' decision have been more far reaching than I've previously realized.
When Independence Day came out, I thought the effects were fantastic, but the plot was a jumbled mess, driven by the most outlandish and unbelievable coincidences, and any subtext in the film was delivered with the subtlety of a Tommy Iommi riff. In other words, the script had apparently been written on autopilot. Hollywood action film makers put in long, hard hours to get the production values and effects as perfect as possible. So where was all of this effort going when it mattered at the story level?
I got my answer when I was reading the trivia for the film on the IMDb. Shout-outs. In-jokes. "Clever" allusions. None of which I recall at the moment, which shows how much good it was all for.
But this sort of thing is the norm now, and I don't know whether it's the directors or the studio brass, or both, who are responsible for it. Nobody seems to think good stories are important any more.
For some time I've wondered why, with the occasional exception, the period between 1982 and 1984 seems to be the cutoff point for my interest in movies. After reading Ken's review of Jaws, specifically the part where he laments the death of the old-fashioned adventure movie and the rise of the shallower action movie, i remember theorizing that Raiders was the intermediary step between those two genres. It certainly has all of the flavor and character of the old adventures, as well as all the action the younger fans crave. It's a classic, pure and simple.
But it seems Lucas looked at it and completely failed to understand what had really made it great, much as he failed to understand what had made his own first two Star Wars films great. And after ROTJ, it seemed others took the hint. Look at the drop in quality between films in other genre series: Jaws 2 (1978) and Jaws III (1983). Superman II (1980) and Superman III (1983). Conan the Barbarian (1981) and Conan the Destroyer (1984).
I don't think it's a coincidence that the creation of the PG-13 rating, another event I closely associate with the blanding of Hollywood, happened right around this time.
I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am. - Samuel Johnson
History teaches us that men and nations only behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. - Abba Eban |
|
|
|
tam1MI
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
558 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2006 : 11:08:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kit Rex
For some time I've wondered why, with the occasional exception, the period between 1982 and 1984 seems to be the cutoff point for my interest in movies. After reading Ken's review of Jaws, specifically the part where he laments the death of the old-fashioned adventure movie and the rise of the shallower action movie, i remember theorizing that Raiders was the intermediary step between those two genres.
For some reason, I keep thinking of DIE HARD as the movie that pivoted action movies from the JAWS-type to the PHANTOM MENACE-type. Don't get me wrong, I think DIE HARD is a great film, but there's something about it, I can't quite put my finger on, but something, that signals to me the changeover. Perhaps it was the smrt-ass-ness which Bruce Willis brought to the role. |
|
|
|
Sardu
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1126 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 01:13:49 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by jackspencerjr
In other words, if all you're interested in is making a big pile of money right now, then sure the hollow effects flick will do it.
Well, according to the interview that was exactly Lucas's mindset. Kurtz quotes him as lamenting the fact that they bothered to make Empire as good as it was because it would have made money either way. He really makes George out as someone who gave up on art and became all about product. Now that Star Wars is done, gone, finito, will Lucas transform from Vader back into Anakin and make a heartfelt film again??
Coming soon-
Eraserhead: The Musical!! |
|
|
|
BrainFromArous
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 04:00:38 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dirk
"Jedi" was always my favorite Star Wars movie, and I don't understand why people find it so disappointing. How can you pass up Jabba the Hutt, Darth Vader, AND the Emperor - probably one of the greatest villain combos in movie history?
One word: Marketing. Star Wars was Lucas' love letter to classic space opera and heroic adventure stories. Empire was a darker revisit to the same, but still on solid ground.
Jedi was a trip to the toy store. By the time of Jedi, the money weasels had Lucas' ear and that, compared with his own bad instincts and the fact that the stellar success of the earlier films meant he no longer had to listen to anyone else (Stephen King Disease) resulted in the mess that was Jedi.
I'm old enough to have seen Jedi on the first run, in theatres, and I can tell you that even kids - real, actual children - who had waited for hours to see the film were audibly appalled at the Ewoks.
"What the...?" "Are they like, Teddy Bears or something?" "Dad, is that a midget in a little suit?" "Oh man... this is dumb" and many similar comments echoed 'round the theatre.
One older fan behind me summed it up perfectly: "Well, Star Wars was nice while it lasted."
**********************
Boards don't hit back.
(Bruce Lee) |
|
|
|
jackspencerjr
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
262 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 04:55:01 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kit Rex
All very interesting, and it's obvious to me that the effects from Lucas' decision have been more far reaching than I've previously realized.
Somehow, I think this is much older than we think. It's a cycle as old as art itself. Didn't Aristotle address this in his essay Poetics concerning spectacle?
quote:
Fear and pity may be aroused by spectacular means; but they may also result from the inner structure of the piece, which is the better way, and indicates a superior poet. For the plot ought to be so constructed that, even without the aid of the eye, he who hears the tale told will thrill with horror and melt to pity at what takes Place. This is the impression we should receive from hearing the story of the Oedipus. But to produce this effect by the mere spectacle is a less artistic method, and dependent on extraneous aids. Those who employ spectacular means to create a sense not of the terrible but only of the monstrous, are strangers to the purpose of Tragedy; for we must not demand of Tragedy any and every kind of pleasure, but only that which is proper to it. And since the pleasure which the poet should afford is that which comes from pity and fear through imitation, it is evident that this quality must be impressed upon the incidents.
Yeah, I thought so.
quote:
Originally posted by Sardu
Now that Star Wars is done, gone, finito, will Lucas transform from Vader back into Anakin and make a heartfelt film again??
Yeah. Radioland Murders 2. |
|
|
|
Dirk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
237 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 11:32:55 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BrainFromArous
quote:
Originally posted by Dirk
"Jedi" was always my favorite Star Wars movie, and I don't understand why people find it so disappointing. How can you pass up Jabba the Hutt, Darth Vader, AND the Emperor - probably one of the greatest villain combos in movie history?
One word: Marketing. Star Wars was Lucas' love letter to classic space opera and heroic adventure stories. Empire was a darker revisit to the same, but still on solid ground.
Jedi was a trip to the toy store. By the time of Jedi, the money weasels had Lucas' ear and that, compared with his own bad instincts and the fact that the stellar success of the earlier films meant he no longer had to listen to anyone else (Stephen King Disease) resulted in the mess that was Jedi.
I'm old enough to have seen Jedi on the first run, in theatres, and I can tell you that even kids - real, actual children - who had waited for hours to see the film were audibly appalled at the Ewoks.
"What the...?" "Are they like, Teddy Bears or something?" "Dad, is that a midget in a little suit?" "Oh man... this is dumb" and many similar comments echoed 'round the theatre.
One older fan behind me summed it up perfectly: "Well, Star Wars was nice while it lasted."
**********************
Boards don't hit back.
(Bruce Lee)
|
|
|
|
Dirk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
237 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 11:35:02 AM
|
| Dang. I only meant to include that paragraph about "Dad, is that a midget in a little suit?" That I can understand. If it had been up to me, I would at least have given them hands instead of mittens. |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 1:18:07 PM
|
Frankly, I think the Ewoks have always gotten a bad rap. "Midgets in little suits"? Please. Ever heard of jawas? Ever heard of R2D2???? In all honesty, the Ewoks were the only kiddie-oriented characters in Jedi that I did enjoy.
What I despised in Jedi:
- the entire Jabba the Hut sequence
- the Muppets in Space finale with some reptile-alien giving the rebels their marching orders while Billy Dee Williams flies into battle with rejects from The Great Space Coaster.
|
|
|
|
BrainFromArous
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 2:46:57 PM
|
How DARE you compare the vileness that is Ewoks to the excellent Jawas and R2D2?!
This means WAH! :)
**********************
Boards don't hit back.
(Bruce Lee) |
|
|
|
Kit Rex
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
294 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 5:21:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by tam1MI
For some reason, I keep thinking of DIE HARD as the movie that pivoted action movies from the JAWS-type to the PHANTOM MENACE-type.
Interesting point. Personally, I think Die Hard was the movie that cemented the changeover. The smart-ass quality you mentioned was simply the finishing touch.
***************
"Time. Time. What is time? Swiss manufacture it. French hoard it. Italians squander it. Americans say it is money. Hindus say it does not exist. Do you know what I say? I say time is a crook." |
|
|
|
jackspencerjr
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
262 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 6:30:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by tam1MI
For some reason, I keep thinking of DIE HARD as the movie that pivoted action movies from the JAWS-type to the PHANTOM MENACE-type. Don't get me wrong, I think DIE HARD is a great film, but there's something about it, I can't quite put my finger on, but something, that signals to me the changeover. Perhaps it was the smrt-ass-ness which Bruce Willis brought to the role.
Really? I don't see that at all. If anything, the action genre was going downhill in the early 80's with flicks like First Blood and Cobra. (Why yes, those are both Stallone movies) What went wrong with the action genre is the main character became a one-man army. When you see Rambo take out a bunch of guys while standing in plain sight and not get him himself, you know what I mean.
Die Hard didn't go that way. Sure it's just one guy against a bunch of bad guys, but it makes the struggle more believable... at least in comparason. The film took pains to show how outclassed McLaine was, how he was surviving as much on luck as anything, and how the ordeal was wearing him down. How beaten down Willis was getting was so unique at the time it became a selling point, both by word of mouth and on the back of the VHS tape box.
What die hard did do to the action movie in 1988 was twofold.
1) the more believable protagonist made the invincible super hero that had been popular up to that point rather laughable if not simply uninteresting. A few still made some money (Steven Segal), but the other action heroes either followed suit in showing how the ordeal was wearing down the hero of pale in comparason. You know, like that guy in Striking Distance.
2) Die Hard spawned a host of imitators. This happens any time something is successful. Remember all the scifi/fantasy stuff that came out after Star Wars or the adventure stuff that followed Raiders of the Lost Ark? Die Hard's plot was easily reduced to a formula. Since formulas do not require the filmmakers to be original or to think, they played Mad Libs with the Die Hard formula, and still do occasionally |
|
|
|
Terrahawk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
644 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 9:24:09 PM
|
I have to agree. "Die Hard" really pulled the Action genre back from the abyss...at least for awhile. In general, what makes action movies work are:
1. Heroes who are in vulnerable (in a manly way, not chick flick way).
2. Evil Overlords that are intelligent and truly worthy adversaries.
I remember going to the drive-in to see "Speed" and "True Lies." "Speed" met the above criteria and with it's unique plot was a good action flick. "True Lies" followed the older formula and was definitely a let down after watching "Speed."
However, I disagree about "First Blood." Although Rambo was tough, he definitely wasn't invincible. Only in the later films did he reach bullet proof skin levels. His opponents in the first movie were a bunch of deputies and some national guard types. His training gives him a lot of advantages over them as long as he is mobile.
RotJ isn't a great film and doesn't compare to the first two. However, it does have it's moments. Also, I believe Kurtz and a lot of other people miss the point that Lucas really wrote these stories as silly adventures that kid's love. After seeing the first three as a kid, ESB was always my least favorite. It's grown on me as I've gotten older, but as a kid the first and last were the most enjoyable. My daughter loves all of the Star Wars movies and I think Lucas, for the most part, really hits the kid and early teen age group well. Does he make a ton off of marketing because of that, yes. However, I don't think that is his primary motivation. He wants to tell his story, his way. That is why RotJ turned out the way it did. I don't think it was because of the success of Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones is more the result of the success of Star Wars than it affecting RotJ.
The ROPe gives you three options, convert, submit, or die. There is a fourth, resist. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked