Star Wars

[James Steven Beverly]

Ya know Dave, I honestly wouldn't disagree with that. I would add the the whole idea of "The Force" was also a spiritual idea that people seemed to be able to relate to on a deeper level than mere plot element. The idea that all thing are connected for good or for evil and that within each of us is a power we can call apon in times of great personal conflict is a strong univeral theme that somehow touches people. I think the idea of spirituality combined with a rip roaring action adventure plot is what pulled people into the theaters in unpresedented numbers The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi delved deeper into this internal struggle. Also the humor and relatable elements such as the alien cantina sequence also help to draw people into it's reality and set it apart from anything that had been done before. The idea of action/adventure combined with spirituality reminds me of Kurosawa's Seven Samurai in some ways and in 2001 the zero gravity toilet was one of the elements that helped to draw the audiance into that reality. Star Wars was simply brilliant filmmaking on a par with any of the greatest films in history.

 

The prequels were decient movies but seemed to lack the magic that the original three had, although there were moments. When Anakin slaughters the Sand People after his mother dies still haunts me when I think about it, because I can relate to that level of rage and wonder if put into that same circumstance with the kind of powers he had if I wouldn't have done exactly the same thing. I also like the last film. The stylized vison of good and evil battling to the death in the flames of Hell was inspired. The beautiful fallen angel that Anakin was becomes transformed into the hideious and souless man-machine that is Darth Vador when he surrenders his huimanity in pursuit of ultimate power. It had some of the elements the the original films had where as the the Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones seemed a little stagey and distant. To me, they seemed to have a soap opera quality to them. I don't know if Lucas had too much going on in his life and with the other aspects of his empire to fully devote the time needed to the prequel rewrites nessesary to get them to the next level or if life had beaten him up (his devorce ect) so much that he didn't really have the believe in magic he seemed to have in the first ones, but they did definately fall short when compared with the originals.

[K Borowski]

Despite its slow start and rather slow beginning pace, I think Return of The Jedi is the best Star Wars film. The SFX footage is amazing, and the segment where Luke is fighting his own father are very powerful to me. When you compare this film to the three prequels, they become very hollow indeed. It really is a shame that Lucas lost sight of the epic storytelling and became enamoured with technology. Return of the Jedi, and the two earlier star wars films all had a tasteful mix, which I thought was intended as such> I guess George was just lucky that the CGI technology wasn';t available when he made his originals, because they probably would have bombed and he never would have gotten around to making the prequels. Serious.ly, most people saw those films because they're fanatics for the original trilogy, not because the prequels were any good. . .

 

Regards,

 

~Karl

[Thomas Bays]

The only difference in the two series is no Darth Vader Suit and Harrison Ford doesn't grow on trees...the rest is bad timing.

[Hal Smith]

........ and Harrison Ford doesn't grow on trees...the rest is bad timing.

I bet George Clooney would have shined in a Hank Solo like role. He's got the looks, the acting chops, and the charm.

 

Drop EVERETT from "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou" into a science fiction flick and you'd be on your way.

[David Sweetman]

I bet George Clooney would have shined in a Hank Solo like role

 

Nah, he smiles too much. He even smiles when he's not smiling.

[Hal Smith]

Nah, he smiles too much. He even smiles when he's not smiling.

You gotta problem with the Hero's teeth showin?

[David Sweetman]

You gotta problem with the Hero's teeth showin?

 

Not so much, as much as I think he would acknowledge the fun and rambunctious (sp?) aspect of Solo's character in an unconvincing way. Harrison Ford pulled it off well because he looks like he's not smiling even when he smiles. I dunno...I probably make no sense.

[James Steven Beverly]

The only difference in the two series is no Darth Vader Suit and Harrison Ford doesn't grow on trees...the rest is bad timing.

 

Did you actually WATCH the films? :blink:

 

Not so much, as much as I think he would acknowledge the fun and rambunctious (sp?) aspect of Solo's character in an unconvincing way. Harrison Ford pulled it off well because he looks like he's not smiling even when he smiles. I dunno...I probably make no sense.

 

It makes perfect sense.

[James Steven Beverly]

Does that make Gary Kurtz Quincy Jones? ;)

 

i.e. the creative force whose later absence proved who the real brains behind the "star" was. Both Jackson and Lucas hated the praise their respective producers were gaining and how it was detracting the world from their own egos. Now there's an artform in what Jones/Kurtz did regardless of how "pop" their puppets were. The STAR WARS prequels were every bit as worthless and a true reflection of Lucas' talents as the DANGEROUS album was to Michael Jackson. Both Lucas and Jackson lost their pop crowns immediately when they gave up their backroom brains.

 

BTW I side with Leo on sci-fi.

 

You actually believe Lucas and for that matter Jackson were puppets? How do you explain Raiders of the lost Ark, Tucker and a little thing call Industrial Light and freakin' Magic? Just how delutional ARE you? He's been a little busy revolutionizing the film industry. If you want to know what George did with his limited talent I suggest you look at this www.imdb.com/company/co0072491/ . Yeah, really untalented guy. :rolleyes:

[Andy_Alderslade]

Oh, and convenient how you ommited HOWARD THE DUCK, WILLOW and RADIOLAND MURDERS. You can't argue your way out of that hole (how many non-STAR WARS/INDY JONES projects has Lucas made since)?

 

Does anybody remember The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles tv show - I think that series sums up the best and very worse of Lucas, limetless laterial thinking but also a refusal to set oneself boundaries, not to mention a lack of taste.

 

The series had no continuity, one episode it was action adventure, then tragic drama, then coming of age drama, slapstick comedy and even a horror adventure.

 

I remember a good episode when Indy is stuck in a hot-air baloon with a friend and a German general who they have accidently kidnapped while they float accross africa - it was actually very effective, nicely written comedy-drama.

 

Then the next week Indy is wittnessing the Somme, one of the greatest mass tragedies in humane history. Of course it was afaul how they tried to include a whiney american teenager into big action pieces amoungst the desolated French country side and trenches.

 

I think the series fluctuated from very good to the very worst television aired.

[James Steven Beverly]

A collaboration of several people and factors but all under the vision and direction of Steve Spielberg.

Coppola (and it's not even a very good film anyway)

Again, a collaboration between Lucas, John Dykstra, Richard Edlund, Dennis Muren and others- remember Dykstra was running the show on STAR WARS, and tension lead to him leaving ILM and setting up APOGEE shortly after. Infact the only one who has stayed around through it all has been Dennis Muren. Lucas got the money and the business side right (although press surrounding the recent politics there would suggest otherwise).

 

I give credit to Lucas the producer, as he's a great money man, can get reduced rates and brings a movie in under time and money wise. He's also state of the art technology wise. However, as an artist and craftsman? Back in the THX/Graffitti days for sure, but certainly not now.

 

Oh, and convenient how you ommited HOWARD THE DUCK, WILLOW and RADIOLAND MURDERS. You can't argue your way out of that hole (how many non-STAR WARS/INDY JONES projects has Lucas made since)?

 

Yeah no other movie or film company are colaberative efforts and no other great director had a bomb or two after all Apogee is SO much more sucessful that ILM. Amazing how all that talent seems to congrigate around a loser like Lucus huh. :rolleyes:

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

TUCKER was a good film....

 

Correction, is....

[Max Jacoby]

no other great director had a bomb or two

Isn't 'bomb' an awfully 'entertainment' term to mention in conjunction with the artist George Lucas? ;-)

 

I can always look up the old Varietys, but I don't ever remember Tarkovsky having 'bombs'.

[James Steven Beverly]

"A bomb or two"??

 

Lucas had a STRING of bombs throughout the 80s and early 90s- HOWARD THE DUCK, WILLOW, TUCKER, RADIOLAND MURDERS- he hasn't even produced anything outside of STAR WARS and INDY JONES since 1994, and even then it was the first time since 1988.

 

As I said, Lucas business savvy is second to none, but everything else is proven failure. Retreating to STAR WARS Laurels is evident proof. This isn't even debatable, history has spoken.

 

Yes history has ILM is the most successful special effects company in the entire history of the motion picture industry so your right, Lucas' talent is NOT debatable in any way.... also the only movie Lucas DIRECTED that wasn't great but was decient was Attack of the Clones. Lucas is a great director, he just doesn't like to direct that much and quite frankly the legacy left in the wake of ILM has been far more inportant to film history that any one director could have ever been. Lucas is a stone cold GENIUS and if YOU can't see that then you REALLY need to re examine YOUR definition of genius cause Buddy, ya got it wrong!

[James Steven Beverly]

Isn't 'bomb' an awfully 'entertainment' term to mention in conjunction with the artist George Lucas? ;-)

 

I can always look up the old Varietys, but I don't ever remember Tarkovsky having 'bombs'.

 

Well I'm not as famillar with Tarkovsky's work as I probably should be but if he made more than 3 movies, I'm sure there's one there that could be considered a bomb, after all, filmmaking IS a business and not every film from even a great artist is going to be accepted by the public, just look at Orsen Wells so yes, I will use the word BOMB in conjunction with artists. Hitchcock had bombs, Cassevetties had bombs, Spielberg had bombs anyone who takes a chance runs the risk of having a bomb OR changing the way films are done. There's no shame in bombing, there's only shame in not trying to bring something new to the table from time to time. B)

Edited September 13, 2006 by James Steven Beverly

[Justin Hayward]

Well I'm not as famillar with Tarkovsky's work as I probably should be but if he made more than 3 movies, I'm sure there's one there that could be considered a bomb, after all, filmmaking IS a business and not every film from even a great artist is going to be accepted by the public, just look at Orsen Wells so yes, I will use the word BOMB in conjunction with artists. Hitchcock had bombs, Cassevetties had bombs, Spielberg had bombs anyone who takes a chance runs the risk of having a bomb OR changing the way films are done. There's no shame in bombing, there's only shame in not trying to bring something new to the table from time to time. B)

 

But, "bomb" tends to refer to money, not quality filmmaking. Not that some "bombs" weren?t bad, it's just that the term is usually mentioned with regards to how much money it made, not whether or not the film worked.

 

"The Phantom Menace" wasn't a bomb, but it wasn't that good either.

[Jonathan Benny]

Well I'm not as famillar with Tarkovsky's work as I probably should be but if he made more than 3 movies, I'm sure there's one there that could be considered a bomb, after all, filmmaking IS a business and not every film from even a great artist is going to be accepted by the public,\

 

I think that when we're talking about "bomb" it applies more to filmmakers and producers that have built up an expectation and/or are working on a project that has the expectation of major financial success. Where the expectation on the filmmaker is about box-office results and where the film resides in a system where these expected future results are what validates the project. Thats why when and if they don't make money, the very existence of the film comes into question. "it should never have been made", so to speak.

 

There are filmmakers and films which are not a part of that system and where the success or failure of the project is not a result of what happened at the box office. Those films do not bomb. They just lose money sometimes. But their existence is never questioned. The film had to be made.

 

To the point, though: I can't wait for the next Indiana Jones film.

 

AJB

[Max Jacoby]

I only mentioned Tarkovsky because he is a filmmaker who never was judged by the box-office results of his films. In fact most of his films had very limited distribution within the CCCP and were often screened years after he finished them because of censorship. He is one of those directors whose reputation was build mostly by international Festivals and by the limited distribution his films got abroad. And I think he would have been very offended if someone had suggested that his films weren't commercial enough, since that wasn't what he was interested in.

 

If you haven't already done so, you should check 'Andrei Rublev', it's probbaly the biggest budget art film ever. And if you manage to watch the 3 1/2 hour Criterion Collection Cut without falling asleep, you actually get a brownie point from the Tarkovsky society ;-)

[James Steven Beverly]

I'll definately try to check that out. I think I would really enjoy seeing it. As for Tarkovsky never caring about the bottom line of his film's box office, in a totalitarian society like Soviet Russia, he had the luxury of not having to care if his films made money or not (granted that may have been the ONLY luxury he was afforded in that oppresive, nightmarish world but it does have advantages when it comes to making films purely for art's sake) For the rest of us however, bottom line means the difference between continuing to be allowed make inovative and artistic films and doing wine commercials for a living. B)

[Rik Andino]

"A bomb or two"??

 

Lucas had a STRING of bombs throughout the 80s and early 90s- HOWARD THE DUCK, WILLOW, TUCKER, RADIOLAND MURDERS- he hasn't even produced anything outside of STAR WARS and INDY JONES since 1994, and even then it was the first time since 1988.

 

As I said, Lucas business savvy is second to none, but everything else is proven failure. Retreating to STAR WARS Laurels is evident proof. This isn't even debatable, history has spoken.

 

What is this...?

I'm frustrated at George Lucas because the new Star Wars Trilogy is not my liking...

And I'm angry so I'll post on an internet thread to bash him?

 

How old are you?

 

Tim you usually seem like an intelligent guy...

But sometimes you just come up with really pathetic threads to post.

[Adam White]

Um, calm down there fella. . . ?

 

Lucas is one of the sharpest business brains in the film game (even swallowing his distaste for the original, unaltered version of the film when he knew he could make money on their re-release)

 

Yes, he has had a string of "fails" at the box office in the eighties and nineties but its worth noting that many of his projects were done, like "Tucker" or his colaberation with Kurosara, for love more than money. If only he had swapped the duck for a few ninja turtles then maybe that would have turned out better.

 

I used to be a big fan of the original Star Wars films but the merciless over-promotion of formats (how many damn videos were released in the UK?) just makes me despair. Can anyone out there tell me that the prequels were made with passion? Surely even the fans cant argue that?

 

 

Several forum posts on the roles of Directors have used the analogy of an orchestra conductor. With the star wars prequels, witness what happens when a director clones himself for every instrament.

[Andy_Alderslade]

And if you manage to watch the 3 1/2 hour Criterion Collection Cut without falling asleep, you actually get a brownie point from the Tarkovsky society ;-)

 

You're really selling it to the people Max...

[Jason Debus]

If you haven't already done so, you should check 'Andrei Rublev', it's probbaly the biggest budget art film ever. And if you manage to watch the 3 1/2 hour Criterion Collection Cut without falling asleep, you actually get a brownie point from the Tarkovsky society ;-)

If one hasn't seen any Tarkovsky films 'Solaris' is a better choice for first viewing in my opinion, especially if you like Science Fiction. 'Andrei Rublev' is quite difficult to get through as you pointed out!

[Rod Otaviano]

If you haven't already done so, you should check 'Andrei Rublev', it's probbaly the biggest budget art film ever. And if you manage to watch the 3 1/2 hour Criterion Collection Cut without falling asleep, you actually get a brownie point from the Tarkovsky society ;-)

 

I'm with Max on this one. It's a great movie, one of my favorites actually, but not that easy to watch. It's pure art and as Tarkovsky said in "Sculpting in Time" "only when a person is willing and able to trust the artist, to believe him, can he be sensitive and susceptible to art".

 

"The Mirror" to me was more difficult to get through though. It's shorter but for some reason I had difficulty "feeling" it. "Stalker" on the other hand, is very easy to watch (in my opinion).

Edited September 13, 2006 by Rodrigo Otaviano

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I'll definately try to check that out. I think I would really enjoy seeing it. As for Tarkovsky never caring about the bottom line of his film's box office, in a totalitarian society like Soviet Russia, he had the luxury of not having to care if his films made money or not (granted that may have been the ONLY luxury he was afforded in that oppresive, nightmarish world but it does have advantages when it comes to making films purely for art's sake) For the rest of us however, bottom line means the difference between continuing to be allowed make inovative and artistic films and doing wine commercials for a living. B)

 

Box office was important in the Soviet Union.

While it would have been impossible to make a movie like 'Andrei Rublev' in the 'free world',

he usually had problems getting his films made because they didn't make money, among other things.

 

His last three films were made in Italy and Sweden.