Star Wars

[Chad Stockfleth]

I actually agree with your statements about Islam/Fanaticism just not with the idea of the government funding certain projects because of their propaganda value. Administrations would be able to pick and choose which messages they want out there, for example anti-abortion films that the taxpayers, specifically pro-choice taxpayers would then be paying for.

Edited September 15, 2006 by Chad Stockfleth

[John Holland]

If i recall there was some bloke called Hitler who put money into films that suited his ideas !!!! . Very suprised Bush hasnt done the same .mind you they have Murdoch and Fox news. John Holland , London.

[Arni Heimir]

I actually agree with your statements about Islam/Fanaticism just not with the idea of the government funding certain projects because of their propaganda value. Administrations would be able to pick and choose which messages they want out there, for example anti-abortion films that the taxpayers, specifically pro-choice taxpayers would then be paying for.

 

I was joking. Or making a strawman arguement. I don't think it is a good idea for governments to make propaganda films. But I also believe that the government shouldn't be making or funding for that matter any kind of films.

 

Movies pushing a liberal or a conservative agenda. Which many European movies do. Have no place in the governmental realm.

 

I just don't agree with public subsidies in cinema, period.

[Thomas Fant]

If i recall there was some bloke called Hitler who put money into films that suited his ideas !!!! . Very suprised Bush hasnt done the same .mind you they have Murdoch and Fox news. John Holland , London.

 

 

They did though, don't you remember those pre-fab news spots they were trying to sell (was it last year ?). Or the guy that they paid to "independently" advocate for no child left behind ? Or that plant they had in the press corps who was later disgraced by having his prediliction for male hookers revealed ? It's crazy that we have gotten to a point where you can critically say about this administration " they're so bad I wouldn't be surprised if they...." and then you pause and realize "..ohh, they did"

[John Holland]

I didnt know that , thankfully we didnt see them over here. Scary isnt it ? John Holland ,London.

[Thomas Fant]

I didnt know that , thankfully we didnt see them over here. Scary isnt it ? John Holland ,London.

 

 

Sorry , didn't notice your location in your tagline. Anyway, to get back on topic, I loved Star Wars when I was a kid, and I still do today, dislike the "imporvements", and abhor the prequels. George Lucas can do whatever he wants utimately, no matter how boneheaded, and people who are uptight about whether or not something is art or not make artists laugh. I'm certainly not trying to say that GL is comparable to a Matisse, Mozart or Shakepeare, but those who dissmiss his films would do well to think about how vulgar these artists were considered to be in their own time.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

I won't start watching a film with the assumption that I should think or feel a certain way or that I should apply a certain method of thinking (unless I am familiar with the artist's body of work).

AJB

 

 

Amen to that. (A-sumption, hehehe..can I coin this?)

[Andy_Alderslade]

I never said that I oppose public funding for art movies alone and allow subsidies for more "commercial" ventures. I just don't think that subsidies in the entertainment industry is justified in countries where there are fiscal limits on other branches of public service. Such as healthcare and transportation infrastructure.

 

or

 

I just don't agree with public subsidies in cinema, period.

 

You are practically contradicting your self, as you did about United 93.

 

Well with regards to subsidies, goverments subsidies exist for far more controvercial or unnecessary things, for goodness sake the car industry is even subsidiesed a little. In the end subsidides often encourage growth and with film and other arts they also aid cultural and patriotic representation.

 

This is a quote from UK director Alex Cox, giving evidence to a goverment committee compiling a report - Is there a British Film Industry?

 

"Our Culture is not the same as that of the US. The great

Brisith Film Successes - whether Billy Elliot, The Full Monty,

Trainspotting Women in Love, The Devils, If, Kes, Brighton

Rock or Brief Encounter - talk about our own unique

experiences... To lose our capacity to make British films

about Britain in the UK is like losing our capacity to

paint, or to write poetry."

Edited September 15, 2006 by Andy_Alderslade

[Andy_Alderslade]

I did look up the amount of public money that went into the film industry in Luxembourg. The gouvernemnt here invested a total of 13 Million Euros for the year 2005. At the same time total budget of the gouvernement for the same year was 7.6 Billion Euros. So these 13 Million represent merely 0.17% of the total budget. To spend such a small amount of the budget on something which besides a financial return also has a lasting cultural and artistic impact does seem like a good investment and something worth defending.

 

which besides a financial return

 

Thats the dangerous aspect, when the possibility of a financial return exists the cultural value which is the motivation of film subsisdies will often by undermined.

 

For example, lets imagine if a veteran US director say like Woody Allen went to Luxemburg to make a film there with a big American star, perhaps Scarlet Johanson.

 

Then to the body responsible for awarding the subsidies, a good finanical return would seem more likely on that project, than any return likely from some projects made by new local talent.

 

So the young local talent which ideally should be benefitting from their goverments subsidies would lose out, due to the financial insentive of established international talent.

Edited September 15, 2006 by Andy_Alderslade

[Guest Tim Partridge]

That's like saying David O Selznick had nothing to do with the success of Gone with the Wind. It's an abserd statment and not worthy of comment other than to say Bill Gates doesn't write software eather....Well that YOUR opinion but EVEN IF that were true who but a GENIUS film maker could creat such an extensive and loyal fan base? You've just made my point for me. Lucas created something UNPRESIDENTED in the HISTORY of films.

 

It was a collaboration. Lucas just owned the rights. Gary Kurtz, Lawrence Kasdan, Katz and Hyuck... they all contributed. Lucas didn't do it on his own.

 

As to your other points , need I remind you he didn't DIRECT Howard the Duck, Willow, or Radioland Murders.

 

Hold on a sec-

 

Less we forget EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and RETURN OF THE JEDI were directed by Irwin Kirschner and Richard Marquand respectively. It is also well documented that Lucas tried to recut EMPIRE against the directors wishes and ended up ruining the film, which was then returned to Kirschner's reigns. Let's also not underestimate the contributions of CREATIVE producer Gary Kurtz, who was as much a driving force behind STAR WARS and EMPIRE as Lucas himself.

 

Steven Spielberg directed all of the Indiana Jones films, and of the three STAR WARS movies that are any good (and made history) Lucas only directed ONE. Lucas' role on RADIOLAND, TUCKER, WILLOW and HOWARD THE DUCK was as EQUALLY important as it was on INDIANA JONES, EMPIRE and JEDI .

 

Tucker was FAR from a bomb from IMDB: Awards: Nominated for 3 Oscars.

 

It did poor box office, i.e. it bombed.

 

imdb says it had a budget of $25,000,000 and only made back $19,652,638 domestically.

 

But I"D say the success and iconic status of the Iniana Jones and Star Wars series' will more than make up for the few mis-steps Lucasfilms has had.

 

Like I said, Lucas' business savvy is second to none. He can shamelessly milk those STAR WARS/INDY franchises dry to make up for the millions and millions lost without ever making anything new and exciting. It's called resting on one's laurels.

 

 

 

 

edit: the preview button sure looks like the reply button on little sleep!

[Rik Andino]

I just don't agree with public subsidies in cinema, period.

 

Here Here!

 

Movies funding should be gotten the hard way

With alot of begging, brownnosing, sex, ass-kissing, lying, and a lot of song&dance

Keep things the way they have always been.

 

& if you can't hack it stay out of the movie business.

[Andy_Alderslade]

Keep things the way they have always been.

 

Subsidies in Europe have certainly been around since the 1950s.

 

if you can't hack it stay out of the movie business.

 

But then again you work in a national industry which has pretty much succesfully obliterated all the other global film industries. Its something like 50 times easier to get funding for a film project in the US than in Europe - I hope you feel proud.

[David Venhaus]

I just wanted to point out, that without public funding (through the New Zealand Film Commision) of all/or part of Peter Jackson's early films, there most likely would never have been the "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy or "King Kong". There are lots of examples like this, not as much in the U.S. but in countries where there is little filmaking infra-structure to support filmmakers. Without public support in these places, filmmakers have little to no chance of making films and would be a huge loss of potienal talent.

Edited September 16, 2006 by David A Venhaus

[James Steven Beverly]

It was a collaboration. Lucas just owned the rights. Gary Kurtz, Lawrence Kasdan, Katz and Hyuck... they all contributed. Lucas didn't do it on his own.

No one ever makes a film ENTIRELY on their own. EVERYONE has colaborators and input. With out a strong team no film ever gets done right. None of this diminishes Lucas' impotance in his own success

 

Hold on a sec-Less we forget EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and RETURN OF THE JEDI were directed by Irwin Kirschner and Richard Marquand respectively. It is also well documented that Lucas tried to recut EMPIRE against the directors wishes and ended up ruining the film, which was then returned to Kirschner's reigns. Let's also not underestimate the contributions of CREATIVE producer Gary Kurtz, who was as much a driving force behind STAR WARS and EMPIRE as Lucas himself. Steven Spielberg directed all of the Indiana Jones films, and of the three STAR WARS movies that are any good (and made history) Lucas only directed ONE. Lucas' role on RADIOLAND, TUCKER, WILLOW and HOWARD THE DUCK was as EQUALLY important as it was on INDIANA JONES, EMPIRE and JEDI .

Yes but Lucas directed the FIRST one and without the tremendous success, both financially and artistically of that first one, none of the others would have been possible. In fact Lucas gave up the director's chair because it was just too difficult to wear all the hats he was wearing at the time. You ought to take a look at Star Wars: Empire of Dreams, a great doc on the whole Star Wars phenomenon.

 

It did poor box office, i.e. it bombed. imdb says it had a budget of $25,000,000 and only made back $19,652,638 domestically.

No, not nessasarily. Prestige garnered from a film's artistic accomplishments helps the film in the long term. I am QUITE certain that it made it's money back though foregn, cable and video sales and the honors bestowed on it, helped to lift the status of Lucasfilms. Not everything is measured in dollars and cents. Besides arn't you the one who said Lucas has no ARTIST talent? Tucker is proof Lucasfilms maks artistic movies.

Like I said, Lucas' business savvy is second to none. He can shamelessly milk those STAR WARS/INDY franchises dry to make up for the millions and millions lost without ever making anything new and exciting. It's called resting on one's laurels.

Simply because Lucas is a savvy businessman does not negate the fact that he is also a very talented artist and a great director and that IS something I DO admire. I don't blame him for making more Star Wars films in the face of OVERWHELMING demand for them, Hell, fans started making their OWN films to fill that need. That's were the whole fanfilm genra came from. People WANTED Star Wars and Indiana Jones sequiels and merchandice. He would have been a FOOL to NOT supply them. He also took the knowledge he gained from making the Star Wars pictures and built on it to create the most successful special effects company in the history of the world. Lucas is the one who did all this. His name is on the door and no matter WHO helped him succeed, ultimately HE'S the guy responsible for the Lucas empire. He directed Star Wars. THAT fact alone makes him a great director, but he also directed American Graffitti so his talent has been backed up, but he ALSO directed Revenge of the Sith. He's no amateur or figurehead. He's the real deal, a stone cold genuis and one of the greatest filmakers alive. Give it up Tim. Lucas IS a great director and a great businessman and nothing you say is going to change the facts. B)

Edited September 17, 2006 by James Steven Beverly

[Andy_Alderslade]

I just wanted to point out, that without public funding (through the New Zealand Film Commision) of all/or part of Peter Jackson's early films, there most likely would never have been the "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy or "King Kong". There are lots of examples like this, not as much in the U.S. but in countries where there is little filmaking infra-structure to support filmmakers. Without public support in these places, filmmakers have little to no chance of making films and would be a huge loss of potienal talent.

 

Definatly, plus a film like Heavenly Creatures shows of the importance of retaining and investing in the small national film industries. The films present unique stories, expierences and snapshot the cultural details of the time.

 

And why complain if the film industry is being subsidiesed - the US pours millions into the peanut industry! Now surely the last thing needing subsidies is peanuts. The EU subsidieses more money per cow per year than the yearly food budget of a single Afican person.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

I agree, but would like to say I've seen a lot of gov't subsidized crap. Especially on TV. Money for social enrichment is not a bad thing, though. Some people don't want tax dollars going to this kind of endeavor but don't mind spending trillions on other things like war and such. Humans make me sad....

[Max Jacoby]

Thats the dangerous aspect, when the possibility of a financial return exists the cultural value which is the motivation of film subsisdies will often by undermined.

By financial return I mean a tax shelter law by which the gouvernment gives a certain percentage of the money spend in the country itself back to the film. In Luxembourg that is around 30 percent. This is to encourage films to be shot in these countries. I did not mean to suggest that these funding bodies are looking to suppport films based on their commercial appeal, quite the opposite.

[Arni Heimir]

Why should movie producers receive a "hand down" from the government when other industries receives nothing?

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Why should movie producers receive a "hand down" from the government when other industries receives nothing?

 

It's not like they're Big Oil or Halliburiton.

[Max Jacoby]

As has been stated here before, the EU is full of subzidised industries, like coal minning, farming, etc... The point of tax-shelter laws is to promote audiovisual productions and as such it doesn work. Sometimes you have to invest a little money to get something going.

[Andy_Alderslade]

Why should movie producers receive a "hand down" from the government when other industries receives nothing?

 

You're being antagonistic right? or did you just not bother reading the previous posts?

Edited September 19, 2006 by Andy_Alderslade