[CowboyCurtis]

1. For one thing i don;t think it is practical or rational that the time period between Episode I and Episode IV is the birth of laser blaster warefare. It's too short a time period. The people in Episode IV have obviously been living with laser blaster technology for a pretty long time, like say over a century.

Wow, I've never actually thought of that before. Good point. You would think that blaster technology would've come first, and lightsabers a close second. This goes with my thoughts that Jedi Knights should've been allowed to use "random" blasters. Geez, if anyone was spot-on or more accurate with such a weapon, it would've been a Jedi.

As a "knight" they used a variety of weapons, and they had shields. I know I've said this before, but Jedi Knights should've been like their names implied. They should have some form of armor (in the original scripts, Lucas gave the Knights personal force-field; he even gave them shields--much like what the Gungans used in TPM), and they could've had alternate weapons (in the original scripts, the Jedi used blasters plenty of times). The Lightsaber was used when they squared off with special opponents---dark side users.

So, this goes along with the battles with the droids. Going hand-to-hand with lightsabers is ridiculous. Personal Force-fields would've been VERY handy. They could've fought them from a distance---a blaster, especially a Jedi designed one would've been VERY handy. I understand Lucas' ideas of the Jedi not being a warrior (calling them a knight though really contradicts this concept), but they should've been used for something "special" not grunt work out in the battlefield... and NOT against tinkertoy robots!!! I think the AOTC battle diminishes the Jedi.

I mean---fighting robots HAND-TO-HAND--WTF!!!! My mind keeps flashing back to TPM where I see Gungans in the background DUKING IT OUT with droids---FIGHTING THEM WITH THEIR HANDS!! What good does it do to slug a droid in the face? Okay, if I was up against robots... would my hitting them with my hand really be effective... bitch-slapping them into submission? The droids should've been dealt with differently--or they shouldn't have been droids at all.

It just doesn't click with me. I don't feel any "human" element to these wars. In my opinion, the Jedi should've been rescued from the Arena and that should've been it. Get off the planet, pick off the TF ships from space... I mean, the ground war makes NO sense to me! What WAS the point of engaging the droids? Why were the Jedi risking their lives? I mean, there has to be something noble or there has to be a point to diving into battle against machines... the Jedi were trying to get to... What? Trying to stop---what? I don't get this.

They should've been fighting the Geonosians or they should've been fighting an opposing army of clones (like I always believed to be the case).

Anyway...

[Ferris Wiel]

Gary Kurtz said it best:

IGNFF: From your personal experience, how would you compare the George you worked with on American Graffiti to the George you worked with towards the end of The Empire Strikes Back?

KURTZ: It was quite different, actually. He was very different. I think the most unfortunate thing that happened was the fact that Indiana Jones came along, and Raiders of the Lost Ark had come out in between. George and I had many, many discussions about that, but it boiled down to the fact that he became convinced that all the audience was interested in was the roller-coaster ride, and so the story and the script didn't matter anymore.
<SNIP>
One of the arguments that I had with George about Empire was the fact that he felt in the end, he said, we could have made just as much money if the film hadn't been quite so good, and you hadn't spent so much time. And I said, "But it was worth it!"

And then:

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. 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.

Also:

IGNFF: When you talk about the development of Star Wars and the transition in tone through Empire and Return of the Jedi and now eventually what happened with Episode I, do you think that George's storytelling became more simplistic, or less mature? How would you characterize the elements that you saw emerging with the difficulties that were happening towards the end of Empire and what eventually led to Return of the Jedi?

KURTZ: I think it became simpler. You don't need complicated interpersonal relationships, [B]you don't need difficult dramatic structures for this kind of story. Empire, in a way, is a typical second act of a three-act play. It's the problem act – everybody has problems, everybody has difficulties that they're trying to get out of, and usually the end of the second act is you're leaving everybody in deep shit. And, in a sense, Empire does that. Luke's hand is cut off, and Han Solo is frozen and he's off somewhere – all of the key elements are left unresolved. It's very rare that you see a feature film that ends that way and is satisfactory.

We were a bit afraid of that whole concept. Knowing that there was going to be a third film obviously helped, but still – that wasn't going to be for another three years, so the idea of presenting this to an audience and having them accept it was a scary proposition. I had never done it before. It seemed to work, though. It seemed to work quite well. The audience was very satisfied, and anticipated the next part. I think part of the reason that they were satisfied was because they were satisfied with the characters themselves. The characters seemed believable in the story.

Star Wars, the first film, is very much a comic book story. It's a very archetypal standard story about a hero coming of age and engaging with the world and trying to right some wrongs – and all of those things worked very, very effectively – but the dialogue is fairly pedestrian as far as movies go, and the adventure is carried along by interesting side bars and some of the individual effects... and the fact that it's kind of a rollercoaster ride in a sense, with very, very archetypal energy, so that you can associate with the key character elements very, very easily.

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.

IGNFF: No depth.

KURTZ: There's no depth in it. And that's where I think the mistake is. And I'm sorry that it happened that way, because the potential for a lot of that is great – it could have had a lot of depth, without damaging the surface story. The sign of a good movie is one that can work on very, very many levels and, depending on your mood when you go to see it, you can see those, or not, as you want. But it doesn't interfere with your entertainment of it.

Finally:

IGNFF: How did you observe that change in George, because obviously he was the one who guided it towards that lack of depth...

KURTZ: Well, I think that he felt Empire was an ordeal for him – using his own money, it went over budget and over schedule a bit. Kershner was slow, we had some problems with Mark Hamill who had an injury – typical movie stuff, really. But even though it did cost a little more than was budgeted, there was no way it was ever going to lose money. He really didn't have to worry too much about it – the combination of the merchandising and the distribution would never be a problem.

IGNFF: It was never George's intention to direct Empire?

KURTZ: No, no. After Star Wars, he didn't really want to direct the others. I think he was unhappy that I – I'm the one that recommended Kershner, and had worked with him before. I think he was a good choice for Empire, I think he worked really well, but he wasn't the kind of director... George, I think, had in the back of his mind that the director was a sort of stand-in – that he could phone him up every night and tell him what to do and kind of direct vicariously over the telephone. That never happened. Kershner's not that kind of director, and even when George showed up a couple of times on the set, he found that it wasn't easy to maneuver Kershner into doing what he would have done.

So, on Jedi, he was determined to find a director who was easy to control, basically, and he did. And that was the result, basically – the film was sort of one that George might have directed if he had directed it himself... but maybe not, because it goes through so many interim bits, that if he had directed it probably would have been quite different.

IGNFF: For better or worse?

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.

IGNFF: How did the arguments between you and George escalate during Empire?

KURTZ: It was just a matter of trying to get done and he, I suppose, wasn't very good at delegating. Sometimes he would want to control everything, and then other times he would go away and you wouldn't hear from him for a long time. It was difficult to fathom kind of how he approached all that, and he comes out of school doing everything himself – the documentary school where he wrote and directed and shot and edited all by himself, and there's certain feature films you can make that way, and others you can't. He had a good eye, and he's a very good editor, and the films that he directed for the most part have a good visual sense.

With story material, some of the characters were complicated, and the scripts work well. He seemed to work best as a collaborative writer, where other writers came in and had some say in adding certain things so you'd get a variety of point of view, like Willard and Gloria Huyck on American Graffiti. The Huycks also did a polished last draft on Star Wars to add some humor and some edginess to some certain bits, and I think it helped a lot.

So, everything we've ever said about Lucas is true. Kurtz was trying to be VERY diplomatic. I'm not sure if Kurtz is afraid of Lucas or if he's trying to not do any further damage to their already strained relationship. Either way, if you read between the lines (and some of the things he says directly) you see the whole story.

--FW

This post has been edited by Ferris Wiel: 10 June 2004 - 09:35 AM

[Mike Mac from NYU]

To some extent I agree with what Xombie said. Yeah, it's great that Vader has a change of heart at the last minute, but it hardly makes up for all the crimes he's committed in the past (it was actually Tarkin who had Alderaan blown up, but nonetheless). I can see why Lucas wanted a 'happy' ending but it would be better if he'd just let Vader die, rather than having him appear at the end with the other Jedi.

Because the whole point of the Star Wars trilogy was about redemption. Anakin Skywalkers redemption. Luke's redemption of the Skywalker name.

The point Lucas was making was a very good one. Inside all of us there is great evil and great Good. A person who does a thousand good deed can make one evil deed and forever go down that path of evil. Conversely, A person can do a thousand evil deeds and commit one good deed and forever go up the stairs of goodness.

Nobody is beyond redemption. Whether your a drug dealer, murderer, mass murderer. All it takes is for you to be willing to take that first step towards the light

just the same if you are a person who lies once , steals once, murderers once, cheats on your wife once, that one step is just enough to take you down a spiraling pattern of evil.


IMO, that is a very powerful and true message.

[Just your average movie goer]

Okay, I have to say just for the record that I am not fluent in Webglish. I understand that 'brb' on messenger means 'be right back' and 'lol' means 'laugh out loud'.

Could you tell me, Mike, just what the hell 'IMO' is? Because you use it a lot.

[Just your average movie goer]

That was really, really good, Ferris. And I hope you read that too, Mike. I know it won't change your less-than-worthless opinion (<- SARCASM) but I hope you read it.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 10 June 2004 - 09:38 AM

[Ferris Wiel]

Okay, I have to say just for the record that I am not fluent in Webglish. I understand that 'brb' on messenger means 'be right back' and 'lol' means 'laugh out loud'.

Could you tell me, Mike, just what the hell 'IMO' is? Because you use it a lot.

IMO = In My Opinion

--FW

[Mike Mac from NYU]

"That was really, really good, Ferris. And I hope you read that too, Mike. I know it won't change your less-than-worthless opinion (<- SARCASM) but I hope you read it"


Read what you son of a bitch {SARCASM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! }

You've got to reference something in quotes before I can make a comment on it


I think Chefelf should have a Web-English primer somewhere on this site.

[Just your average movie goer]

Thanks, Ferris.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 10 June 2004 - 09:52 AM

[Just your average movie goer]

Hey. Very shortly, this thread will have over 100 replies!

How cool is that?

[Helena]

Because the whole point of the Star Wars trilogy was about redemption. Anakin Skywalkers redemption. Luke's redemption of the Skywalker name.

The point Lucas was making was a very good one. Inside all of us there is great evil and great Good. A person who does a thousand good deed can make one evil deed and forever go down that path of evil. Conversely, A person can do a thousand evil deeds and commit one good deed and forever go up the stairs of goodness.

Nobody is beyond redemption. Whether your a drug dealer, murderer, mass murderer. All it takes is for you to be willing to take that first step towards the light

just the same if you are a person who lies once , steals once, murderers once, cheats on your wife once, that one step is just enough to take you down a spiraling pattern of evil.


IMO, that is a very powerful and true message.

I don't have a problem with Vader's redemption as such, but I do think it was rather tasteless to have him happily partying with the others afterwards. I don't subscribe to the view that you can do what the hell you want all your life as long as you say 'sorry' at the end - if you want redemption you have to actively seek to undo the damage you did, and in my view killing the Emperor was not quite enough to make up for years of mass repression, torture and murder. Yes, Vader's last act was a noble one and I'm glad he and Luke were reconciled, but I wish Lucas had left Anakin's death scene - where he tells Luke that 'you were right about me' and thanks him for bringing him back to the light - as the last time we saw him. But then, like with most of the things we've been discussing, that's just my opinion.

[Mike Mac from NYU]

I don't have a problem with Vader's redemption as such, but I do think it was rather tasteless to have him happily partying with the others afterwards. I don't subscribe to the view that you can do what the hell you want all your life as long as you say 'sorry' at the end - if you want redemption you have to actively seek to undo the damage you did, and in my view killing the Emperor was not quite enough to make up for years of mass repression, torture and murder. Yes, Vader's last act was a noble one and I'm glad he and Luke were reconciled, but I wish Lucas had left Anakin's death scene - where he tells Luke that 'you were right about me'

But that's what Luke is. Luke is the one that can repair the damage Vader did. I mean isn;t that what children are? Are way to undo the mistakes of the previous generation.

The concept of Darth Vader hits home to many of us. I think it is ludicrous to imagine that none of us are capable of doing acts like Hitler. I actually worry for the person that can't see the evil in himself.

[Mike Mac from NYU]

Hey. Very shortly, this thread will have over 100 replies! 

How cool is that?

Ferris broke it to 100.

Let's shoot for 200!!, jyamg.

[civilian_number_two]

The concept of Darth Vader hits home to many of us. I think it is ludicrous to imagine that none of us are capable of doing acts like Hitler. I actually worry for the person that can't see the evil in himself.

Freakish, paranoid, unloved failures driven by circumstance into positions of power, perverted by superstitions and carried by social necessity to the rank of murderous demagoguery, these folk abound. I am sure there are two or three on this site. And like any good catholic, I am sure that at the end of their respective orgies of mayhem, you will forgive them.

I for one cannot see the Hitler in myself. In fact I think most people, IME, are a far cry from unredeemable psychotic madness. I do, however, think that some are unredeemable. Find the good, or at least the not-psychotic in Charles Manson, why don't you?

......

Jyamg, when you need to know something as fundamental as that, you go to google. You type the thing you don't understand, in quotes, followed by the word "means" and preceeded by a plus. Like so: +"IMO means"

You hit enter and .08 seconds later you have more than 100000 web sites ready to answer you. Not wanting to give away any secrets, but in an online forum, anyone can come across as pretty smart.

[Mike Mac from NYU]

I for one cannot see the Hitler in myself. In fact I think most people, IME, are a far cry from unredeemable psychotic madness. I do, however, think that some are unredeemable. Find the good, or at least the not-psychotic in Charles Manson, why don't you?

I know a friend who did one of those Discovery documentaries on serial killers. He interviewed one of them who was responsible for the murder of 23 women. {I won;t give you the name of the killer, but i am sure you can take a guess}

My friend said you never really take notice of how close evil can be until you see it close up. What was even more chilling was to him, was how much of the killers background was so normal and how he even attended the same church and was a collegiate scholar in the same subject as my friend.

It doens't take much to turn someone to do evil things, what's even scarier is that it can happen quickly without you even knowing it. Like a "flash of red that consumes you in this fiery wave of anger" {the exact words of the serial killer my friend interviewed}.

That is what the Present Trilogy should have been about. How one good individual turned into an evil one. And how that transformstion developed and how close to home such a change is.

I fear more for the person that doesn;t realize the evil himself than the person who does.