Chefelf.com Night Life: miladyblue - Viewing Profile

http:// tv.msn.com/tv...236781& GT1=7703



Haven' t agreed on a script yet? Could that be the explanation for the PT?

http:// www.imdb.com/.../sb/2006-10- 05/

Lucas Returns to College


George Lucas chastised the nation's universities for not treating the study of film in the same way they do other academic disciplines such as law, medicine, journalism, and architecture. "It just isn't thought of in the same breath, which is for me a sacrilege," Lucas said at a groundbreaking ceremony at USC where a 137,000-square-foot complex is being constructed to house the university's film school -- a complex made possible by Lucas's $175-million gift to the university. Lucas, who produced his first films as an undergraduate of the university in the mid-'60s, said, "When I came here I didn't have a clue about how to make movies, anything -- I didn't even watch movies. I was a real novice." Today's (Thursday) Los Angeles Times said that Lucas is treating the new facility "much like one of his cinematic productions," working with Urban Design Group of Dallas on the design of the buildings -- even "on such minute aspects as the detailing on the archways."

To which, my only rebuttal can be:

Star Wars fans of the original trilofy chastised George Lucas for not treating the original trilogy in the same way he has anything else he has put out. "It just isn't thought of in the same breath, which is for us a sacrilege," fans said at a groundbreaking ceremony at Chefelf.com -- a complex made possible by Lucas's flagrant disregard for the original trilogy. Lucas, who produced his first films as an undergraduate of the university in the mid-'60s, said, "When we first saw the original Star Wars trilogy, we were transported into another world," Chef Elf said, speaking for a great many Star Wars fans. "We were then subjected, first to unacceptable, unnecessary and ridiculous CGI additions, then to the prequel trilogy, which has many fans wondering if Mr. Lucas is in DIRE need of psychiatric help and heavy medication."

Though this is for another Lucas creation OTHER than Star Wars, I figured, due to a couple of the statements contained therein, it would be fitting to place this particular article here. Following is the link to the story from the Toronto Star, and afterwards is the story itself. I'll let the rest of you decide whether this is worthy of discussion or not.

http://www. thestar.c...ol=969048864482

Do we really need another Indy?
Aug. 25, 2006. 06:55 AM
PETER HOWELL


You would think a movie buff like George Lucas would know what a MacGuffin is.

The mullah of the megaplexes is quoted in the current Empire magazine explaining how he hatched a fourth Indiana Jones movie, an idea he's managed to sell to his co-conspirators Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford.

But his brainwave is puzzling, to say the least, because he doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

"I discovered a MacGuffin," Lucas told Empire.

"I told the guys about it and they were a little dubious about it, but it's the best one we've ever found ... Unfortunately, it was a little too 'connected' for the others. They were afraid of what the critics would think. They said, 'Can't we do it with a different MacGuffin? Can't we do this?' and I said 'No.' So we pottered around with that for a couple of years.

"And then Harrison really wanted to do it and Steve said, 'Okay,' I said, 'We'll have to go back to that original MacGuffin and take out the offending parts of it and we'll still use that area of the supernatural to deal with it'."

If by MacGuffin he means the Ark of the Covenant, the all-powerful Christian artifact sought by Ford's whip-cracker Indiana Jones and his Nazi nemesis in 1981's Raiders of the Lost Ark, he's way off base.

A MacGuffin, as defined by its chief practitioner Alfred Hitchcock, is an item sought by characters in a movie that isn't essential to the plot. The mysterious briefcase in Pulp Fiction is frequently cited as a bona fide MacGuffin.

The Ark was anything but non-essential to the first Indy flick, especially if you recall the events of the final reel.

And what does Lucas mean by "taking out the offending parts of it?"

Is he referring to the Ark's essential religious aspect? Is he planning another misfire like The Phantom Menace, in which the quasi-religious Force from his original Star Wars trilogy was reduced to blood organisms called midichlorians? Do his movies now have to be completely secular?

He doesn't say what he has in mind, other than to drop the further disturbing news that Indy IV will be a lot like his reviled first Star Wars prequel.

" We're basically going to do The Phantom Menace. People's expectations are way higher than you can deliver. You could just get killed for the whole thing ... We would do it for fun and just take the hit with the critics and the fans ... But nobody wants to get into it unless they are really happy with it."

Earth to Lucas: Why not just make a good movie?

Better yet, why bother making Indy IV at all?


That's the consensus of many commentators on Jeffrey Wells's Hollywood Elsewhere blog, who joined his call this week for someone to put the Indiana Jones franchise out of its misery.

Said Wells: "Will someone good at subterfuge and pretend guises please slip into the development room —stealthily, like a panther — and while George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford aren't looking (or are out putting quarters in the street meters), pick up a pillow, lean over the crib and smother the Indy IV project until it's dead, dead ... deader than dead? With compassion, I mean."

More than a few people have observed that Ford will be 65 next year, which is when Indy IV is supposed to begin filming. That will make him six years older than Sean Connery was in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, which Ford swore then would be the final Indy flick. And Connery was playing Ford's dad in the movie.

But Ford has been in a series of duds for most of the past decade, and he probably thinks he needs both the money and the attention that Indy IV will bring.

http:// www.youtube.c...kQ_ApvXnSuJB37_

Saw this one from a link I followed on imdb.com. Kind of dumb, but kind of funny as well.

Just watched ANH again and as usual, I got to the "death" of Obi Wan scene, and had the usual, "What happened?" reaction again.

Obi Wan looks over at Luke, gives an enigmatic little smile, then turns back to Darth Vader, holding his lightsaber up in front of him, closing his eyes. It is NOT a defensive move, because Darth Vader is easily able to cut him in half (apparently) with no resistance. An empty robe hits the deck, along with a deactivated lightsaber. Vader prods the cloth with his foot, his lightsaber still ignited, as though he was expecting something to happen that would require said lightsaber for defensive purposes. Nothing. Just an empty robe and a deactivated lightsaber.

So what just happened? I don't buy the "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine," line as being something literal, i.e. the "unlimited power" Palpy was babbling about in RotS. (In fact, thinking of that celluloid blasphemy in the same instant as my beloved Star Wars makes me a little queasy.)

This was not supposed to happen in the original story, I understand, but GL was trying for some dramatic tension to the escape from the Death Star. He succeeded, because here was someone who literally gave his life as a distraction for our heroes to escape. This makes the subsequent "certain point of view" crap all that much worse in RotJ.

Since this occurred when the Force was just "An energy field that surrounds us, penetrates us, it binds the galaxy together," about the only thing that this scene could POSSIBLY suggest is Obi Wan surrendered himself FULLY - body, mind and soul - to the Force. Yoda subsequently did the same thing in RotJ.

What think the rest of you?