Jedi Council Forums - Why Is ROTJ Considered A Bad Movie?

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Why Is ROTJ Considered A Bad Movie?
LordBlack Registered: Mar '05	Date Posted: 3/18/05 6:12am Subject: RE: Why Is ROTJ Considered A Bad Movie?
	I belive Lucas played with the idea of having Wookies, but then decided against it as he thought them to be too advanced (technical minded). So he settled for a smaller version of them instead. -----signature----- LONG LIVE THE IMPERIUM OF MAN In love with Padme "War is a catalyst which accelerates many important developments and nourish's national and personal ingenuity" - M.A.F
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
CBright7831 Registered: Mar '04	Date Posted: 3/18/05 6:29am Subject: RE: Why Is ROTJ Considered A Bad Movie?
	Now that link was great! Had me bustin' my sides! Check out the archives section. All of the Star Wars movies have been parodied, as have many other movies, in ckluding the LOTR trilogy. Like I said, the ewoks are there for the children. I've never minded them. -----signature----- CBright7831 - Nute Gunray's No.1 Fan - Viceroy of the Nute Gunray Fan Club - "The war is over. Lord Sidious promised us peace. We only want --" cut down in mid sentence - R.I.P. Viceroy Nute Gunray 1999-2005
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
yodasbum Registered: Nov '04	Date Posted: 3/18/05 6:41am Subject: RE: Why Is ROTJ Considered A Bad Movie?
	I believe that GL copped out a lot with ROTJ. It was a film that wasn't made in the same spirit as Star Wars and the pressures of making the film didn't spurn the film makers/actors to do their best work/ be as creative as on Empire. Also GL was going through a divorce and wanted the series over- hence location shooting was all done in USA. I think that GL was very unfair with Richard as he was on set everyday- aren't there some claims that GL practically directed the film himself. In conclusion GL was Jaded and the film is Jaded.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Evil_Otto Registered: Sep '04	Date Posted: 3/18/05 8:21am Subject: RE: Why Is ROTJ Considered A Bad Movie?
	I think the best place to get all your answers to what George Lucas originally intended the Star Wars Saga to be can be found HERE, where the man himself, the man who worked alongside Lucas for the whole of the two first movies, Gary Kurtz, says it as it is, without all of Lucas' propaganda and excuses. I've also found some more interesting comments made by Kurtz as regards Lucas and the Star Wars films, especially regarding the post ESB Star Wars films. 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. Now Raiders is not a bad film, but the script actually was much better than the finished film. There were a lot more nuances in the character, and there was less action. It would've been a better picture if that script had been made. But, as it is, it's an interesting and entertaining film – it's just that this idea that somehow the energy doesn't have to be put into getting really good story elements together. 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!" IGNFF: Now, also the story has arisen that George had always intended prequels, but had never intended sequels to that initial three films. KURTZ: After this idea of more films came up, he did several interviews where he said he had story material to do nine films – three prequels and three sequels. That was the accepted story, basically, and there was quite a bit of material both before and after the Star Wars lump. So there was no decision to do either one... it was kind of a red herring in a way, because there was no immediate thought to make any other films right away. In a sense, through a business point of view, it probably would have been better to do so, like they did with Star Trek, rather than wait all this time, because the audience interest dissipated somewhat. I mean, it didn't seem to affect the box office on Phantom Menace too much, but ... IGNFF: It didn't exactly leave a good taste in people's mouths, either. KURTZ: Well, regardless of the value of the film as a film, artistically, there is a kind of energy around some things where if it had come out say three, four years later after Jedi, and then another one three or four years later after that, that kind of cycle would have probably been better for the audience and for the merchandising than what happened. But that's hindsight. At that time, he always said that he had enough material for three earlier films and three later films, to make a total of nine, and there were outlined materials certainly for a later three that culminated with this big clash with the Emperor in Episode IX. So, we'll never see any of those, based on what he's said now. 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. 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, 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. 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 roller coaster 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. IGNFF: Would you say that George tends to be a cold writer, as far as emotional warmth or character depth – we were talking about this as far as American Graffiti, that everything tended to be somewhat sterile as far as George's original drafts of that film. KURTZ: I think that's probably the case. The other writers tended to add extra elements, especially emotional elements. George tends to write about the facts, in effect. IGNFF: Very documentarian. KURTZ: Yes, because that's his background. IGNFF: At what point did you decide to divorce yourself from the Star Wars process? KURTZ: Well, it was just the difficulties of finishing Empire, and the fact that – at the very beginning with American Graffiti and with Star Wars, and into the start of Empire – it was a very, very small shop... there were four or five of us in the office, and that was it. Then, in the middle of Empire, we were here in England shooting and George was back in San Francisco working with ILM on visual effects and other things, too. He hired some film people from other companies and started to expand into a much bigger operation... some marketing people, and some merchandising, and people to negotiate in some of the toy deals... and by the end of Empire, it turned into kind of this big organization. Not big necessarily in terms of actual physical numbers – there weren't that many people – but there were enough, and it was an entirely different attitude about everything. That was part of it, and also the fact that I think he blamed me for all the things that were difficult on Empire – a director that was difficult to control, a film that was too expensive, and all those things. IGNFF: Do you think that he felt he'd outgrown the need for a set of controls... A "no-man"? KURTZ: I don't know. I don't think we ever talked about it in those terms, but I think that he did chafe a bit under the idea of someone saying "that's not a good idea," some of the time. At the very end of Empire ... we decided at the very last minute – we pretty much locked the picture in the mix and just getting ready to make 70mm prints – and we decided that there had to an extra shot at the very end, to identify this rebel fleet. If you remember how the end works, it's before you go into the medical department, who are working on Mark's hand. It's the establishing shot of the fleet, and we had a shot already of going into the window and showing Mark inside, and we just decided that it was confusing We didn't know exactly how that was sorted out, so we wanted a long shot at the beginning, and then one at the end that shows the whole fleet when the Falcon flies off. They weren't very difficult to do, and all the ships were there ... just pile up the composites, and they were rushed through, just to get it done. Very last minute. One of them wasn't particularly good, and George said, "Oh well, maybe we should just let it go." I said, "It's worth at least one more go through. One bad shot can ruin the whole movie, basically." Which I really believe is true, and it just wasn't very good. It was just a compositing problem, had nothing to do with the individual shot elements – I can't even remember what shot it was, now. I think making a movie wears everybody down. You have to be really careful of the decisions you make at the very end, because you can kind of throw a monkey wrench in, very easily. IGNFF: Oh, I don't know – in Episode I, the CGI still calls attention to itself. KURTZ: Well, it does, yes, that's true. Even though there's lots of it and most of the shots have some kind of CGI – but it's less annoying, I think, and stands out less than it does in the Special Editions. If you remember the scene when the robots go down to Tatooine, to the desert, and then later you cut back to the Stormtroopers looking for them, there's a scene where Stormtroopers are sitting up on the hill in the background riding what looks like a giant lizard. In the original, that's a mock-up that we borrowed, rendered from a prop house, and carried all the way out there and stuck it there in the sand. It didn't do anything. There was just a Stormtrooper sitting on a giant lizard, a model. It doesn't do anything – it's just in the background and the Stormtrooper in the foreground stands up with a piece of the robot and says, "They've been here." That's all the scene is supposed to be for. As it is in the Special Edition, that Stormtrooper on the dinosaur in the background moves – it's all CGI. IGNFF: And it adds nothing whatsoever to the story. KURTZ: I know, and that's what I mean with the proliferation. Just because you can do it, doesn't make it better. But those animals moving actually distract from the principal purpose of the scene. If they had been horses, if it had been a Western and those were horses, chances are the horses would have just been sitting there, because horses do that a lot. They don't move much. If they're not running or trotting or something, sometimes they just sit there – and maybe flick their ears a bit – for long periods of time. IGNFF: But they don't do a song and dance number. KURTZ: No, they don't move around at all. They just stand there. If they had made it that subtle, if they had had that creature in the background move its head an inch to the right or something, a blink – that would have been all that you need to do. But it's not necessary at all, because the way it was in the beginning, in the first place, it was that way because that's all we could afford and it worked fine. I'm just not a great believer in messing with what is done. It may not be perfect, and as I said a long time ago, there's nothing that is. No movie is perfect, and every filmmaker is going to sit and watch a movie that he made 10 years ago, or 30 years ago, or 50 years ago, and say, "Oh, I wish I could have done that better." IGNFF: You're the person to ask about this – when you're talking about these kind of special editions and changes and are they due to an original vision or changing sensibilities – I have to ask you about your thoughts regarding the infamous redo of the scene with Greedo in the cantina.... the whole shooting first thing. KURTZ: Yeah, I really was livid about that one. I think it was a total – it ruins the scene, basically. The scene was never intended that way. Han Solo realized that Greedo was out to get him and he had to blast him first or he would lose his life. It shows you how much of a mercenary he is. That's what the point of the scene was. And so the way they've changed it around, it loses the whole impact of that whole aspect of it. IGNFF: Do you think that's due to George's changing sensibilities as opposed to his argument that, "No, that was my original intention"? KURTZ: Well, he can say that was his original intention, but we could have shot it that way very easily. There was no reason that it couldn't have been shot that way. It was shot and edited the way it was because that's the way the script was. That's what he wanted at the time. IGNFF: What is your opinion of why he would try and rationalize it, when he could very well just say, "You know, I just thought nowadays, it's better if he shoots first." KURTZ: Maybe he just didn't want to say that. Maybe he felt it was a stronger argument to say, "That's what I really wanted to do and I just didn't have time or inclination at the time." You listen to all these directors, they all say that. That's the stock argument ... somehow if they say that, you can't argue with them. Happy reading chaps and chapettes! -----signature----- As evil as you can get! I'm "Berzerk" about films! The once and future king Otto has lived many lives on TheForce.net
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
pgoodyea Registered: Mar '04	Date Posted: 3/18/05 9:46am Subject: RE: Why Is ROTJ Considered A Bad Movie?
	Lucas isn't perfect, nobody is. However, from reading that article above it seems as if Kurtz is judging Lucas, not just giving his opinion. Nobody has the right to judge anyone. Who knows how ROTJ or the prequels would have turned out if Kurtz remained involved. The movies could have been bad (I am assuming the movies were great). I love all the Star Wars films including the prequels. I wouldn't trust anybody, but Lucas to get it right (well, maybe Kershner too). Also, how can Kurtz knock Raiders. That movie is awesome and has some amazing (deep) characters. Raiders is still one of the best action films ever, b/c it has heart. Let's face it, Kurtz is bitter. -----signature----- "One man shall stand, one man shall fall" "Possibly" "Blue Horseshoe loves Anacott Steel" "Skiing is the easy part, Karl" "What we got here is a crusader"
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Evil_Otto Registered: Sep '04	Date Posted: 3/18/05 10:10am Subject: RE: Why Is ROTJ Considered A Bad Movie?
	Everyone judges in their own ways and to different degrees. Even you have judged Lucas with your last post in saying that all the Star Wars films are great. It's just that Kurtz's judgements that you don't like because he doesn't agree with you that they're all wonderful movies. Raiders is still one of the best action films ever I think you got it unintentionally right there in saying that. The thing is, maybe some people want more than just bullets flying and mindless chases. Maybe some people want complex characterisations and highbrow scripts, rather than just an excuse to watch Indy beating up on a bunch of Nazis. However, Kurtz did say that Raiders wasn't a bad movie. He just thought that it could have been better. I didn't see any bitterness in what he had to say. He just came across as being regretful in how the Star Wars films turned out, a bubble gum trilogy rather than a work of highbrow movie literature. -----signature----- As evil as you can get! I'm "Berzerk" about films! The once and future king Otto has lived many lives on TheForce.net
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Philagape Registered: Mar '05	Date Posted: 3/18/05 10:38am Subject: RE: Why Is ROTJ Considered A Bad Movie?
	I think ROTJ is the weakest of the OT, and the main reason for me is the acting. One of the reasons ESB was the best is the terrific interplay between Ford and Fisher, and Hamill was good too. Ford didn't want to do ROTJ, and he phoned in his performance. That left Fisher without a willing partner, and she was probably stoned half the time anyway. And Hamill was limited because Luke had matured and didn't throw tantrums anymore. -----signature----- "No time to discuss this in committee!" "I am not a committee!"
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
RogueScribner Title: Webmaster Or lando FL FanForce Registered: Jan '04	Date Posted: 3/18/05 11:11am Subject: RE: Why Is ROTJ Considered A Bad Movie?
	Luke's hair didn't help Hamill's performance either . . . L8r -----signature----- "I find your lack of faith disturbing." - http://www.orlandosystem.com - "You can't take the sky from me . . . ."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Shelley Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 3/18/05 11:20am Subject: RE: Why Is ROTJ Considered A Bad Movie?
	groan Not the Kurtz garbage again. I'm so sick of people resuscitating that stupid interview and trying to make it seem like Kurtz was the real genius behind SW, something the arrogant jerk has little trouble propagating. Funny how Kershner is so deeply grateful to Kurtz for "making ESB great" and "protecting him from Lucas" or whatever else Lucas-bashers are saying this week that he...never thanks or even mentions Kurtz, and instead thanks Lucas and talks of him respectfully! Harrison didn't want to be in ROTJ and didn't even try with his performance. He didn't care and it showed. Kind of like Natalie in the PT. Hamill gives his best performance in ROTJ, however. -----signature----- A bona fide conservative exposes Ann Coulter as the liar, bigot, extremist, and hatemonger that she is: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001939.htm Protect America...impeach Bush.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
RamRed Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 3/18/05 11:24am Subject: RE: Why Is ROTJ Considered A Bad Movie?
	Whether or not Kurtz is partly responsible for the success of the first two films, George Lucas has done an excellent job with the saga without his help. As for Han forgiving Lando - who cares? Personally, I don't think that Lando needs Han's forgiveness. What was he supposed to do? Warn Han and Leia and incur Vader's wrath? Let's see - should he help a friend who may or may not have cheated him out of the Millineum Falcon or should he cooperate with Vader, who can easily destroy Bespin and its populace(whom Lando has official responsibility toward) if he so much as detect a whiff of trouble before Luke's arrival? I would have done the same as Lando and betray Han in a heartbeat. Then I would have knocked Han on his butt for not realzing that he was being followed by a bounty hunter and leading the Empire to Bespin.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Shelley Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 3/18/05 11:30am Subject: RE: Why Is ROTJ Considered A Bad Movie? - Date Edited: 3/18/05 11:36am (4 edits total) Edited By: Shelley
	Whether or not Kurtz is partly responsible for the success of the first two films, George Lucas has done an excellent job with the saga without his help. Agreed. And people say that Lucas was never the same after parting ways with Kurtz. Actually, he was never the same after parting ways with his wife. Unlike Kurtz, Marcia was a strong and good influence on Lucas; she was a top-notch film editor and encouraged him to put more personal moments in his movies (at least one of the Indy/Marion scenes in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was her idea). Too bad she wound up cuckolding him, taking half his money, and leaving him heartbroken for much of the 80s. I love both prequels, but think the editing in AOTC is poor; the family scenes added a lot of heart to the movie and shouldn't have been cut. Plus they were well-directed, and may have shut up at least some of the people claiming that Lucas can't direct actors had they been left in. Re: Han and Lando People keep saying Han should've beaten the **** out of Lando, but they're overlooking that Lando was in a terrible position. Yes, he betrayed Han, but he did it to save Cloud City. Vader lied to him and kept altering the deal. I'm glad Han was a big enough man to realize it. Anyway, Lando did defy Vader to save Leia and Chewie. That's nothing to sneeze at. -----signature----- A bona fide conservative exposes Ann Coulter as the liar, bigot, extremist, and hatemonger that she is: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001939.htm Protect America...impeach Bush.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
RogueScribner Title: Webmaster Or lando FL FanForce Registered: Jan '04	Date Posted: 3/18/05 11:40am Subject: RE: Why Is ROTJ Considered A Bad Movie?
	As for Han forgiving Lando - who cares? Because it goes against logic? Han was not a happy camper where Lando was concercerned when we last saw him in TESB. It makes sense that he'd have a few words with Lando in ROTJ, some reference to past events to patch things up. There was nothing. It was completely ignored. Han and Lando acted like old buddies in the whole of ROTJ, like the events on Bespin never happened. But if that dramatic arc doesn't matter, then I guess none of the others matter either. Luke could forget Vader ever told him he was his father and just try to kill him, Leia can forget her saying she loved Han and keep sniping at him, and Luke could forget his promise to Yoda to return (which he kinda did anyway). Part of the nature of serials, which Lucas professes Star Wars to be in the vein of, is the continuity between episodes. One episode's events have direct impact on the following episode. Lucas dropped the ball in the script writing stage by not addressing this. I'm not asking for a whole huge scene or scenes, but some acknowledgement of Han forgiving Lando would have been nice. As it is, it's like the end of TESB never happened and it only undercuts Han and Lando's relationship, not make it stronger. L8r -----signature----- "I find your lack of faith disturbing." - http://www.orlandosystem.com - "You can't take the sky from me . . . ."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Evil_Otto Registered: Sep '04	Date Posted: 3/18/05 11:44am Subject: RE: Why Is ROTJ Considered A Bad Movie?
	ESB was especially good because it concentrated on many levels, and not on how fast and furious the next battle could be. Yes, it did have lots of action, but these moments of action were an integral part of the plot, mostly Vader's overwhelming desire to get to Luke. The Battle of Hoth and the resulting chase and capture of the Falcon was all about Vader getting to Luke. Which makes me think, would all of those Imperial officers like Piett, Ozzel and the ill fated General Veers (he died at the Battle of Hoth, no matter what the EU says! ) been quite so eager to risk their butts if they'd know that they were being used as pawns just to get at one guy, rather than in fighting the Rebels? The film also concentrated on delving into mythology and drama, as well as major character developement mostly in the form of Luke and Vader. In this, I find that other characters, even those of Han and Leia, are simply there as plot devises. I don't think at the time of the making of ESB they were meant to be major protagonists in the story as a whole. This was proven by the fact that Han would have been killed off in ROTJ and Leia would have left the story also. And even Vader, who would have been in almost all the episodes up to that point, would have seemingly still sacrificed himself for Luke in ROTJ also! It seems to me that, on a character level, the original Star Wars Saga as Lucas first envisioned it, would have had a regular turn around of characters, where characters, both major and minor, would have come and gone until the finale between Luke, his "Other" sister and Emperor Palpatine. It would have been a saga where you would have been kept on the edge of your seat not knowing if your heroes would make it, and being shocked when some of them didn't. It would have been a trilogy of dramatic uncertainties, quite unlike the "protected" characters that we have now. It would have been a different type of roller coaster ride, one of drama and suspence, where characters would sacrifice themselves for the greater good, and the story would concentrated more on delving into what drives them in their individual quests. -----signature----- As evil as you can get! I'm "Berzerk" about films! The once and future king Otto has lived many lives on TheForce.net
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Philagape Registered: Mar '05	Date Posted: 3/18/05 11:49am Subject: RE: Why Is ROTJ Considered A Bad Movie?
	I think Han forgave Lando because Lando saved the woman he loved. I agree that it would have been nice to show a reconciliation instead of leaving us to guess. -----signature----- "No time to discuss this in committee!" "I am not a committee!"
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_Dookoo Registered: Nov '04	Date Posted: 3/18/05 11:57am Subject: RE: Why Is ROTJ Considered A Bad Movie?
	I've always loved RotJ for many reasons, but mainly its got Jabba the Hutt, whose just a great sorta guy. I feel the movie is a logical finale to the three films of the OT. It wraps up everything left hanging from either ANH or ESB, like Han's debt to Jabba, Vader's search for Luke (and, in the wider context of the prequels, the fulfillment of the prophecy). To me, the saga can only possibly end like it does - no matter how many Infinities stories come out. Lots of people say "Oh, Empire is by far the best", but Empire is nothing without Jedi, its at best a half-story...no one can say a film that ends with the major storyline completely unresolved, and so many promises left to be acted upon, is a good, satisfying story in and of itself. Empire needs Jedi, simple as. But then, isnt Star Wars just one 13 hour long film? -----signature----- "Brave of you boy, but foolish"--Count Dooku "I thought that hairy beast would be the end of me"--C-3PO Welsh fanboys 2005
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 » - Previous | Next | Reload