main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

BTS JW Rinzler's 'Making of Return of the Jedi'

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by Darth_Nub, May 23, 2013.

  1. TOSCHESTATION

    TOSCHESTATION Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 17, 2003
    I'm going to have to put Arawn_Fenn on ignore and end this right now. I don't want this thread to get locked. Mods and all, I apologize for the distraction.

    A couple of things.

    1. Back in the OT days, finishing the OT was the immediate concern, not turning the notional back-story/stories into films themselves. Yes, the back-story existed on paper. Yes, it grew to be at least three notional episodes. However, the likelihood of them being made into movies wasn't a sure thing back then. So, "attracting an audience (or not)" factor aside - and commented on by gezvader28 - it wouldn't have been an "issue" if this back-story just remained that - back-stories - not films in their own right.

    2. Yes, Han was 'in his 30's', or say 29-32, as the drafts developed culminating in the shooting script and finished film. Luke was say, 18-20 in the first film/ANH, and about 23/24 in TESB/ROTJ. So, there's roughly a ten year difference between Han and Luke. Apparently, there would also have been this age difference - roughly - between Ben and Anakin. So, there would have been some 'mirroring' there, in a sense.

    Now, as far as this 'mirroring' aspect between Luke (early 20's/23-24 at his oldest canon age) and Anakin: this isn't really any 'more likely' than a scenario where Luke's father Anakin/Annikin dies or turns during the back-story at a much older age compared to that of Luke in the OT. As a matter of fact, it's curious that Ben and Yoda NEVER ONCE call Luke's father a "young" Jedi or man, at the time of his literal-or-metaphorical demise. They never compare Luke to his father in THAT respect - the one having to do with age. "Btw, Luke..your father was about your age when he was killed/turned to the dark side/became Vader."

    3. Given Lucas' late 70's/early 80's statements on the saga and PT timelines, the PT wasn't structured quite the same way as ended up being the case. For one thing, each trilogy would span about two to three years, with twenty years in between each trilogy. With such a scheme, there wasn't going to be a TEN year gap between Eps. I and II like exists now, so that in itself would make it unlikely that Anakin would start at so young an age in the story, especially not younger than Luke when is/was when we first meet him in the OT.
     
    Darth_Nub likes this.
  2. Jedi_Ford_Prefect

    Jedi_Ford_Prefect Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2003
    [quote="TOSCHESTATION, post: 51126037, member: 749513"1. Back in the OT days, finishing the OT was the immediate concern, not turning the notional back-story/stories into films themselves. Yes, the back-story existed on paper. Yes, it grew to be at least three notional episodes. However, the likelihood of them being made into movies wasn't a sure thing back then. So, "attracting an audience (or not)" factor aside - and commented on by gezvader28 - it wouldn't have been an "issue" if this back-story just remained that - back-stories - not films in their own right.[/quote]

    I get that. I'm just saying that as soon as the plan was to start moving into production on the Prequels, whether they were in the 90's, the 80's or whatever, the detail of Anakin's age would've been one of the first things to fall under "adjustment", especially because there wouldn't be anything from the films themselves to contradict such a change. Sure, an age of 40's or whatever might've been okay for a set of backstories that wouldn't have to worry about attracting an audience, but as soon as it was decided to actually make the films, it just makes more sense to drop the age.

    Depending on how much of Anakin's backstory was going to be shown, I suppose we were always going to see something of a time skip. Either we were going to see his discovery and recruitment into the Jedi Order, or we would've just seen him as a mature Jedi the whole time.
     
  3. gezvader28

    gezvader28 Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Mar 22, 2003
    I really don't see how having Anakin in his 20's would make the films more attractiv to an audience , lots of films - most I'd say- have a hero in his 30's or 40's . I think Lucas just changed his mind , he decided he wanted to show the development of anakin from childhood thru teenage years instead probably because he'd been raising kids and reading all those psychology books .

    my guess is that originally anakin was meant to have been a big hero , a more swashbuckling hero who lived life and was confident from his own experiences etc. and then something happened to turn him , it wasn't an angsty teenager but someone more mature who didn't see it coming .

    .
     
  4. Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn

    Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 23, 1999
    Not necessarily. When the prequels were going to come out, a lot of people thought perhaps the 'feel' of the films would have aged with the fanbase, meaning that the films that came later might present more adult concerns and situations. Obviously this isn't the direction GL was thinking, but it could be done. A 30ies hero would easily work, either in this kind of film, or even in ones with the style as we know it (Han was over 30). I do think that if there's supposed to be a parallel between Luke and Anakin, with Luke succeeding where Anakin failed, then having them be similar ages starts to make sense. But it wouldn't be impossible to tell the story another way.

    Once Anakin was determined to be nine, or even twelve, in Episode I, that would have affected the planning of the timeline. So I guess it depends on what you mean by 'always.' Also, do we know when Lucas first mentioned that Episode I would be 32 years before the OT? Maybe we can figure something out about development with this?

    I think Annikin was probably like this. Darth was probably more like what was in the actual prequels, except that he seems to have left at some point during his training. (Though aren't there some quotes from Lucas, circa 1977, on how Darth was a Jedi who was sneaking around killing other Jedi? That might mean that he was a Jedi, just perhaps not a master.)
     
    TOSCHESTATION likes this.
  5. Jedi_Ford_Prefect

    Jedi_Ford_Prefect Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Yeah, but how many of those films are targeted at an audience of kids and teenagers as their base? I don't doubt there's a possibility that Anakin was envisioned as older, more wizened when it was all about an unseen backstory, but as soon as you really start to seriously consider filming the thing, it just wouldn't make sense to push him towards middle age.
     
  6. TOSCHESTATION

    TOSCHESTATION Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Well, even IF '32 years before ANH/OT' goes back to the early 80's, with a 60-ish Vader/Anakin in ROTJ, this would make Anakin in Episode I - at his youngest - late 20's/early 30's. But given Lucas' "the trilogies span about 2-3 years each", with Episode III ending at about 20 years before SW/ANH, then Episode I wouldn't be "32" years before ANH. The "2 to 3 year time span" doesn't allow for a 10 year time span. I realize that this technically only applies when the format of "trilogy = 2 to 3 years" was in operation.


    You're right. Those quotes are from those back-story bits that he relates to Carol Wikarska-Titleman (head of Merch. Licensing dept. of LFL and the Star Wars Corp.).

    Is it possible that by mid-summer 1977, Lucas was re-thinking the "left his Jedi training" part re: Vader? [face_thinking]
     
  7. TOSCHESTATION

    TOSCHESTATION Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 17, 2003
    The Vader in THAT particular timeline - circa 1976/1977 - was not Luke's father, and was younger than Ben. So that "young" Vader wouldn't translate to Annikin - Luke's father as envisioned circa '76/'77 - having been Obi-Wan's "young" pupil. During the time of the first film he (the father ) was never stated to have been Ben's student in the first place.


    The only way, technically speaking, to make all that compatible was to not have the Father Vader ret-con in the first place. Or failing that, change the dialogue after-the-fact. Lucas had boxed himself in with Ben's specific wording in SW, which, had he known or had the Father Vader story plot in place - even as an 'alternative' storyline, he probably would have worded Obi-Wan's dialogue differently.

    Also, you can't speak for what all fans thought prior to the PT. Circa ROTJ I thought he was anywhere between 30 and 40.


    Ben clearly explained the above about Vader back when the story was that Vader was Ben's student, while Annikin/Luke's father was Ben's Jedi friend, with the former killing the latter. Come TESB, Ben and Yoda never said such a similar thing about Anakin when they wanted Luke to believe that Vader and his father were two different people. Vader=Anakin does not automatically mean the choice is to give Anakin all of the Vader-specific life details, as if he couldn't have alternatively given the new, amalgamated Vader-who-is-also-Luke's-father many of the original Luke's father (Annikin's) specific life details, for example, a full Jedi Knight, NOT a 'young' Jedi pupil of Ben/Obi-Wan. As a matter of fact, when Lucas did the handwritten first-run of the second draft of TESB, dated 1 April 1978, which was the written debut of "I am your Father", he continued the plot point of the previous Brackett story/draft, where Ben AND Luke's father both trained under (Minch) Yoda on the 'bog planet'.

    So Vader=Anakin didn't at first, necessitate making Anakin a "young" Jedi student of Ben's. Later, in the 'Revised' Second draft - which was really just the typed version of George's handwritten second draft, Lucas changed it to: Yoda teaches Ben, who in turn teaches Luke's father (meanwhile still not making Anakin a 20-something comparable to Luke's OT age), even though that specific info is left out of TESB itself but is revealed in the next film. With the PT, he changed the characterization further, making Anakin more Vader-ish, at least age-wise, where he's the demonstrably "young" Jedi training under Obi-Wan (who is himself now younger in the PT than he would have been in the older time-line). The original, 'classic' SW, circa late '75/'76/'77 Vader probably also did NOT fight in the Clone Wars, unlike Luke's father.
     
  8. Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn

    Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 23, 1999
    BTW, possibly the earliest source for those dates was an interview with George Lucas in Star Wars Insider # 25, from April 20, 1995. There is a graph with the relative placements of the PT and OT films, and it matches what we have today. In the interview, Lucas says that in Episode I, Obi-Wan is thirtyish. Anakin, in Episodes II and III, is "about the same age" as Luke in A New Hope. This must be before he switched everything around to make Qui-Gon the older Jedi. (Or maybe before Qui-Gon even existed?)

    Also, at that time within the EU and fandom, I think the date assigned to the Clone Wars (the ending of them) was 35 years before the original trilogy. Timothy Zahn appears to have been the first author to include this date in his work, which he said came from Lucasfilm around 1991-1992.

    Finally, it's fun to go back and look at how the fan letters and articles from that intertrilogy era and see how people were thinking of the prequels and sequels.

    Interesting connection. Intergenerational conflicts like that (World War II veterans vs. the youth who came after) can make for interesting dynamics.

    I wasn't alive for those days, but even now, I see "Anakin Skywalker" as the flesh-and-blood (non-ghost) older action-figure version. Just make his hair darker and remove the wrinkles.
     
    TOSCHESTATION likes this.
  9. gezvader28

    gezvader28 Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Mar 22, 2003


    I wasn't suggesting that he'd be 'wizened' just more mature like Indy or James Bond

    there's a paragraph in James Kahn's novelisation where anakin remembers how he used to be which reads :

    "...but then this brought to mind of the way he used to look - striking and grand , with a wry tilt to his brow that hinted of invincibilty and took in all of life with a wink ...".

    that always suggested to me someone more mature , sort of Burt Lancaster in his prime . of course I don't know if Kahn got that from Lucas or just made it up , but I think he must've gotten some indication from Lucas about it .
     
    Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn likes this.
  10. Samuel Vimes

    Samuel Vimes Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Just because he is older doesn't mean he is wizened. Take James Bond, Indiana Jones or more recently the Pirates films or some of the Marvel superhero film like Iron Man.
    Also, I am not sure I would say that ANH and ESB were really "targeted" at kids or teenagers. They were for all ages. RotJ was a bit more in that direction.

    Bye for now.
    Old Stoneface
     
  11. Gallandro

    Gallandro Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998

    Kurtz was NEVER on the set of ROTJ, unless he was a guest of the production. He was long gone from Lucasfilm; Kazanjian had taken over his role with the company starting with Raiders. Given Prowse's penchant for "embellishment," it's clear he was simply mistaken in his recollections.


    Yancy
     
    Andy Wylde likes this.
  12. gezvader28

    gezvader28 Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Mar 22, 2003

    Kurtz was on the set of ROJ , I don't know what you mean by "guest of the production" but he was there and took pictures .
     
  13. Gallandro

    Gallandro Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998

    Yes, but he was not on the set in any official capacity and was no longer a part of any decisions regarding Star Wars. I certainly don't think he and Lucas were enemies as some have implied, Kurtz simply lost his job because he couldn't keep Empire's budget under control. Heck, Lucas even bailed out Walter Murch and Kurtz during the making of Return to Oz, another project plagued with delays and budget woes, and injected some of his own cash into the production, and guaranteed he would step in and finish the project to help allay the fears of Disney execs who wanted Murch removed from the production (he had actually been fired 5 weeks into principal photography).

    I think the "problems" in the relationship began to emerge when the SE's rolled out and Kurtz began revealing his alternative history to the production of ANH and TESB, and he had some very derisive comments about the PT as well. But even those issues are probably overstated... I mean heck Kurtz was Lucas' guest at his AFI Awards presentation. You certainly wouldn't invite an "enemy" to an awards show in your honor.


    Yancy
     
    Andy Wylde likes this.
  14. gezvader28

    gezvader28 Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Mar 22, 2003
    you say he wasn't there in any official capacity , but how do you know ? From what I've heard he was involved in some things because it was quite natural to get his help on things he knew about - he had produced the first 2 after all and would've had a lot of useful knowledge etc.
    as you say - he and Lucas weren't enemies .


    .
     
  15. Jedi_Ford_Prefect

    Jedi_Ford_Prefect Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2003
    And yet, the OT is built on the foundations of a teenage kid, Luke Skywalker, as the hero. Sure, he's not Hunger Games young, but his youth is one of the biggest draws of his character, especially if you're telling a hero's journey story of growth in adventure. If you want your heroic character more or less already full-grown and, well, heroic right from the start, then sure you can go the older route. Bond, Indy and various Marvel heroes can stand to be older, because we're not really invested in them growing from one stage of youth to maturity. In fact, in some of them, we may have somebody else assuming the "young hero" role, falling under their sway (the Pirates films are kinda a good example of this, but the "young hero" there was more or less overshadowed by the crazy Keith Richards clowning of the older figure).

    At any rate, we knew that the PT was going to be, in part, about Obi-Wan training Anakin, which by itself suggests a youth vs. maturity thing, and more or less requires at least the same age roles that Luke and Han had in the OT. As such, I really don't buy that the "Anakin as a 30/40-something" idea ever could've worked as anything other than unfilmable backstory, and anyone who thinks that it's seriously another Lucas-betrayal of never-set-in-stone plans ought to take it with a grain of salt. I mean hell, if River Phoenix hadn't died, there's a decent chance we could've seen him play Anakin long before 1999 (or at least there's just as much room for speculation there as anything else).
     
  16. Gallandro

    Gallandro Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998

    Because Kazanjian took over Kurtz's role with the company in 1979... that little film called Raiders of the Lost Ark, had Kurtz not botched the budget of Empire he would have been co-executive producer with Lucas, not Kazanjian. Besides what "advice" is Kurtz going to offer? You act like Kazanjian was somehow out of his depth. This is the same guy who worked as an assistant director on big budget movies like The Wild Bunch and The Hindenburg. He was only a few years removed from working with master director Alfred Hitchcock on Family Plot. He was highly regarded in the industry... the man certainly knew how to handle big productions.

    Also you already had a producer named Robert Watts, you know that guy who had been the production manager on ANH and an associate producer on TESB and producer on Raiders... pretty sure he could handle any problems the production ran into. Given the talent and experience you already had assembled behind the camera I'm not sure what "advise" Kurtz is going to give.


    Yancy
     
    Andy Wylde and oierem like this.
  17. Darth_Nub

    Darth_Nub Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Apr 26, 2009
    ^^^^
    Point being - Gary Kurtz was employed in an official capacity, however meaningless, on ROTJ, after having been sacked from ESB.
     
  18. oierem

    oierem Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 18, 2009
    I'm sorry, but why do you make that assumption? Just because he showed up on set a couple of times? He is not credited, and there is no evidence that he did something at all , meaningless or not, other than take a few pics and say hello (Spielberg also showed up on set.. was he involved as well?)
     
    Andy Wylde and Gallandro like this.
  19. Gallandro

    Gallandro Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998

    And don't forget Kersh, he was there too. Maybe he secretly directed certain scenes as Marquand was clearly incompetent.


    Yancy
     
    Andy Wylde likes this.
  20. Darth_Nub

    Darth_Nub Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Apr 26, 2009

     
  21. oierem

    oierem Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 18, 2009
    And that's the ONLY evidence. A press release from BEFORE the movie was actually made (there are no mentions of the "production consultant" once the movie started preproduction). The purpose of that press release is clear, IMO: to state that Kurtz had not been fired and that he was still involved somehow (no press release is going to say that a prominent member of the crew has been fired - think of how they anounced that they fired the screenwriter of episode VII...).

    It's clear to me that Kurtz showing up on set is totally unreleated to the supposed "production consultant" job he had -just a friendly visit on set. if he actually had a job, I think it would've been mentioned somehow DURING the making of the film (and covered in Rinzler's book). They just invented a title for a very early press release anouncing the producer, just not to say "Gary Kurtz has been replaced by Howard Kazanjian".
     
    Andy Wylde and Gallandro like this.
  22. Gallandro

    Gallandro Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    But there's no evidence anywhere that Kurtz did any consulting, other than David Prowse and some other source on the convention circuit. Mark Hamill described the Lucas-Kurtz split as being "like a divorce", that doesn't lend itself to the notion that Kurtz had any involvement with Jedi at all. Plus Kurtz has NEVER said anything about being involved in the production of Jedi at all... in fact all he's done is criticize the film and accuse it of being manufactured to sell toys... because apparently in Gary Kurtz's world of 1977-80 Star Wars was not meant to sell toy one. Odd that Lucas would fight for merchandising and licensing rights if he never intended to sell toys???

    The only "evidence" we have of Kurtz involvement with ROTJ are suggestions by David Prowse that Kurtz was on the set, and after reading Kinzler's book it's pretty clear Prowse involvement with the film was fairly limited, likely due to his deteriorating relationship with Lucasfilm following accusations that he was leaking information to Hollywood reporters. This makes him a very dubious source. I really like David, but he really does have an ax to grind against Lucas as I'm sure he holds him personally responsible for being persona non grata on the official convention circuit. So I tend to take most of what he says with very large grains of salt.

    Finally, I've really pretty much lost all respect for Kurtz over the years. Back in my film school days I loved the notion of these guerrilla filmmakers like Lucas, Coppola, Kurtz, Milius, and Murch thumbing their noses at the studio system and trying to launch their own studio. I admired Kurtz work on Graffiti and Star Wars, and understood from a business decision why Kurtz had to be let go following Empire. In Dale Pollock's "Skywalking," Kurtz came across as hurt that he had been cut out of Jedi, and he certainly presented himself as some sort of co-creator of Star Wars with George, but I simply wrote it off as someone who was intimately involved with the production process of the first Star Wars film, there's naturally going to be some sense of "ownership" of these works. But when Kurtz reemerged from the shadows during the SE re-releases I realized I was wrong. He honestly believes he was some sort of creative force (no pun) behind Star Wars and that it simply did not work without him. This became even more clear with the release of the PT, followed by his numerous interviews surrounding the 30th anniversary of TESB and the Blu-Ray releases.

    Gary Kurtz was a line producer, nothing more. He didn't co-create Star Wars, he was hired to make sure George's vision could be realized on film. At times he ran studio interference, at times he had to run 2nd or 3rd units for pick up shots. He did a commendable job, and his work is extremely important to the Saga as a whole. But ultimately it was not Kurtz's money that was on the line... it was George's, and it was George with the vision and the tenacity to see the OT finished, even when there were multiple times he could have thrown his hands in the air and signed it all away to Fox. But unfortunately Kurtz failed at his primary job as a producer... making sure a production comes in on time and on budget... he dismally failed in this regard with TESB and it cost him his job.

    I think the real reason for Kurtz's recent comments about Lucas and Star Wars are fairly transparent, he feels he is entitled to enjoy the same fruits of Lucas' success with Star Wars. I'm sure Kurtz feels somewhere that Lucas is responsible for his lack of success post-TESB, but again these were problems of his own creation. Ultimately it was the out of control budget of Return to Oz that did him in. He was already an outsider in Hollywood, and now he was partially responsible for a massive Disney flop. Them's the breaks in the industry... it's pretty unforgiving. But I have a hard time forgiving a man who bad mouths Lucas especially considering he still receives a hefty royalty check for Star Wars, and because he also received generous disbursements of profit points for Star Wars and Empire from Lucas... the man never has to work for the rest of his life. Show some gratitude man.

    Heck, I'll go one further. I think it speaks volumes about Lucas character that he has never said a bad thing about Kurtz. He's fairly reluctant to talk about the dissolution of their professional relationship. Lucas has described it as "creative differences" and I think he said in one interview that he was disappointed the budget had gotten out of control. He's never gone out of his way to publicly dismiss Kurtz or deride his work in interviews. He's kept is classy... a lot more than I can say about Gary Kurtz.


    Yancy
     
  23. Darth_Nub

    Darth_Nub Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Oh, I agree with that - my real point was that he wasn't turfed out of the LFL family altogether, as many seem to believe. Given that there had been a press release announcing his 1979 replacement on ESB, it does come across as little more than a bit of positive PR to bother creating this title for ROTJ. He might have done some sort of handover with Kazanjian in pre-production, but I'm not suggesting he did much more than that, if anything.

    As for his more recent comments, that's another topic altogether, but it's quite clear he didn't have enough involvement with ROTJ itself to be able to comment on what was 'originally intended'.
     
    oierem likes this.
  24. Arawn_Fenn

    Arawn_Fenn Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Not at all.

    The correct answer to each one would have been in the negative: some variant of "No, that is not accurate". When answering a question becomes unhelpful to one's argument, it does not mean that the question was "unanswerable".

    These are not strawmen, as can be seen below:

     
    Andy Wylde likes this.
  25. purplerain

    purplerain Jedi Knight star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 14, 2013
    I noticed that McDiarmid says he used a "detached" stare for Palpatine. Does this mean that Palpatine is detached from the people of the GFFA?