| Author |
Topic:
The Ultimate Editions: Discussing Changes to Possible Upcoming Releases of the Saga
|
Vortigern99
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '00
|
Date Posted:
6/29 8:33pm
Subject:
RE: The Ultimate Editions: Discussing Changes to Possible Upcoming Releases of the Saga
- Date Edited:
6/29 8:34pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Vortigern99
|
zombie posted:
Most people assumed that it would be Luke that would get the girl because he is essentially the viewers alter-ego.
Zombie, that just isn't true. I generally bow to your authority on matters of SW history, but this simply was not the case. The general feeling among fans at the time was that Luke and Leia were not right for each other. Even if Han was going to die, none of us, or at most very few of us, believed for an instant that Leia would take Luke instead. Again, the filmmakers may have been trying to convince us of this -- and that is possibly where you're getting this interpretation -- but on that score, if on no other, the filmmakers failed.
zombie posted:
But I can very much imagine a more mature ROTJ that has a bittersweet resolution to the romantic triangle, where Luke and Leia end up together in the sad shadow of Han's death, dealing with grief and maybe even guilt but having a much deeper spiritual love than the more romantic/sexy sort of fling that Han and Leia had. But thats not to say that this was ever in the works, just that I can picture a ROTJ that took this direction.
And I applaud your powers of imagination. (Really! I'm not being sarcastic.) But the chemistry between the actors, and what in my perception is the clear intent of the writers (including Lucas, who was adamant about Solo returning and surviving), reveals that Luke and Leia were never going to develop a love story, as Kurtz' outline of alternate sequel ideas attests.
BaronLandoCalrissian posted:
And again, it doesn't matter the audience wanted her to end up with Han. The audience also wanted Sean Connery to keep on playing James Bond, but reality intrudes and sequels adapt and keep options open.
Well, I wasn't speaking at all to what the audience wanted. I was addressing the dramatic potential of the romantic subplot -- in which the "princess-loves-rogue" storyline is simply more compelling that the "farmboy-turned-hero-pines-for-unattainable-princess" storyline -- and also the obvious chemistry between Han and Leia, and the distinct lack of it (on a romantic scale) between Luke and Leia.
-----signature-----
"I knew from the beginning I was not doing science fiction.
I was doing a space opera, a fantasy film, a mythological piece,
a fairy tale."--George Lucas
My "Vader's Origins" thread:
http://boards.theforce.net/Classic_Trilogy/b10002/8708417/p1
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
the_immolated_one
Registered:
Sep '06
|
Date Posted:
6/30 9:26am
Subject:
RE: The Ultimate Editions: Discussing Changes to Possible Upcoming Releases of the Saga
- Date Edited:
6/30 9:49am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
the_immolated_one
|
BaronLandoCalrissian posted:
Fisher and Hamill signed the contract for both sequels. Ford refused and remained unsigned throughout the production of Empire. And again, it doesn't matter the audience wanted her to end up with Han. The audience also wanted Sean Connery to keep on playing James Bond, but reality intrudes and sequels adapt and keep options open.
People say that Ford refused to sign a three movie deal like Hamill and Fisher but where can I find the proof that Ford refused?
From what I think I remember hearing from Lucas is that the Han Solo character was never really meant to be in all three movies. I'm thinking that Ford was never offered a three movie contract, in the first place, like Hamill and Fisher. But like I said if you have proof that Ford was offered a multi-movie contract like Hamill and Fisher and turned it down then please present this proof because I would really like to see it.
The thing is about James Bond is that the audience did get their wish and Sean Connery did return in "Diamonds Are Forever". And you could say he returned again, unofficially of course, in "Never Say Never Again".
The thing is James Bond movies are really nothing like Star Wars movies. Star Wars movie are all built around each other. Star Wars sequels were continuations of the story that was started in '77. In my opinion, the closest thing James Bond movies have in common with Star Wars movies was the Teresa Bond/Ernst Stavro Blofeld plot that was started in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", with George Lazenby, that would be slightly continued at the beginning of "Diamonds Are Forever", with Connery, and then would end in "For Your Eyes Only" with Roger Moore. What I'm saying, from a James Bond and Star Wars fan's point of view, and I mean no offense, but your comparison of James Bond movies and Star Wars episodes is not a good comparison. It would be more accurate to compare James Bond movies to "Die Hard" movies. Lucas always wanted a trilogy and that's why he forfeited money up front, from 20th Century, for sequel rights.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
the_immolated_one
Registered:
Sep '06
|
Date Posted:
6/30 11:21am
Subject:
RE: The Ultimate Editions: Discussing Changes to Possible Upcoming Releases of the Saga
- Date Edited:
6/30 11:23am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
the_immolated_one
|
^^
And the thing is I don't know what to compare Star Wars to.
There's really nothing out there like it.
You could compare "Star Wars" to "The Lord of the Rings" but I feel that's not a good comparison either because Tolkien never saw his book as a trilogy, Tolken just saw it as a big novel, and he sure never saw it as three CGI movies. By '76, Lucas saw his '77 movie as a one third of a larger story, and his contract with Fox is the proof. Whether or not Lucas retroactively changed the primary story of the original trilogy is just fan boy hearsay.
But other than SPECTRE as the returning antagonist in 6 of the 21 official Bond movies, follow-up James Bond movies just don't build on previous James Bond movies like Star Wars movies do. The best movie franchise to compare to James Bond is the "Alien" movies because in these two movie fanchises there was alway a protagonist vs. an antagonist(s) but there was always this evil organization in the background who was the true puppet master. In the first, second and fourth James Bond movies there was always the main villian but the organization SPECTRE was the true puppet master. Then the leader of SPECTRE: Blofeld was the main villian in the fifth, sixth, and seventh James Bond movies and then they never used SPECTRE again in an official James Bond movie, I believe because of legal reasons. In fact, the opening sequence of "For Your Eyes Only" is a very symbolic way of EON Productions saying that they didn't need Blofeld and SPECTRE to keep on making successful Bond movies.
So in the Alien fanchise you have a protagonist vs. an antagonist but there is the evil organization in the background who always want this alien for R+D. And this evil capitalist organization is pulling strings in the background of all the movies and the founder of the company even shows up in "Alien vs. Predator".
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
BaronLandoCalrissian
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
6/30 11:37am
Subject:
RE: The Ultimate Editions: Discussing Changes to Possible Upcoming Releases of the Saga
|
Geez I only made the Bond comparison to illustrate how an actor can affect sequel plans, it still happens all the time.
"The other actors, after Star Wars, signed on to do 2 more, because I wanted to finish the thing. Harrison did not." -George Lucas, 2004 dvd documentary.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
the_immolated_one
Registered:
Sep '06
|
Date Posted:
6/30 4:28pm
Subject:
RE: The Ultimate Editions: Discussing Changes to Possible Upcoming Releases of the Saga
|
BaronLandoCalrissian posted:
Geez I only made the Bond comparison to illustrate how an actor can affect sequel plans, it still happens all the time.
"The other actors, after Star Wars, signed on to do 2 more, because I wanted to finish the thing. Harrison did not." -George Lucas, 2004 dvd documentary.
This message board is for Star Wars fans and movie buffs so I don't see why you are taken aback by my post?
From what I've read, Harrison Ford never signed a contract for any of the Star Wars movies. Hamill stated in the December '07 issue of Insider that he had to sign a contract for the first movie which had a clause stating he would have to do two more movies if the first movie was a success. So Lucas' statement from "Empire of Dreams" seems to contradicts Hamill's statement or Lucas is saying that Hamill just signed a second contract to solidify the first.
What I'm getting at is Harrison just had the power to walk away from "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi". He could come along for the ride or not. He chose to come along. I think people are projecting their own opinion when they say Harrison changed "The Empire Strikes Back" story because he was undecided about "Return of the Jedi". There's really nothing concrete out there that says Solo was frozen at the end because Harrison didn't sign on for the third movie. If Lucas was that concerned about Harrison not returning for "Return of the Jedi", I'm sure Lucas would have just cut his loses and told Harrison that he wasn't needed for "The Empire Strikes Back". Harrison was just being a poo poo cry baby and trying to get his way. I mean it's a freaking Star Wars movie not "The Mosquito Coast". Ultimately, Harrison did the right thing because he owed a lot to Lucas. "Return of the Jedi" was the feel good movie of the trilogy where no one is supposed to die a gruesome death but the baddies. You can't end a goofy children's movie franchise with the good guys dying gruesome deaths. Whoever heard of something so stupid?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DARTH_BELO
Registered:
Nov '03
|
Date Posted:
7/1 12:07am
Subject:
RE: The Ultimate Editions: Discussing Changes to Possible Upcoming Releases of the Saga
|
|
I wouldn't imagine why Ford WOULDN'T want to also do ESB and ROTJ. Remembering back to the pre-star wars ANH days, he was having trouble finding parts for big movies...and after the success of ANH, he thought "great, NOW I can finally get to work." Meaning there will be more opportunities now for him...at least that's what he said in Empire of Dreams. Knowing that, I would imagine he'd jump at the offer to be in all 3...
-----signature-----
There are NO trilogies - only ONE SAGA...
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
StoneRiver
Registered:
Oct '04
|
Date Posted:
7/1 5:19am
Subject:
RE: The Ultimate Editions: Discussing Changes to Possible Upcoming Releases of the Saga
|
Vortigern99 posted:
Okay, well, if there was some question about Ford's involvement in film 3 during the production of film 2 (which during all my research into the making of ESB, my fave film of all time, I have never read or heard), then it makes sense the creators would want to leave the denouement of film 2 open-ended. But I still maintain that Han was clearly Leia's natural love interest -- even as a 10-year old in 1980 this was evident to me -- and that even if Han had died in ROTJ, and Luke and Leia had remained unrelated, the two would never have been linked romantically in any event. It would have felt forced and unnatural, especially after the events of ESB in which it was clearly established that Leia loved Han. Her taking Luke as a kind of consolation prize would have been dissatisfying from a dramatic standpoint, and would rather have been an insult to the Skywalker character.
So, to sum up, the filmmakers may have wanted to plant the romantic question in the audience's mind at the end of ESB ("Who will she end up with? Look -- Luke put his arm around her!") but they never fooled me for an instant, even as a kid. It's clear from the actors' chemistry and the direction of the story that Han and Leia were meant to be, regardless of Luke's feelings.
 BRAVO! What I been saying but far more articulate. ENCORE!
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
the_immolated_one
Registered:
Sep '06
|
Date Posted:
7/1 8:41am
Subject:
RE: The Ultimate Editions: Discussing Changes to Possible Upcoming Releases of the Saga
|
DARTH_BELO posted:
I wouldn't imagine why Ford WOULDN'T want to also do ESB and ROTJ. Remembering back to the pre-star wars ANH days, he was having trouble finding parts for big movies...and after the success of ANH, he thought "great, NOW I can finally get to work." Meaning there will be more opportunities now for him...at least that's what he said in Empire of Dreams. Knowing that, I would imagine he'd jump at the offer to be in all 3...
Like I said Harrison was just being a poo poo cry baby and wanted it his way. Harrison wanted a death scene because his newly found Hollywood leading man status in Hollywood was going to his head. Ridley Scott had problems with Harrison as well on "Blade Runner" which was filmed right before "Return of the Jedi". Out of the actors Ridley worked with Ridley still says Harrison was the worst to work with. Sounds like Harrison was just a prima donna back in those days. But who can blame him? I mean that was time when everyone saw he was on his way to the Big Time.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
zombie
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
7/1 9:28am
Subject:
RE: The Ultimate Editions: Discussing Changes to Possible Upcoming Releases of the Saga
|
|
Ford had problems with Scott because of methological differences of the director-actor relationship, he wanted feedback and direction, plus there was alienation due to the scale of the production. Everyone hated Scott on that show, even the crew, who famously made t-shirts mocking Scott. I'm sure Ford has since learned to cope with similar situations in a more graceful manner but I think its unfair to call him a prima donna, he has one of the most down-to-earth work ethics of any movie star in the world.
-----signature-----
I'll swallow your soul! --------------------------------- If you're gonna die, die with your boots on! -------------------------------- author of The Secret History of Star Wars http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
drg4
Registered:
Jul '05
|
Date Posted:
7/1 2:20pm
Subject:
RE: The Ultimate Editions: Discussing Changes to Possible Upcoming Releases of the Saga
|
the_immolated_one posted:
Like I said Harrison was just being a poo poo cry baby and wanted it his way. Harrison wanted a death scene because his newly found Hollywood leading man status in Hollywood was going to his head.
If memory serves, it was the EoD documentary where he pointed out that Empire had taken his character as far as he could go, that Solo had no further obligations in the narrative. Based on the end result, I'd say this was an astute observation. The presence of Solo in ROTJ siphoned away precious time that should have been devoted to the brother/sister dynamic.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
the_immolated_one
Registered:
Sep '06
|
Date Posted:
7/1 2:47pm
Subject:
RE: The Ultimate Editions: Discussing Changes to Possible Upcoming Releases of the Saga
- Date Edited:
7/1 3:12pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
the_immolated_one
|
zombie posted:
Ford had problems with Scott because of methological differences of the director-actor relationship, he wanted feedback and direction, plus there was alienation due to the scale of the production. Everyone hated Scott on that show, even the crew, who famously made t-shirts mocking Scott. I'm sure Ford has since learned to cope with similar situations in a more graceful manner but I think its unfair to call him a prima donna, he has one of the most down-to-earth work ethics of any movie star in the world.
Popular opinion really means nothing to me. Creative types like Scott, who are obsessed with attention to detail, are just being who they are. I mean look at Scott, he's so obsessed with attention to detail that he wouldn't even use matte paintings in "Legend" for the forest scenes because matte paintings look fake. And he's right, matte paintings do look fake. "Blade Runner" was Scott's show. Scott was probably more interested in the look of "Blade Runner" than the acting. Lucas received the same kind of crap from the cast and crew during the original Star Wars because the cast and crew simply lacked the vision to see what Lucas saw. I'm sure the "Blade Runner" crew got tired of being wet all the time but there are worse jobs in this world. They just sound like a bunch of cry babies to me. Don't get me wrong, I like Harrison Ford. His characters were my childhood heroes, but the guy just really doesn't have much of a range like Johnny Depp so he just needed to relax and be the good looking leading man because that's all he ever was and I'm not saying that in a bad way. Lucas and Scott used Ford because back in those days Harrison looked just like a comic book hero. In my opinion, "Blade Runner" was more about the production design than the acting so Harrison probably just should have chilled out. I know Ridley Scott wasn't the same Ridley Scott back then that we know now and Harrison just probably didn't appreciate the role he was playing. Directors like Scott, Lucas and Gilliam are visual film makers and the actors in their movies are really just part of the production design.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
the_immolated_one
Registered:
Sep '06
|
Date Posted:
7/1 3:11pm
Subject:
RE: The Ultimate Editions: Discussing Changes to Possible Upcoming Releases of the Saga
|
drg4 posted:
If memory serves, it was the EoD documentary where he pointed out that Empire had taken his character as far as he could go, that Solo had no further obligations in the narrative. Based on the end result, I'd say this was an astute observation. The presence of Solo in ROTJ siphoned away precious time that should have been devoted to the brother/sister dynamic.
That's just a matter of opinion. Like I mentioned earlier to zombie. Star Wars characters are just part of the production design. Something like a Star Wars movie is about righteousness, corruption, apathy, and redemption. Han Solo just represents corruption, apathy and redemption. Lando and Han, who were once the embodiment of corruption and apathy, are the ones who are instrumental in destroying the Empire and that's Han's purpose in "Return of the Jedi". All the righteous Luke does is touch his father's heart while it is Han and Lando, the once corrupt and apathetic characters who are now righteous, who destroy the Empire. Luke and Leia for the most part just represent righteousness in the production design. In my opinion there was no need for an indepth brother/sister dynamic because good people are just really kind of boring anyway. I mean what would have been done? Luke and Leia had their talk. Did we need some more scenes where they tell the audience again that they're brother and sister? The reason people loved "Star Wars" is because it will ultimately have a happy ending. Han Solo's death would have only served Harrison Ford. The kiddies would have been devastated if Han Solo would have been killed. This is Star Wars not "The French Connection" or "Chinatown".
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
drg4
Registered:
Jul '05
|
Date Posted:
7/1 4:10pm
Subject:
RE: The Ultimate Editions: Discussing Changes to Possible Upcoming Releases of the Saga
|
the_immolated_one posted:
drg4 posted:
If memory serves, it was the EoD documentary where he pointed out that Empire had taken his character as far as he could go, that Solo had no further obligations in the narrative. Based on the end result, I'd say this was an astute observation. The presence of Solo in ROTJ siphoned away precious time that should have been devoted to the brother/sister dynamic.
That's just a matter of opinion. Like I mentioned earlier to zombie. Star Wars characters are just part of the production design. Something like a Star Wars movieis about righteousness, corruption, apathy, and redemption. Han Solo just represents corruption, apathy and redemption.
Thing is, Han was already redeemed. In ANH, he relinquished his ego to a damn, idealistic crusade; in TESB, his lascivious nature was supplanted by Love. There wasn't much more to say.
the_immolated_one posted:
Luke and Leia for the most part just represent righteousness in the production design. In my opinion there was no need for an indepth brother/sister dynamic because good people are just really kind of boring anyway.
Luke and Leia are only boring because Lucas reduced them to such a state. Most writers and dramatists would've seen great potential in a story involving a brother and sister who discover that they were spawned by a war criminal; a butcher who murdered their mother, destroyed their adopted families, and tortured them.
The human heart in conflict with itself. That's where your story is.
the_immolated_one posted:
I mean what would have been done? Luke and Leia had their talk. Did we need some more scenes where they tell the audience again that they're brother and sister?
No. We needed scenes that explored their new relationship, in which they come together as brother and sister. Working through their pain. Pulling each other away from an encroaching abyss.
the_immolated_one posted:
The reason people loved "Star Wars" is because it will ultimately have a happy ending. Han Solo's death would have only served Harrison Ford. The kiddies would have been devastated if Han Solo would have been killed. This is Star Wars not "The French Connection" or "Chinatown".
Who says Han has to die? There are lots of ways to shoehorn him into the story without diverting the focus away from the Skywalker Clan. Free him in the beginning, but keep him in an unconscious state till the end. (This would further fuel Leia's rage toward Vader.) Or fiddle with the story construction, and free him in the end.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
the_immolated_one
Registered:
Sep '06
|
Date Posted:
7/1 9:29pm
Subject:
RE: The Ultimate Editions: Discussing Changes to Possible Upcoming Releases of the Saga
|
I don't know. I like the simplicity of "Return of the Jedi". I like the Jabba the Hutt sequence because Jabba represents the evil that Han used to be part of and Luke and Leia represent the righteousness that rescue Han from his past.
I like the simplicity of the saga in general.
I just don't see any of the Star Wars episodes as truly character driven.
Sure, there are the main characters but they represent something larger than just individual characters. Sure Luke and Yoda talk about Luke's dark side in "The Empire Strikes Back" but every character in Star Wars has a dark side and that's the overall theme of the saga.
To me Star Wars is dealing with human behavior in general.
To me the saga is not about individuals but that the characters are just symbolic of all people in the Star Wars world.
The character of Han and Lando just represent human behavior. They represent the best and the worse in people and in my opinion Han's redemption only began in "A New Hope".
To me, it's like this: In the movie "Brazil" we have the protagonist but he really represents all the characters. He lives in an oppressive environment but he dreams and his dreams represent how he escapes this oppressive environment. And it is not just him who does this but it is all the characters who do this. The movie is how the human spirit endures even though the body is suppressed.
In my opinion, by "The Empire Strikes Back", Lucas knew exactly where he was taking Star Wars and it had little to do with characters driven episodes but everything to do with allegory.
So I appreciate that you would have rather seen "Return of the Jedi" as a more character driven movie but I like the way it is. I don't even mind the ewoks because children have a good reaction to them and I like Star Wars because it's for children.
What can I say, I'm a sucker for cheese. For crying out loud, I'm a fan of all the James Bond movies. The more fake and cheesy a movie is, the more I like it.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
drg4
Registered:
Jul '05
|
Date Posted:
7/2 12:12am
Subject:
RE: The Ultimate Editions: Discussing Changes to Possible Upcoming Releases of the Saga
|
Immolated One: Thanks, you've put things in proper perspective.
A while ago, we had a little exchange regarding Empire. I told you I considered it an aberration, the SW film without precedent, without follow-up. I find it quite unique, bolstered by a pervasive melancholia and psychological validity more or less alien to the other five installments. My guess is that Kershner wasn't in on the joke. Neither am I, apparently.
This series has really bothered me lately, insofar as I can't reconcile the cornball with the operatic. At this stage in my life, I have an almost exclusive attraction to the latter.
It bothers me that Anakin cracks a smile a mere two minutes after standing over his mother's grave.
That Padme's Ruminations is punctuated by Palpatine's devolution into Disney villain.
That Luke and Leia aren't burdened by the deaths of their surrogates.
That Luke emerges a budding buddha in ROTJ, rather than a bundle of neuroses who stands a good chance of following his father into damnation.
It's just not gelling anymore. I want SW to be more mournful, more romantic, more haunting, its characters more demonstrative—-Lord of the Rings, without the gratuitous slow-mo shots and portentous dialog. But that's not what it is. Nor should it be, I suppose. And rather than spend more time mulling over all the might-have-beens, it's best I finally take leave of the series, and not come back until I can appreciate Lucas's accomplishments from a new vantage.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
