A NON-FLAMING Gary Kurtz discussion.

"Because the undercurrent in Kurtz' comments (and the interviewer as well) is that Lucas needs to be stood up to and the great, brave and creative Gary Kurtz was willing to do that, and because of that and that alone, the OTwo were great."

Actually if you read what he says, its that ALL directors need to be challenged and stood up to, and that in the old days, most producers did just that.

 

shelleyWhat ESB nearly sent him to was the poorhouse.

But it actually sent him to the 'rich house'. Lucas was the one who profited most from ESB, it meant he could fulfill his dream of building the ranch and having independance from the studios.

appleseedDo I think all of Lucas ideas are good? No,

Lucas hater! Obviously you're embittered and self-serving and you waste money and have your own agenda. Burn 'im!

shelleyI've seen plenty of extreme reactions from the basher side of the debate too,

? But you're on the 'basher' side of the debate. This thread is about Kurtz and all you've done is bash him page after page. His only crime is that he produced 2 of the gretaest films ever made and gave honest opinions about other SW movies and yet you bash him and bash him over and over.
You've become that which you hate.

I didn't see anyone on this thread wishing Kurtz dead, for instance, but I did see someone wishing that Lucas had died of a heart attack after ESB, with Kurtz taking over from there.

Alomanuma Topha has already explained his remark several times, I wonder why you ignore that ... hmm...
Maybe it's a smokescreen to avoid coming up with some quotes to prove your other ideas - that Kurtz wasted money, that Henson despised him etc.

g

 

"Lucas only waited to put the OT on DVD because he hoped Irvin Kershner would die, then he wouldn't have to deal with him doing the commentary for ESB." "Kershner only says nice things about Lucas because he's hoping Lucas hires him back to direct Episode 3."

That's a very mean thing to say about Lucas and Kershner. I can guarantee no one on this forum has ever said those things. Those statements are new to me.

While I may differ in viewpoints, I appreciate the fact that Durwood actually bothered to post some specific examples (and Shelley with the Anakin exmaple) That is what I was looking for if I was to engage in debate. Specific examples help and are much better than opinionated statements.

 

Yeha I don't believe that at all.

Lucas involved Kershner in the choices for the ESB SE, and he calls him 'Kersh" which says to me they are friends

 

Here's an article that discusses the making of ANH.

At that point he flew from London to Los Angeles, where Lucasfilm was headquartered in those days, and found that his special effects unit, having spent more than $1 million of its $2 million budget, had completed only three shots. Lucas was outraged. He made arrangements to assume control of the unit, then flew home to San Francisco, where he began having chest pains. He was taken to Marin General Hospital, diagnosed with exhaustion and held overnight. The next morning he took a vow. "That's when I really confirmed to myself that I was going to change," he told biographer Dale Pollock. "I wasn't going to make more films, I wasn't going to direct anymore. I was going to get my life a bit more under control."

Wow. You mean ANH went overbudget because of the groundbreaking visual effects shots they were trying to do? Nowhere here does Lucas blame Kurtz for his "heart attack", nor does he blame anyone for what happened. Things on the post-production end of the film weren't meeting his needs and he fixed that. It is an entirely different story nowadays. ILM is well established and running smoothly. There aren't any kinks associated with starting a new company and getting it up and running during the production of a film where a major studio is constantly breathing down your neck. I'd probably start having chest pains, too.

The article also mentions how 20th Cenutry Fox was strict with the production schedule, giving George days when he wanted weeks. Is that Kurtz's fault, too?

Or how about this quote from this interview?

At the last real (sic) we hadn't even finished yet, because we were just getting in a couple of optical effects and miniatures from the Cloud City sequences. I remember we were sitting there at ILM, there was this one shot where the Millennium Falcon lands in Cloud City and it turns and lands and had some glitches in it. George said, "Well we're running out of time, I guess that's okay." And I said, "We can't use that! We've got to do that over again. Because it just doesn't look right." So, Richard Edlund agreed and we had this sort of heated discussion about whether there was enough time and whether we could get it done in time. We did do it over again, and it was much better. That was actually the first time I saw him not want to do the best he possibly could, because he was genuinely worried about the time. If we didn't meet our deadline, we were going to be in real ****.

Kurtz sure is badmouthing Lucas, isn't he? Heck, here he even defends Lucas!

I've never heard of a major filmmaker ever saying, "Look it doesn't have to be that good." That's the most appalling thing I've heard come out of the mouth...

No, but that happens all the time on films. You're making judgments on everything you do. When we worked down the special effects on the first Star Wars we didn't have very much money and you do this no matter how much money you have, we did this back in the Roger Corman days.

As for the arguments that Kurtz contributed nothing to the first two Star Wars films, I'd like to point out that the Best Picture Academy Award is awarded to the producer(s) of the winning film, so Hollywood obviously thinks producers have more to do than worry about the budget and schedule.

Speaking of budgets and schedules, this article mentions the reasons why TESB's budget and schedule went over.

"The Empire Strikes Back" had a tough shoot. A fire at the Elstree Studios in England and catastrophic weather in Norway prompted last-minute rescheduling; the fluctuating value of the pound caused the budget to balloon.

Nowhere does it mention an incompetent Gary Kurtz. It does mention acts of god and dire economics across the pond.

Fr

 

We should argue about Marcia Lucas next. I'm sure there are plenty of people who will argue she had no postive contribution on SW.

 

Well of course she didn't. She was a creative void which is why Lucas divorced her.

L8r

 

I think that I've tried very hard to express a positive attitude throughout this thread. I haven't 'bashed' anybody, particularly Lucas. My attitude was, and is, that the people who worked on ANH and ESB gave me two of my all-time favorite movies. Kurtz was one of those people.

But this NEGATIVE NEGATIVE NEGATIVE picking at Kurtz with no specific information about any his supposed mistakes is finally wearing me down.

I have never claimed he didn't screw up. I have asked for information. "WHAT DID HE DO?"

All that comes back is 'He was incompetent. He spent too much money.' or distortions of his responses to questions asked by some interviewer.

Until someone tells me something specific like, he tossed a cigarette and burned down the set, or hired unqualified relatives who overcharged, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I like that. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt.

One last thing. 'Bashing' Kurtz and defending it by continuously bringing up that other people 'bash' Lucas doesn't help the point that you're actually trying to make...

...just as pointing out that people are 'bashing' Kurtz would not be a good reason for me to start 'bashing' Lucas.

Peace to EVERYBODY here on both sides of the argument.

 

whats really funny is that Lucas himself does not seem bitter about any of this. He speaks kindly of Marcia as an editor and even as a wife, and doesn't bad mouth Kurtz either. Its just the fanboys who are bent out of shape.

Which I why I wonder what Kurtz had done to them personally?

 

Well surely, a level headed individual who disagrees will have some evidence.

We have evidence to support our point of view, you just happen to disagree with our interpretation. What you see as Kurtz "telling it like it is", we see a man who was unceremoneously dumped from what would turn out to be the two best films in his otherwise dismal career who has held a thinly vieled grudge ever sense. To say that we don't have supporting evidence is wishful thinking at best.

 

Wow. You mean ANH went overbudget because of the groundbreaking visual effects shots they were trying to do? Nowhere here does Lucas blame Kurtz for his "heart attack",

Lucas did not have a "heart attack," as you know full well. He was hospitalized with chest pains. I am sick to death of you and Rebel Scumb deliberately misquoting people and twisting their comments, especially since you talk so sanctimoniously about "extremists."

nor does he blame anyone for what happened.

That was nice of him.

The article also mentions how 20th Cenutry Fox was strict with the production schedule, giving George days when he wanted weeks. Is that Kurtz's fault, too?

Nope. What's his fault is what's his fault: he didn't do his job, and wasn't a no-man even in the sense he was supposed to be.

So, Richard Edlund agreed and we had this sort of heated discussion about whether there was enough time and whether we could get it done in time. We did do it over again, and it was much better. That was actually the first time I saw him not want to do the best he possibly could, because he was genuinely worried about the time. If we didn't meet our deadline, we were going to be in real ****.

Kurtz sure is badmouthing Lucas, isn't he? Heck, here he even defends Lucas!

Yeah, he's relatively supportive there.

As for the arguments that Kurtz contributed nothing to the first two Star Wars films, I'd like to point out that the Best Picture Academy Award is awarded to the producer(s) of the winning film, so Hollywood obviously thinks producers have more to do than worry about the budget and schedule.

Please explain how it means that.

Nowhere does it mention an incompetent Gary Kurtz.

Why should it? Unlike Kurtz, Lucas doesn't go out of his way to badmouth his former associates.

It does mention acts of god and dire economics across the pond.

And those were not the only problems with the movie shoot.

At the same time, artists at Lucasfilm and the Industrial Light and Magic effects shop, notably Ralph McQuarrie ("a genius!" says Kershner), were making beautiful, detailed renderings of sets, costumes and effects. Kershner tried to key his drawings to their work, then handed over his sketches to Lucas' storyboard artist for a brilliant polish. It's the Lucasfilm and ILM sketches and paintings that survive in volumes like "The Art of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back," leading casual readers to believe that Kershner merely followed tracks laid out for him. No wonder Kershner says, "According to the books, I didn't even exist. Of course, I couldn't have made the movie without George and ILM; on the other hand, they couldn't have made that movie without me."

So Kirshner involved himself in the creative process as much as he could,

I know, this has been proven already, and I've not denied it.

but as far as anyone who reads Lucasfilm materials would know, he just worked with the actors and shot the footage on set and did nothing else. Interesting.

Ah...so you're formulating a conspiracy theory here, about how Kurtz has been denied the credit due him?

I think it really bites that LFL materials downplay Kershner's contribution. But Kershner himself doesn't appear to be bitter about it, so I don't see why I should be.

Even when the film went over budget and Kershner offered to cut a couple of sequences, Lucas said, "Don't change a thing! Keep going as you're going."

Lucas really seemed worried about budgets and schedules in this quote . . . .

No, he didn't want Kershner to worry. He wanted him to focus on what was his task: directing.

The overall point of this? That maybe none of us know the whole story, maybe Kurtz doesn't deserve to be the fall guy for all the production woes on ANH and TESB,

And nobody said he did. He deserves the criticism for not doing his job.

and maybe Lucas did receive creative help from the likes of Marcia Lucas, Gary Kurtz, and Irvin Kershner, even though the Lucasfilm hi

 

Some quotes:

MURCH:......Anyway, on top of all that, the studio was so unhappy with the material that they were seeing, and the fact that we were falling behind schedule, that after five weeks they fired me off the film.

INTERVIEWER:That I didn't know.

MURCH:Yes. I only got back on board because George Lucas, who's a friend, heard about what happened and flew to England from Japan, where he was at the time. He met with me and looked at what I had shot, then met with the Disney executives and said "No, this is going to be great, you guys just have to be more patient with this process, let's see what can be done to facilitate it." And he guaranteed the rest of the production?he said that if something else happened, he would step in and take control. That was enough to make the executives at Disney feel more confident about what was going on, and I was back directing again after a few days. It was a fantastic act of generosity and commitment on his part.

From "Skywalking":

The inevitable confrontation came with Gil Taylor, a veteran camerman who had filmed 2 movies Lucas admired, "A Hard Day's Night" and "Dr. Strangelove". The use of existing lights gave both films a realism that Lucas wanted for Star Wars. George had developed a complex color scheme for his film. The Tatooine sequences had organic colors, warm shades of gold like C3P0s burnished parts, while as the battle with the Empire neared, the colors changed to black, white, and gray, the shades of evil technology.

Along with the natural lighting, Lucas wanted Star Wars to have a gauze-like look of a fairy tale. Taylor hated the bulky Vistavision Lucas ordered and refused to use soft-focus lenses or gauze.

"Gil was crotchety old man who didn't understand George's way", says Kurtz. Taylor refused to be browbeaten and openly complained when Lucas physically moved the lights and cameras himself. Lucas wanted to fire Taylor but left the actual decision up to Kurtz.

Although he thought of himself as Lucas' interpreter to the outside world, Kurtz was just as uncommunicative with strangers.

Maybe Taylor should have been fired, but neither Lucas nor Kurtz was willing to do it. Gary disliked confrontations, too, and was convinced that if Taylor was let go, the entire crew might walk off the set. The tense status quo continued throughout the production.

For all his problems on Star Wars, Lucas never worried about his cast. He had chosen actors carefully, and he had complete faith in their ability. In turn his cast trusted him, even if it didn't understand him. Lucas usually filmed 4 or 5 "takes" of a scene but they were long ones. It was his way of giving the actors room to grow into a scene. The fluidity of Star Wars results from Lucas' seamless shooting style and his instinctive knowledge of when to move on to the next scene.

Lucas needed the confidence of his cast to make it work. "The scenes could easily come across silly and stupid. If the actors don't trust you it falls flat apart", Lucas said.

George let his actors play a scene their way and he was happy to substitute their inspiration for his. But if he totally disagreed with their approach, he wouldn't bother to film it.

"Very little time was wasted", said [Harrison] Ford. "George didn't have an authoritarian attitude like many directors. He was different. He knew the movie was based so strongly on the relationship among the 3 of us that he encouraged our contributions.

The only question was whether to rehire Gary Kurtz as producer. Lucas had not forgotten the tensions on Star Wars, which he felt were exacerbated by Kurtz's indecisiveness, particularly his handling of Gil Taylor. But Kurtz wanted to produce EMPIRE and in spite of his own reservations and the advice of those closest to him, Lucas relented. "I suspected there would be problems and I knew I was asking for trouble", Lucas now says. But he felt he owed Kurtz a second chance.

For all the agony it caused him, EMPIRE demonstrated that Lucas could produce a film that still reflected his vision, while

 

"Lucas did not have a "heart attack," as you know full well. He was hospitalized with chest pains."

My mistake, I couldn't remember what the actual condition was. The point is that you have said Gary Kurtz is the cause of this illness, and thats what I have a problem with. I got the details of his health problem wrong, that was my error.

"I am sick to death of you and Rebel Scumb deliberately misquoting people and twisting their comments"


If I misquote you its due to incompetence on my part not maliciousness.


"especially since you talk so sanctimoniously about "extremists" (meaning anyone who doesn't share your adoration of Kurtz)."

I don't have adoration for Kurtz. If you aksed me who I'd rather meet Kurtz or Lucas, I'd rather meet Lucas. I know next to nothing about Kurtz. I'm jsut interested in what he has to say. I'm interested in alternative Points of view on what went on behind the scenes. I'm interested in conflicting views because I feel if you looks at different views somewhere in the middle is the truth.

"That was nice of him."

So your saying It was Kurtz fault and Lucas is such a big guy he never mentioned it, and hired him again?

Wouldn't it be Dykstra's fault if anyone's because his team hadn't done any FX shots in a year and had wasted all that money? Isn't that what really peeved Lucas?

I'm not saying its Dykstra's fault, its nobody's fault, but that makes more sense then Kurtz.

"Nope. What's his fault is what's his fault: he didn't do his job, and wasn't a no-man even in the sense he was supposed to be."

And you know this how?

"Why should it?"

Well its one of the basic elements of debating. Personally i'd prefer you just left the JC and didn't come back, but since thats obviously not going to happen, and you seem bent on joining a discussion about someone you hate for no reason it would be nice to know why and see some facts.

"And those were not the only problems with the movie shoot."

Nobody said they were.

As I already pointed out, they had the problem of Lucas being both the writer and the executive producer which makes the comamnd structure very odd for everyone. Its nobodies fault and it was rectified on the next film and hence forward.

"Ah...so you're formulating a conspiracy theory here, about how Kurtz has been denied the credit due him?"

No but he'd certainly have some interesting things to say, and was heavily involved with the first two films.

No, he didn't want Kershner to worry. He wanted him to focus on what was his task: directing.

The overall point of this? That maybe none of us know the whole story, maybe Kurtz doesn't deserve to be the fall guy for all the production woes on ANH and TESB,

And nobody said he did. He deserves the criticism for not doing his job.

and maybe Lucas did receive creative help from the likes of Marcia Lucas, Gary Kurtz, and Irvin Kershner, even though the Lucasfilm history books don't illustrate that.

"Except for books like "Once Upon A Galaxy". Oh, and Rebel Scumb, I said earlier in this thread that Marcia Lucas was a strong and positive influence on Lucas, that her divorcing him had a far more profound effect on his work than his firing Kurtz. But I'm not surprised that you, and RogueScribner, chose to ignore that."

Actually I remember that quite well. You said at least she was a legitimate artist in her own right who had proven success before Starwars.

"I reiterate: since Kershner is (justifiably) outspoken about his contribution to ESB, I wonder why, if Kurtz was such a powerful creative force, and a major factor behind ESB being good, Kershner doesn't say anything. Doesn't say, "You know, that Gary Kurtz, he really gets less credit than he deserves. He helped me and held George back so I could do my job without him interfering." Interesting why, instead, Kershner expresses gratitude to Lucas. "

I didn't realize Kershner was outspoken. If he doesn't talk about Gary Kurtz at all then that lends suppo

 

Thank you, Shelley. I don't think anything more needs to be said. Who to trust more: Gary "Sour Grapes" Kurtz, or a third hand account that made sure to include all sides of the story?

And I couldn't help but notice the following comment from Joe Johnston: "George has such a good influence over people that they're willing to accept his ideas. They know his way is the right way to do it."

Gee, that Joe Johnston is as much of a "yes man" as Rick McCallum!

What was that I said earlier, something about Lucas' team not being filled with weak-kneed "yes men" but rather professionals who give him his due respect?

 

Lucas himself said that 'Skywalking' is all a pack of lies made up by people who weren't even present at the events that it details...

Let's see the quote.

 

Its in the 1999 issue of PREMIERE that was all about TPM. They mention that book and "easyriders raging bulls" and start talking to Lucas about the screening where he showed SW to Spielberg and Coppola and DiPalma, and Lucas basically just shuts them down.

They say its in "skywalking"

and he says that book is all lies then goes on to set the record straight about what really happened.

I don't have the issue handy, but thats where it was

 

Lucas himself said that 'Skywalking' is all a pack of lies made up by people who weren't even present at the events that it details...

Let's see the quote.

Well, I have an issue here of "Premiere" magazine when it came out May 1999. A fragment:

Premiere: "Were they (edit: Lucas' friends, including Ron Howard and Steven Spielberg) nicer to you than when you showed them a rough cut of Star Wars?"
Lucas: "That's a total media thing."
Premiere: "It's in Dale Pollock's biography of you, Skywalking and Peter Biskind's Easy Riders, Raging Bulls."
Lucas: "Yeah, well, Skywalking is about as accurate as the National Enquirer. It's terrible. Terrible. Peter Biskind's book is also about as accurate, because he took all of his information out of Skywalking"
Premiere: "So Brian De Palma didn't criticise you mercilessly when he first looked at Star Wars?"
Lucas: "No, that's all b.s." (edit: etcetera)

I can quote more if you want to.

 

Thank you, Shelley. I don't think anything more needs to be said.

As I said, it's good the other side is starting to post more quotes now. But it doesn't mean you can start high-fiving each other and declare victory so soon.

By coincidence, I was just looking through my shelf for that issue and about to write the quote. Thank you Darth Meul.

 

I'm jsut glad that I remembered that correctly. The old cracker barrel doesn't work as well as it use to.

 

Lucas: "Yeah, well, Skywalking is about as accurate as the National Enquirer. It's terrible. Terrible.
Alomanuma_Topha: "So should we believe anything in that long post Shelley gave, quoting Skywalking?"
Lucas: "No, that's all b.s."

... sorry, I couldn't resist


Durwood:We have evidence to support our point of view, you just happen to disagree with our interpretation.

You have evidence that Kurtz is incompetent? I don't remember the quotes... would you mind re-quoting them for us?

 

Well guys, I think this thread has just about run it's course. I've had a fair few people asking me to lock this over the weeks, and since it's seemed to be basically going around in circles for a while now I think that time is close.

If there are any last points you'd like to make, make 'em now. Despite the sometimes extreme views on the subject, I really felt there was some useful and interesting opinion voiced here and that's why I tried to keep this one going.

Not all discussions are gonna end with everyone holding hands and singing after all Sometimes it's important just for the different views to be aired even if a concensus can't be reached.

Thanks to LucasBuiltMeHotRod for letting us hijack his thread too

 

I'd say this thread could be considered a success for all parties involved though

 

There are no hard feelings on this end, DamonD.

This might be showing my inexperience with messageboards, but if you don't mind me asking...

...why would people who aren't happy about a thread request that it be locked, rather than just avoiding it?

If I don't like what 'those guys' in the next thread are talking about, why would I complain to the mods?

 

Well, it's not just been 'regular' users thinking I should close this for a while now, LLS...

I kinda made this thread my own little personal project in the hopes of getting some good discussion, since I knew previous Kurtz stuff usually gets locked up. I wanted to see if being a little leniant and letting some things slide in this one thread in the hopes of good debate would work out, and I think it has been a worthwhile exercise.

Mind you, EV will probably have my head on a plate for not handing out a few bans and warnings here Things got a little...heated at some points...

 

Thanks for keeping it open as long as you did.

I'm sure Kurtz' name will pop up somewhere else...

...and when that time comes, I'll be there, defending his 'honor' to the bitter end.