Did Lucas really direct the prequels?

Lucas did do the scene where Vader picks up Palps and throws him down the shaft. I don't know who did the unmasking scene.

 

He's just giving you BS. I can't really believe how you believed your friend at all. None of that story made sense.

And I am getting really tired of people bashing the PT.

 

I didn't think of the OP's friend as bashing the films at all. If anything, it makes Lucas look less involved so the blame could be centered on the "real" directors.

 

ShaneP: I'm sorry for not having the source at hand, but I seem to remember an Insider interview with Ian McDiarmid a few years back where he was asked about the throne room scenes in ROTJ. If memory serves me right, he replied that Lucas had done quite a bit of those, as Marquand was "busy" with other duties. Which sounds like diplomacy talk for Lucas insisting, since there's nothing more pivotal in the movie than those very sequences.

 

Yeah, I've heard that Lucas got behind the camera for the throne room scenes as well. Makes sense, too-there's nothing more key to the saga than those scenes, along with Vader and Luke's first confrontation on Endor; if anything about those scenes had been floppy, Vader's redemption just plain would not work.

 

But - those scenes are so well-acted...

 

Tell me about it. Almost as good as McDiarmid's opera scene in ROTS.

 

Actually, the operahouse exchange was directed by Gary Kurtz.

99.5% of ROTS was directed by Gary Kurtz--hence the favorable reviews.

Isn't the world a better place with Gary Kurtz in it?

 

yeah, they're a massive improvement over A New Hope, that's for certain.

 

Impossible, ROTS came in on budget and on schedule!

 

haha, any of you ever read Kurtz's wikipedia entry? its so blatantly anti-Lucas one would assume that he was responsible for not only the page but in fact the entire star wars saga's success i'm sure kurtz is a nice guy (he seems to be) but the fans reliance on his grievances as proof that lucas sold out in some way (when it seems the only problem was his own lack of on-set discipline) is plain daft.

 

It's an old schism among the fans. I think Kurtz is fair enough when I see him in video interviews, but when he's interviewed by rabid prequel-bashers in print, his words tend to get twisted in the extreme. Every little thing he's had a hand in is made the most essential to the success of Star Wars, and every little thing Lucas and Kurtz disagreed on goes to prove that old George is off his rocker. I read an interview a few years back that was pretty crazy, where the interviewer pretty much fed him lines, turning up the heat more and more about what a poor schmuck Lucas is. Not to mention that evil henchman Rick McCallum, who is the second biggest reason the prequels suck. Oh well.

One thing to keep in mind when you read Kurtz' Wikipedia entry, is the fact that Lucas asked Empire-helmer Kershner to stay on and direct Return of the Jedi. So much for the "evil George Lucas blames everyone for ruining his movie" spiel. Can't Lucas be allowed to loose his temper once in a while...?

 

I think the difference between Rick McCallum and Gary Kurtz is very telling though. It's like night and day. I don't think its that people think Gary Kurtz is responsible for the OT and McCallum the PT, but people recognize the active versus passive roles Lucas sought out for his films in order to balance out his deficiencies, and they (not coincidentally) correspond to the good and bad movies. For me the more important element of note is that what Kurtz and McCallum were and weren't doing, but the fact that it was Lucas who was controlling these processes at the end of the day in both cases, and what that says about how he approaches filmmaking in these two stages of his life.

 

so do prequel bashers have much animosity for mccallum too, or is that solely aimed at lucas?

i like both mccallum and kurtz for different reasons but i can see that kurtz is probably bitter about what transpired. its fair to say his comments are probably not always impartial. and mccallum isnt without some loss of credibility either - he annoys with his "this will be so great. its gonna be so intense" hyping of every aspect of the films... but he probably annoys himself with it - its a case of what he has to say rather than what he truly thinks (he's all about budget and making profit and says whatever he can to raise expectations). lucas is like that too if you think about it - his revisionary, sometimes contradictory comments about the creation of the saga actually help solidify the impression of it to a wider audience.

if i was lucas, i'd pick mccallum anyday. i think he was all in all very good for the prequels. a producer isn't there to offer creative input. they are there to make sure the film gets made, not to advise how its made. a director sees the art, a producer sees the industry. from what i can see, say what you want about the quality, i doubt many would argue that the prequels were not impeccably produced and marketed.

it may well be presumptuous to think of McCallum being passive in his approach to producing. i dont see that personally, and there are certainly some played-down examples of him getting very riled and letting rip at people - the most high profile being ewan mcgregor over his quite innocent pre-release comments about TPM which had been spun by the press, making out he'd said "TPM is boring". i may be a bad judge of character but from what i can tell, you would cross McCallum at your own peril.

PS: Zombie, really liked the book. Read it some time ago. Never had the opportunity to say before. I think a lot of its on the money. Well done.

 

You're referring to the decade-old IGN interview, right? Yeah, that was nuts. The agenda-fueled interviewer averred that Kurtz was nothing less than the patron saint of Star Wars, and it was interesting watching the former producer vacillate between the diplomat and reveler roles. (And in all fairness, who can blame him? Up to that point, his influence had largely gone unacknowledged by the fanbase.)

My position: George Lucas is among the ten most talented visual storytellers in the medium, but his shortcomings necessitate a firm paddling on occasion. (I would have loved to be a fly on the wall, when he and McCallum debated hiring Coppola's dialogue coach for ROTS.)

 

its difficult to see what difference the dialogue coach made in all honesty. must have been a little strange for the established actors having such a person on the film. it sounds more like something they would have in drama school.

was there a debate between mccallum and lucas on this issue? whats the goss?

 

As I understand it, it was less a dialogue coach and more an acting coach. I think his name was Chris Neil. He was brought in to work with the actors in building their characters' relationship so it was more developed and natural. He also rehersed with them. This is the type of thing a director normally does. Rick McCallum brought him in because he knew Lucas was never going to work with the actors in this kind of an intimate way, so it offset the absence. I would say it made a difference, the performances in ROTS are much better than AOTC IMO.

 

The result speaks for itself. The performances in TPM/AOTC range from excellent (Neeson/McDiarmid) to adequate (August/McGregor/Lee/Morrison) to mixed (Christensen/Portman/Lloyd). And the disparity hurts the films.

In ROTS, everyone gives a perfectly fine SW performance, which is to say they manage to inhabit their roles. No longer do I feel I'm watching a bored Natalie Portman, but rather Padme Amidala--Lady Vader, Mama Skywalker.

 

For the first half of the movie, at least. The Mustafar confrontation was embarrassing to watch.

 

I don't know of any acting in ROTS on Mustafar that is embarrassing to watch.

 

To each his own; I thought they did fine. If there was a bungled line or two...well, the ESB climax was hardly compromised by that overcooked "Noooooo! Nooooo-ooooo!" that didn't even sync with Hamill's lips.

 

I'll agree with that, I always thought that was a bit too much. I think the main difference is that most people are 100% with Luke and in the character's headspace at that moment, so they either don't fixate on it or don't notice it as much. It's easy on repeat viewings to single out things like this, when the dramatic pull has long worn off. I don't know what people thought of this as it was happening, but I've never heard of snickering occuring (whereas, the "I'm your sister" scene apparently did, not because of delivery but because of absurdity of the plot point). I remember the second time I saw ROTS, a group of teens burst into laughter during the infamous Vader moment, it was actually very disruptive.

 

Interestingly enough, in my four theatrical viewings of ROTS, the only junctures that induced jeers from the audience came when the villains screamed "No!" (Palpatine's repeated screech, Vader's howl)

The difference, as far as I see it, is that the "No! No! You will die!" delivery was an out-and-out bungle--better that McDiarmid start with his normal voice, before segueing to the Emperor screech--whereas Vader's "No!" is pure Lucas bravado. He had to have known that half his audience would embrace the melodrama, while the other half would find the delivery discomfiting, and thoroughly reject it.

 

i agree that something did not sit right with the delivery of the Vader "noooo" at first few viewings. but i also acknowledge that much of the perceived absurdity of it was down purely to the fact that we as an audience that watched the OT first (Vader as the mysterious, bitter, twisted individual) have assumed him to be such an iconic "badass" and therefore such a moment was so completely out-of-character. but its really not when you think of it. at this point in the story he's a pathetic figure. he's lost everything through his own short-sighted actions. im sure to folk who watch it 1 through 6, it wont seem that odd at all.

it was certainly a daring move by lucas and the boldest statement that the vader you thought you knew would no longer exist.

good example though surely of McCallum being far from the yes man that people assume he is. as i said before, ive never bought that theory and if what you say is true, it seems like its at least an exaggerated notion.

i think there's as many moments in ROTS as TPM/AOTC that a modern audience would label bad acting. certainly there are times when the acting excels, but i believe there are many moments in the first two films when the acting excels. i think much of any perceived improvement in ROTS is simply down to the more dramatic, emotive elements each character encounters (at that stage in the story there's far more for the actor to sink their teeth into).