Frank Darabont defends TPM!!!!

Honestly Frank, you're an awesome writer and director. No need to cover for George's mistakes.

O.K., here's a really radical concept: Perhaps Frank Darabont defends George Lucas and THE PHANTOM MENACE because he genuinely likes the film. Woah! That kind of logic just makes your head spin, doesn't it?

 

Darth Geist wrote: I have to go with Insidious on this one...

There's a shocker.

 

Woah, no problem at all with Frank loving TPM. He enjoys it, more power to him.

The problem is that he's contradicting what he said three years ago. Then he said that he couldn't write TPM because it would be going against the guild, and now he's saying that he would have written it, but George just kept going until it was done.

 

I don't think we ever said he was the MAIN reason.

Yes, actually, you have. Not you personally, but WSBurroughs said:

"Lucas is a medocre director at best. Jedi Waster has pointed out some serious thoughts on George the "director".

When Lucas was "directing" ANH, he was busy arguing with the studio, the producer (the real talent and genius behind the SW saga)the crew and actors, as he was in over his head with something overwhelming and new to him. While the man was disctracted, the actors were sneaking in bits of warmth and humanity into the cardboard characters.

Now that Lucas is on his own, with no one to distract him from misdirection of actors, its painfuly obvious he is a genuine hack."

I believe ANH and ESB, and to a lesser degree ROTJ, were great, because of of the right mix of collaborators at that time.

Yeah. And I think TPM and AOTC are also great because of the right mix of collaborators at that time. Despite what people may think, TPM and AOTC are every bit as much a collaborative effort as the other films.

So I give nods to the men like Kasdan, Kershner, Oz, and Kurtz for their varying input. (as much as you hate seeing Kurtz' name in that group)

I'll give Kurtz credit for what he did contribute. I just don't see how it's as big a contribution as bashers make it out to be. Certainly not as big a contribution as Kershner, Kasdan, Oz, the actors, and...what a concept...Lucas made. Darth_Insidious keeps insisting that Kurtz made Lucas focus on story over effects, but has offered zero proof to back that up.

You don't major in film and art from USC and offer absolutely no input or contribution at all. Kurtz was a producer on American Graffitti, ANH, and ESB, and that leads me to believe Lucas liked him enough to have him on board. It was only during ESB where there was some strife, mainly with the budget, since so much was riding on this sequel at the time.) I don't think Kurtz is a bad man.

I don't either. I just think he should quit sniping at Lucas and focus on his own career, such as it is, and I think the only reason he's getting so much attention is because he casts himself as the "elder statesmman" in SW, telling bashers what they want to hear. That interview with Chris Gore was 50% Gore brown-nosing Kurtz, 25% Chris Gore viciously attacking TPM with a fury usually reserved for people who rape small children, and 25% Kurtz agreeing with him on stuff like the "racial stereotype" nonsense. The IGN interview has pretty much the same percentages of "brown-nosing Kurtz" and "trashing the prequels."

Oh, and according to Kurtz, ROTJ and TPM have "no depth." No depth? So Luke saving his father's soul isn't depth? Vader's internal struggle isn't depth? The young queen's struggle to save her people isn't depth? Palpatine's manipulations and power plays isn't depth? The conversations between Qui Gon and Shmi aren't depth?

There's a lot of depth in both ROTJ and TPM.

I even suspect that if George and Kurtz were working on a smaller, NON-Star Wars film instead (like Graffitti), they would have continued their partnership.

Who knows?

I think George may have liked Kurtz but when it came to the high-profile SW films, they decided to split.

Uh...yeah.

In one of his "post proof or shut up about it" posts, Darth_Insidious said something about "how many times will that have to be repeated before it sinks in?"

Funny...I wonder how many times I'll have to repeat: "Kershner was asked back to direct ROTJ" and "Lucas did not fire Kershner and he and Kershner do not hate each other" and "Lucas asked for help when writing TPM" before it sinks in. I've repeated those things countless times, offering proof (i.e., quotes from Kershner, et al), but bashers still carry on with their "Lucas hated Kershner and didn't ask him back to direct ROTJ" and "Lucas arrogantly didn't ask for help when writing TPM."

Another favored statement: "Lucas doesn't care about anything but making money." I've lost count of the times I've replied

 

Perhaps Frank Darabont defends George Lucas and THE PHANTOM MENACE because he genuinely likes the film.

I agree.

>>>Darth Geist wrote: I have to go with Insidious on this one...<<<

There's a shocker.

So, Durwood, who do you think presented the better case? And (related obviously, but not quite the same) do you think Greedo was always meant to shoot first?

 

Shelley said:
Chris Gore viciously attacking TPM with a fury ususally reserved for people who rape small children.

....... ........er....is anyone else getting worried about this?

This is really weird...Shelley I'm not qualified to psychoanalyse you but your remarks are becoming...bizarre.

What the hell is this all about?!??

g

 

So, Durwood, who do you think presented the better case? And (related obviously, but not quite the same) do you think Greedo was always meant to shoot first?

In regards to the former, to be honest I lost interest in that debate a long time ago. In regards to the latter, I can only go by what Lucas has said and I have no reason to distrust the man.

 

Tell me about it, Durwood. Why people keep harping on "Greedo shoots first" is something I will never understand. I don't like the effect that much, but I don't care who shot first. It doesn't affect the character of Han, despite what Kurtz melodramatically sniped, nor does it affect the movie.

But "Greedo shoots first" seems to be the crux that many bashers hang their arguments on.

 

At the end of the day, Han still looks like a bad-ass, so what's the big deal, eh?

 

And Vader would still be a badass even if he didn't kill Captain Needa. Should George change that too, seeing as how he's on his "PC kick"?

Fact: All the evidence we have points to Han always being the one to shoot first.

 

Shelley and Durwood:

I call 'em how I see 'em, and I see one side presenting tangible, factual evidence (the script, the film) while the other side swipes out with ad hominem against Kurtz (a textbook logical fallacy) and conjecture (which any court would throw out in a heartbeat), while presenting no tangible evidence of its own.

In regards to the script, it's clear that Greedo was written to shoot first; one could argue, though without much of a basis, that George changed his mind mid-shoot, but that would go against what we see in the film.

In the scene, as originally presented, Greedo waves his gun in the open as he's shot. Had he fired, there would have been a reaction from Han, a mark on the wall behind him, a flash from the gun, a discernible noise--yet none of those things happen. If Greedo had fired at all, it would have been completely obvious. Given all the evidence put forth--and the lack of evidence to the contrary--it's clear that he didn't.

Now, like any filmmaker, George is free to look back on his earlier work and wish he'd done things differently. In his case, he found an opportunity to go back and make changes. However, if he announced to the world that he'd changed his mind, he would have appeared indecisive, and lost face and authority--two things a director can't afford to lose. Hence, it's natural that he fudged the details in his explanation.

 

According to Lucas, the reason his original intention for this scene wasn't clear in the original film is because they ran out of time and money.

He said they had time and money for 3 takes and on each of those takes, the pyrotechnics went off in bad sequence.

In one, greedo shot WAY before Han did, in another one, Greedo shot AFTER Han did, and in the one they ended up using, they both went off at the same time, and you couldn't tell Greedo had shot.

In the script for the movie, there is nothing to indicate wether or not Greedo got a shot in. It talks about a flash of light, but says nothing about who shot who. It just ends with Greedo slumping over.

Once again this comes down to: Do you want to beleive the man who came up with the "original intentions" for this scene, or do you want to beleive other people who say they know better than Lucas does regarding his own intentions?

To me, Lucas ends up being the most credible in this instance.

Just because some would have lied about it doesn't mean he would.

edit: To be more polite.

 

Once again this comes down to: Do you want to beleive the man who came up with the "original intentions" for this scene, or do you want to beleive other people who say they know better than Lucas does regarding his own intentions?

To me, Lucas ends up being the most credible in this instance.

Just because you would have lied about it doesn't mean he would.

Careful with that last comment, Go-Mer.

Shelley and Darth_Insidious - you're latest "conversation" has earned you both one week vacations from the board. Flame-baiting each other is frowned upon, and you both know it.

 

I seem to recall an L.A. times interview, given just before the Special Editions premiered (or possibly just after), in which George tells a different version of the story. (He also describes regretting having Indy shoot first in Raiders.) I'll try and dig up the article tomorrow.

Just because you would have lied about it doesn't mean he would.

There's no need for that.

 

I apologize.

But there is no need to assume Lucas is "naturally" lying then either.

 

Apology accepted.

I wouldn't assume he's lying by any means; I'm just interested to gather more facts. If I can find that Times article, that might shed some light on things.

 

I call 'em how I see 'em, and I see one side presenting tangible, factual evidence (the script, the film)...

I see his interpretation of the film, and truth be told, the sequence of events in the original cut of A NEW HOPE is obscure; even the script doesn't support one side or the other. It simply says something like "there is the sound of blaster fire and Greedo slumps forward on the table." And Lucas' explanation (ran out of time and money; pyrotechnics didn't work properly) seems perfectly valid and reasonable and I have no reason to doubt his word.

So on that matter, given the vagueness of the script and the original cut and Lucas' explanation, I'd say that it's pretty much settled.

As for Insidious' "evidence" surrounding Gary Kurtz, I can't help but notice that he is clearly presenting one side of story (which happens to be Kurtz's). I haven't seen (nor have I been able to find) any interviews from both parties (Lucasfilm and Kurtz) that tip the scales either way. The closest I found was a blurb on a movie site that simply said, "For whatever reason, Gary Kurtz was not invited back to produce RETURN OF THE JEDI" which isn't exaclty a definitive answer either way (although it does seem to imply that Lucas had the final say).

So unless someone can present the whole story (and not just one, clearly biased viewpoint), I'd say the particulars of Kurtz's departure are still very much up in the air.

 

Durwood let me see if I understand your logic -
Lucas says he meant for Greedo to shoot first, Kurtz and other evidence cast doubt on this, you choose to believe Lucas's version. fine.
Kurtz says he left Lucasfilm , neither Lucas or anyone else in the know casts doubt on what he said. your conclusion: still suspicious... ?:

At least Insidious showed evidence, Shelley showed none, and yet she keeps peddling this nasty rumor. You were peddling it too. Are you sure its not you who's biased..


g

 

First thing I want to say is that I am not just going to tear into one person because he or she is a basher. However, it is so silly that people on both sides do not agree on absolutely anything at all and this is not a coincidence.

I disagree with Durwood because I hate the Greedo change and love LOTR. I disagree with Shelley because I do not think Gary Kurtz was fired and I think Gollum was superb. However, I generally do agree with them because they are supporting films that are generally regarded as quality cinema and that an extreme minority (FACT!) see as a let down.

I also totally agree with personal opinion, but Darth_Insidious (Darth_Slanderous) has already ruined this thread. When he decided to start bringing in every other debate that he feels he can win like "We'll start with my claim that George has lied in the past."

So now he feels it should be on topic I'll just say one thing:

Its funny you are now using the Greedo debate, because when I replied to your comments on the parts VII to IX debate, I provided enough evidence to say that there was a reasonable doubt Lucas was not lying. Then you ignored it and jumped to something else.

The same goes for Greedo, there is enough reasonable doubt to say that it MIGHT not be a lie. Most of Lucas's interviews state that Lucas felt uncertain with the decision of having Greedo not attempt to kill Han. It is therefore obvious that he probably had the intention for Greedo not to shoot but that it weighed heavily on his mind.

I am not saying Lucas IS NOT LYING because I cannot prove that. However, Insidious needs to learn about reasonable doubt. You cannot make accusations of people 'lying' when there is reasonable doubt because this becomes slander.

I THINK DARTH INSIDIOUS SHOULD STOP CHANGING THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION FURTHER AND FURTHER FROM THE TOPIC AT HAND ----- I FEEL THAT THE REASON HE IS DOING THIS IS BECAUSE IF HE FEELS HE CAN PROVIDE MORE PROOF ON SOME OTHER OF HIS OPINIONS HE WILL MAKE OTHERS FEEL HE IS CORRECT, YET SO FAR HE HAS PROVIDED NO PROOF ON THE TOPIC AT HAND

---

Darth_Slanderous' 'opinion' is "Frank Darabont was asked to write TPM, but his association with the WGA prevented it from happening. George could've signed a guild waiver, but he simply loves thumbing his nose at the system"

Ok this is the only opinion I could find of yours on this particular topic. Its truly

3 seperate points will show you what rubbish this opinions is:

1. It is strange how it could stop him from working with Lucas on Star Wars when he has already worked with Lucas and Lucasfilm on dozens of projects before and another major one to come - many of which were during his affiliation with WGA

2. The WGA is completely independent of the 'system' you refer to, you plonker.
That is the whole point of the Guild bodies - to promote and protect artistic integrity that could be threatened by financial cocerns in Hollywood.

3. The best one is that George Lucas is himself a strong affiliate of the sister body - the DGA. He has never shown any friction with any of these bodies.

Just goes to show that Darth_Insidious is talking nonsense

 

Lucas says he meant for Greedo to shoot first, Kurtz and other evidence cast doubt on this, you choose to believe Lucas's version.

The "other evidence" is inconclusive. Kurtz doesn't give the impression he was present the day Lucas was filming the scene in question. Lucas, on the other hand, gives specific details about the incident lending his comments the ring of truth that only an eyewitness can have. Therefore, I choose to believe Lucas as there is no compelling reason to doubt him.

Kurtz says he left Lucasfilm , neither Lucas or anyone else in the know casts doubt on what he said. your conclusion: still suspicious... ?

Kurtz has said a lot of things that don't necessarily ring true. As for Lucas not contradicting him, lack of proof is not proof. It's not that nobody at Lucasfilm hasn't contradicted him, they haven't said anything one way or the other. You'd think that at least Irvin Kershner, Lawrence Kasdan, Ben Burtt, or a dozen other people could easily corrobrate Kurtz's account, but nobody besides Kurtz has ever said anything about the events surrounding his departure, and from reading Kurtz's interviews, his agenda is quite clear and I'd hardly expect him to implicate himself.

As for why Lucasfilm hasn't introduced their own definitive statement, frankly, it could be nothing more than Lucas is following the old adage, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."

As I said, until we get both sides of the story or an independent account of the event, we have no definitive answer.

 

Good point Durwood. We will never know the specifics of Kurtz's departure. After all, no one ever gets "fired" anymore. It is just a mutual agreement to part ways.

 

I love the SW saga! I love Darabont because he made two Stepehen King movies that did not suck! And that is all I have on this.

 

"Sorry if I implied otherwise, I don't like sweeping generalisations either."

That's alright. I'm sure you forgot to mention it in your post like I did on another topic?

 

I was once in a bar. The owner asked me to leave, and shortly afterwards, I decided to go home.

We mutually agreed to part ways...

 

It reminds me of that old joke:

"Why did you leave your last job?"
"I figured it was rude to hang around after they fired me."