ST George Lucas and the Mystery of the Treatment

Although there is no doubt that Lucas came up with the stories, I think it's fair to say that Kasdan and others (even the often maligned Marquand) were very much collaborators in shaping the final product. For example (see point 1 in this piece):

http://www.starwars.com/news/10-interesting-things-i-learned-from-the-making-of-return-of-the-jedi

Edit: Qui-Riv-Brid I agree that Lucas was very gracious with Kasdan in omitting his own screen writer credit (it appears he was very much trying to help a new writer out). But there are also cases where reasonably substantial contributions of others go largely unmentioned. For example, by his own admission, about 30% of the final dialogue was done by Huyck and Katz in ANH.

 

I've been off the board for a while, let me see if I'm up to speed after reading the last page.

There seems to be a debate taking place about whether or not Disney's profit-driven business model, cascading from the top executives down to KK and her role at Lucasfilm, is potentially compromising the artistic integrity of the ST by deviating from Lucas's original vision. The argument makes the broad assumptions that Lucas's vision, by virtue of originating from Lucas, is automatically better, more valid, or a combination of other positive qualities, whereas Disney's need to earn boatloads of cash on the back of their 4B investment automatically renders them blind to the creative virtues of the original treatments.

What strikes me as odd in this conversation is that it assumes that artistic/cinematic/dramatic quality is somehow mutually exclusive from marketability. Some of the highest-grossing films of all time achieved their numbers precisely because they were so well received. Granted, the most challenging and innovative films rarely appeal to massive audiences, and studio notes can derail a filmmaker's vision, but Star Wars doesn't really fall into that category in the first place. We are discussing a family-friendly, conventionally told, spectacular film. What sort of notes do we imagine Disney passing down to the filmmakers that would so greatly affect the quality of the movie we're seeing in December?

And while I'm on the topic of notes, is there a single person on this board who wouldn't have offered Lucas a few notes regarding Jar Jar Binks if given the chance back in '98?

And of course Disney, Lucasfilm, and every other profit-driven enterprise is concerned about turning a profit with these films. But these entities also recognize that the merchandising machine they're setting up only works if they continue to get more and more people devoted to and obsessed with their brand, and that doesn't happen if they're churning out sub-par products.

 

Great post. Welcome back to the boards!

 

Well said, Red Leader.

The other huge factor in play seems to be 'must do what I want to a T, or it'll be crap.' I simply don't buy into that.

 

I'm always glad for when you point out that Lucas' ideas were adhered to when he was shaping Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, but this time it's different. His story wasn't adhered to, and he didn't shape the story this time. JJ and Kasdan did. He's not being generous when he refers to his unused story as "the original saga." He knew it was going to cause trouble for Lucasfilm when he dropped the bomb that his story is not being used, but he's not going to act like it's his story just to make the production look like it went smoothly, which I'm sure Disney/Lucasfilm would have appreciated. Lucas doesn't care about public confidence like they do. It's not false humility or graciousness, he's bluntly stating that his ideas were denied. He probably broke an NDA by revealing that, but what are they going to do, sue him?

 

Just to point out, if anyone was still under any illusion? JJ was implicitly told by KK he had a 'blank canvas' to work with regards to VII's story when he and Kasdan overtook writing duties. Lucas then later states he had an outline that Disney decided not to keep to. "They've decided to do their own thing". Which is completely fair enough.

 

I don't think George Lucas saying "They didn't use any of my ideas" would necessarily damage public confidence in Episode VII in 2015.

 

Has there been an assertion that it has? I'm unaware of it..

 

It's all relative.

If somebody thinks any Disney sci-fi/fantasy/action movie (Marvel, Tron, Black Hole, etc.) has come anywhere near any one of Lucas' Star Wars movies in terms of quality, then there's really nothing they can do wrong.

But if like a lot of people, you see all of Lucas' Star Wars movies as far above and beyond Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy, you might see the idea of Disney suits improving Lucas' story as laughable.

Me? I don't see anything the Disney suits have done as anywhere near the level of Lucas' worst idea in terms of story ideas. Even the underrated Jar Jar Binks. A Disney suit can't make a positive contribution to a story by George Lucas.

The stockholders are not fanboys. They look at all the money Lucas made with his stories, and they're going to see rejection of his stories as a financial risk. They don't have the same confidence in JJ Abrams or Kasdan because they don't bring in the same bucks with their stories that Lucas does. Stockholders are tentative.

 

The Disney stockholders are having a lot of fun these days.....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102690836

 

Yeah, no kidding. That Frozen money just keeps rolling in. That Tron money, not so much.

 

I'd like to know how Jar Jar is an "underrated," or even a mildly neutral story idea.

 

With the amount of hate he receives, how could he not be underrated? He's a clumsy alien, not cancer. Still better than Starlord.

 

That's like saying pneumonic plague is still better than ebola.

 

Well, you may indeed like him more than Starlord, sure, and I won't try to convince you to dislike him. But why is he a good "story idea?"

Like, here's an example of the distinction. People may enjoy the recording artist Macy Gray, but I would argue that including her in the film Spider Man was a bad "story idea" because it was a blatantly gratuitous example of cross-promotion and contributed nothing to the plot.

 

A little ebola goes a long way.

 

People understand what selling something means right?

 

Well, you're right that the stockholders aren't fanboys. They see the words "Disney owns Star Wars" and they think the same company that's making a bajillion dollars on Marvel is going to make that much more now that they own one of the most profitable licenses in the world. George Lucas doesn't even enter the equation here.

The fact that JJ Abrams, one of the safest directors to hand a blockbuster franchise to, is on board under the guidance of Kathleen Kennedy with story help from Lawrence Kasdan assures most people that Star Wars is in the best hands possible with or without Lucas' involvement.

It's going to take a terrible Episode VII that no one sees during the Christmas season to damage any faith in the new people in charge of the franchise.

 

Yes, stock holders are risk averse, but after Lucas' comparative success to any of those filmmakers, it becomes risk averse to use his story. If it were horse races, JJ and KK would be the longshots and Lucas would be the sure bet. They know that what works for Marvel will not necessarily work for Star Wars. If Force Awakens toy sales are lackluster, that's where stockholders are going to question things. The movie might not make as much because the total budget might be a lot more, so it will take a lot more to profit this time.

 

So I suppose the obvious question to that would be (and remember I'm a fan of Lucas' stories) is why haven't Disney/Lucasfilm gone with Lucas' story? If he's the "sure bet", wouldn't it be wiser to make his film?

 

Can we remember the following points?

1. We don't know what Lucas' story for EPVII was.
2. We don't know how much of it was re-written, and we do not know the final story now.
3. We can't compare the stories as we do not have the information to compare.
4. We haven't seen the film.

Please remember these points when exclaiming which story is better and more worthy.

Thank you

 

Actually, I don't think George would get a credit - not from what I've seen. He would absolutely get story by credit, but not screenplay credit.

It's not hard, is it?

 

It's a lack of patience. Not enough familiarity in a Lucas story, because he doesn't make the same movie over and over again. They want to sell familiarity, not exotic worlds, new kinds of characters and sights unseen. "We're home." They want short term profits before building anything long term. The trailers are an indication of a return to safe familiarity. But that's only safe for right now. They missed out on even more profit.

They're addicted to trying to replicate other peoples' success.

 

Again, profit and quality/ a great story are not mutually exclusive. In fact you could make the case that the better the story, the more profitable you will be (short term and long term).